FIVE women were reportedly victims of a brutal and alleged homophobic attack by a group of men in Hampshire.

One of the women reportedly lost seven teeth when she was punched in the face.

The women were assaulted as they walked home after a night out in Portsmouth at 11.30pm on April 16.

It is understood the victims, were in a group of eight, when they received homophobic abuse from seven men who then went onto attack them.

Attacking women is now homophobic?


Serena Williams’s pregnant victory reminds us how amazing women’s bodies are
Natasha Henry
The tennis star triumphed at the Australian Open without dropping a set while in her first trimester. Are women the weaker sex? I don’t think so

Hmm, little meiotic glob of cells that no one would note if it just slipped away, or were forcibly removed.

Funny how the descriptions of early stage pregnancy change dependent upon the point being made, isn’t it?

BTW, as to women being the stronger sex, in terms of endurance yes quite probably. Don’t forget that your great grandmother – dependent upon your age today possibly your great great – and all her forbears in the matriarchal line spent the entirety of their adult lives pregnant, suckling or too old to do either.

Women doing stuff while pregnant is the natural state of humanity.

How to solve everyday sexism

Language reflects and reinforces social norms; ungendering language is an important part of solving sexism. And there has been some progress. As you might expect, much of this emanates from Sweden. In the 1990s, there was consternation among Swedes that there was a colloquial, non-sexual word for penis (“snopp”) but no female equivalent; a discrepancy with ramifications on how children view and learn about their body. So Anna Kosztovics, a social worker from Malmö, coined “snippa” in 2000 and started promoting it. The government encouraged her efforts. Apparently, nursery school teachers were encouraged to put up notes on their doors asking: “Have you said snippa today?” Snippa entered the Swedish dictionary in 2006 and is now widely used.

Earlier this year, Kosztovics called for the UK to follow Sweden’s lead in a video on the BBC. British English has the word “willy” but lacks a widely used non-clinical, non-sexual way to talk about the vagina. Kosztovics says this means “little girls grow up with the thought that there is something wrong between their legs”. She adds: “There are 360 million people who speak English and I think it’s time for you to discover your own word … I say let the best word win.”

We need to find a new way to say cunt.

You know, I have this feeling that it’s going to be a bit more complicated than that, I really do.

Huffpo got stung and badly

Last week, HuffPo published a piece entitled “Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?” written by supposed feminist activist “Shelley Garland.”

“Some of the biggest blows to the progressive cause in the past year have often been due to the votes of white men,” wrote “Garland” in the article. “If white men were not allowed to vote, it is unlikely that the United Kingdom would be leaving the European Union, it is unlikely that Donald Trump would now be the President of the United States, and it is unlikely that the Democratic Alliance would now be governing four of South Africa’s biggest cities.”

“If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened,” she continued, adding, “At the same time, a denial of the franchise to white men, could see a redistribution of global assets to their rightful owners.”

Garland has now been revealed to be the pseudonym of Marius Roodt, a think-tank employee from Johannesberg, who created the persona in order to expose HuffPo’s racism and “lack of fact-checking.”

In the face of public outrage, the Huffington Post initially defended the piece. According to Verashni Pillay, editor-in-chief of HuffPo South Africa, “dismantling the patriarchal systems that have brought us to where we are today, a world where power is wielded to dangerous and destructive ends by men, and in particular white men, necessarily means a loss of power to those who hold it.”

Only after learning that “Shelley Garland” did not exist, and that they had been trolled, did the Huffington Post retract the article and affirm that they “fully support” universal enfranchisement.

In a later post, Verashni Pillay also apologized for initially defending the piece.”I did not make it clear enough in my initial response that I absolutely do not agree with the disenfranchisement of any group of people,” wrote Pillay. “I don’t hate white men.”

Err, yes, quite obviously

In a paper titled “More Than a Physical Burden: Women’s Mental and Emotional Work in Preventing Pregnancy,” sociologist Katrina Kimport — who works as an associate professor at the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco — documented the way that women are tasked with the majority of physical work required to prevent pregnancy and also expected to do most of the emotional and mental labor as well.

“While the biotechnological landscape of available methods may explain the assignment of the physical burden for contraception to women,” Kimport wrote, “this does not mean the concomitant time, attention, and stress that preventing pregnancy requires must also be primarily assumed by women.”

