The Rights Of Man

WHAT PARENT WOULD SEND THEIR SON TO ACLE HIGH SCHOOL?

So many big issues to write about, so little time, but just in case anyone missed this I couldn't let this go.

Headteacher Tim Phillips, at Acle High School in Great Yarmouth decided that none of the boys were good enough to fill the Head Boy or Deputy Head Boy positions so put girls in those places. It means that the positions allocated to Head Boys/Girls and the Deputy Head positions are all filled by girls.

As can be seen by the comments in the Daily Mail and also in the piece itself, there is much disdain for this position.

Obviously Tim Phillips thinks it is OK to mock boys (all the boys at this school will be a laughing stock) based on his own "judgement" and thinks there is nothing wrong in doing so. No wonder boys lose confidence in their ability when they mocked and undermined in such a way. The man obviously thinks he is some sort of tough guy when really his decision just damages people. No boy at that school will have any respect for him, bet they can't wait to leave school.

The key issue is firstly, no parent with a son in their right mind would send him to that school if he remains headteacher. He thinks they are rubbish and is happy to publicly say so.

Secondly, would Phillips ever think of doing the same the other way 'round. That is, if no girls were good enough in his laughable mind, would he put four boys into these positions? Of course not and of course if he did, the Equalities Commission, the Fawcett Society and Guardian/BBC would be all over him.

So angry...

Posted by Skimmington

He has tried to backtrack but still does not accept his wrong (Eastern Daily Press) 

NSPCC ADVERT "EMILY'S CALL" BETRAYS FATHERS, GIRLS AND THEIR OWN CHILDLINE FACTS

Before reading further, please watch this new NSPCC advert (courtesy of You tube) called Emily's Call and produced by RAPP.

A common theme in the gender and sexual discrimination that men face in the UK is the stereotyping they face in the media and especially in marketing and advertising (Pink and MFI and explained in a cracking Daily Mail column).

Not just in the "men are stupid, throw rocks at them" type of way but in the way that myths are perpetuated and become the accepted truth (if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth) even if the facts are different.

So what is wrong with the NSPCC advert?

Simple.

Last year the NSPCC published research (covered on the site a year ago) that showed that girls who had rung its Childline had said they were more likely to be a victim of physical abuse from their mothers than their fathers. In fact, girls said that 37% of perpetrators were mothers and 25% fathers.

Or another way, for every five calls from girls about physical abuse, three said they had been physically abused by their mother and two by their father.

The report  said (page 10) "it can therefore be concluded that the children who call the Childline are most commonly phycially abused by a parent of the same gender."

To repeat, the NSPCC's own figures show that a girl is more likely to be physically abused by her mother than by her father.

But does the advert leave you with that impression? Of course not.

If the NSPCC advert was to more accurately portray a typical telephone call from a physically abused girl called Emily or portray the more likely scenario, the advert would be based on a call saying it was her mother that was hitting her.

But that wouldn't tug on the emotional heart strings as the NSPCC campaign wants to create maximum stress so it can raise more money. It would also go against the stereotypes and myths that society has about men and fathers and it is easier and less controversial (even if factually inaccurate) for the NSPCC to play along with that rather than worry about its own facts and experience (the NSPCC were probably worried about the Fawcett Society ranting to them as well).

The NSPCC is not concerned about wrongly portraying fathers, demonising men and reinforcing a stereotype/myth that its own figures have shown to be wrong. It is not interested in the truth.

In the war against men and the need to raise money, who cares about running hypocritical, misleading advertising campaigns. The NSPCC hypocrites certainly don't. It lets the poor girls who call down as well as it misleads people into thinking that fathers are more likely to commit physical abuse on them when its wrong.

Complaints about the advertisement should be made to the Advertising Standards Authority as the advert is misleading.

We look forward to them running a reciprocal though equally factually wrong advert called "Edward's call" about a boy being physically abused by his mother.Thought not.

Posted by Skimmington

RAPE ANONYMITY U-TURN CONFIRMED

Just as we feared, the Coalition Government has chickened out of giving equal justice to rape defendents.

Howled down by Marxist feminists, it has run away scared leaving men who are falsely accused of rape to be torn to shreds by the media and have their lives ruined.

Can Caroline Flint, Yvette Cooper, Harriet Harman, Fiona Mactaggart, the Fawcett Society, Women's Aid and all the others look Grant Bowers in the eye and say that he is just collateral damage and its just hard luck.

His interview on BBC 1 Newsbeat is a reminder of the damage this defeat for equality will continue to have for generations to come.   

Coverage - BBC, The Guardian.

CANCER RESEARCH UK IN SEXISM COVER UP

Previously this blog covered Cancer Research's sexist Race for Life fund-raising event exposing why such discrimination is so wrong. As esteemed author Brian Clegg stated so eloquently  when discussing the subjects: "just because it's for a good cause doesn't justify discrimination".

Dissatisfaction with the antics of Cancer Research UK is becoming increasing widespread, a quick search on Google shows just how many people are concerned about their sex discrimination against men. Protest videos are even to be found on Youtube and it appears that all this pressure is finally starting to have an effect.

Firstly it has emerged that CRUK are now attempting to hide the inherently sexist nature of Race for Life. For example their recent press adverts now neglect to mention that men are barred from participating in the event. Luckily there are laws against misleading adverting such as this, and I can exclusively reveal that veteran men's rights campaigner John Taylor (with a little help from this blog) successfully forced the organisation to stop producing misleading adverts via the Adverting Standards Authority. If readers of the blog could keep an eye on future Race for Life publicity for any misleading information I'm sure John would appreciate it.

