This week the news (Guardian, Telegraph, Daily Mail 1, Daily Mail 2) has been grim for men as Mumsnet, the website for metropolitan elite middle class 'yummy mummy' brigade, ran an opinion poll this week that showed how the party's were faring on the so-called "women's vote".
The Conservatives trail by 13 points among female voters (three times higher than among men)
Women nevertheless prefer Cameron (43%) to Miliband (34%)
Six out of 10 women who backed the Lib Dems in 2010 are no longer supporters
Fewer than half polled believe any of the three main party leaders are interested in women's concerns
So what does this mean - well of course it means more discrimination against men.
The natural reaction for any politician will be to attract votes where they are weak so that means more female-friendly policies. In a true age of equality that should not matter per se as for example, family friendly policies are also of benefit to fathers and sons.
However, we are not in an era of equality and modern day feminists as we know are not interested in equality, they want supremacy. Modern day feminists are not modern day women - however, they pretend they are and they are the ones who are the metropolitan elite who dominate our public bodies, pressure groups and have the ear of the politicians.
So their reaction will not be family-friendly policies but more misandry. More women-only shortlists/quotas in politics, more quotas on boardrooms, more women-only leadership/training courses etc, more funding for female health problems (not a problem per se but where is the investment in men's health).
In addition, it means none of the areas where men suffer inequality (health, domestic abuse, depression, family law, education, employment) will be touched. This is despite the fact that women on the whole like men so want them to succeed and not face inequality either - especially women with sons etc. You can see how this translates when the Home Secretary cannot bring herself to say that men are victims of domestic abuse too.
The Munset poll therefore will lead to more special treatment for women and the failure of men's inequality issues to be focussed upon. Plus of course probably a dose of traditional men bashing "all men are bastards" schtick with male politicians flogging themselves like Opus Dei converts.
The Mumsnet poll is a disaster for men and boys. They will be punished because not enough women are supporting David Cameron.
There has been much hoo-haa today about the issue of burkas and veils and the human/religious rights versus security and female oppression aspects.
Home Office Minister Jeremy Browne MP (Lib Dem) opened the issue up. Sarah Wollaston MP (Conservative) who now seems to be the new feminist flag waver for the Conservatives chipped in with: "Feminists should be allowed to say that they find the niqab deeply offensive without being accused of being bigoted or islamophobic."
What is striking of course is the lack of debate on male circumcision when the issue and principles are the same. This is a breach of children's human rights as they have no say in it and also is a sign of male oppression if they have no choice.
Why are there no politicians speaking out about how men/boys are oppressed with having bits of them cut off for religious reasons?
Is it because they are scared of the Jewish/Muslim lobby, is it because it affects men so no one is bothered and they are not worthy of human rights.
If people state that veils/burkas are a sign of female oppression and have no place in the UK in 2013, then the same arguments apply to circumcision. Why don't Clegg, Browne and Wollaston talk about that?
Posted by Skimmington
Update (17 Sep 2013): An article from Ally Fogg on circumcision and chief Lib Dem man-hater (my words not his) Featherstone!
I am really sorry for the lack of posts lately - work is crazy and remember to look at the sites on the left for the latest news (certainly Peter Lloyd's has caught the eye lately on the sad torment that Michael Le Vell endured and the politically correct driven case by the CPS). If he sues the CPS he should give the money to FASO!
One issue in recent weeks that shows the double standards in British life which by default shows the discrimination and automatic negative assumptions that men face is the recent issue over the requests to abort two children because they were the wrong sex. The Telegraph has an overview of articles following the CPS decision not to prosecute the two doctors who had considered the abortions based on gender.
The two issues here are that it seems to have gone unnoticed that one of the doctors was female (Dr Prabha Sivaraman) and also that the Telegraph chose in their story to use girls as the alleged babies to be aborted - it would have been better/equal to see what would happen if it was one boy and one girl then we could see any difference to the reactions especially as the Telegraph know it happens to boys and girls. Perhaps they felt if it was to be boys to be aborted it would be met with indifference from the world of the politically correct.
The comments from Helen Wollaston MP shows the hypocrisy of the situation: "I'm not anti-abortion, but selective abortion of girls harms women & reinforces misogynist attitudes. Why isn't that issue public interest?" One of the doctors who seemed content to carry out the abortions was a women so how can that be misogyny!
This is typical of the intellectual torture that the politically correct go through when the person found guilty of a crime against one their politically correct victims groups turns to be a member of a victim group themselves. It is why for years they turned a bling eye to forced marriage and even now they focus only on the role of the men not the women in the household.
It is much the same in the circumcision/FGM debate. When this nurse killed a baby (more here and here) when she circumcised him based on religion and not medical grounds. It seemed the nurse was above public criticism because she was a woman. If a male doctor had a killed a girl he was circumcising, it would be front page!