The Rights Of Man

NEWS UPDATE

A list of recent articles and thanks again to those who have emailed them in:

Abused to the Accused website

Daily Mail - Women are happier and less stressed than overworked men (Graham Smith)

Daily Mail - Britain's generations of mummies' boys and daddies' girls (Martin Robinson) - The article says "Not wanting to settle down or marry is the other main cause, especially among men"- you can thank men-hating Cafcass and the biased family courts for that.

Daily Mail - NHS remove 'Dad' from pregnancy handbook (Sophie Borland)

The Independent - The future's not Orange (Robert Dex) - The future should look bleak for this 'celebrated'  women-only award but we all know there will be queues of organisations wanting to pick this up.

BBC Radio 5 - Men's Hour is back on

Spotify - Violence, Terror, Coercion, LOL - Idiots not taking the Coronation Street story seriously and well done to ManKind Initiative for having their phone number on at the end of the programme.

New Statesman - Don't jusge a book by its press: Second Sexism (Ally Fogg) - Ally Fogg is always worth reading and the comments are a 'delight' to read!

New Statesman - Why is male unemployment not an issue? (Alex Hern)

Irish Health - Male circumsicion is an assault: The campaign is growing

Posted by Skimmington

VOLUNTEERS WANTED BUT NOT IF YOU WANT TO VOLUNTEER TO HELP A MEN'S CHARITY

There are a number of ways that men and boys are discriminated against  - ranging from direct discrimination (often dressed up as positive discrimination for women and girls) which is overt or the most covert form of sexism - discrimination by omission. This is where men and boys and/or the issues they face are 'left out'.

This can be on purpose such as where the Equalities and Human Rights Commission purposely forget inequality for men and boys also falls under their remit or where there is another form of institutional discrimination where men and boys are literally forgotten about. This is still discrimination of course and often it is difficult to figure out what form each case of 'discrimination by ommission' is.

Anyhow, here is another example.

When the coalition government was formed - one of their key overarching strategies was the Big Society. There has been much argument as to what that is but essentially it is about civil society and people volunteering.

Now if I was a man or woman wanting to volunteer for a charity that supports men and/or boys such as one of improving literacy, or a dad's group or one helping men with depression or cancer I might go to the national volunteering website which allows you to search for volunteering opportunities near to where you live.

I would therefore go to Do It, run by Youthnet, and describes itself as "the UK's premier website for volunteering and giving time, offering a searchable database of more than a million opportunities to volunteer."  Youthnet has also been awarded a big grant to use social media more. 

So there am I on the Do It website and I go to the subject drop-down menu and yes I can see 'women' but where is the drop down menu for 'men'?

Er, there isn't one.

So while you may look at youth for any boy's charities, and you may look under gay or BME which would feature some male or boys charities, 'men' itself is not included but 'women' is.

It is just another example of thr everyday discrimination that men and boys face. If you want to volunteer to help a men's group unless it is for a group for gay men, BME men or boys (by using 'youth') there is not a menu for you, but if you want to volunteer for a women's group there is a menu for you. That's equality for you in 2012.

Posted by Skimmington  

HOW THE GOVERNMENT PURPOSELY IGNORES MEN IN THE NAME OF EQUALITY

If ever you wanted proof that the government does not believe equality applies to men, then please read the progress report from the governement on its prgoress on equality. It never mentions men in an overall sense once. Seriously, not once.

Even in key areas where it could have done - it chooses not to.

Early years, education and social mobility: Not a word on the underperformance (and here) of boys at school and the lack of male primary school teachers. Some welcome support for Afro-Caribbean boys is all there is.

Fair and Flexible Labour: No mention that men are more likely to be unemployed than women. All there is, is a list of barriers and discriminatory measures to stop men from being managers and entrepreneurs on a level playing field with women.

Changing Culture and attitudes: "We have also committed £28 million of funding for specialist VAWG services, a further £10.5 million over next three years for new rape support centres and £900,000 for domestic violence helplines until 2015." Hardly any of this to men (not that anyone wants money taken from women in this situation). Some recognition of gay men of course welcome.

It all proves once again, that the government does not believe equality applies to men.

Posted by Skimmington

WHO SHOULD BE THE NEXT CHAIR OF THE EQUALITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION?

Thanks to 'Groan' for sending this through as the Cabinet Office is advertising for the above position.

Obviously, there is a big hint as to what the gender of the person will be - "Accountable to the Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities."

This selection process will be worthy of Freedom of Information requests to get to the bottom of how they will eliminate men from the shortlist let alone from getting it.

But putting that aside, who do you think should apply?

Posted by Skimmington

JOHN TAYLOR'S LETTER TO TESCO ABOUT THE RACE FOR LIFE

P. Clark Esq. CEO Tesco Ltd. Tesco House, Delamare Road, Chestnut, Hertfordshire EN8 8SL                  ………………………………..............................................

