Good morning. I’m writing to ask you for a donation to help fund our fourth candidate for the 2015 general election. We plan to field 30 candidates in total. Generous donors have already sent in £830 in the past 23 days, so there’s just £170 left to raise in the next 7 days. If we don’t hit the £1,000 target, your money will be returned in full.
Please donate whatever you can afford to help provide a better future for men and boys (and the women who love them). Thank you.
About an hour ago we were pleased to receive a donation of £20 towards our campaign to fund the fourth candidate for the 2o15 general election. We were intrigued to see the donor entered as ‘Albert and Bill’, and as usual sent an email by way of appreciation, pointing out we haven’t had a ‘dual donation’ before, and could they explain why they’re supporting us? We received the following email from Albert in response, and in a separate email, agreement to our publishing the content:
Bill and I are both pensioners, now in our 80s, and we think the country’s gone to the dogs with the state’s incessant efforts to pacify feminists – a pointless exercise, since feminists won’t be happy until and unless women (and girls) attain supremacy over men (and boys) in all fields – the desirable fields anyway – regardless of the cost to civilised society. Not long to go now before we reach that point, mainly thanks to spineless male politicians such as Blair, Brown, and Cameron.
Bill and I usually go to the local Toby carvery for lunch every Monday, leaving our wives to do whatever wives do when their husbands are out of the house. With a pint or two of bitter the cost is around £10.00 – £12.00 – good value these days – but this time we decided we’d skip the lunch tomorrow, and send your party the money we’ve saved. My wife wasn’t very happy at this, especially after I told her where the money had gone. She told me I can make my ‘own bloody dinner’ tomorrow!
Albert and Bill, we thank you warmly for your generosity. If you’d like to join them in donating what you can afford, we invite you to do so through the following link. With only nine days to go in the current 30-day campaign, we need to raise a further £385 to reach our £1,000 target for another candidate in 2015. Thank you for your support.
Good afternoon. I hope this finds you well, and enjoying a restful weekend.
I’m writing in connection with our current fundraising campaign, which aims to fund the fourth J4MB candidate for the 2015 general election:
If the £1,000 target isn’t met by 30 September, your donation will be refunded in full.
We’re halfway into the 30-day campaign. Generous supporters have already donated £535, a sum which includes a £100 donation from a student. Our blog post on that donation:
The number of people visiting the J4MB website is almost as high as those visiting the Conservatives’ website – link below – which is surely an indicator of public interest in what our party stands for. We confidently expect to overtake the Conservatives with respect to website visitors in the next month or two.
Please bear with me, then, for asking you to donate what you can afford to the current campaign. I exclude, of course, those who’ve already kindly donated to it – my warm thanks to them. The more candidates we can fund in 2015, the more credible we’ll be as a party, and the more media exposure we can expect.
Thank you for your support. Without you, the party wouldn’t exist. It really is as simple as that.
T: 07967 026163
I’ll be contesting the Bedford & Kempston seat at the 2015 general election, a Conservative marginal seat which Richard Fuller won for them in 2010 (with a majority of just 1,353 votes) and will lose for them in 2015.
The local paper, Times & Citizen, has been giving J4MB welcome exposure since we launched the party six months ago. Recently the paper printed my letters on abortion law reform and the numerous crises in the NHS (including the local hospital) caused by the 30+ year old policy of driving up the proportion of female doctors. The writer and campaigner Dr Vernon Coleman was writing 30 years ago that the policy would bring the service to its knees, regardless of the amount of taxpayers’ money thrown at the service, because female doctors are far more likely than male doctors to:
- quit the profession altogether
- work part-time rather than full-time
- refuse to work unsocial hours
- refuse to work in the most stressful environments, e.g. A&E.
As usual, Dr Coleman has been proven right.
70% of medical students today are female, and over 50% of GPs. My local GP service is closed at the weekend. The average GP earns £104,000 p.a., won’t be sacked unless found guilty of gross misconduct (incompetence is perfectly acceptable) and is reluctant to work at the weekends. So much for work ethic and concern for patients. The feminisation of the NHS has proven a complete disaster for patients and taxpayers.
