The Rights Of Man

WHY DOES THE COALITION ON MEN & BOYS DO DOWN MEN & BOYS?

In 2007, a group called the Men's Coalition was set up by a number of public funded organisations who  speak up for men. The organisation mutated into the Coalition on Men & Boys and its members include the Fatherhood Institute, Men's Advice Line, Men's Health Forum, Relate, Respect and the White Ribbon Campaign.

A month or so ago they produced a report called Man Made: Men, Masculinities and Boys which attempts to "provide a unique, in-depth picture of the circumstances and needs of men and boys."

So far so good you would think, but as ever, it depends what lens you are looking through and the lens in this report is one that on one hand says public policy needs to ensure it better meets the need of men (good), but then blames and patronises men and is guilty of making some serious and glaring omissions. It is based on the fact that men need to change not that society or public policy needs to.

The 158 page report says that men need help but bases this on a feminist world-view (it says "The report draws significantly upon feminist scholarship" page 19) and throughout suggests that men need to change to help women, children and men themselves. Indeed, it keeps coming back to the theme that male dominance in positions of power (which is reducing all the time) means that men have to be more aware of gender equality and to stop blocking and being sexist towards women.

In addition, in key areas it fails to address the key problems of discrimination or the lack of help for men and boys such as education (exam results) and issues such as domestic violence, forced marriage,  and the bias of the family courts. It only really excels in the area of health which will be down to the Men's Health Forum's input.

It says that the Coalition of Men and Boys is committed to work with women's groups, but whilst at face value we should all be working for gender equality, the basis for this statement is to patronise and not recognise the discrimination that men regularly face in their lives. Would such a report on Women & Girls state that it would like to work with men's groups, I very much doubt it.

In fact, some of the things it says are a bizarre for a report and organisation purporting to be on the side of men. An example includes:-

"The Government's Equalities Dept and Equalities Commission should establish designated policy and research positions focusing on how men and boys can contribute to tackling gender and other inequalities." This though is about men and boys pushing a female equalities agenda and has nothing to do with helping men and boys in terms improving access to health, improved examination results etc?

There is plenty of mentions of a Minister for Women but the report does not mention that it is unequal therefore not to have a Minister for Men.

In addition, "it admits that the Government has no strategy or have not been a work stream within the work of the Women's Unit (page 33). This is partly due to lack of resources but probably also to the relative invisibility of masculinity as a gender issue". No mention of course to the fact that why would a Women's Unit look at supporting men and of course, no irony is given in the report to the fact there is no resources. The report mentions it but does not condemn it.

It's key policy-specific recommendations (page 16) on work, fatherhood and education do not mention the bias in the family law court system (the report in Chapter 6 rejects that men get a raw deal in the family court system), the poor results of boys in the context of a lack of male teachers and the switch from exam-related O' Levels to course-based GCSE's (it rejects the notion that the lack of male teachers is a problem) and domestic violence - it makes no mention of male victims and the lack fo support they receive.

It even says that the proposals in the Equalities Bill to allow men to be discriminated against in the workplace are 'mild' (page 41). Not if you are a man who is discriminated against.

The health section is the only one that could be said to be positive in that it demands more that the health authorities not only do more to educate men about male heath issues but also that an assessment of services is needed to ensure they are there to support men.

Overall, the report is negative about men and boys, it patronises them, wants them to change (to be less masculine)  and does not confront, on purpose, the obvious problems that men face in areas such in education and elsewhere.

The report is a wasted opportunity and one that look at the problems that men face not through a male lens but one that believes men are a negative force in the UK.

Editors Note

There are many references in the report to the "men's rights movement". References include

"..There are some risks in involving men in gender equality strategies" (page 12)

"Some men are resistant to change - especially if the proposed changes entail giving up some privileges (better pay than women) and result in them having less power at work and in the home. The emergence in recent decades of a range of vocal 'men's rights' groups, both in the UK and internationally, is evidence to this." (page 12)

"It should not be assumed, however, that all men and boys share the same hostile approach of many 'men's rights activists to the progress of women and girls" (page 26)

These accusations, probably aimed at this site and other organisations/sites are a disgraceful slur not backed by any evidence. This is a example of using a report to try and trash people who believe that equality should actually mean equality for both men and women. If the reports authors can find anything on this site that is anti-women, then they will not find it.

