The Rights Of Man

ANTI-MALE BIAS IN NEW PRISON REFORMS OVER PERKS AND PRIVILEGES

The government announced today that there would be a new strict regime for those in prison where to gain perks they have to work harder.

This is not the site to go into the why and wherefores on the policy, except...it only applies to male prisoners.

And the government says it loud and clear.

Why is it just for male prisoners and not all prisoners. Why such bias? Is it because the government do not believe in equality of justice and punishment for all prisoners.

This is a clear breach in human rights and equalities legislation and any savvy male prisoner should be straight onto their lawyer and take the government to court.

We know its been talked about and policy proposals made, and now this is another example of the reality.

Basically a man in prison for burglary (terrible by the way) would be affected but this lady would not? Equality in 2013...

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage - BBC, Guardian, Daily Mail 

MALE CIRCUMCISION BAN GATHERS PUBLIC SUPPORT BUT WHY WILL NO POLITICIAN SPEAK UP FOR EQUALITY?

When news emerged this week through the Jewish Chronicle that the majority of the public believe that banning circumcision is supported by the majority of Britons, it is clear there is now momentum on this issue - but a voice in Parliament is now needed. The poll showed:

• 38 per cent supported a ban,
• 35 per cent were against a ban, and,
• 25 per cent were undecided

I would expect that the 27 per cent was largely made up of people who had not thought about the issue or were unaware that it was an issue. According to the Jewish Chronicle Dayan Yisroel Lichtenstein, head of the Federation Beth Din, said: “It’s worrying and it shows we need to do a lot more public relations to put our case." A public relations campaign would be fantastic because the figure in favour of a ban would increase greatly so we look forward to Dayan Yisroel's campaign.

An issue (covered here, here and here) led by the excellent Norm UK and sister campaign.

As a further post by Glen Poole's Helping men website revealed that this issue is more popular than any political party.

One of the key themes now, is whether any politician will speak out against it. We know Ed Miliband will not as he agrees with it.

We know no leader of a party will, but considering there are 650 MP's, we can hope one will. Looking at the political landscape it is an issue that the secular Liberal Democrats are more likely to speak out as they are not beholden to the religious or politically correct lobby that Labour are (Female Genital Mutilation is awful but for men it is OK) plus Labour has always had support from the Muslim and Jewish communities and they will not want to lose that.

It is also interesting that the Conservatives dare not speak about it. While not getting into the debate about gay marriage, but the Conservatives are happy to take on Church of England/Catholic Christianity on the issue of gay marriage but are scared of the Muslim/Jewish communities when it comes to butchering young boys in the name of religion. Why are the Conservatives so scared or are they as politically correct as Labour?

The National Secular Socity is clear on the hypocrisy of British politicians and the General Medical Council on this issue

"In an article released last week by Frisch et al in the American journal Pediatrics stated that 'circumcision fails to meet the commonly accepted criteria for the justification of preventive medical procedures in children', that it 'constitutes a violation of the UN convention on the rights of the child' and can have 'serious long-term consequences'. The 38 authors from 18 countries included senior representatives of the German Pediatric Association, the Royal Dutch Medical Association and the British Association of Paediatric surgeons amongst others.

"It is unlawful under the Equalities Act 2010 to discriminate unfairly on the grounds of gender. The SMF calls on the GMC to amend this new policy on forced infant and child genital cutting which adversely discriminates against male children. The main body of GMC guidance places the healthcare needs, dignity and integrity of the patient as of primary concern. The tenets of a religious belief held by somebody other than the patient can never be sufficient reason to justify the forced removal of intimate parts of a patient's body."

It is untenable on the basis of equality that there is rightly an act against female genital mutilation and pressure groups and the Guardian campaign against it but there is no problem with male genital mutilation in the eyes of the politicians, government and media. Their tacit acceptance (doing nothing) and explicit acceptance (Ed Miliband) is a real sign of the anti-male and anti-equality culture we live in when it comes to men and boys.

So, when will a politicians in the UK - a Member of Parliament- speak up for equality - and call for a ban on male circumcision. As the polls show the public wold support them or are they too scared of the religious lobby (Jews and Muslims) and are not interested in equality if it means equality for men and boys.

Posted by Skimmington

NEW GOVERNMENT EQUALITIES OFFICE DIRECTOR TO CONTINUE TO IGNORE MEN

The Government Equalities Office (now transferred to the Culture Department), the taxpayer-funded civil service run organisation that believes that equality does not apply to men.

