The Rights Of Man

MEDIA RAISE THE ISSUE OF WHO IS THE SECOND SEX AND CHALLENGE STEREOTYPES ON ABUSE

The media blow hot and cold on male issues but whenever they are raised they are most welcome. It is always a pity that no politicians, beyond Iain Duncan Smith MP who has raised the issue of boys education, fatherlessness and gangs, seem to care about the plight of men and boys in society.

Two articles have appeared in the past few days raising some fundamental questions and also challenging stereotypes.

The first was written by Eleanor Mills in The Times which in a wide ranging and thorough article which looks at whether men have become the Second Sex, a term used on this site to describe the situation men now face (here). Of course, there should be no first or second when it comes to gender as we are human first, last and always, but it is a useful term to show how far men are discriminated against in the UK.

The second is really shocking and was in yesterday's Daily Mail, written by Barbara Davies. It tells the story of a man who as a boy was abused by his foster mother. It is based around the Childline figures which showed that boys were more likely to be abused by a woman than a man, which goes against all known stereotypes and societal knee-jerk thinking.

These two articles both highlight the plight of men, an issue which has been hidden away for too long. It is welcome that the British media in some quarters publish them. If only politicians, members of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the Fawcett Society and others would take notice of them.

EQUALITIES COMMISSION GUIDANCE DARES NOT ADVOCATE SERVICES FOR MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

In guidance published last month to public authorities about interpreting equalities legislation and local service provision, much of the guidance used the example of domestic violence.

This is clearly based on a decision made by Dorset Council on closing a female refuge so they can pay for a service for men and women. A decision that should not have happened because it isn't right to take services away from female victims but more funding for male victims should be found.

The guidance reiterates throughout that there is no problem in funding services based on gender groups if there is need. It states that far more women suffer from domestic abuse than men, defining the term 'far more' is difficult but the last split based on Home Office figures was 60%/65% female 40%/35% male. Not usure that constitutes far more.

However, the issue raised is that the document throughout talks about the need for services for female victims and that local authorities and public bodies should ensure they have such services but purposely does not utter the words "you must also ensure you provide domestic violence services for male victims."

There is a reference (page 3) that the legislation allows services for female victims "separate from services for male victims".

But what services are there for male victims within local council's - precious little, if any.

And when it says that there is a need for more services for female victims, why doesn't it simply also state "But you must ensure male victims within your community are catered for."

Why are the needs of male victims not mentioned by the Equalities Commission?

MEN-ONLY BOARDS ARE A NIGHTMARE EVEN IF THEY ARE THERE ON MERIT

Picture the scenario, some young lads from a mixture of ethnic backgrounds and all in single parent households living on a council estate in Camberwell and Peckham in South London. They work hard at school, excel in Maths, go onto university and after graduating get back together and set up a hedge fund or work their way up through an investment bank and eventually all sit to together on the Board.

Picture another scenario, some young girls from well off backgrounds go to the all-girl public school, St Paul's, in Fulham. Again, all do well, go to university, set up their own finance company in The City or work their way up an investment bank and eventually all sit together on the Board.

According to Harriet Harman and her views on men and the City, the former scenario is a "nightmare", yet, the latter is not.

On Tuesday, as part of Parliament's and Equalities Commission's witch-hunt on the City and men in general, Harman declared to the Treasury Select Committee that men-only boards were a nightmare.

This of course is all part of the current Government's anti-male agenda where anything can be said against men and where there are more men in a position than women that this is due to sexism and there is no need to prove this, because if the politically correct say its true, it has to be true. So few of course, stand up to it (of course, if you do, then according to the Coalition on Men & Boys, you are anti-equality and are ignorant).

In addition, she said that the Government would withhold Government contracts for City or financial organisations if they did not have enough women on the Board and she also did rule out quotas (a scenario in Norway where all Boards must have 40% women - so much for meritocracy in Scandinavia)

This witch-hunt is on top of the Equalities Bill which should finish going through Parliament in the next month which is the most anti-male piece of legislation probably ever entered into Statute.

The issue is simply that no longer will be people be judged on their merits or talents but on their gender. The latter is all that counts. It is sexist by its very nature as gender becomes the dominant factor rather than the individual. It is the end of liberalism in the UK.

Furthermore, there will be sexism at the individual level because if one single man who is more talented, adds more value and has more to offer than a woman both in competition for a place on the Board and she is chosen. That man, and his wife/girlfriend/male partner/sister/daughter and mother have been sexually discriminated against.

Harman and her acolytes forget, men and women do not live in isolation. If you discriminate against a man then you discriminate against the female members of his family.

  

Google News Coverage plus excellent Daily Mail article

MALE EMPLOYMENT CONTINUES TO FALL - EXPOSING HARMAN AGAIN

Do you remember early this year when (not for the first time) Ms Harman was caught out peddling myths about men and the recession? Well here are some more figures to prove it.

Figures released by the Office of National Statistics yesterday show that one in six homes are now without someone of working age in employment. Delving into statistics on page 24, it can be seen that the employment rate of married/cohabitating men has fallen from 91.0% (April to June 08) to 88.8% (April to June 09) whilst the same figures for married/cohabitating women has only fallen from 71.7% to 70.7% over the same period.

