The Rights Of Man

MOTHERS ARE OVERSEAS CHILD ABDUCTORS IN THREE IN FOUR CASES - WHY IS IT A SECRET?

When Reunite International published its figures earlier this year that showed that 70% of parents who abduct their children and take them abroad are mothers, many of us in with an interest in this were not surprised. You only have to be aware of the problems faced by fathers who call organisations like Reunite or Families Need Fathers to know about this.

The Guardian covered the story with two examples  also this poor chap talks about it on BBC Men's Hour about his abducted daughter (and not the son - radical feminists are rejoicing) who is now living in Tunisia.

Back in December, the BBC published a story that  according to the FCO research, "74% of people thought fathers were most likely to abduct their children but statistics from Reunite International suggest 70% of their cases concern mothers taking the child."

The number of litigation and disputes is also on the increase.

What is staggering though is that firstly the lack of awareness that mothers are the main abductors in three of four cases where the children are taken abroad. Such is the anti-male society we live in and the way that society (pushed by radical feminists) have demonised men that anything negative to do with children and parents is automatically assumed to be down to fathers and men.

This is of course not helped when the litigation results came out this month and there was much discussion about them but no one wanted to make the connection to mothers - it was like some sort of dirty secret. Nothing on Mumsnet?

Why is it a secret? If the statistics showed it was three in four men - it would be front pages news.

Posted by Skimmington

 

 

THE BANK NOTE PETITION AND FEMINIST MCCARTHYISM - WHY DO THEY HATE MEN SO MUCH?

Feminist McCarthyism is poisonous strand of modern radical feminism that believes that every man is a secret women-hater and that every decision that is not pro-female is due to a cabal of men making decisions in smoke-field rooms to keep women in the kitchen.

It is a particularly noxious brand of feminist which is not pro-equality and is espoused by the Guardian, Fawcett Society, many in the government (Government Equalities Department especially) and a whole bunch of radical feminists who see conspiracies and women-haters everywhere.

The campaign and petition to ensure that a woman is on a British banknote has reached absurd levels of feminist McCarthyism. There must be some conspiracy behind the decision to replace Elizabeth Fry with Winston Churchill?

There is even now a petition and the metropolitan elites and other outlets (Guardian, Huffington
Post) have got behind it. The Chancellor's Aide Amber Rudd MP as well...as reported in the Independent and Daily Mail.

The petition states "An all-male line-up on our banknotes sends out the damaging message that no woman has done anything important enough to appear." No proof anywhere of that at all!

The petition even tries to say the Queen does not count because she is hereditary.

But surely only a few can say that the Queen does not do a good job and also that means women as well. What McCarthyist feminists like those mentioned and  especially Caroline Criado-Perez of the Women's Room are really saying is that the Queen was not chosen by them so that doesn't count.

What the petition does is show is the absurdity of McCarthyite Feminism, how anti-male it is by seeking to place every decision that they do not agree with as being part of some patriachal conspiracy effectively portraying us all as women-haters. 

And it also shows how out of touch they are with normal women (and normal men). How many of the UK's 30 million women are going to sign this - hardly any - and the reason is simple - they do not see the sexism that the Mccarthyite's see because it is not there. The Empresses have no clothes

 Posted by Skimmington 

VICKIE PRYCE SUCEEDS IN PROMOTING MALE EQUALITY BY ENDING SEXIST MARITAL COERCION ACT

Does Justice Secretary Chris Grayling read this blog? He may do as he announced in The Sunday Times (behind a paywall but the Guardian cover it) that he will end the Marital Coercion Act on the basis of being 'out of tune with gender equality' and 'not in keeping with the modern world.' A point made in February.

It was always of the greatest hypocrisy that such a liberal and 'progressive' such as Vickie Pryce was to try and use a sexist law to try and get her off from going to jail. Inadvertently, by bringing this to everyone's attention and if Grayling pushes this through, she will have succeeed in progressing the cause of equality for men and boys.

As Groan pointed out in his comments on a previous piece (his and MaleMids32 have been added in the comments section so not to be lost - and thanks MaleMids for highlighting) what will the feminists say about this. More so, who will speak out against the change in Parliament or elsewhere when it goes through. Who will show themselves to be hypocrites and anti-equality?

Posted by Skimmington

 

From MaleMids32

Ha! Looks like pressure from J4mb might be having an effect already!

 Just today it was announced in the Sunday Times that Chris Grayling is planning all of a sudden to scrap the law of marital coercion, because it is 'out of tune with gender equality' and 'not in keeping
with the modern world.'

 Wow, since when have Tory politicians been concerned with striking off anti-male laws?

Is it not the case they know that if J4MB gets it act together, they will harness the 'UKIP' effect and knock out all those weak, Tory marginals up and down the country?