News reached TROM towers that they now have a new CEO, Rachel Clark. As you can see from the welcome message sent on, a new broom may be there but nothing will be changing - more sexism by ommission from the laughably named Government Equalities Office

Posted by Skimmington

Sent on behalf of Rachel Clark, Director

 Dear friends,

I am writing to officially introduce myself as the new Director of the Government Equalities Office. I took up the post from Jonathan Rees on Monday 4th February and would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Jonathan for the significant contribution he made to the Government's equalities agenda since starting at GEO five years ago and wish him the very best for the future. It is a tremendous honour to step into his shoes. Not only is this an area I am deeply passionate about, but I believe equality to be the cornerstone of society and central to the Government's efforts to rebuild and grow the economy.

I am delighted to be taking up this post at this exciting time for GEO as we drive forward the Government's new equality agenda, exemplified by introducing legislation to equalise the rights to marriage and to maximise the contributions of women to economic growth, through the Women's
Business Council and Think Act Report  initiative.

I look forward to hearing from you firsthand about the challenges and issues you face and progressing this important agenda.

Warmest wishes,

Rachel Clark

 

MARITAL COERCION - FOR WOMEN ONLY - ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF SEXISM AGAINST MEN

Without getting into the party politics of the issue - and of course making comments on the case itself as the trial is beginnig again, but why is marital coercion only available for wives, and not husbands. The law is "Marital Coercion pursuant to section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925."

It was a law I had never heard but then it came out that only wives can use it. The background to the law is covered here.

There is an argument to be had about whether the law should exist at all, but the fact that it does and is only for wife's is staggering in a society that claims to be about equality. What is also staggering, but never surprising, is that no one in the media has actually made the connection that this law is sexist.

Considering the level of domestic abuse/partner abuse against men which shows that one in three victims are male and 600,00 men are victims each year must mean marital coercion is an issue for husbands as well as wives.

If the law is to remain on the statute book, then it has to apply to husbands as well. Silence from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission as ever, I think there needs to be a complaint made to them.

Posted by Skimmington 

NEWS UPDATE

A few from the last week or so

BBC - What jobs are male and what are female (Mark Easton): An old one from last year that I had not seen before.

Fighting Feminism - An attack by the V Spot (Mike Buchanan)

Daily Mail - Bring on quotas for women says TUC chief (Anna Edwards)

Daily Herald - Scotland lacking in male primary school teachers (Andrew Denholm)

Evening Standard - Soho restuarant continues trend in women-only bars (Emer Martin). Unless this is a private members club then KC’z Bar general manager and entrepreneur, KC Gates, will be breach of equality laws. See pubs and clubs section here.

Daily Telegraph - Government failing female entrepresneurs (Emma Barnett): More pleas for special treatment and discrimination against men. This time from Labour MP Seema Malhotra.

Amazon - Review on The Highway Rat (Tony Iqeq)

A Voice for Men - Interview with Erin Pizzey  

Daily Mail  - Diane Abbott MP says feminism destroyed the family (Tim Shipman)

The Observer - UK's top firms more male-dominated than FTSE rivals, new data reveals (Simon Goodley)

Daily Mail - Bias in the justice system (Peter Lloyd)

Daily Mail - John Leslie says false allegations destroyed my life

Posted by Skimmington

UNIVERSITY ENTRY FIGURES SHOW STRUCTURAL AND INSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST BOYS

On Tuesday, Prostate Cancer UK highlighted the institutional discrimination men faced in the area of cancer research and today in an interview and article in The Independent, Universities Minister David Willetts said that white working class boys should be treated as an ethnic minority because so few are now going to university.  He also was interviewed on the Radio 4 Today programme and there was a follow up article in The Independent on the issue.

The final figures for last autumn's university intake in the UK show a fall in applications from men which was four times that among women. Just 30% of male school-leavers applied to university for autumn 2012, compared to 40% of female school-leavers, according to UCAS.

In his interview he quotes:

"There are now more women who enter university each year than there are men who submit a Ucas form. That marks a tremendous achievement for women, who were in a minority among undergraduates as recently as the 1990s. But it is also the culmination of a decades-old trend in our education system which seems to make it harder for boys and men to face down the obstacles in the way of learning. That is a challenge for all policymakers."

There are four issues here.

Firstly, 'the challenge for all policymakers' that Willetts talks about is a challenge that has been known for decades but the educataion establishment has been too frightened and politically correct (only girls count - boys are disposable) to do anything about it. Politicians, policymakers and the establishment like the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the Government Equalities Department are too biased against men. No point in Willetts saying there is a challenge but not offering a solution. 