Let's hope that those men and women who have lost their jobs find work soon.

If a married/cohabitating men loses his job, his wife/partner is also suffering (plus any children). This is always important to remember because the anti-male crusaders would have you believe that male suffering only affects men so that's why men do not matter. They forget that women are as equally affected.

Google News Coverage

MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ON BBC'S WOMEN'S HOUR

On Thursday, there was a debate on Radio 4's Women's Hour about male victims of domestic violence. Ian McNicholl was on as was Mark Brooks from the ManKind Initiative.

EQUALITY BILL CONSULTATION DATES

For anyone interested (we all should be!) in the travails of the Equalities Bill, the Government's Equalities Office has announced some dates for open consultation meeting.

Details available here.

Hattip - John Kimble

STORIES ROUND-UP

As is now becoming increasingly common, there is such a volume of stories and issues to cover it is difficult to keep up. However, please find below links to issues stories of interest that have not been covered in the last six or so weeks:-

False Accusations

There has been a deluge of false accusation coverage in the newspapers, it is concerning because the power of the false allegation is increasing all the time, to the detriment of the men falsely accused and of course, the women who are genuinely attacked:-

Basildon, Essex

Shropshire

Aberdeen

Durham

Berkshire

Thurrock, Essex

Jarrow, Durham

Advertising

Why men is ads are dumb?

British Men Make Best Husbands

Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph

Have You Turned Your Man Into a Hermaphrodite?

Judith Woods

Men Held for Playing Football With His Children

Daily Mail

President Obama

His betrayal of the working class male

TEENAGER CALLS FOR A MINISTER FOR MEN

Reece Wilkes, a teenager from North Yorkshire, has written to a number of politicians including Lords and Lady's asking for a Minister for Men, especially as there now has been a Minister for Women for 12 years.

His letter is available Download A Minister for Men ( For The Rights of Man)

It has been covered by his local newspaper, the Northern Echo.

"TRAITOROUS" WOMEN PREFER MALE BOSSES

When Ms Harman launched her tirade  against male bosses last week, the Journal of Financial Economics published research (which you have to pay for unfortunately) by Daniel Ferreira, of the London School of Economics with Renee Adams of the University of Queensland that showed that women in boardrooms can wreck a company.

The study of 2,000 boards and as reported in the Daily Mail said that "Employing more women in the boardroom can wreak havoc on the financial performance of companies, fresh research suggests. Two academics found that female directors were more likely to 'meddle' with boards and get rid of male chief executives who are not up to the job. However, their more ruthless approach could produce unexpected results and be 'bad for a company's coffers.' "

Essentially the research was saying that women make a good impact in struggling companies but can damage those which are performing.

As readers of the site know, this is not an anti-women site, but the research is certainly an antidote to the "all men bad, all women good" approach by Harriet Harman and others like the Equalities Commission and the Fawcett Society. 

Full coverage at Google News with the Times article being a highlight.

However, the most striking research to certainly nail the lie that male bosses are worse than female bosses is from OnePoll. Their research showed that women prefer working for male bosses!

Their research showed that 2/3rds of women prefer male bosses because they are better managers and less prone to moods like women. Also they found female bosses felt threatened by other women at work.

When I heard the story today I could hear the wailing and tears from the Fawcett Society and Harman Towers at the traitorous women for suggesting they prefer male bosses.  

Seriously though, these two pieces of research are another nail in coffin of the myth that Harman and others have been peddling.

Coverage - Daily Mail

 

BANK HOLIDAY FOR WORKERS MEMORIAL DAY - 95% OF UK FATALITIES ARE MEN

When Yvette Cooper MP, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions produced, out of the blue,  a consultation suggesting that there should be a bank holiday for people who died at work on the internationally recognised Workers Memorial Day, there was a crucial issue missing.

Having examined the Health and Safety Executive's latest figures for fatalities at work (180 in 07/08) and discounting the fact that 66 were members of the public (that is, they died at a workplace but not whilst they were working at their workplace) its calculated that 110 fatalities were male and 4 female. Without going through figures again (may go boss-eyed), that makes the figures 95-96% male or in laymen's terms for every 20 workplace fatalities, 19 are men and 1 is a women.

Without wanting to be paranoid, why did the Secretary of State not mention the gender breakdown. I ma sure she would have done if it was the other way around.

Also it brings into question again all the nonsense about the gender pay gap. Part of the reason why men earn more money (not more when doing the same jobs as a woman) is because they carry out more dangerous work. Nearly all of the deaths are related to work in agriculture, manufacturing or construction where men predominate. Because of the dangerous work these men do, there is a premium vis a vis their salaries which needs to be taken into account on any debate on the gender pay gap. You never hear the Equalities Commission, Harriet Harman and the Fawcett Society talk about that or putting that into context.

Media Coverage - Google News (the general consensus was negative especially as if there was another bank holiday, it should rightly be on Armistice Day)