Category: Uncategorized

Females Tend to be Risk-Adverse. Is This Why Women Often Support Totalitarian Policies?

SAVE

April 3, 2024

Dozens of studies over the last 30 years have consistently found that women are more risk-averse than men. These are three of many examples:

Daring Differently: Gender Differences in Risk-Taking Behavior, NeuroScience News (May 2023):

“The research reveals women are more averse to risk than men due to heightened sensitivity to potential losses. Conversely, men, exhibiting greater optimism, are more willing to engage in risk-taking.”

Gary Charness and Uri Gneezy, Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking, J. Economics, Behavior & Organizations (June 2012):

“Are men more willing to take financial risks than women?…We find a very consistent result that women invest less, and thus appear to be more financially risk averse than men.”

Chris Dawson, Gender differences in optimism, loss aversion and attitudes towards risk, British J. of Pyschology (June 9, 2023):

“Systematic differences in the attitudes of men and women towards risk is well established.  … Exploiting large-scale panel data from the United Kingdom, we find that gender differences in financial optimism and financial loss aversion – the stronger psychological response to monetary losses than monetary gains – explain a substantial proportion of the parallel gender difference in willingness to take risks.”

These proclivities are reflected in sex-specific differences regarding attitudes towards censorship and free speech, as well as compliance with COVID mandates.

Censorship and Free Speech

Cory Clark, The Gender Gap in Censorship Support: Research Suggests Women Favor Inclusivity over Academic Freedom. Psychology Today (April 28, 2021). “Two recent studies of online adults revealed that women were more censorious than men.”

Knight Foundation, Free Expression on College Campuses, (May 2019). A 2019 survey found that 59% of women said protecting free speech was less important than promoting an inclusive society, while 71% of men believed the opposite.

COVID Mandates

Virginia Commonwealth University, Poll: Majority of Virginians Support Mask Mandates, (September 27, 2021): “Female respondents were more supportive of a mask mandate than male respondents (62% to 51%).”

MedScape, Men and Women Differ on Masks During, After COVID-19: Survey, (April 6, 2021): “A much higher percentage of women plan to wear a mask because of COVID-19 as long as public health experts such as those at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend it — 73%, compared with 63% of men.”

PBS Wisconsin, (November 30, 2021):  “What’s causing a gender gap in Wisconsin’s covid vaccinations?  More women are getting COVID-19 vaccinations than men around the state, and factors like age, job, politics and attitude toward health care each play a role in this persistent phenomenon.”

Attitudes Towards Totalitarian Governments

More provocative are analyzes of women’s support for totalitarian governments that promised “safety” to its citizens.

The Holocaust Encyclopedia’s account of “The Nazi Rise to Power” reveals that the years leading up to Hitler’s election in 1932-33 were a period of widespread violence in Germany as paramilitary organizations aligned with different political factions, especially the Communists and the Nazis, fought in the streets. Indeed, it is well documented that fear of a Communist takeover prompted the more establishment political parties, especially the center-right Christian Democratic Party, to suppress their strong distaste for the Nazis and form a government with them as the least-worst alternative to a Communist takeover.

A documentary that recently aired on the American Heroes Channel chronicled how Hitler’s rise to power relied heavily on the support of women.

Richard J. Evans (German Women and the Triumph of Hitler, 48 J. Mod. Hist. 123 (1976)) once noted, ‘It was the women’s vote’, remarked Hermann Rauschning in 1939, ‘that brought Hitler to triumph.’  Like Rauschning, many commentators have seen a connection between the achievement of the vote for women in 1918 and the victories of the Nazis at the polls in 1932.