Secondly, Willetts and others are still to afraid to go that extra mile and admit that the education system and Britain as a whole) are institutionally biased against boys and has been captured by ideologues who only view women and girls as important.

Thirdly, as 'Groan' pointed out in his comments on the last post, if organisations such as the Fawcett Society, Equalities and Human Rights Commission, The Guardian, the TUC etc want quotas for women in boardrooms, then why not quotas for university places for boys? I am not in favour as all quotas are wrong, but it is a point worth making in showing up their hypocrisy. 

Lastly, this is another landmark story (I take the point as one reader mentioned this week that we have known about the figures for years but this and the cancer story have dominated the headlines on both days respectively). Both highlight beyond doubt the structural and institutional discrimination against men. In two areas, of fundamental importance - education and health.

The door of opportunity on these and so many other issues is starting to open. We need to keep the pressure on.

Posted by Skimmington.   

Media Update (other coverage) - BBC with debate

Ps tried a new font (Verdana) is it better than Arial?

NEWS ARTICLES

Hi Everyone

A couple of things - first as you know sometimes my work and other activities mean I am unable to keep up with posting which sometimes leaves the site looking a bit outdated. It means many readers link new articles or news in the latest post. I think this does those who kindly do that a grave disservice because they want to start a debate but I cannot keep up.

One way around this is to go back to A-level days ( I would have said O-level but only those of a certain vintage would know what I meant!) and if I post something like "GENDER PAY GAP NEWS - PLEASE DISCUSS", due to a news item then readers can comment away.

Happy for comments on this and here are some latest news articles anyhow - in no particular order:

The Guardian - Why do so few men take gender studies courses (Jane Martinson): An amazing article when gender studies should be renamed men-hating studies. The front of it.

Lords Select Committee - Women on Boards report

Daily Express - We are the battered husbands (Sadie Nicholas)

Daily Mail - BBC News snubs economist becuase he is a man (Tom Kelly)

The Independent - Movember, why would a woman grow a moustache (Rita Amin)

Daily Mail - Met Police could be sued for promoting women (Martin Beckford)

Daily Mail - Men are better at multi-tasking (Mark Prigg)

The Guardian - It's time to break the glass ceiling (Viviane Reding): Reding desperately wanting sexism

Men's Network - German government funds men's conference

Daily Telegraph - French minsters attend sexism classes : There is a women's ministry. These classes sound like sonme Opus Dei-like self flaggelation!

The Guardian - Female experts wanted (Caroline Criado-Perez)

The Guardian - Government reforms place domestic abuse victims at risk (Alexandra Topping): Men not mentioned.

The Guardian - Boardroom quotas are dangerous (Zoe Wood)

Equalities and Human Rights Commission - Equality Advisory Service launched

Business Insider - F4J want Asda advert banned (JIm Edwards)

The Guardian - Judge wants poistive discrimination for female judges (Owen Bowcott) Lord Sumption, another sexist judge

CBBC - Should Guides just be for girls

Ally Fogg - Reconciling feminism with the Men's Movement

The Guardian - Gender discrimination is banned, car insurance and annuities (Patrick Collinson)

Daily Telegraph - Male presenters on Today too aggressive

Daily Telegraph - Girl Guides are the ultimate feminist organisation

Sunderland Echo - Vera Baird pledges to not bother about male victims of domestic abuse

The Guardian - Men to blame for not going to Doctors (Jamie Doward): Always men to blame

Reddit - British male nursery teacher speaks out

Daily Mail - Women winning gender pay war

Daily Mail - 20% of primary schools have no male teachers (Laura Clark)

Posted by Skimmington

INSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION AT THE EQUALITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Just a quick post but if anyone ever wanted an example of the institutional discrimination endemic at the laughably titled Equalities and Human Rights Commission this is it.

The report 'The impact on changes in commissioning and funding commissioning women-only services' is paid for by the taxpayer to Cambridge Policy Consultants.

Its interesting reading as it looks at whether changes in funding and commissioning had a disadvantageous effect on women-only services.

While at face value the main area of discrimination would be the fact that there is not an equivalent report for men. It's worse.

The report (page x or page 14 of 100 if you look at it this way) explains how awful it is that some women's groups have to either open their doors to men or had to share funding to help support men's services. The complaint is that the law provides for services to disadvantaged groups but this is on the basis of women being placed at a disadvantage not in the context that men are group who may also need support hence why women-only groups are being asked to support them too. That is not recognised - men are swept under the carpet.