A second change in the strategy of Cancer Research UK seems to be their attempt to censor information about Race for Life sexism from the internet. The Wikipedia article on the subject previously gave an excellent and balanced summary of the issue and the history of Race for Life. However, recent unnamed edits removed information such as how the event was initially only concerned with female cancers and how CRUK responded to criticisms of sexism. It has now become apparent that these edits were made from CRUK's own offices and rather ironically, they even removed links to their own press release about how men have a "significantly greater" risk of cancer and higher mortality rates!

It's often claimed the organisation neglects men, but to go so far as deleting such mentions of men's suffering is almost beyond belief and such edits are a clear breach of Wikipedia rules on Conflicts of Interest. CRUK's misleading adverting could possibly have been considered to be an oversight, but the Wikipedia censorship places the issue in a whole new light.

We place a great deal of importance on fairness and honesty on this blog so it should be noted that CRUK is far from the only UK cancer or health organisation giving vastly disproportionate attention to women. The Macmillian cancer charity has been equally guilty in neglecting prostate cancer though I'm not aware of any obvious or systematic discrimination in terms of banning men from most fund-raising activities.

As a charity relying on people's generous donations and goodwill, CRUK has a duty to be open and honest about what it does. These donations fund the misleading adverts and the salaries of the CRUK employee's censoring Wikipedia. Surely it would be much cheaper and easier (not to mention fairer) to have fund-raising events open to everyone instead of banning every single male in the country from most event? There would certainly be less of a need for a cover up. Either way, it's becoming apparent that pressure on the charity is barring fruit and one has to wonder for how much longer their position can remain tenable.

by John Kimble

MEN'S HOUR - SECOND EDITION

I know there has been lots of cracking debate on the first edition and some of us were disappointed.

However, I felt tonight was far far better especially as it did tackle some real issues and mixed it with some humour. The issue on being overweight and also the mental health needs of soliders was spot on. The presenter Tim Samuels vastly improved and lets hope this continues.

7 to 8 out of 10.

COALITION GOVERNMENT LOOK LIKE CHICKENING OUT OVER RAPE ANONYMITY

Just as many on this site worried about, the Sunday Telegraph reports that there will be no legislation on anonymity up and until charge (which is worthless anyway) let alone until conviction. They are looking at some sort of fudge involving a "Gentlemen's agreement" for newspapers and bloggers not to report names until charge. Pathetic.

Looks like they have chosen to cower in the corner against the onslaught of the Marxist feminists who want men to be secondbest and not equal. Instead of standing up for equal justice, they have run away. This was the first skirmish between the Government and the Marxist feminists and the Marxist feminists have won.

Their victorymeans there is little hope for male equality in the UK, not just because of the decision but because the Coalition Government bottled it. They are chicken.

Posted by Skimmington

REMEMBER TO VOTE

Just a week to go to vote for this blog in the total politics poll.

MEN'S HOUR REVIEW

Having flagged up and now listened to Men's Hour, I would give it 4/10.

The show was self deprecating which can be OK if done properly but kept using Women's Hour and women as a reference point (even having the presenter of Women's Hour) which it should not have done. It just did not take it itself serious enough.

Also the presenter did not have enough energy. It also didn't really tackle enough topic and issues that men face. It had former Home Secretary Alan Johnson on and his life story was interesting but he needed to be asked about men's issues and how men's issue were not taken seriously by Government.

It is a missed opportunity but maybe it will improve.

Comments please.

Posted by Skimmington

Other reviews - BBC, Independent, Telegraph, The Guardian

A moan from Jan Moir (Daily Mail) before

UPDATE ON DEFEATING THE BAN ON MEN SWIMMING

One of the most popular posts recently was prompted by Mr C who had been barred from going to Sale Liesure Centre becuase he was a man.

John Wallace also faced the same situation and he has kindly sent in how he tackled the problem, which is available here Download Women Only Swimming Sessions.

Posted by Skimmington

RAPE ANONYMITY: ANOTHER FOUR DESTROYED MEN

This site commented some time ago before the issue of giving anonymity was raised by the Coalition Government that there seemed to be an epidemic of false accusations of rape against men. An issue that can be seen by the constant stories that keep flowing of women being prosecuted for it.

Another one today, this time Leyla Ibrahim was sent to prison for three years for it even going to the trouble of ripping her own clothes (she'll serve 18 months at most).

Now I know that Caroline Flint MP, Harriet Harman MP, Fiona MacTaggart MP, Maria Eagle MP, Louise Bagshawe MP, the Fawcett Society, Women's Aid and all those others who do not believe in equality of justice won't read it or care but this line is simply devastating from the BBC report :

'One man described his ordeal in detention as "torture" while another attempted self harm, the court heard.'  Four men in total were questioned.

Wrose, the Daily Mail reported:

"Another said he was 'devastated' by the harrowing experience and had been unable to eat or sleep, with one suspect complaining: 'We were treated like s*** and not a stint of an apology.'

"A senior police source said the four were still 'really struggling', adding: 'One of them has even had to move out of the area."

Part of the reason they were devastated in such a way is not just is not just because they were accused, it is because they would be named and that the mud would stick forever and their lives ruined.

To those who do not believe the law should be changed, these men are just collateral damage. And in a brilliant article by the False Rape Society, there is a clear reason why. It is supposedly payback time.

Posted by Skimmington

Note: Try not to get too angry when you read Barbara Ellen's comments (2nd story) on the anonymity issue in the Guardian.