Scholars have struggled for years to explain why women supported the Nazis in such high numbers. Richard Evans recounts,

“Yet this connection has also struck observers as paradoxical. The Weimar Republic is popularly regarded as the heyday of the emancipated woman. Many social groups had good reason to be anxious and resentful in Germany between 1918 and 1933, but the female half of the population, newly equipped with the vote and reveling in the new atmosphere of sexual liberation and constitutionally guaranteed equality, was surely not among them. All the more remarkable, then, that it should vote in such numbers for the Republic’s demise. The paradox, however, is deeper still than this. For the Nazi party was undoubtedly a dedicated opponent of female emancipation, the ultimate in male chauvinism, firmly committed to a view of women as inferior beings whose main task in life was to bear children and look after the home. Thus the emancipated women of Weimar Germany, it seems, voted quite happily in 1932-3 for their own enslavement. Here, then is a paradox; a paradox, moreover, of very considerable significance, especially in view of the fact that women formed the majority of the German electorate in the years in question.”

In the face of this widespread violence and unrest, could the risk aversion of German women have contributed to their strong support for Hitler?

More recently, Jordan Peterson commented on the expanded participation of females in the political sphere and the potential rise of totalitarianism. In the name of curbing online harassment, feminist groups such as UN Women are now supporting policies to rein in free speech in Germany, the United States, New Zealand, Scotland, and elsewhere around the world.

Bias-Watch: Why Does UN Women’s Public Messaging Appear To Back Palestine/Hamas Over Israel?

Sean Parker

October 20, 2023

Pinned to the top of UN Women’s X (formerly Twitter) public account is a post reading: ‘UN Women condemns the attacks on civilians in Israel & the Occupied Palestinian Territories, & is deeply alarmed by the devastating impact on civilians including women & girls. International Humanitarian Law & Human Rights Law must be respected & upheld.’

UN Women has 2.2 million followers, and its bio reads: ‘UN Women is the United Nations entity for gender equality and women’s empowerment.’ It is understood that UN Women is the gendered arm of the United Nations organisation, but any ‘UN Men’ account is less well documented. UNW’s Twitter/X account is legendary for infantile, repetitive posts, such as would be made by a perpetually aggrieved teenager. It’s almost as if the org’s higher management had no idea what was happening in its brave new social media department.

So far, so politically feminist. While equality feminism can hardly lay claim to any residual leftism, with most of its beneficiaries being power-suited woman bankers and the like, political feminism remains resolutely rooted in the Marxist tradition. Grievance intersectionality is strong in these people, feeling the pain of the trans community, the Mexicans, illegal immigrants to the UK and the Palestinians.

The difference between the Palestinians who voted in the proscribed terrorist organisation Hamas and the barbaric acts meted out in south Israel on October 7^th 2023 may be unclear to them, but its brightly delineated to the less indoctrinated. The murder of hundreds of young festival-goers near the Gaza border, taking of hundreds more hostages, and harrowing reports/pictures of decapitated babies doesn’t seem enough to even add pause to the support of some. There are online divisions, there are culture wars, and then there is the ancient Arabs vs Jews faultline. If you didn’t think things could get more divisive than Donald Trump, Brexit and the pros and cons of the Covid jab, that was before the resurgence of this particular conflict of the ages.

UN Women, like most political feminism, will tacitly equate Israel with dominant, authoritarian masculinity, and Palestine with long-suffering, put-upon women. So a little terrorism is justified in breaking free of the shackles, surely? That is the binary thinking of much fourth-wave feminism (4WF) voiced by presentable media types all over the West: what’s one wrongfully convicted man if ten women get to be ‘heard’?

It’s a relatively undefined new morality, based on the ‘move fast and break things’ model of a young Mark Zuckerberg (and fellow Silicon valley types). The ends justify the means for the underdog, even when international Equality Acts guarantee equity across the West, and women are doing better in every metric – still grievance is claimed, and criticism/reality swerved. This is why UN Women support Palestine in its media messaging; and in the same way they won’t so much criticise Israel or the Jews explicitly for the brutal murder of its own citizens, it will immediately criticise its incendiary response.