 R.C Taylor Esq., Executive Director, Fund Raising and Supporter Marketing, Cancer Research UK.,  Angel Buildings,407 St John Street, LONDON, EC1V 4AD

………………

Monday, 21 May 2012

 Recorded Delivery

 

OPEN IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Every little helps -Together we will beat cancer

 

Every inhabitant of the UK should be extremely proud and supportive of  Cancer Support UK’s objectives, also Tesco’s very generous support - particularly for the female only Race for Life - but what is the reality?

 Alas, it saddens me to state my experience since the death of my eldest daughter, to cancer, in 2001, is that many males & females are extremely dismayed Race for Life only allows (small boys) to participate until age 11...This causes me to ask: what transpires when those boys are aged over 12  - against the background of the rules being changed recently - following a statement by a small boy, also because of the demands of a mother - Claire Parker ?

 Please see appended details re LITTLE LEGS FOR LIFE. A young lad named Luke from Burhill School asked his mummy why he couldn’t run too - LITTLE LEGS FOR LIFE then became the reality.  

 Then, in Derbyshire Times, of 13^th April. The news is revealed re Claire Parker getting Cancer Research UK to change the rules to allow boys to participate  under 11 years of age. 

Further, in THIRD Sector, the report indicates that 64,000 fewer participated in Race for Life.  

Previously, Gloria Hunningford  in a video on You Tube was pleading for more participants http://bit.ly/KRmrjV

 Then, on BBC News : CRUK’s Natasha Hill was again stressing Race for Life participants were down… http://bbc.in/KpxlJ8          

Against that background I stress, I commend all the female participants in Race for Life, for the millions raised over the years but, alas, sadly, the reality is any of those females could be afflicted, or die, from cancer - I sincerely hope not…

 …But, in those terrible circumstances I must ask, surely, CRUK & TESCO should agree that all males : “the Grandfathers, Fathers, Uncles, Brothers, Sons, Nephews and male friends of the family should be allowed to participate in Race for Life, in every venue, to raise funds in memory of their deceased female relatives ”… I trust you agree?

 Race for Life could / should follow the example of e.g. The London Marathon and Great North Run etc - in which males and females participate together with tremendous success… Race for Life could / should be optional 5 or 10k and “non-competitive”. I sincerely hope you  agree???

 Surely, CRUK will not be heartless and tell all those small boys aged under (11) eleven - they cannot participate when aged (12) twelve and older ?

 I look forward, hopefully, for your considered response confirming all males will be allowed to participate in Race for Life…Your failure to do so will, sadly, leave me no other alternative but to encourage others not to support Cancer Research UK. There are, as you will be aware, many other cancer charities to support… I cannot support a charity that discriminates against half the population - including male customers of Tesco…

Further, your failure  will make a mockery of the statement:

 Every little helps -Together we will beat cancer

 >>> When half the population is excluded from Race for Life <<<

 Yours sincerely,

John Taylor

NEWS UPDATE

A few recent ones and thank you to those who have sent them in.

The Guardian - The Second Sexism is just victim-envy (Suzanne Moore)

Daily Mail - Who cares if men are stuck in the glass cellar (Liz Jones)

Daily Telegraph - Number of men working part-time dopubles as they cannot find full-time work (TUC): Full TUC report. The TUC to me, is severely compromised and inconsistent in talking about this issue as it is constantly banging on about women's rights. Only the day before it issued this report, it said the Equalities Commission had to equality proof the government's policies on behalf of women - which what it really mean was women needed special treatment over men.

You Tube - James Williams' interview with Dr Peter Ball of Norm-UK

You Tube -  VW pro-father ad

New Statesmen - The Men's Rights Zeitgeist (Rhiannon and Holly)

Men;s Network - National conference early bird tickets on sale

Daily Mail - Tasered twice and stabbed husband 17 times (Paul Bentley): What are the odds that if the genders were revered, the husband would go to prison?

The Observer - Cannes 2012, Why no female directors (Vanessa Thorpe): This is a classic case of victimhood without evidence. Where is the evidence that a film directed by a women should be in the top 22 list but is not because of discrimination. There is no evidence so to claim discrimination is just another request for special treatment and the end of equality.

Posted by Skimmington

FRENCH SET THE PRECEDENT FOR A MINISTER FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS IN BRITAIN

It is bad enough in the UK to have a Minister for Women since 1997 (no Minister for Men) along with a Government Equalities Department and an Equality and Human Rights Commission all part of an institutional apparatus to demand for extra treatment and rights for women, while purposely ignoring issues that affect men and boys.

A double whammy of discrimination against men under the auspice of equality topped up with discrimination by omission.

In France, though the new government has gone one step further. President Hollande has appointed a Ministry for Women Right's and even then as the Guardian explains many do not think it is enough.

While this position is basically the same as the Minister for Women, there are two clear differences. Firstly, the Minister for Women (Theresa May) is also the Home Secretary so it is not an exclusive role unlike in France. Secondly, while a Minister for Women will by its nature be a Minister for Women's Rights it is not so explicit and proactive as in France.

In problem it is bad enough that men are ignored and there is a constant stream of pro-women and anti-men rules and publicity, this is a step further.

