On the issue of women and children’s rights and safety, I feel about Labour, the way I now feel about the Guardian. Kathleen Viner was also on the same programme as Starmer this morning. Victoria Derbyshire did ask her about their attitude to female journalists who felt unable to write freely about trans issues. Her reply was all generalities. I wish someone could have asked her about the music review in the Guardian which was used as a stick to beat Roisin Murphy.
The very recently elected Labour candidate for Rutherglen, Michael Shanks already stated "if elected" he will challenge Starmers apparent u-turn on gender reform.
Starmers change of heart has been so lukewarm and all the other leading figures so muted on the subject that there is no doubt we are being gaslighted.
Where for instance is the apology to Rosie Duffield, if he now agrees with her position?
Thank you! Rosie was hung out to dry alone but she stood steadfast in the face of adversity. That's an example of the real strength and courage of a woman.
Self ID needs to be scrapped completely and assigned to the history books with full details and disclosure of who introduced it, who co-signed it and all the predictable and heinous outcomes resulting from it including the rapes and assaults on women, physically and metaphorically speaking.
The thought of labour gaining power would be a living nightmare. When it's time to vote in the UK, anyone who actually cares needs to put their money where their mouth is and make sure they vote to make sure this current situation doesn't get further embedded and reach insane, totalitarian heights.
Labour is not the party that will protect women and children or our rights. It is a party that wholly supports and is invested in misogyny and delusion. That much is clear.
Thanks, Julie, for another dispatch from the trenches. Honestly, I don't know how anyone can take seriously a person who claims some women have a penis. I guess some donkeys fly, too -- though I hope these Labour jackasses don't.
I see that Starmer proposes giving co-habiting women the same right to steal their partners' paid-for assets through unsubstatiated claims of abuse, as wives:
Why, in 2023, is the patriarchy allowing the state to steal men's assets to give to women, as if those women were incapable of paid employment? It's a mystery, all right!
We can be sure a Labour government will introduce juryless rape trials, despite not mentioning the matter pre-general election. Yet more innocent men in prison, lifelong anonymity for women, truly a feminist paradise.
Women's work of having and caring for babies and children, and feeding and cleaning up after men is done for free for individual men by women, meanwhile, men are overpaid for their work outside of the home because the value of women's unpaid work is paid to them. When those individual men no longer want these services (or their behaviour has become unbearable) they just want to walk away, with their assets from their overpayment, leaving women who have hours of daily work looking after children unpaid and therefore having no assets and no skills that the patriarchy will pay for and will thus being subject to poverty.
If you have kids you need to pay for their care. If you have domestic services done for you, you need to pay for those too, and not just a load of backpay when you have split up. Stop whinging for actually having to pay up rather than expecting women to be your slaves. Grow up and take responsibility.
Women don't do those things "for free" - they have many things paid for them (accommodation, food, holidays, clothing and SO much more). That aside, there should clearly be some recognition of those things in divorce settlements. No dispute.
But what about when there are no kids? I have to laugh whenever women (being hypergamous throughout life) have bagged well-off men then talk about "sacrificing" their careers. Many women are able to "sacrifice" their careers - i.e. have the pleasure of eschewing paid employment, and spend their time in more fulfilling and pleasurable ways - because their partners enable that. Why should their partners lose assets they've paid for, in divorce? Of course vanishingly few men can "sacrifice" their careers because so few women will work to fund that option.
I went to view a girls secondary school this weekend, armed with the knowledge they no longer use the term girls or ladies, in favour of gender neutral language. I’m currently drafting a letter about why their gender and inclusion policy is totally partisan. The sooner the equality act is updated the better.
'Plenty of trans activists within the party continue to speak publicly in support of this nonsense – a couple of weeks ago, Kate Osborne MP tweeted “Yes, some women have a penis."'
True, many of them are women. It's a factual reality we have to acknowledge that the 'Be kind brigade', especially within certain sections of 'feminism', do exist.
Were his views orginally a combination of being kind to the Kinnocks and pressure/indoctrination from Stonewall?? He's now having to face harsh reality.