But when it comes to the American health care system, Kimport found, there’s a widespread assumption that dealing with contraception is women’s work, and men are often shut out of the conversation. Kimport went to six family planning clinics in the San Francisco Bay Area and recorded conversations with 52 women, who all wanted to not have more children.

Women get pregnant, men don’t. Who would we expect to carry that burden of contraception then?

Hmm, OK

Mindfulness only works for women, not men, a new study claims.
The meditation method teaches people to focus on their current sensations and emotions – and has rocketed in popularity in recent years.
Indeed, scores of medical studies show the practice helps to fight depression, fatigue, posture, and even diseases by boosting the body on a cellular level.
But a new study by Brown University warns nobody has tested how its effects might be different for men and women – and according to their research, the results are stark.

She’ll find out

The message I want to send my daughter is this: You are an awesome girl for not giving in to pressure to be and look a certain way. I want her to be proud to be a girl.

And she is starting to be. She is already vigilant about women’s rights. She does not understand why there are separate men’s and women’s sports teams,

About 30 seconds after puberty I would think.

The reason being that the adult hormone packages are so different that the lads will beat the shit out of the lassies in just about any exercise other than equestrianism and childbirth.

Even archery results are significantly different….


Most of the complaints center around the corporate-centric nature of Fearless Girl, which was commissioned by State Street Global Advisors as a generic promotion of the idea of women in leadership.

“Feminists would be hard-pressed to find a better symbol of the movement’s widening class divides than Fearless Girl,” wrote Christina Cauterucci of Slate. “As Jia Tolentino ably lays out in the New Yorker, contemporary feminism’s fixation on the incremental admission of a small number of women into traditional halls of power ignores both the vast majority of women and the ways other forms of oppression disproportionately harm women.”

It’s hard to disagree with that,

Hmm, well, everyone else reads that and thinks “it’s bollocks love”

Isn’t this lovey

Even once diagnosed, mothers with autism often hide their condition from the outside world, terrified their children will be removed from them if social workers misinterpret their autistic traits as indicating potential harm to the child.

Women with autism are victims of society not understanding.

The male autists who populate the harder end of the coding universe are sexist pigs revelling in Bro’ culture.


Well, yes, obviously, who didn’t know this?

Army chiefs have launched a probe into whether tough military training is leaving thousands of female soldiers infertile.
They fear gruelling drills could be damaging the reproductive systems of young recruits, after evidence from the sports world showed one in four young female athletes struggles to conceive due to tough training schedules.
Now concerns are rife among leading medical experts in the British Armed Forces that many of the 16,000 serving women soldiers could also be affected.

Women who do gruelling training regimes tend to stop menstruating as their body fat drops.


It’s temporary.

And, umm, isn’t this what we actually want? People who are front line troops don’t take 2 years off now and again?

Worstall’s Fallacy, Worstall’s Fallacy

Sigh, Polly:

But even if most do comply, from everything we know about inequality after decades of never-ending research, we know that knowing the facts doesn’t lead to action. There is nothing we don’t know about gender, race and social immobility, but policy-makers pick the knowledge that suits them. Women are poorer? This week Damian Green, the work and pensions secretary most responsible for impoverishing them, offered £30m in counselling to stop poor women rowing with their partners as it spoils their children’s employment prospects. Good idea maybe, but no recompense for the £12bn taken mainly from women’s pockets in benefit cuts beginning this week.

We know that women get less money from their employers. We don’t know, because absolutely no one has ever calculated it, whether women have less money after the welfare state kicks in. Thus is Worstall’s Fallacy again, looking at the pre-things we do about a problem not the post-.

Actually, the only person I know of who has even tried to calculate this is me. the answer being that for the median or even mean woman the combination of child benefit and child care credits or whatever they’re called is larger than the gender pay gap.

Good. British employers are notorious for investing too little in training, while our education system has utterly failed on technical skills.

That’s the one that closed down the technical schools in favour of comprehensives, is it?

Umm, this is all they’ve got?

The incident in question took place in an ethics class with Gorsuch, when Sisk alleges he asked students to raise their hands if they knew women who had taken advantage of their employer’s maternity benefits only to quit soon after they had their baby. When only a few hands went up she said Gorsuch insisted everyone’s should be up because, as she recalled him putting it, “many women do this”.

“She said he said something like, ‘How many of you have heard about women taking jobs at law firms to take advantage of good benefits programs so they can then take maternity leave?” Mattern recalled. “I said, ‘That’s a really messed up thing for the teacher to say.’”