We recently posted a piece about the number of visitors to the J4MB website being almost as high as the number visiting the Conservatives’ website, according to independent evidence:
The good folk at Times & Citizen have covered the story:
Earlier today we received a donation of £100 towards our £1,000 target to fund our fourth candidate for the 2015 general election. This was obviously pleasing, but the individual asked to remain anonymous. The gender of the donor wasn’t deducible from the his/her email address, so we emailed him/her to ask for his/her motivations behind the donation. We’ve just received this email in response:
I’m a male student, 19, at a university in the North of England, but I don’t want to identify myself beyond that. There’s a growing realisation among young men – and young women, come to that – that men and boys are demonised, and it’s time this demonisation STOPPED. We’ve all seen the carnage wrought by that demonisation – fathers crippled by divorce settlements, denied access to their children, male relatives committing suicide, and in my case, an uncle assaulted by a wife who was never charged for beating him black and blue with a hammer, although she knocked out several teeth in the process. But hey, she was drunk, so you shouldn’t blame her, seemed to be the consensus. Somehow I think he wouldn’t have been excused for beating her up, if he’d been drunk.
As a student I don’t have a lot of money, but I worked in the summer, so here’s £100 to help you fund another candidate.
Along with some other students I’m planning to establish a Men’s Rights group soon. The Students’ Union will go APESHIT. Good. I don’t suppose you’d be willing to travel here to give a speech to launch the group?
I’ve responded as follows:
Thank you both for your generous donation and your email. I should be delighted to give the speech you ask for, and to meet with you and other people who care about the human rights of men and boys (and the women who love them).
We have a target of £1,000 to fund our fourth candidate for the 2015 general election. Generous men and women have donated £305 so far, can you donate anything? Even £1 would be welcome. Thank you for your support:
My heart sank a few minutes ago when an email arrived from the DBIS, with a link to a press release from our Anti-Business Secretary, Vince Cable:
One strand of the government’s bullying of companies into appointing more women to their boards consists of a ‘voluntary’ code of conduct being adopted by executive search firms. You’ll see the narrative has now moved on from the FTSE100 to the FTSE350, as we predicted some time ago. The whole ‘more women on boards’ initiative is a gravy train for executive search firms – as well as the poorly qualified women they try to persuade major companies to appoint - so of course the search firms are supportive of this insane direction of travel.
At one time David Cameron, Vince Cable and others claimed a business case for increasing the representation of women on boards, i.e. corporate financial performance could be expected to improve. C4MB have conclusively blown that fantasy/lie/delusion/myth (call it what you will) out of the water, and even Vince Cable hasn’t made such nonsensical claims publicly for some time – to the best of our knowledge, anyway.
Our briefing paper on the evidence showing that increasing female representation on boards leads to corporate financial declines:
The press release informs us that Charlotte Sweeney – I don’t have an email address, but her Twitter address is @charlottesweene – has been appointed to review the voluntary code of conduct of the executive search industry. It continues:
Charlotte has over 20 years experience of equality, diversity, inclusion, health & wellbeing, change management, employee engagement and corporate culture shift at a global and local level, with a clear link to business performance.
From 2009 – 2012 she was the International Head of Diversity and Inclusion for Nomura International PLC. Within that time she developed and implemented Nomura’s first Diversity & Inclusion Strategy.
Before Nomura, she joined HBOS plc as Head of Diversity in 2005 – 2009 and developed the first group wide diversity strategy, including regular diversity reporting within business planning and developing the Diversity Steering Group chaired by the CEO.
Prior to this role she was the diversity manager at Barclays PLC from 2000-2005 specialising in diversity, culture change, change leadership and executive coaching. She won a number of awards including the Personnel Today DWP Age Positive at Work Award.
So, who better than Charlotte Sweeney to supply us with evidence of ‘a clear link to business performance’, that improved gender diversity on boards leads to improved corporate financial performance, the elusive Holy Grail of the diversity, equality, and inclusivity gravy train? A contact at the DBIS has kindly agreed to forward this blog piece to her.