This is a reflection of the ‘don’t mention the problems of men’ stance of 4FW’s, in a craven avoidance of difficult equities of another sort, not to mention unhelpful to the eternal cause. When will the stonewalling and deliberate divisionism ever be enough? Probably when men themselves are a tiny, marginalised minority – and Israel is too.

Sean Parker is an academic editor and writer on justice reform and cultural studies.

Men and Masculinity

 

 

 

‘While this sort of thinking had been hitherto relegated to bitter eccentrics in unloved corners of academia, suddenly it was grafted into the souls of attractive young heteronormative types, ready to tweet’

 

‘A post-#MeToo Men’s Amnesty could be possible, where males are open about what they want, what they deserve, and what is fair, expressed without fear or favour, and also without having to be looked at through the prism of feminism’

By Sean Parker

September 25, 2023

Men and masculinity has been under attack across the West for much of the 21^st century so far. The hundred year-long struggle for equal rights under feminism culminated in the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, when the war was in essence won. Niggles such as intra-cultural pay gaps remained, let alone traditional and religious attitudes to gendered roles, but by and large equity had been achieved.

Following contemporaneous Title IX sex laws being fully commercialised in the US punishing sexual discrimination, harassment and assault on campuses (and beyond), #MeToo arrived around 2017 to decimate the entertainment industry, for better or worse. From tiny, positive acorns, massive mixed-blessing oaks can grow, and a 1970s version of radical feminism – ‘all men are rapists, thus must be minimised’ – became amplified by the binary-attraction model of internet algorithms.

While this sort of thinking had been hitherto relegated to bitter eccentrics in unloved corners of academia, suddenly it was grafted into the souls of attractive young heteronormative types, ready to tweet. The myth that women were still ignored in a patriarchal society seemed hard to give up, even as the matriarchy took over every lever of power from publishing to government, sliding messaging out anonymously through social media departments.

In poll after poll feminism as an identity to be supported or with which to identify could not surpass 10% prevalence with the public, while domestic violence and sexual assault statistics were re-written in ways favourable to the RadFem cause. High profile men such as Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris, Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen and Jeffrey Epstein found themselves posthumously cancelled or in prison due to sexual allegations various. Others, such as Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccini and Kevin Spacey found themselves falsely accused but facing massive legal hurdles, and no small degree of post-traumatic stress disorder.

The younger the man in question as time went on, the more problematic the allegations, as the contexts became greyer and greyer. Whether it was law student Liam Allan being falsely accused of rape by a disgruntled ex girlfriend, goth rocker Marilyn Manson facing down numerous lawsuits, or both ex-US president Donald Trump being found liable for sexual assault and incumbent Joe Biden – he who had signed off the Title IX-enacting ‘Dear Colleague’ letter in the first place – being accused of ‘digital penetration’, the gloves were off.

The more public mouthpieces such as family court barrister Charlotte Proudman, academic Jess Taylor and MP Jess Philips were facilitated in increasingly shrill discourse, the more gerrymandered the statistics became. Non-politicised figures such as Cheryl Thomas KC, Canadian academic Janice Fiamengo and Australian journalist Bettina Arndt calmly pointed out the reality behind the headlines, thus enraging the legions of hitherto dormant power-fembots lined up ready to slay rhetorical across the algorithms.

Men’s disquiet with what felt like completely one-sided sexual politic propaganda was growing – and their concern became increasingly echoed in more traditionally-minded women. This traditional-mindedness simply meant those who believed that men and women were at their best when working together, rather than trying to destroy each other in an intersectional, indoctrinated power game.

Andrew Tate brandished his pecs, Masarati, cigars and aviators, and amassed an army of disenfranchised young men (and women) before being put under house arrest in Romania on suspicion of rape and human trafficking. Saifullah Khan took Yale University to court for improperly carried out sexual assault investigations, claiming false allegations had stolen his future – and won. Comedian and neo-political activist Russell Brand had his communication channels cancelled due to coordinated allegations made against his sexual past via Channel 4 and The Sunday Times, a decade after a similar trick had been successfully pulled on WikiLeaker Julian Assange (whose extradition woes rumble on).