According to Sisk’s account of what happened in class that day, Gorsuch not only shared his perception that women take advantage of their employers’ maternity benefits, but he repeatedly brought class discussion back to just how often women take advantage of their companies, emphasizing that it’s very much a women’s issue and a women’s problem, and that such abuses by certain women disadvantage any company unwise enough to employ them.

In Sisk’s telling of the incident, Gorsuch said companies had a right to ask about applicants’ plans to get pregnant to protect financial interests. For employers to ask such family-planning questions of women is not technically a violation of federal law, so long as hiring decisions are not based upon the answers. But the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has said such questions will be regarded as “evidence of pregnancy discrimination” when an employer later makes a decision that adversely affects a pregnant worker.

So, in teaching a law class, consider the following question. Some women do indeed take advantage of such benefits. Anyone saying that no woman ever has is simply wrong. Further, it costs money to train junior lawyers up. There is also a gender pay gap, driven by maternity and child care.

At which point we’ve a slightly difficult problem. Those women who aren’t going to become mothers should not be affected by their future decision. Those who are should be. Not should as in righteously but that’s just the way the universe works.

So, when hiring, should people be allowed to ask young women whether they intend to become mothers or not?

It’s an interesting legal question, no? One that we’d expect young lawyers to be able to consider?

As it is current law allows the question but not hiring decisions based upon the answer. And where other than in a law course should you be able to ask whether that’s the right answer to the problem?

Interesting about Marvel characters

Well, OK, personally I find nothing very interesting about them at all but still:

A boss at Marvel has blamed a fall in sales on its move towards more diverse characters.
David Gabriel, who’s vice president of sales, claims readers are “turning their noses up” at diversity and don’t “want female characters out there”.
Comic book sales have been falling at the company since October.
But some fans argue it’s actually rebooted and complicated storylines putting them off instead.


In the last few years. Marvel’s brought in more gay, non-white and female characters.
But many are new versions of old characters and some fans aren’t happy about that.
They include a female Thor, a mixed-race Spider-Man, a black teenager who took over the Iron Man story and a Muslim Ms Marvel.
Iceman also came out as gay.

Well, maybe:

“I don’t know that that’s really true, but that’s what we saw in sales.
“Any character that was diverse, any character that was new, our female characters, anything that was not a core Marvel character, people were turning their nose up.”

One stab at an explanation. The Marvel characters are, underneath the superficial differences, archetypes. Of the hero, the evil, the duplicitous and so on, just as with the various folk characters and archetypes they’re so obviously mimicking. And what the actual archetypes are changes rather more slowly than what some people think they should.

If that’s so then the answer is possibly quite simple. New female characters should perhaps be based upon those folk female archetypes, not just female versoins of male ones?

It took them enough time, didn’t it?

But is one man’s convenience a woman’s sacrifice? The answer is probably yes.

As my dear friend Louann Brizendine, a UCSF neuroscientist and New York Times Bestselling Author of “The Female Brain” and “The Male Brain,” told me almost 10 years ago during the era: Digital dating puts women at an evolutionary disadvantage. When Louann and I recently reconnected, she said she still believes this is true — if not worsening as society becomes more technology dependent. In the absence of IRL interaction, the anthropological cues that help women determine the safety and desirability of a potential partner are eliminated. Eye contact, smell, vocal intonation, physical demeanor and proximity. Without them, a woman is reduced to physical appearance and willingness to copulate. Or at least send some risqué Snapchats for a little Joaquin Phoenix-style “Her” action.

It’s an interesting conundrum for a variety of reasons that cross biology and gender roles, sexual orientation, generational shifts and social structure.

While many would take legitimate issue with ideas around gendered evolutionary advantages, much of societal function has been shaped by them and reinforced. Thus, for straight people, the prevalence of app-based dating has created an environment where the already shallow, once-physical bar for connection has been both digitized and lowered, breeding ample dissatisfaction beyond the casual sex marketplace. Potential serious partners with similar relational goals struggle to find each other and exert significant emotional capital weeding through surface-level options. The result is that lots of men are scoring, while women are losing.

Think what Granny would have said about making it easier for men to get sex.
And all that was thrown out, was it not? The result being pretty much what Granny would have said, no?

Honey, maybe she just wasn’t a very good candidate?