  Well they're gonna have to do more than that if they want to win back voters' trust before election time! :-D

 

From Groan

 Now here is a test. How will the radical feminists respond to an obviously discriminatory and paternalistic law being scrapped. Support for Chris Grayling?

As with the few other discriminatory laws that were mainly swept away in the seventies this is another example not of "patriarchy" but the now outdated impulse to protect the "weaker sex"

 My own mother widowed young and with two sons to support fell foul of two such laws in the 1960s ;one with regard to mortgages and the other bank loans. Both had been put on the statute books to spare women the genuine horrors of Debtors Gaols by making husbands responsible for debts. This was in the mid sixties and these Victorian statutes were swept away in the seventies. Clearly these old statutes created problems for my mother( and indeed for husbands with profligate wives) but they were emphatically not some plan to subjugate women and actual barely lasted a century. What is more many such laws had their genesis and support from women's organisations of the time!!!

So good luck Mr. Grayling.

 

I wonder if this implies will spread to changing the legal definition of Rape. As in the USA where it is a crime men and women can commit. A bridge too far for this Parliament

KEEP CALM AND KEEP ON THROWING ROCKS AT BOYS? by TOM MARTIN

Action Alert

Two weeks ago, mainstream news and social media sites joined forces, convincing Amazon
to remove adverts for T-shirts with wording such as 'Keep calm and rape a lot' and  'Keep calm and hit her'.

The sexist slogans were a result of a computer programme generating thousands of random phrases,
the manufacturer claims. What cannot be written off as an accident, are the eight ads
still on Amazon for “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” gear, 13 ads for a man-shaped knife block, two ads for an “ex-boyfriend punch bag”, and dozens more ads for T-shirts calling men “pigs”, “dogs”, “idiots”, and “animals”.

You may think comedy items targeting males or females are just a bit of harmless fun, but according to 2008 research by Professor Thomas Ford et al, of Western Carolina University, sexism is
spread by the use of sexist humour in particular.

Jokes about women's violence towards men get easy laughs even though violence by women is on the increase. In one survey, 60% of female university students thought it acceptable for wives to hit their
husbands. The marketing and media authorities should be setting a better example by cracking down on depictions of violent humour against men, as with women – but it is up to men's rights activists to put pressure on the relevant authorities to make them change.

 I contacted Amazon over a week ago ago by phone, and the call centre worker said she had escalated the complaint to management who will investigate the anti-male products on sale. Men's rights activist Glenn Sacks launched a high profile partially successful campaign 10 years ago to get the “Boys are stupid” range banned, so it is time to finish the job. It has taken a few days to get some violently misogynistic T-shirt ads removed, but 10 years and counting to get some well known violently misandric merchandise banned. You can contact Amazon here.

Tom Martin is a men's rights activist and film maker. Email, sexismbusters@hotmail.com -
twitter: @sexismbusters - youtube: sexismbusters

 

NEWS UPDATES

There has been a few recently and a few sent over:

Some new UK sites:

   Justice for Men and Boys (political party)

    Helping Men (Glen Poole)

   Cornwall Community News (some strong articles on here)

 

A Voice for Men: Interview with London MRA (25 minutes 45 seconds in)

South Wales Argus: Man found not guilty

Cambridgeshire Police: Domestic abuse against men podcast (a first perhaps)

Daily Mail: Men should be afforded anonymity in rape appeals says High County Judge and I agree (Peter Lloyd) and the original news item. John Cooper QC is happy for innocent men to be named though as is Lisa Longstaff of course. Men are collateral damage.

Miss Alisa Place: We can't fix domestic violence if we pretend 40% of victims are not there (Alisa Valdes)

BBC: Project highlights everday sexism against women

Daily Telegraph: Divorced fathers have a hard time (Jonathan Agnew)

Daily Telegraph: Council makes toilets gender neutral (Victoria Ward)

Daily Mail: Judge says conspiracy of silence in place about the value of fathers (Steve Doughty)

BBC Women's Hour: Jenni Murray laughs as wife admits cleaning toilet with ex-husband and toothbrush before he used it (19 min 30 secs in)

The Ignored Gender: Misandry and the Superbowl

Marie Claire: No Men allowed,the rise of the women-only club

Daily Mail: I should not have lied (Janine Yaqoob)

Evening Standard: Labour women-only shortlist (Joe Murphy)

MRA London: Site banned by Norton

The Guardian: On male privilege (Richard Seymour)

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

 

NETMUMS SURVEY SHOW THE EMPRESS HAS NO CLOTHES

Returning to a Netmums survey I highlighted in October (half way down), there was a number of areas that showed how young women were rejecting the term feminism and women of all ages now saw that radical feminism was divisive and anti-male.

This was why in October the survey was met with such hatred from anti-male radical feminists because it shows the "empress has no clothes" and does not speak for mainstream women (this is my favourite response). They feel vulnerable because it undermines their ability to garner cheques for writing in The Guardian, running organisations such as the Fawcett Society and Equality and Human Rights Commission and a myriad of other public sector jobs. No more lecture fees on 'gender studies' courses.