Our public challenge to Ms Sweeney:
Charlotte, good afternoon. We have five longitudinal studies showing that when more women are appointed to major corporate boards, financial performance declines:
If you refute these studies, could you please outline why? And if you know of any reports or studies showing a causal link between increased female representation on boards and improved financial performance, could you please email me at email@example.com with directions to them? Please don’t send me reports (e.g. McKinsey, Credit Suisse, Reuters…) which make it perfectly clear they’re reporting correlation, not causation, and that correlation neither proves nor even implies causation. Thank you.
I wonder if Ms Sweeney will have the integrity to respond? I won’t hold my breath.
Why is it always a ‘problem’ when men dominate a profession, but never a problem when women do? For many years over 90% of psychology graduates have been women, and nobody bats an eyelid.
Four out of seven unemployed people in the UK are men, yet the state does everything it can to drive up female employment, and as a consequence male unemployment. In the public sector two-thirds of employees are women, yet the Equality Act (2010) allows public sector bodies to favour women over men when recruiting – the invidious ‘positive action’ provision, which is positive discrimination for women in all but name.
Decade after decade of taxpayer-funded social engineering initiatives have led to the feminisation of a number of professions which were historically male-dominated, medicine being an obvious example. 70% of newly-qualified doctors today are women. The NHS is in crisis as a result, as we’ve reported on a number of occasions, while 72% of the income taxes which pay for this insane ‘direction of travel’ are paid by men, just 28% by women.
Clearly it would make no sense to increase the employment of women in male-dominated professions which are not currently in crisis. Yet that’s precisely what government, businesses, and professional bodies have long been working together to deliver.
What about the professions which women have long been less inclined than men to pursue? This brings us to engineering, a traditionally male-dominated field, and Nick Baveystock firstname.lastname@example.org. He’s the director general of the Institution of Civil Engineers and is on the board of an organisation called WISE http://wisecampaign.org.uk. From their website:
At WISE, our mission is to increase the gender balance in the UK’s STEM workforce, pushing the presence of female employees from 13% as it stands now, to 30% by 2020.
Our services are designed to build and sustain the pipeline of female talent in STEM from classroom to boardroom, boosting the talent pool to drive economic growth.
WISE, which has nearly 30 years experience of inspiring girls to pursue STEM subjects, now incorporates the UKRC, which had a contract from the Government from 2004-12 to increase opportunities for women in science, engineering and technology through support services to business, education and women returners. The UKRC is now an independent Community Interest Company trading as WISE (company number 07533934).
Let’s do some basic maths. By 2020 – just seven years away – this organisation’s ’mission’ is to more than double the proportion of women in these fields, from 13% to 30%. Put another way, they want the proportion of men in these fields to fall from 87% to 70%. All else being equal, we estimate this would require the number of men working in these fields to fall by 24.2% by 2020.
We’re today making the following public challenge to Nick Baveystock:
Are you aware that by virtue of being on the board of WISE, you’re supporting an initiative with the objective of reducing the number of men working in engineering by 24.2% by 2020? I should like to offer a presentation at ICE to outline why this ‘direction of travel’ will inevitably be highly damaging to the engineering profession, and those who rely upon it.
Good afternoon. We hope you’ve had a restful summer break.
We should like to thank our supporters warmly, and our donors in particular. In July we launched our first ‘crowdfunding campaign’, aiming to raise £1,000 to fund the third of the 30 candidates we plan to field at the 2015 general election. The campaign was scheduled to last 60 days, yet the full sum was raised in just 22 days. Today we’re launching a new campaign, more on this shortly.
Recently we’ve been working even longer hours than usual, helping a television documentary maker understand the assaults on men’s and boys’ interests in the modern era, and the malign influence exerted by militant feminists and their collaborators. Along with a small number of others with an interest in these matters, I expect to be filmed shortly for that documentary, possibly in the context of a ’round table’ discussion. The programme will be broadcast on national television in the New Year, and to the best of my knowledge it will be the first time feminism has been critiqued on a mainstream British television channel in the modern era.
