The Rights Of Man

GENDER FEMINISM: AN ASSAULT ON WOMEN? by MIKE BUCHANAN

As you know the site welcomes articles and thought pieces from its readers and commentators.

Mike Buchanan, writer of The Glass Ceiling Delusion, David and Goliatha and the forthcoming Feminism: Crones' Disease has penned an exclusive article on feminism.

I hope everyone enjoys the article and it is great to have a writer like Mike penning a thought piece like this for the site.

Download Gender Feminism - an assault on women

Posted by Skimmington

THE POLITICAL DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF MEN IN BRITAIN: A CHRONOLOGY

One of the key issues Britain's political class never want to talk about is how all-women shortlists, gender quotas, A-lists and special women-only courses discriminate against men wanting to stand for office and also the voting public who want to be sure they are voting for the best person.It is a theme well covered on this site.

In response, the following paper has been produced setting out what has happened, the key dates and the key people.

Download Political discrimination against men in Britain

Lastly, I would want to say that all those in the men's equality movement should pay tribute to Peter Law, Peter Jepson and Roger Dyas-Elliott - three men who fought against the injustice of all-women shortlists and have never recieved the credit and plaudits they deserve.

Posted by Skimmington 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONSULTATION - GOVERNMENT STILL CANNOT BRING ITSELF TO PLACE MALE VICTIMS ON A PAR WITH FEMALE VICTIMS

On Tuesday, the site commented on the government's (leaked) new consultation on domestic violence also that there was to be a fund for services for male victims of domestic abuse (the fund has a short period and groups have to spend the first batch of money very quickly - by the end of March 2012).

The press release and explanation has been gender neutral but the document itself sets out clearly that it is only really about female victims of domestic abuse - this is because of the foreword by the Minister for Women and Equalities who is also the Home Secretary - Theresa May.

The document explains that 1 in 4 women will be a victim of domestic abuse on their lifetime and that two women per fortnight are murdered as well as the fact that 1.2 million suffer per year. Looking at the ManKind Initiative's key facts about male victims you can see the alternative figures (1 in 6 men, one per fortnight murdered and about 700,000 men per year) so why are these not in the foreword. They are from the same Home office sources.

It may be OK to mention the number of younger boys who are victims (and it has been very good this issue has at least been raised) but only mentioning women when the alternative male figures are available on a consultation for both men and women is as clear an example of institutional discrimination against men as you will ever see. Someone at the Home Office who drafted the foreword had consciously decided not to include men. Must have been someone from the government's equalities department - that part of the government who explicitly states that its work does not include men:

 
Despite the coverage given however to the leak about the consultation, at least some of the media and otehr commentators had got better at producing a balanced view.

Radio 4's Today programme on Wednesday was a case in point where while the case study was of a female victim it was made clear that it happens to men and women, with Carmel Napier from ACPO restating this. Sky mentioned men as well.

However, because the foreword only mentioned men really and also the tone of the idiot, sexist and biased reporters had been set previously in the week, the notion that the consultation was only about female victims continued. Examples can be found here - The Sun, Daily Mirror, Standard, Daily Mail (Melissa Kite) and The Guardian (Lisa Longstaff)

Posted by Skimmington

THE DATI EXAMPLE SHOWS WHY POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION IS WRONG AND LEADS TO EVEN MORE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN

One of the inherent disaster zones of using gender quotas and promoting people not because of their ability but because of their gender means that whenever those people eventually fail, as they will always do, because they should not have been in the position in the first place is that you will be called sexist.

Not only when you use quotas or positive discrimination (which means negative disrimination for some one else) but also when you talk up a particular gender you say they suffer from discrimination - when they fail - you have left yourself wide open to the accusation of sexism. What can you do, when you have said yourself they should be there and then they turn out to be rubbish.

In a rational world, it would be mean you would admit that quotas and sexist positive action was wrong and only talent should count, but as we know the political class who promote positive action and positive discrimination never admit to making a mistake. So what do the metropolitan politically correct elite do? they bring even more rules to make sure it happens again and again.

Why raise this - well there was a story in the Guardian that caught my eye (I have to read it for reaserch for this site!) especially as politics has been a key area where discrimination against men is rife including the UK.

In France, Rachida Dati was the first Muslim woman with north African parents to hold a major French government post given to her by Nicolas Sarkozy. As seems clear by the story, she hasn't got where she wants in politics because of talent but obviously because of her background she has led to believe she has done and has doors opened for her which if she was a male would never have been opened.

This is what you get when you promote people not because of their talent but their gender - you get it the accusation of sexism and tokenism thrown back at you. Those who do it deserve it but us men suffer because the reaction is to give even more special treatment and special favours to women.

That's the sole basis of what Harman, Featherstone, Flint and the Fawcett crew do. Like an ever tightening ratchet of lies and sexism.