Before I go any further, let me put my own cards on the table. The destruction of Hillary Clinton, I firmly believe, while propelled by a perfect storm of sexism, partisan politics and media madness, was bookended by two immensely powerful assaults. One was the inappropriate, inaccurate and inflammatory interference in the general election by FBI director James Comey. The other occurred much earlier, during the primaries, but its consequences are felt even today. I know I will make some of my younger feminist colleagues (and other left leaners) furious, which was distressing to me then, and still is.

These people, in so many ways, are my natural colleagues, and most are as upset as I am by Trump’s victory. But they played a big role in the thin edge (not a landslide, as Trump would have us believe) that gave Trump the election. For while Trump supporters hooted and cheered for their candidate, forgiving him every lie, every crime, every bit of disgusting behaviour, too many young Democrats made it very clear (in newspaper and internet interviews, in polls, and in the mainstream media) that they were only voting for Hillary Clinton as the lesser of two evils, “holding their noses”, tears still streaming down their faces over the primary defeat of the person they felt truly deserved their votes. Some didn’t vote at all. And as much as I am in agreement with many of his ideas, Bernie Sanders splintered and ultimately sabotaged the Democratic party – not because he chose to run against Hillary Clinton, but because of how he ran against her.

It was her election to lose. And she lost it. Because she’s a bad candidate.

This is quite apart from the PJ O’Rourke-like observation that she reminded everyone of their first mother in law.

And as for the sexism….well, sorry, I know a bit about all three societies, Germany, UK and US. And I’ve not noted that any of the three of them are any more, or less, sexist than the others. Britain is currently on its second female Prime Minister, Germany’s been ruled by Merkel for what, a decade now?

In short, the issue wasn’t “woman” it was “this woman.”

Which is, of course, as it should be.

The rest of the screed can be read as “That Bernie, he actually ran against her! The bastard!”

Tough tittie honey

A new row has broken out over the so-called tampon tax after it emerged that a quarter of a million pounds from a controversial levy on women’s sanitary products is to be given to an anti-abortion organisation.

Some substantial number of women think that abortion is against women’s interests. As evidence the existence of the organisation itself. So, if tax is to be spent specifically upon women’s interests then why not?

But there was consternation on Saturday night among women’s groups and politicians who had campaigned on the issue after it emerged that £250,000 of that money is going to Life, a charity that campaigns against abortion and has been at the centre of controversy over the information provided by a network of unregulated pregnancy counselling centres.

A spokesperson for the End Violence Against Women Coalition said: “We are surprised to see that Life is the recipient of a very significant tampon tax grant. The government set out clearly that this money would be spent in ways that would address women’s specific needs and inequalities. It is hard to understand how a service offering counselling based on the fundamental premise that abortion is wrong, to vulnerable women, can do that.”

I thought the general view these days was that abortion is up to women and only women? And thus being anti-abortion is as much a women’s issue as being in favour of it, is it not?

Fortunately this will all go away in 2 years’ time as we’ll be out of the EU can can make tampons either zero rated or exempt, if we should choose to do so.

Although, of course, that will then be a new battle:

The government had originally faced a potential rebellion over the issue, after an amendment tabled by Sherriff won the backing of Eurosceptics keen to assert Britain’s power to set its own tax rates. Osborne had originally pledged to remove the tampon tax in November 2015, but was unable to do so due to regulations applied by the European Commission that prevented member states from doing so.

The government said on Friday that it is committed to continuing the fund until EU rules allow a zero rate of VAT to be applied to women’s sanitary products and that a decision will be made on the future of the Fund once this has been achieved.

You can already hear the screams of this withdrawal of vital funding once the original justification vanishes, can’t you?

Eh? How does this work?

Natasha Lamb, a managing director at investor Arjuna Capital, is using her firm’s position as a shareholder at American Express, Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan, MasterCard, and Wells Fargo to pressure the firms to disclose how female employees’ pay stacks up against the men’s.
“We see gender pay equity as one of the structural barriers that’s keeping women from moving up the corporate ladder into positions of leadership,” she said.

If women are paid less then why would that limit, rather than promote, their progress up the management ladder?

I would never have guessed this at all

Children are healthier and more likely to grow up with a good education and get a good job if their biological father lives with them, research reveals.
But when a stepfather moves into a family home there are no benefits for the children, the pioneering study of British families found.

There is absolutely nothing at all in the behaviour of other animals, nor in any theory of genetics, inheritance or anything else which can explain this shocking result.

Is there?