The public appetite to challenge feminism is growing across the world. A number of prominent Canadian ‘honey badgers’ – anti-feminist women – have been interviewed on television. In the United States Paul Elam, founder and publisher of ‘A Voice for Men’ http://avoiceformen.com, arguably the most influential men’s human rights website in the world, was interviewed last week for the ABC television programme 20/20. The show regularly attracts 50+ million viewers.
We believe that in time, as J4MB becomes able to fund more candidates at the 2015 general election, we’ll attract more media attention. In the light of this, we’re today launching our new crowdfunding campaign, to fund our fourth candidate. We’ve set a tighter deadline than last time, 30 days, and the deadlines will have to become yet tighter as we approach the 2015 general election, now just 20 months away. If the £1,000 target isn’t met by 30 September, your donation will be refunded in full. You can donate through the following link by credit card, debit card, or PayPal:
We alerted a few donors to this new campaign a few hours ago, and we’re delighted to see that Doris M, one of J4MB’s most stalwart and generous supporters since it was registered as a political party, has already made a donation (£25.00). Doris, thank you. You’re a star.
If you’d rather make a donation by cheque, please make it out to ‘Justice for men & boys’ and send it to Justice for men & boys, PO Box 2220, Bath BA1 1AA. Thank you for your support, and for seeking to ensure that men & boys (and the women who love them) enjoy a brighter future.
T: 07967 026163
Some months ago I gave oral evidence to a House of Commons inquiry, ‘Women in the Workplace’. On the same panel was Heather McGregor, the owner and chief executive of Taylor Bennett, a London-based recruitment agency. She boasted of the gender balance in her company. Of the 22 directors and employees, 20 were women.
We see the same pattern across both the public and private sectors. Men appoint women to senior jobs, and the women use their power ruthlessly to appoint women at the expense of men. My thanks to the MHRA who’s just pointed me towards a piece on the management team of an agency of the Australian government, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. There are no men in the team. Yet another female-driven gravy train financed by taxpayers.
On Woman’s Hour yesterday there was a piece about a recent report which showed that in the UK men on average earn twice the amount in bonuses as women.
In the public sector women on average earn more in bonuses than men, so we’re talking about the private sector here. It’s not in the least surprising that men earn higher bonuses. They’re far more likely than women to do the really tough, stressful, results-oriented jobs that lead to substantial bonuses, and if they don’t hit their targets, they’ll probably be fired. As an illustration of the gender divide at work here, virtually all the women being appointed to FTSE100 boards share something in common with virtually all the existing ones – they’re appointed as non-executive directors, a gravy-train for women.
Jenni Murray interviewed two people in the studio, Dr Petra Wilton of the Chartered Management Institute (‘CMI’), and Roger Barker, Director of Corporate Governance at the Institute of Directors. The programme runs from 1:08 – 8:18 on the link below:
During the course of the discussion Dr Wilton stated the following:
There’s a real business case to get more women onto boards… studies by McKinsey etc. show time and time again that diversity does pay, it’s actually providing better returns for shareholders and investors.
I let out a low groan when I heard these lines. Anyone who follows our associated blog Campaign for Merit in Business http://c4mb.wordpress.com knows that reports such as McKinsey’s show a correlation between more women on boards and improved financial performance, but correlation isn’t proof of causation, nor does it even imply causation. Every study and report of which we’re aware, including McKinsey reports, make that critical point – yet it’s never mentioned in the relentless narrative of ‘more women on boards leads to improved returns’.
The only evidence of which we’re aware showing anything approaching a causal link, five longitudinal studies, shows that when female representation on boards increases, corporate financial performance declines. Our briefing paper on the matter:
Today I had an exchange of emails and a 20-minute-long phone discussion with Dr Wilton, and I’ll be emailing her a link to this piece shortly. Our public challenge to her:
Dr Wilton, could you – or any of your colleagues at the CMI – please provide evidence to back the assertion you made on Woman’s Hour yesterday, that (gender) diversity provides better returns for shareholders and investors? Please bear in mind that correlation isn’t evidence of causation. Thank you.
If we receive a response from Dr Wilton we’ll publish it, along with our critique of it.