Editors Apology #1

In this post I originally called the Coalition - Coalition of Men & Boys but as Bob rightly pointed out (see comments) I was sorely mistaken. It is the Coalition on Men & Boys, a subtle mistake but one that is vital to be aware of because it shows emphatically and with more clarity that it is not a coalition about supporting men & boys at all. It is a coalition that hectors men & boys.

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.

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)

GENDER EDUCATION GAP SHOWS AWARENESS IS BUILDING

One of the most satisfying parts of running this site is when issues raised end up being discussed in the mainstream media or elsewhere.

There was great article in the Mail on Sunday by Winifred Robinson about the gender education gap, a subject raised here.

The issue is now being discussed more widely, even though it has been an issue for decades now, but action is needed, talk is cheap.

HARRIET HARMAN HAS DAMAGED ANTI-MALE FEMINISM THIS WEEK BUT MUCH MORE NEEDED

Like so many things in life, the best laid plans of mice and (wo)men can often go seriously awry and this week may be a turning point in turning the tide back of anti-male feminism.

It will take a lot but now the cat is out of the bag, people, especially those supine male politicians who just sit there and take it like a a bunch of hen-pecked husbands, should have the confidence to challenge it. No man or woman taking on the legion of  - diversity officers, council officials, the Fawcett Society, the Equalities Commission and all those how actively support extra help for women over men -  should be scared no longer.

Just to recap, Harriet Harman was in charge of the Government this week as Gordon Brown is on holiday, and rubbing her hands with glee and after months of planning with her "sista's", she would use the window to plunge the knife in the backs of men. Who would stop her, such is male-bashing such an accepted part of modern Britain.

Firstly, she attacked men in the boardroom and said that men could not be trusted to run things by themselves and that Labour should always have a woman in one of the top the two roles. This was met by a tirade from John Prescott (former Deputy Leader) who can be quite effective when let off the leash, said she should shut up. The redoubtable Ann Widdecombe (Tory MP) also joined in. Infamously Harman then said if Lehman Brothers had been Lehman Sisters, it would not have caused so much trouble. 

Then there was battle over shelved new rape laws, the national curriculum issue and then feistely says she is no shrinking violet as she tours the TV studios.

The whole incident has led to acres (literally) of newsprint but generally speaking she has been met with ridicule (only The Guardian and the pathetically laughable Times - must have had an anti-male feminist running the Leader Columns this week) especially from female commentators (Some anonymous female Labour politicians said her rampant feminism was like the Taliban!). Those men have written about her have tended to mock her but the implications of what she says and does are too serious for mockery.

So in terms of what has happened, clearly the power went to her head and bearing in mind the likely Labour defeat at the next General Election, she knew it was her last chance to make a stand with the burning flag of anti-male feminism. This week, with other politicians on holiday, she had the place to herself and she did more harm than good to her cause. Great.

Her anti-male extremism (too many people did not take her seriously last summer when she said if he she was PM, every man would rush to the airport) and the extremism of others has been exposed publicly but the policies in practice remain unchanged. So much much more needs to be done on the policy front where armies of diversity officers and others are putting the pieces of her anti-male policies in actual place on a minute by minute basis.

Editors Note - There have been so many articles on the issue this week (see Google News), so I have chosen the ones I like:-

Sun 1, Daily Mail - Steve Richards, BBC 1, Spectator - Rod Liddle, Daily Mash satire, Telegraph, Telegraph 2, Telegraph - Liz Hunt.

WOMENS' COMMISSION GENDER PAY GAP MYTHS - SLAVISHLY LAPPED UP BY MEDIA

A 56 page report called Shaping a Fairer Future by the Women and Work Commission (no Men and Work Commission exists, of course) run by the UK Government's 'Equalities' Office.

The report essentially state that the gender pay gap is down to gender stereotyping in career choices promoted by schools.