Professor Janice Fiamengo has much to say on this topic (and other feminism-related topics) on her Substack account https://fiamengofile.substack.com/. A good start in relation to this article from Julie B would be, "Anti-trans Feminists Are Now Reaping the Whirlwind (but they won’t admit they sowed the wind)":
I'm looking forward to Janice's keynote speech at next year's International Conference on Men's Issues in Budapest https://icmi2024.icmi.info/?page_id=21. It's titled, “Calling a Moratorium on Women’s Tears: How Women Use Damselling to Manipulate Men, and Why Men Must Resist It.” Four of the 11 speakers at the conference are women.
Sounds like the moratorium should be on mens tears cos they can’t get over the fact that women aren’t prioritising them and their problems. Cry harder.
Isn't that exactly what Jonathan Van Ness did when challenged over his ridiculous notion that trans identified men don't have any advantage over women in sports?
Women have never prioritised men, only themselves and other women. Men, conversely, have prioritised women and children for millennia (or we wouldn't be here).
The WHO reports that women kill 73+ million unborn children every year. Feminists are responsible for the greatest genocide in human history, with no end in sight. How many killings would be too many for you?
In case you're not aware, MRAs laugh at being called misogynists. Pointing to women's privileges, and the resulting men's disadvantages, isn't misogyny.
On the issue of women and children’s rights and safety, I feel about Labour, the way I now feel about the Guardian. Kathleen Viner was also on the same programme as Starmer this morning. Victoria Derbyshire did ask her about their attitude to female journalists who felt unable to write freely about trans issues. Her reply was all generalities. I wish someone could have asked her about the music review in the Guardian which was used as a stick to beat Roisin Murphy.
And ask her why she protects Nick Cohen.
And does not protect Julian Assange.
Even as a life long lefty I will not vote Labour or any of the other woke parties who so willing throw women under the bus.
I 2nd that motion.
They are more likely to throw men under a bus.
The very recently elected Labour candidate for Rutherglen, Michael Shanks already stated "if elected" he will challenge Starmers apparent u-turn on gender reform.
Starmers change of heart has been so lukewarm and all the other leading figures so muted on the subject that there is no doubt we are being gaslighted.
Where for instance is the apology to Rosie Duffield, if he now agrees with her position?
Thank you! Rosie was hung out to dry alone but she stood steadfast in the face of adversity. That's an example of the real strength and courage of a woman.
No to self id!
Self ID needs to be scrapped completely and assigned to the history books with full details and disclosure of who introduced it, who co-signed it and all the predictable and heinous outcomes resulting from it including the rapes and assaults on women, physically and metaphorically speaking.
Some interesting conversations to be had on the doorsteps over the next few months.
Lying Labour are dead, and #sexmatters not a jot to them - thanks JB, spot on as usual
Labour are completely dead to me. The betrayal of women was real.
Ikr. Nice of Starmer and Ange to send Dodds out with the news, again. Self I.D for sure
I saw this article from a substack link and thought of you:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1824045/labour-gender-pronouns-hate-crime-law
The thought of labour gaining power would be a living nightmare. When it's time to vote in the UK, anyone who actually cares needs to put their money where their mouth is and make sure they vote to make sure this current situation doesn't get further embedded and reach insane, totalitarian heights.
Labour is not the party that will protect women and children or our rights. It is a party that wholly supports and is invested in misogyny and delusion. That much is clear.
Thanks, Julie, for another dispatch from the trenches. Honestly, I don't know how anyone can take seriously a person who claims some women have a penis. I guess some donkeys fly, too -- though I hope these Labour jackasses don't.
I feel so sorry for Mike’s wife 🥲
just say no to self id!
I see that Starmer proposes giving co-habiting women the same right to steal their partners' paid-for assets through unsubstatiated claims of abuse, as wives:
https://j4mb.org.uk/2023/10/09/boris-johnsons-ex-wife-marina-wheeler-is-labours-sex-harassment-adviser/
Why, in 2023, is the patriarchy allowing the state to steal men's assets to give to women, as if those women were incapable of paid employment? It's a mystery, all right!
We can be sure a Labour government will introduce juryless rape trials, despite not mentioning the matter pre-general election. Yet more innocent men in prison, lifelong anonymity for women, truly a feminist paradise.
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
Paradise? More like dystopic nightmare. Where does the hate stop?
Normal people's dystopian nightmare is feminists' paradise. Feminist hate will never stop, because it's based on lies.