The problem though is that it sets the precedent and therefore as with all these issues once you take an inch, taking a mile becomes so much easier.

With the current and continuing campaign on issues such as boardroom quotas, the lie becoming the truth around the pay gap and stopping women from going to prison - all now becoming mainstreamed, it is no longer such a leap for the Minister for Women to become the Minister for Women's Rights - rights which are really rights for special treatment rather than rights for equality.

The men of France are doomed, we're next.

Posted by Skimmington

MOBILE PHONE COMPANIES ARE CENSORING AND DEFAMING MEN'S RIGHTS SITES

Recently a number of commenters here suggested mobile phone companies in the UK were blocking some of the best men's rights sites so I've taken the time to investigate this issue further.

I appreciate that sites supporting men's equality sometimes don't mince their words, but the peaceful, pro-equality message of the sites campaigning for civil rights of the most disadvantaged people in our society is crystal clear and it's rare to ever see any inappropriate views and certainly nothing worthy of blocking (other than quotes of radical feminists of course).

I discovered that O2, one of the largest mobile communications providers in the UK has a "url checker" allowing anyone to see their blocking policy for a particular site. Essentially they have 3 levels of classification a total block, a "default block" (whereby people can only access a site if you request all censorship be turned off) and then a parental block.

I've checked a number of perfectly innocent men's rights sites, and somehow the company have decided to not only censor them by default, they even go as far as classifying them as "hate sites". Victims of these smears include the excellent antimisandry.com, angryharry.com and theantifeminist.com Furthermore I am yet to find a single misandrist site blocked in any form despite their content clearly being much easier to classify as sexist and hateful. Even many of your average Mumsnet or Guardian posts/articles are far worse than anything you'd find at any of the above sites as are the utterances of your average "equality" minister. There are indications that T-mobile have the same polices as O2 and I personally use that comapny so tried all teh above sites on my phone. All 3 attempts had the sites blocked saying i needed to be over 18 to access them. Again, I was unable to achieve such a message when accessing any radical feminist hate sites.

We need to give these companies the benefit of the doubt for now and hope this is a mistake. For now I'd ask that people check as many sites as possible and email them to complain about their censorship. A third party campaign against mobile censorship has a reporting facility here and the open rights groups also address the issue.

Even the writers over at Biased BBC have also been victim of this censorship so there appears to be a clear pattern emerging in terms of the type of thought-policing going on here.

Update - as an afterthought I also decided to check the status of this very blog on the O2 checker even though we're clearly on the moderate, professional and cautious side of the movement. To my horror and surprise even this very blog is classes as a hate site in spite of how cautious we've been in the language used in articles and in the commenting policy. Not one single post here is remotely controversial or hateful. I wrote on this issue here as I thought it was a safe place guaranteed to be free form censorship due to our policies but we've still become victims. We're blocked on t-mobile too, so that's now four of the most popular MRA sites blocked by these companies by default. This really is quite disturbing.

Further updates will be added here as more censorship and defamation is uncovered:

- O2 and T-mobile blocking: hereticalsex.blogspot.com and counterfem.blogspot.com

by John Kimble

LATEST MEN'S MATTERS

The long awaited Mens Matters radio show is back on tonight (Tuesday) at 1900 BST which is 1800 GMT/UT

 

I am at last free of political constraints. This show stars Paul Elam of Avoice for Men Radio in the USA.

Mens Matters can be rheard live on Express FM 93.7, but for most people listen on line at:

 

http://www.expressfm.com/player/

 

When it is eventually transferred over to the Listen Again section of the Express FMs website you should be able to listen at your leisure on:

 

Listen Again: http://www.expressfm.com/player/od/

 

Kind Regards

 

James Williams

 

EQUALITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION'S ASSESSMENT OF SPENDING REVIEW 2010 PROVES THEY BELIEVE EQUALITY DOES NOT INCLUDE MEN

We have all known it, but this time it is proven beyond doubt - the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (ECHR) does not believe equality means equality for men as well as for women.

Here is the proof.

Due to political pressure from a number of groups especially the Fawcett Society, the ECHR carried out a formal equality assessment of the government’s 2010 Spending Review. It says in its statement:

"Public bodies, such as HM Treasury, were legally obliged at the time of the Spending Review to demonstrate that they had fully considered the potential effects of their decisions on women, ethnic minorities and disabled people, and that any decisions with an effect on these groups could be justified."

That is not true.

Public bodies have to consider men and women when making their decisions. That is the law under the Equality Act.

Such is the knee-jerk sexism and nati0-male feeling at the Equalities and Human Rights Commission that they forget who the law applies to and feel they have no qualms about forgetting that men exist.

A classic case of sexism by ommission and institutional sexism.

This is why, although in theory the Equalities and Human Rights Commission should stand up for men and women - we know it institutionally opposes men. This is why it should be abolished because it is part of the anti-male institutional apparatus.

Perhaps, we should complain about to the Commission about its own sexism in this statement - which is in fact a breach of the very same Equalities Act that it is supposed to police.

Posted by Skimmington