Men’s rights activists, often portrayed as far-rightists by the power-feminists, have generally done their best to look after the state of increasingly done-down men and boys, as mothers found their husbands and sons falsely accused and fathers forbidden from seeing their children by an almost completely captured family court system. The XY Crew in the US and the Justice for Men and Boys organisation in the UK try to sneak out their exasperated message via (occasionally) Piers Morgan on Talk TV or YouTube personality Pearl Davis, but the discourse remains decidedly ‘counter’.

While legal dominance and power-feminists capitalise on every inter-personal sexual-political news story, online MRAs will repeatedly point to white working class boys being the worst performing demographic in society, turning to Incel (involuntary celibate) culture as a result. MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) has  become a movement in itself: including Passport Bros, who are western males travelling abroad to look for or to be with women who aren’t preoccupied with power dynamics, and are more interested in a peaceful, cooperative, unindoctrinated life.

While it often feels like third and/or fourth wave feminism is in a permanent state of arrested development adolescence, collective masculinity has of late been tiring of being the patient adult in the room, being quietly tolerant as the disruptive delinquent smashes up the kitchen. It’s fully understandable that a new form of post-MeToo male assertion is possible: needing no hate, resentment or even conflict.

Those already in long-term relationships are no doubt happy with their situations, but those terrified of the new pitfalls of modern dating and relationships would be forgiven for turning their backs on the whole shebang. This doesn’t mean turning gay, or becoming addicted to porn; it means focussing creative and adventurous energy on other things, about reassessing aims beyond the indoctrination to nest: how can anyone nest when it’s so full of risk, and mostly for men? If the feminists wanted the end of heteronormativity, they might have almost achieved it.

A male view on the act of sex has been entirely ignored in culture (when that culture isn’t too squeamish to even go there). Emasculated, feminised gyneocentrism is the only sexual conversation in town, even though any mutually satisfactory experience takes two to meaningfully tango. In moving forward from the current chronically biased situation, a Minister for Men in the UK – since there has been a Minister for Women since 1997 – would be a useful voice in UK Parliament. Beyond that, a post-#MeToo Men’s Amnesty could be possible, where males are open about what they want, what they deserve, and what is fair, expressed without fear or favour, and also without having to be looked at through the prism of feminism.

The term ‘toxic masculinity’ needs to be expunged from common discourse in the way that have been racial slurs, and identity theories as they are currently weaponised need to be recognised as the psychological abuse they are. The progressive left shibboleth ‘have fewer babies to save your independence and the Earth’ could be being achieved by stealth through this ‘men walking away’, quietly and surreptitiously, as the psycho-spiritual pressure increases, and so the ideological replacement strategy continues. This replacement theory is a political tactic of removing powerful people by whatever means, and replacing them with approved, on-message characters.

Beyond conflict there must be resolution, even when that conflict becomes intra-national rather than international. Whether that happens by males setting aside romantic or domestic ambitions while aiming their unique energies in less risky directions should be less a matter of bleak desperation rather than one of enlightened choice.

What ‘Privilege’? On a Minister for Men

 By Sean Bw Parker

September 8, 2023

‘Over the last century we’ve worked hard with equality to put women at the table along with men which is super important. But we can do two things at once’ — Nick Fletcher MP

Do boys and men at last have a hero in the UK House of Commons? Softly spoken northern MP Nick Fletcher is proposing a Minister for Men (MfM), and this seemingly radical idea has prompted lively debate on BBC Radio Four’s Woman’s Hour. The fact that Minister for Women Caroline Nokes has been an strident rhetorical attacker of men, in word or in tone, in recent years might surely have played into Fletcher’s thinking on this initiative.