Posted by Skimmington

FEMINIST BLOGGERS AND THE 'NO PLATFORM'

One of the long standing traits of the extremist  marxist feminists who were radicalised in the 70's and 80's and then went on to radicalise another generation of man-hating gender warriors was the 'no platform' tactic. This is where either certain groups/people are stopped/banned from speaking at open meetings or were marginalised and not engaged with. To some of us it has always been a badge of honour (though never been no platformed because of fascism becuase I am not!).

We are now seeing no platform culture being asked for where (self described) feminist bloggers are decrying people who comment negatively about their misandry. What's worse for them is the fact that as many women as men comment on their blogs and articles complaining about their sexism towards men. That leaves them in a real quandry.

Putting aside the random nutters who give death threats and suchlike (do they suppose men don't get get these as well?) and who should be caught and locked up for a long time, the underlying theme is that these writers don't actually like the fact that people write comments pointing out they are wrong. They complain about sexist comments when on many occasions the articles they write are sexist against men so men (and women) are simply responding to that.

Helen Lewis-Hastely kicked the subject off on her New Statesman blog and then followed it with a comment on men's experience. Vanessa Thorpe follows it up in the Observer as does Rosamund Urwin in the Evening Standard

Brendan O'Neill also raises his opposition in the Telegraph. As featured in the latest News Update Anna Racoon questioned whether the bloggers were crying rape and follows it up here.

The problem is where this leads. Firstly, men won't be allowed to comment on the blogs complaining of feminist misandry, though it will be harder to ban those women who also complain of their misandry. So then comments will be moderated to the extreme so only those in agreement will see their comments published. On and on it will go until all men (and women) who disagree are silenced and no platformed.

No platform on the internet is the inevitable end - the anti-male cultural stalinism that they want. All are equal but some are more equal than others. This is just another thread to the campaign to shut the challenges men and women make to the misandry of the radical and marxist feminists.

Posed by Skimmington

PS - the only comments moderated here are those that are plainly nasty and anti-women and also the irritating spam selling things. Anti-male feminists are welcome to debate on this site! They never do - maybe we have been no platformed!!

MEN-HATING TO GO ON NATIONAL CURRICULM

Wherever you turn there are legions of anti-male feminists coming out of the woodwork demonising men and calling for special favours for women and girls.

Dr Helen Wight, president of the Girls' Schools Association  (there is no Boys' Schools Association that I can find) said (Standard and Telegraph) that girls should be taught about sexism because men secretly think their place in the home and only play lip service to equality. She has a son and a husband I wonder how they feel having a mother who sneers at them?

The problem is that people like Dr Wright think it is OK to come out with this nonsense and no commentators have the nerve to challenge them. This is someone who has influence and she wants to turn every girl at school into people who hate men because they think all boys and men hate and sneer at them.

When will this sexist man-hating nonsense end?

Posted by Skimmington

PS If she wants to teach girls about sexism, this site may be a good start!

 

 

 

VICTORY FOR MCCARTHYITE FEMINISTS ON SPORTS PERSONALITY OF THE YEAR AWARDS

Each and every day, the McCarthyite feminists dig up a new issue that has nothing to do with sexism or discrimination but that does not stop them using it as a as a weapon to beat men with.

It is all part of a ploy to keep banging on about sexism to enable more special treatment and favours to be given to girls and women over men and boys.

It is pure McCarthyism because there is no kernel of truth in it yet but any chink of glimmer that it could be is then used to the maximum. McCarthy did it in the 1950's with any supposedly 'leftist' view meaning someone was a communist and there is no difference with his McCarthyite sisters who see any glimmer of discrimination where none exist as a ruse to attack men.

Basically the Sports Personality of the Year award did not shortlist any women in the ten strong shortlist and this was based on a number of national, regional and sports magazines.

This mean there was a storm of protest. Chief McCarthyite Harriet Harman waded in as did Taekwondo world champion Sarah Stevenson, Tanni Grey-Thompson, Chrissie Wellington (who wants a boycott) as well as others.

The problem is that there is no proof of sexism, it can be argued that some people, who happen to be women, should have been included because their sporting success was better than some of the men on the list but this does not prove sexism. There may be other men who should be on the list but they weren’t included either. It doesn’t help though to have Nuts and Z00 on the panel but if you had women's magazines then they would be just as bad at picking form their own gender if Nuts and Zoo were only to pick men.

Ex rugby-player, Brian Moore, says there is no sexism as does Rebecca Adlington who in my personal opinion should have been on the list because that is based on merit not her gender.

The BBC though kowtowed and have said they will be now having a review which means now that there will in all likelihood be gender quotas and guaranteed number of slots for women no matter whether they should be there or not. This means, just like it does with the political and boardroom quotas in place in the UK that some men who should be on the list will not be because of their gender.

The real issue is that as the BBC will be reviewing the procedure, effectively the McCarthyite feminists have won. They saw a anti-female conspiracy by men when no such conspiracy existed, yet they got their own way.