Complete bias but what do you expect from the anti-male Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

Posted by Skimmington

PS Debate on closing the Equalities and Human Rights Commission

PS PS Only three of its 14 governors are male - that's equality for you

CABINET RESHUFFLE MEANS LACK OF PROGRESS ON EQUALITY FOR MEN CONTINUES

So the new cabinet comes in and what changes for men?

 

Maria Miller is the Culture Secretary with responsibility for Women and Equalities. This role at Cabinet Level was previously Theresa May’s.

   

Helen Grant MP, replaces Lynne Featherstone at equalities minister to become joint Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at Ministry of Justice and for Women's and Equality issues. Helen Grant was one of Cameron’s A-listers which was specially designed to stop men from becoming MP’s. She has benefitted from sexism against men so no hope of equality from her.

 

On the Justice front, at least Ken Clarke recognised the need for reform on shared parenting and that even admitted that many mothers break contacts orders and get away with it. Chris Grayling his successor is a robust politician so we can hope he will drive things through on shared parenting and hopefully take a tougher stand on family courts.

 

Tim Loughton going as children's minister is a blow as he has been someone who has kept the flame alight on shared parenting. Let's hope his continues to do so on the backbenches.

 

In terms of health, I cannot see Jeremy Hunt being any more bothered about men's health than his predecessors. He seems the archetypical politician/corporate type who has no view on anything so it’s likely he just simply won't be interested.

 

Gove remain in place on education which means no reversal of the plans to do away with GCSE's and he at least wants rigour and discipline in schools which boys need.

 

The one additional issue is the continual pantomime about how many women and how many men are in the cabinet and have ministerial position. Of course, to anyone who believes in equality, the gender of those in government is irrelevant. But to those in the partisan/radical feminist camp like the Fawcett Society, BBC, Guardian and Equalities and Human Rights Commission - gender is more important than ability.

 

So the number of men and women in the new ministerial team will be picked apart and will do so I am sure over the next week. The Fawcett Society are on the case already.

 

Because of the political attention on the issue, it pressurises Cameron/Clegg (and Blair and Brown before them but that's their fault for encouraging it) to keep the numbers of women up. Cabinet is one thing and the number has been reduced to 4 from 5 but what about at the ministerial level. More will come out over the next few days.

 

We know there is someone into the Cabinet Office collating the information will be totting up the number of men and women. If the number of women are not high enough to satisfy the covert quota (the quota is at least the same as before with some upward ratchet – Cameron himself has declared hir goal to have women in one third of government postst by the end of this parliament) some women will be pushed up because they are women and some men pushed down or out all together because they are men. We know this is the likely answer. Even the Conservatives themselves see it.

 

It does not matter if Cameron/Clegg say there is no quota, there is one subliminally and the coming day or so will see what the shift is. We know The Guardian is watching with McCarthyite intent, and if the numbers are down overall it will be down to evil men not based on the available talent.

 

It is just like those in the 30 per cent club or Women on Boards who debated with Mike Buchanan on Radio 4 who say they do not want a quota. That is an untruth. Not only is the 30 per cent club named after a quota, whenever, there is not an increase of women in FTSE roles they scream blue murder, therefore an unofficially sublimely quota comes into existence.Covert pressure in terms of "if we don't put more women on the board, we'll be attacked for it, no matter whether or not we have suitable people or not."

 

Overall the cabinet reshuffle does nothing for men - many of us knew it would be the case so we'll carry on with our campaigning - its too important to stop.

 

Posted by Skimmington

WIMBLEDON SHOWS WHAT MODERN-DAY FEMINISTS THINK EQUALITY MEANS

When  French tennis-player Gilles Simon says men should receive more prize money than women at Wimbledon (Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian) he was attacked by the usual suspects - including of course some of the women tennis players.

Wimbledon changed the rules in 2007 so that men and women get equal pay. So what's the problem?

Some like Simon say women should get paid less because their tennis is less entertaining and less interesting but the problem with this argument is that it is subjective.

However, if you look at the amount of time they are on court - there is a clear difference. In Wimbledon 2012, from the 4th round onwards, men in the singles tournament played 55 sets while women in their singles tournament played 36 sets - effectively 33% fewer sets.

Is this what the anti-male feminists mean when they talk about the gender pay gap and equality. That women get paid the same for less work.

As well as an argument about whether female tennis players should get paid the same or not as men, it is also the interpretation that feminists make. Part of their problem with their gender pay gap arguments, they are not interested in the contributions that men and women make as individuals - they want equality whatever the contribution.  

Posted by Skimmington