Debate on Women’s Hour threads tended to circle back to the craven point that happier men would be also better for women. No doubt, but is the proposal simply some sort of levelling-up? The fact that there wasn’t a Minister for Men automatically created when the women’s position was created is already injustice enough. Justice for men and boys has to neither genuflect to the justifiably won rights of women, nor somehow apologise for its own existence.

Twenty-five-plus years after the Westminster demographic shift of Blair’s Babes (and their male facilitators) passing policies virtually unopposed, ‘affirmative action’ has been exposed as the imbalanced prejudice it always was, as democratic representation of the people’s choice has gradually returned. In an advanced liberal democratic society members of parliament should be elected solely by the residents of their constituencies, regardless of sex. It’s not up to civil service wonks to socially engineer them out of their wrong-choice.

The apparently terrifying figure of ‘self-declared misogynist’ Andrew Tate is invoked in every other line on the MfM subject, rather than being the cartoon cut-out idea of machismo that most see him as. One of the duties of the incoming MP will presumably be to make sure school pupils stop asking awkward questions about Tate’s brand of unapologetic masculinity (Romanian human trafficking and rape charges notwithstanding). Tate has his nemesis however in Charlotte Proudman, a similarly attention-hungry online force, a self-declared ‘c*nt’ who tweets almost hourly against men in any story into which she can spanner her undergraduate rage-musings. Great look for a family court barrister, you might think.

Regarding the “The Misogyny Myth,” John Tierney writes:

“This instinct to protect women has been essential for societies to survive, but it has also made us easy prey for a modern industry of academics, journalists, activists, lobbyists, and bureaucrats who falsely blame sexism for any gender gap that doesn’t favor women.”

Back on Women’s Hour, following robust early points made by Mike Buchanan of Justice for Men and Boys, female callers were mixed in their reception of the idea of a MfM. ‘Male privilege’ was repeatedly mentioned without challenge by the host. What privilege is this? The privilege to be the most likely to die by suicide, at work, or years earlier than women? The privilege to be more likely to be the victim of violence, false allegations or massive prejudicial bias in the family courts? Or the privilege to be denied work or opportunities due to diversity of ‘positive discrimination’ policies that preclude them on the basis of the immutable characteristic of their born sex?

The truth is that privilege in the west is (still) based on class and wealth; rich men and women are privileged, the poor somewhat less so – while the risible 2010 Equality Act insists all outcomes be the same, in a horrendous real-time race to the bottom, played out in an increasingly incredulous media. The theory that the angry reaction that many males are expressing in response to the current blanket misandry across mainstream culture stems from ‘fear’ was also repeated. Anger about injustice is not fear – it’s anger about injustice.

Endless messaging about the ‘patriarchy’ and ‘toxic masculinity’ – both theories that have been massively damaged since the Depp-Heard trial and exposes about #MeToo-era corruption in the media – have left males of all ages feeling shut out of a society built by their forefathers. Ideological activists, emerging from gender studies indoctrination for the last thirty-plus years, have metastasized from academia to publishing, to television and the civil service, and now every message channel is full of relentless ‘with us or against us’ rhetoric.

This has become a silent political extremism, and that is why Nick Fletcher is correct, and brave, and very very necessary.

The Myth of Female Under-Representation in STEM

SAVE

September 7, 2023

Higher education leaders often claim that women are underrepresented in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields.  Like so much else in higher ed, this claim is false. A recent series of posts explains why.

Ever wondered why you hear ‘35% of stem graduates are women’, when HESAs own data show actually 54% of STEM graduates are women? Here’s the hidden secret of “STEM:”

‘STEM’ is a carefully crafted political term that removes the sciences in which women are over represented.

Biology (where women dominate) is not considered to be “STEM”… medicine… psychology… veterinary science… neuroscience… none of these are considered to be “STEM.”