Another day to day example of how Britain’s institutions are scared stiff of the Mccarthyite feminists and how they feel the best option is to give in and discriminate against men.

Posted by Skimmington

THE ENDING OF BLIND AND EQUAL JUSTICE FOR MEN CONTINUES

In today's anti-male Britain, we have laws and organisations wanting to end equality of opportunity for men and women.

We have all three political parties colluding to discriminate and make it harder for a man than a women to be a politician, a range of organisations and politicians doing the same for boardrooms and the same for stopping men and women from being paid depending on their contribution to a company (gender pay gap).

We also now that with the destruction of equality in education - boys are falling way behind girls at school and no one gives a hoot.

Justice though is meant to be blind as we have pointed out before some groups like the Women's Justice Taskforce do not want women to go to prison but are not bothered about how many men go there. They are happy and popping the champagne corks when people like Maria Topp get a suspended sentence. 

At the other end of the scale, with far more women becoming solicitors and barristers than men, we will soon have more female judges  etc. Not a problem if they are there on merit and are not men-haters.

But yesterday someone called Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury actually waded in and said he wanted to sexually discriminate against men by making it harder for them to be judges yet making it easier for women to be judges. Merit is not up for discussion and does not count. Just like the political world and just like now in the boardroom.

He wants to use the anti-male Section 159 of the Equalities Act, probably the most pernicious anti-male piece on the statute books, to promote women over men.

So at one end we have no equality in prison sentences and now there is a call for no equality in those making the decisions to send people to prison. From every direction, equality of men is disappearing from Britain's justice system.

Posted by Skimmington  

Media coverage (quite a lot on this so some of the main ones) - Press Association, Daily Mail (Donal Blaney), Daily Mail, Daily Mail (Quentin Letts)

 

SPECIAL PLEAS FROM WOMEN'S GROUPS TO ENSURE MEN ARE KEPT SILENT

As we know the government's equalities department proudly boasts about the fact that it is institutionally sexist against men by even admitting on its website that equality doesn't include men:

"We lead on issues relating to women, sexual orientation and transgender equality matters."

It isn't just the fact that they refuse to deal with inequalities against men, they do not even believe men exist.

It has also boasted that it wants to strengthen women's voices and not even feel men have a voice, a theme the site has raised before and also here. It's equality strategy (page 23) also says it wants to speak to women's groups but no mention of male groups which is why the Men's Network letter is so important. 

Amidst all of the the focus on Norgrove, the government's equalities department slipped out its response to the consultation on "strengthening women's voices in government".  

What is always the most enlightening about these documents is not the government's response but the special treatment pleas from women's groups. Not only do they want to protect the special treatment and positive discrimination they receive they want more - all to ensure they keep men and male issues of inequality out of the picture. The aim is to dominate the whole sphere and stop men's group's from even having the crumbs off the table let alone a place at it.

The most telling paragraph for me is number 31:

A number of organisations supported the proposal from the National Association ofWomen’s Organisations and the Women’s Resource Centre that they be funded by government to develop a UK "women’s hub".

Although not the same, this proposal does chime with the option of consulting consortiums to provide expertise on specific women’s issues, as outlined in the consultation document. The main distinction is that the "women’s hub" would have more independence from government.

More special treatment and more funding, making it even harder to have the voices of men heard. The question would be if the government did fund such a group and then refused to fund a "men's hub" it really is time to go to law.

Posted by Skimmington

NEW EDUCATION CAMPAIGN TO BRAINWASH BOYS INTO THINKING HOW EVIL THEY ARE

Only yesterday the site highlighted Tom Martin's latest campaign update when it was discovered that a mysterious new organisation called the Astell Project is campaigning to have Women and Gender Studies placed on the national curriculum. They have an e-petition submitted  by Fawcett Society member,Triona Kennedy, who actually believes that England's schools are failing girls. She presented her case at a recent Fawcett members' day.

We could go on forever about the fact this is just another example of the war on men and boys and to brainwash boys into thinking they are bad and girls are good. Having it on the national curriculum would serve as a Marxist feminist reminder to boys that they will all physically abuse women, stop them getting on in life and when they boys grow up and become fathers they should not play a part in their child's life. All this while Triona and her friends rub their faces in the fact that so many more girls get better results than boys etc.

The point of raising it here is to highlight the onslaught on many fronts boys are under and that Marxist feminists like Triona Kennedy feel empowered to come out with some misandry (only 100 signed up for the e-petition though). The anti-male climate created by governments, the BBC/Guardian etc mean that Ms Kennedy feels it is perfectly reasonable to ask the question. The organisation was found because the epetition was being promoted on a Women's Aid newsletter sent to this site.

It also shows why Tom Martin's campaign is so important because Ms Kennedy claims it is 'women and gender' studies, when we know she is talking about 'women and women' studies - the only studying about men on her course would be how evil we men are.

Posted by Skimmington