Yet, as pointed out so many times on this site, there is a gender pay gap overall but:-

• Lifestyle choice (ie taking years out to bring up a family) is the biggest explanation of the gender pay gap as explained by the Office of National Statistics report in 2008
• Women and men earn the same wage until they reach their 30's (see above for reason) so it is not down to school career stereotyping
• Single women earn more than single men
• In landmark research by the Daily Telegraph, they showed that far more women are entering the professions than men.
• There is no evidence that women get paid less than men due to discrimination.

 An additional point worth looking at is the fact that in June, the Government were slammed by the UK Statistical Authority for using the figure of 23% for describing the gender pay gap instead of the more accurate 12%, yet the report still uses 23%. They ignore the truth.

The deliberate and sexist lack of intellectual rigour in reports like this just keep coming and one of the problems is that th British media, which as each year goes by, lacks serious depth, never challenges them. They just spew out the copy verbatim without looking at the above points, the evidence or points by academics.

In the myriad of articles, there is not one challenge to it in the news reporting or an alternative voice. The only article is by Jill Kirby of the Centre for Policy Studies in the Telegraph

MINISTER FOR MEN PETITION

The site has just been sent notice of this e-petition

SELECT COMMITTEE REVIEWS INTO EQUALITIES COMMISSION

Sometimes in life it is better to judge a person by their enemies and certainly this is the case in terms of the continuing furore about Trevor Phillips, the Chairman of the Equalities Commission.

Certainly, there is much to be said to be said for the criticism from the National Audit Office about their Annual Accounts (how can they moan about anyone else if they cannot even do this role with a £70 million budget employing 410 staff - 63% of whom are women). However, what a lot of the other criticism has been about is that the Commission has not paid a significant enough amount of attention to each person's hobby horse.

Whilst this site is rightly no friend of the Equalities Commission considering its 'conspiracy of silence' (also more generally) on men and male discrimination, it is worth looking at some of the criticism and who has been covering it.

Of course, it has been wall to wall coverage in the equality  movement's house newspaper The Guardian, where there has been 12 stories on the subject in the last week alone (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12). To and fro the articles have gone, but not one has criticised him for doing nothing for men.

Other significant articles are here:- Daniel Hannan MEP, Daily Telegraph, BBC, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph 2, Independent , Iain Dale.

In some ways it has been hilarious to watch all the world of the politically correct descend into hysteria, certainly with the Ashes rained off today it has been an amusing sideline trawling through the articles. Although, as pointed out, the backlash could be worse for men.

Amongst all of the hullabaloo, it is important not to lose sight that there will now be a two Select Committee investigations into the goings-on by the Communities and Local Government Select Committee and the Joint Human Rights Committee.

Whilst these have been announced to the media, there does not seem to be any press notices or calls for evidence. Whenever, there is a call for evidence, it is time to put in submissions about the conspiracy of silence on men.

EQUALITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND ITS CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE ON MEN

In a cracking article at the weekend and following the resignation of another director at the Equalities Commission (see previous post), David Green of think tank Civitas wrote in the Telegraph that Trevor Phillips was a victim of a campaign because he did not believe in multi-culturalism and the victim group mentality at play.

It has always been a conundrum for this site because the site it is about creating an environment where men and women receive support as individuals not because of gender, though of course, each gender has unique issues to contend with. However, as we have had 30 years (at least) of an anti-male culture it was natural for a site like this to want for men the same rights and treatment as women. We do not want more, or special treatment, we want the same treatment. What David Green's article shows how easily it is for representatives of one group or t'other to falls into the trap of wanting more, that is, positive action. We have to be careful.

Putting those musing aside, what is happening at the Commission and what is revealed by those who are leaving, is the absence of a voice for men. The battles for gender equality ignores 50% of the population as this can be played out by the ignorance of the Commission on a number of areas especially boys' education, domestic violence, male cancers, the family courts (the list could go on).

In a previous example, If you compare the elbow grease put in by the Commission on issues such as the gender pay gap and the map of gaps with their silence on those issues where men need help, it is frightening.

As mentioned in the previous post, Phillips and others have tentatively commented (on black and white boys' education and parental leave) on male subjects but there has been a backlash, obviously internally.

These are the barriers we men face, the inner sanctum of the Commission is anti-male, let no one forget this. Not one of the Commissioners (see Annual Report page 19), whether still there or not, represented a male perspective at all.