Breakdowns by Sex of Several Science Fields that are Excluded from the STEM Definition

Field	Female Share	Reference (listed at end of article)
Nursing	82%	(1)
Veterinary Medicine	81%	(2)
Psychology	79.1%	(3)
Biology	63.2%	(3)
Medicine	53.8%	(4)

Case Study: Veterinary Medicine

As seen in the table above, women account for 81% of veterinary students nationwide.  This female share is one of the highest sex disparities among professional programs.  In light of this discrepancy, you’d think veterinary medicine leaders would be starting outreach programs to encourage more male students.

Instead of correcting the imbalance, they’ve allowed it to become significantly worse.  Below are data from Iowa State’s veterinary medicine program.

Before 2017, the male share of the class ranged between 22% and 30%. Starting about eight years ago, however, the share of male students has been cut almost in half and held steady (with two exceptions) at 17%:

Male Student Enrollments at Iowa State Veterinary Medicine Program

Grad Class	Male %
2026	17.6%
2025	18.2%
2024	17.8%
2023	17.5%
2022	13.4%
2021	17.4%
2020	22.6%
2019	17.5%
2018	20.0%
2017	24.0%
2016	24.2%
2015	25.5%
2014	28.8%
2013	31.5%
2012	26.4%
2011	24.0%
2010	22.5%
2009	23.3%

These numbers are even more inexplicable when you consider there is a substantial shortage of large animal vets nationwide.

Women Vets Shun Work on the Farm

Female veterinarians generally prefer small animal practices over large animal practices, which has contributed to shortages of large animal vets:

The growing ranks of female vets prefer a career looking after pets than pigs or cattle https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/mar/30/gender.ruralaffairs

Wanted: More large-animal veterinarians. https://www.farmprogress.com/animal-health/why-large-animal-vets-are-in-short-supply

In conclusion, the claim that females are underrepresented in science fields is a myth.

References:

(1)    “What Percentage of Student Nurses Are Female,” available at https://www.zippia.com/answers/what-percentage-of-student-nurses-are-female/

(2)   “The Gender Divide — Truth be told, misogyny is a problem in veterinary medicine. Our increasingly female profession can take constructive steps to even the playing field,” available at https://todaysveterinarybusiness.com/misogyny-veterinary-profession/ (“According to data from the Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges, women comprise 81% of DVM students.”)

(3)   “Chart of the Day: Female Shares of Bachelor’s Degrees by Field, 1971 to 2019, available at https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-female-shares-of-ba-degrees-by-field-1971-to-2019/ (“In 2019, women [earned] more than 62% of the bachelor’s degrees in 9 out of the 16 academic fields: Health Professions (84.3% and the greatest gender imbalance for either sex for the 16 majors), Public Administration (82.7% and the field with the second-highest gender imbalance), Education (82.0% and the field with the third-highest female share and the greatest share ever), Psychology (79.1% and a record high female share), English (71.3% and a record female share), Foreign Languages (69.1%), Communication and Journalism (65.6%, a new record high), Biology (63.2%, a new record high)”).  (emphasis added)

(4)   “The nation’s medical schools grow more diverse,” available at https://www.aamc.org/news/nation-s-medical-schools-grow-more-diverse (“Women again accounted for the majority of applicants (56.5%), matriculants (55.6%), and total enrollment (53.8%) — the fourth consecutive year that women made up the majority of all three groups.”)

UK Falsely Accused Protest Gains Momentum for International Falsely Accused Day 2023

London, UK – In a resolute stand for justice for the falsely accused and wrongfully convicted, the Falsely Accused Day movement is spearheading peaceful protests on Saturday 9^th September 2023.  Demonstrations will take place from 2pm – 4pm outside New Scotland Yard, Victoria Embankment in London and HMP Liverpool, 68 Hornby Road, Bootle.  This year marks the third anniversary of Falsely Accused Day, an initiative that has attracted global attention, inspiring activists around the world to rally against the grave injustice of false accusations.