The four key statistics in the survey were:

• Younger women are least likely to embrace the term. 25% of women aged 45 to 50 described themselves as a 'Feminist'. But just 9% of those aged 25 to 29 identified with it and only 8% of women aged 20 to 24.

• 39% criticised old-fashion Feminism for being too divisive, claiming they 'don't want to be equal - women are different to men and we should celebrate the differences.'

• Almost a third (28%) think traditional radical Feminism is 'too aggressive' towards men while a quarter (24%) no longer view it as a positive label for women. One in five describe Feminism as 'old fashioned' and simply 'not relevant' to their generation.

• In subsequent questions, 17% even claim Feminism has gone too far, oppressing men and 'losing sight of the natural roles of men and women

This can be seen by the female-led backlash to the infamous Daily Mail article from Esther Walker.

It shows the rejection by mainstream women of radical feminists because they are starting to see that it is driven by a hatred of men and also the conseqneces of it in their own lives. Female graduates see their boyfriend counterparts are still unemployed, mothers see their sons falling behind at school and wives see their husbands blocked from senior positions in companies because of activities of quota campaigners such as the 30% Club. 

The anti-male radical feminists whose existience depends on capturing the media, infesting the universities and public sector, and haranguing politicians do not speak for women. Modern women have said "not in my name".

 Posted by Skimmington

WHY DID THE "BIGOT IN A BRA" THINK IT WAS RIGHT TO PEN SUCH AN ARTICLE?

The fallout from Esther Walker's article on Monday about "beastly boys" continues to rightly attract deserved criticism. The fact that it has had 1,446 comments so far speaks volumes and the condemnation from women (mothers of boys especially) is very heartening.

Peter Lloyd's critique "Bigot in a Bra" is devastating not just for what he says about the article but his articulation of the bias against men. It is good that the Daily Mail has someone on their books clearly standing up for male equality. He is suing Kentish Town Sports centre for these women-only swimming classes.

As regular contributor Brian said on Monday:

To make the point of the above comment really clear, replace the word "Boys" in the article with any of the following words and see the reaction:

Nxxxxx
Jew
Asians
Homosexuals
Girls

and ask why has this woman not been arrested or at the very least sacked?

As well as the issue Brian mentions there is the issue about the thought process in the midns of both writer and editor - similar to why advertising agencies and companies think anti-male adverts are Ok but they would never dream of running an anti-women advert.

Why did she think it was right to hold these views and then write about them and then why did the Daily Mail think it was Ok to publish them? it says a lot about modern-day feminism's view of men and boys.

Posted by Skimmington

MIKE BUCHANAN AT THE HOUSE OF COMMONS CAMPAIGNING FOR EQUALITY

Last week, we mentioned Mike was appearing at the Select Committee into Women in the Workplace. Please read his comments about it (here and here) and he kindly has supplied a link (1 hour 34 mins in) so you can watch the appearance. Must see TV and shows how sensible and responsible activism can succeed.

Posted by Skimmington

VIRGIN AUSTRALIA STILL UNDECIDED ON WHETHER ALL MEN ARE PAEDOPHILES OR NOT

Back in August you may have noticed a huge amount of international coverage and outrage of Virgin Australia's "all men are paedophiles" seating policy. The airline forced a firefigher of all people from his seat simply due to the fact he was guilty of the horrific crime of being male in the vicinity of a child he wasn't related to!

Thanks to Mr Muir sharing his experience and some excellent journalism from the likes of Bridie Jabour, Virgin Australia began a "review". I'm all for carrying out thorough assesments of any possible change in policy, but there's also such things as common sense, basic decency and gender equality, and one would have thought this would have to be the shortest and easiest review any company has ever had to undertake.

Alas this is not the case, and the "all men are paedophiles" policy remains in place whilst Richard Branston and his collegaues assess whether or not you, I and every single man out there present a serious risk to children every time we take a flight. Given the preference for seating chidlren with females, they will also be considering whether all the countless female child absues out there who murder, molest, rape and kidnap chidlren actually exist or not. Alternativley, perhpas Virgin Australia have discovered new evidence that all the Rose Wests, Myra Hindleys and Vanessa Georges of this world all suffer from chronic aerophobia and thus will never set foot on a plane?

I wish Virgin Australia the best of luck with these tricky question which has now taken them almost a quarter of a year. Given the fact that they're clearly struggling with this issue I do have my concerns about their ability to carry out other tasks. If they can't get this call right then I'm doubt they'd be capable of crossing the road, nevermind flying huge metal machines though the sky at hundreds of miles an hour.

Please share your thoughts with Virgin Australia on their blog and whilst they deal with this conundrum I'd advise you to chose an airline that knows their left from right, and right from wrong.

by John Kimble