Women's work of having and caring for babies and children, and feeding and cleaning up after men is done for free for individual men by women, meanwhile, men are overpaid for their work outside of the home because the value of women's unpaid work is paid to them. When those individual men no longer want these services (or their behaviour has become unbearable) they just want to walk away, with their assets from their overpayment, leaving women who have hours of daily work looking after children unpaid and therefore having no assets and no skills that the patriarchy will pay for and will thus being subject to poverty.
If you have kids you need to pay for their care. If you have domestic services done for you, you need to pay for those too, and not just a load of backpay when you have split up. Stop whinging for actually having to pay up rather than expecting women to be your slaves. Grow up and take responsibility.
Women don't do those things "for free" - they have many things paid for them (accommodation, food, holidays, clothing and SO much more). That aside, there should clearly be some recognition of those things in divorce settlements. No dispute.
But what about when there are no kids? I have to laugh whenever women (being hypergamous throughout life) have bagged well-off men then talk about "sacrificing" their careers. Many women are able to "sacrifice" their careers - i.e. have the pleasure of eschewing paid employment, and spend their time in more fulfilling and pleasurable ways - because their partners enable that. Why should their partners lose assets they've paid for, in divorce? Of course vanishingly few men can "sacrifice" their careers because so few women will work to fund that option.
Patriarchy, eh? Hilarious.
I went to view a girls secondary school this weekend, armed with the knowledge they no longer use the term girls or ladies, in favour of gender neutral language. I’m currently drafting a letter about why their gender and inclusion policy is totally partisan. The sooner the equality act is updated the better.
Labour is full of liars agreed. Many of them women. My sister in law (rabid feminist) says that Margaret Thatcher was a man. Go figure.
Over the last sixty years (and more) women have made strenuous efforts to invade men only spaces. Some consistency would not go amiss.
'Plenty of trans activists within the party continue to speak publicly in support of this nonsense – a couple of weeks ago, Kate Osborne MP tweeted “Yes, some women have a penis."'
True, many of them are women. It's a factual reality we have to acknowledge that the 'Be kind brigade', especially within certain sections of 'feminism', do exist.
A "Be kind brigade" within feminism? Wow, how was that allowed by the matriarchy?
Right?!
Feminism is not known for bring kindly.
Feminism is far from being a monolith.
Preach.
Were his views orginally a combination of being kind to the Kinnocks and pressure/indoctrination from Stonewall?? He's now having to face harsh reality.
Professor Janice Fiamengo has much to say on this topic (and other feminism-related topics) on her Substack account https://fiamengofile.substack.com/. A good start in relation to this article from Julie B would be, "Anti-trans Feminists Are Now Reaping the Whirlwind (but they won’t admit they sowed the wind)":
https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/anti-trans-feminists-are-now-reaping
I'm looking forward to Janice's keynote speech at next year's International Conference on Men's Issues in Budapest https://icmi2024.icmi.info/?page_id=21. It's titled, “Calling a Moratorium on Women’s Tears: How Women Use Damselling to Manipulate Men, and Why Men Must Resist It.” Four of the 11 speakers at the conference are women.
Have a nice day.
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
Sounds like the moratorium should be on mens tears cos they can’t get over the fact that women aren’t prioritising them and their problems. Cry harder.
Men don't weaponise tears.
Really?!
Isn't that exactly what Jonathan Van Ness did when challenged over his ridiculous notion that trans identified men don't have any advantage over women in sports?
https://www.youtube.com/live/dcg-q88K-X8?si=_DVMG3LTmSIIOkbe
Women have never prioritised men, only themselves and other women. Men, conversely, have prioritised women and children for millennia (or we wouldn't be here).
Your generalisations are ridiculous. Why make such a misogynist statement in a forum about women’s rights? Clearly you need the attention.
Women don’t prioritise their children? You are an idiot. And an absolutely pathetic misogynist.
The WHO reports that women kill 73+ million unborn children every year. Feminists are responsible for the greatest genocide in human history, with no end in sight. How many killings would be too many for you?
In case you're not aware, MRAs laugh at being called misogynists. Pointing to women's privileges, and the resulting men's disadvantages, isn't misogyny.
Hang aboot this women defends Rubiales who used Spanish football's money to hire young prostitute.
That's why Hermoso was so upset. Jealousy.
Why are you in this group, it seems you are opposed to the views in general unless I’m mistaken?
Labour Party is not the only place one finds liars.
Want to cancel me?
Hmm, have you omitted the word "allegedly"?
They got paid.