While expressing unwavering solidarity with genuine victims of rape or sexual assault, the FAD campaign emphasises that not all allegations are substantiated.  The focal point of Falsely Accused Day is to raise awareness that innocent individuals can find themselves wrongly accused of sexual offences leading to profound, often life-changing, negative consequences.  Through peaceful demonstrations, the event seeks to underscore the significance of Due Process and the protection of the rights of those accused.

The influence of this movement has transcended national borders, sparking international demonstrations.  On 8^th September 2023, demonstrations are scheduled in the USA, followed by rallies on 9^th September 2023 in Argentina, Australia, Bermuda, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Ireland, Israel, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland and Spain. The launch of International Falsely Accused Day 2023 amplifies the collective voice against wrongful convictions and the erosion of fundamental rights.

At the heart of this protest lies the stories of individuals like Andy Malkinson who endured 17 years of wrongful imprisonment for a crime he did not commit.  Such cases serve as poignant examples, underscoring the pressing need for a justice system that is just, impartial and equitable.

Acknowledging the imperative of supporting survivors, FAD points out the potential pitfalls of the “believe the victim” approach.  This stance can sometimes undermine the presumption of innocence, leaving those falsely accused at a disadvantage in proving their innocence.  The pressure exerted by the government on law enforcement agencies and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to secure convictions can inadvertently lead to biased investigations and trials that do not afford defendants a fair chance.

A pivotal factor contributing to these miscarriages of justice is the selective withholding of exculpatory evidence by law enforcement and the CPS.  This practice can obstruct the emergence of truth in courtrooms, further perpetuating wrongful convictions that exact a heavy toll on innocent lives.

Tragically numerous individuals are presently incarcerated for crimes they did not commit, highlighting the urgency of addressing this systemic issue.  Equally concerning is the practice of awarding financial compensation and guaranteed lifetime anonymity to false accusers, which may inadvertently encourage malicious intent.

This protest serves as an impassioned call to action for legislators, law enforcement agencies and the public at large to join forces in advocating for a justice system that upholds the rights of all individuals, maintains Due Process and prevents the devastating consequences of false accusations.  MPs, celebrities and concerned members of the public are cordially invited to stand in solidarity on 9^th September and demand justice for those wrongly accused.

For media inquiries and additional information, please contact:

Lyn Crabtree (lyncrab99@hotmail.com)

or

Sheila Harmon (sharmon456@gmail.com)

About Falsely Accused Day

Falsely Accused Day is an annual event committed to raising awareness about the predicament of the wrongly accused and advocating for reform within the justice system.  Originating in the UK, this initiative has garnered international traction, uniting activists worldwide in their pursuit of equitable justice for all.

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

USDA Holds Low-Income Children Hostage on Controversial Transgender Policy

WASHINGTON / August 14, 2023 – The US Department of Agriculture is under fire from Republican lawmakers who say the USDA has politicized its school lunch program to force children to accept transgender ideology.

On July 27, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS) introduced a Joint Resolution providing for Congressional disapproval (S. J. Res. 42) of the USDA policy that removes funding from schools that do not comply with the Biden Administration’s LGBTQIA+ policy. [1]

In his press release, Sen. Marshall stated, “This administration is weaponizing funding for school lunch programs in an effort to force public schools to embrace Joe Biden’s transgender agenda.”  Marshall warned, “The USDA has no authority to force our children to adhere to woke mandates such as requiring biological boys to be given access to girls bathrooms and locker rooms, or allow biological boys to compete against biological girls in girls’ sports,” [2]

The Joint Resolution is in response to the Biden Administration’s USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service announcement on May 5, 2022 concerning a new policy on school lunch programs and gender ideology to interpret “the prohibition on discrimination based on sex found in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972” to include “discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” [3]

In a subsequent June 5, 2023 letter, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) [4] concluded the Biden administration’s USDA policy on school lunch programs is subject to the Congressional Review Act’s (CRA) [5] requirement, and that the USDA first needs to submit its proposed policy as a draft regulation.

But, the USDA has apparently ignored the GAO decision.

The Biden administration’s proposed Title IX regulations, which are scheduled to be released in October, would change the definition of “sex” to include “gender Identity.”  The regulations also would harm women’s sports, promote gender transitioning among young children without parental consent, infringe on free speech, and remove due process protections for men who have been falsely accused.

Lawmakers are urged to contact Secretary Miguel Cardona at the Department of Education and urge that the Biden administration abandon its plan to release the proposed Title IX regulations in October.  Contact: Alejandro Reyes at alejandro.reyes@ed.gov.

Citations:

1.   https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/42/text?s=1&r=1
2.   https://www.marshall.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senator-marshall-introduces-school-lunch-cra/
   3.    https://www.christianpost.com/news/22-states-sue-usda-for-tying-school-lunch-funding-to-lgbt-policy.html
3.   https://www.gao.gov/assets/830/825996.pdf
4.   https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10023

The Istanbul Convention – Legislating for Internationally Ratified Misandry

‘In an astonishing example of 21^st century newspeak, the IC also insisted that discriminatory measures should not be considered to be discrimination: “Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention”’

Sean Parker

January 12, 2023

I was living and working in Istanbul in 2011, and remember the commotion surrounding the Istanbul Convention – henceforth IC – being held in the city that year. The celebration was loudest among the progressive left, mostly the university-educated and expats, and what struck me at the time was how incongruous to have such a convention held in a city in the grip of strongman president Recep Tayyip Erdogan – not well-known for his support of women’s rights (or anyone else’s rights, for that matter).

A European landmark treaty supposedly to end violence against women, the IC entered into force on 1 August 2014. The IC recognised violence against women as a violation of human rights and a form of discrimination against women, and only women. It covered various forms of gender-based violence against women, which referred to violence directed against women because they are women, or violence being claimed to disproportionately affect them.

In 2021, original IC host country Turkey withdrew from the convention after denouncing it in March 2021. The convention ceased to be effective in Turkey on 1 July 2021, following its denunciation. The main complaints related to concern about the specific ‘gender ideology’, which they argued was in direct opposition to its constitution. Other countries have also not ratified the agreement.

The European Union signed but did not ratify. The UK signed the Istanbul Convention in 2012, but it quickly became apparent that the UK’s domestic laws were not appropriate to meeting its requirements, possibly being seen as counter-intuitive. In a report published in 2015, the UK parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights highlighted a number of issues that needed to be resolved.

The EU Charter of Human Rights is the foundation of the policies of the European Union, and of European society itself. However a review revealed that the IC in fact represented a historic threat to the human rights of Europeans. While at the time of its signing everything seemed ‘progressive’ enough, the fact was that the IC was based merely on a social theory which ascribed domestic violence to a power imbalance between men and women that arose from supposedly ‘patriarchal’ beliefs.

This model of domestic violence has been heavily criticised as a theory that is ideologically based, rather than empirically supported. Hundreds of research findings exist that undermine the exclusivity of the gendered perspective. In an astonishing example of 21^st century Newspeak, the IC also insists that discriminatory measures should not be considered to be discrimination:

“Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention” (IC Article 4).

The IC regularly confuses the words ‘complainant’ and ‘victim’ in the manner of the mainstream media on a regular and increasing basis, thereby short-changing the defendant’s right to an impartial investigation and adjudication. There is a certain irony that a treaty that claims to advance human rights in fact serves to deny a person’s fundamental rights.

This conflation of these terms further extends the transatlantic ‘believe the victim’ policies at play throughout the 2010s and into the 2020s, only being brought to a (cultural at least) halt by the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard libel trial verdict – comprehensively finding in Depp’s favour. It was suddenly clear to the world why self-identified ‘victims’ should absolutely not automatically be believed. High profile cases such as this show how ratifying the Istanbul Convention, and its one-eyed view of allegations of domestic violence, would do nothing less than completely reverse recent positive progress in equality of the sexes.