The Rights Of Man

WANT TO RUIN A MAN'S LIFE? THAT'LL BE £80 PLEASE

You often hear about false rape allegations in the news these days (unless you only read the Guardian of course). The police are now, quite rightly, starting to take action in the more extreme cases, though perhaps an even more heinous crime is that of making false paedophilia allegations.

Just as with false rape allegations, many in our society unfortunately take the stance that there's "no smoke without fire" and ultimately the false allegations tend to stick, regardless of how ridiculous, unfounded or malicious they happen to be. Therefore, as with false rape allegations, the victims of these crimes at at serious risk of attack, can lose their jobs, and ultimately face financial and psychological ruin. Further still, as we're talking about the awful crime of alleged sexual abuse of children here, the stigma and potential dangers for victims are about as severe as you can get.

Te latest victim of such a crime is Luck Chatfield, who was falsely labelled a paedophile by his neighbour, Sally Pepper, after committing the heinous offence of complaining about her loud music (she has numerous complaints about anti-social behaviour against here so it's unlikely that his action was unjustified). As a result of the false and malicious allegations he's been abused in the street, had items thrown at his house, installed a panic alarm and been forced out of his job! In total Chatfield has lost £1,500 in earnings, yet has two disabled children and a disabled wife to provide for. The stress of the situation must be intolerable.

So what's appropriate punishment for putting this man's life in real danger and causing him and his family so much hardship and distress? Maybe four years in jail? (actually make that two seeing as she gets female sentencing discount). Surely he's at least entitled to reimbursement of the lost monies too? Thirdly, wouldn't it be reasonable to place the perpetrator almost certainly needs to be on a false accusers register or maybe the sex offenders register as this is effectively a sexual offence? People need to be warned about such incredibly dangerous people so they can avoid them as much as possible.

Unfortunately none of the above occurred. Not even a token jail sentence, not a penny reimbursed, and no system to warn others of the dangers. The only consequence for the perpetrator was an £80 fixed penalty notice. That's right, we value this man's career, safety and general well-being as the same price of a train ticket. False paedophilia allegations are no more serious than dropping a cigarette butt, writing a graffiti tag, dog fouling, failing to pay your road tax on time, or fly posting. Further still, the Home Office rather ironically cite "playing loud music" as their example of a crime likely to result in the £80 fixed penalty notice.

In other words, her alleged offence of playing loud music is no different to that of attempting to ruin a man's life by spreading false allegations that he enjoys raping young children. Neither offence is any different to the other!

So, what's the perpetrator's view on all this? Is Ms Pepper at least full of remorse and regret? Does she realise just how much damage she's caused to this man life and that of his vulnerable family? Has the punishment acted at least as a deterrent? Well, perhaps not according to the BBC who state "she say she did not regret what she did".

I wonder why?

NEW MISANDRIC GOVERNMENT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CAMPAIGN AIMED AT TEENS

Yesterday saw the launch of one the most incredibly sexist government domestic abuse campaigns to date.

A series of TV, and radio ads, poster and a website were launched aimed at those aged 13-18 and urging boys "not to use violence against their girlfriends". That's right, they're not even trying to hide their sexism anymore. Every single poster in the campaign and every single video contains a male abusing a female. There isn't even the usual token male victim, not much mention of homosexual relationships (where abuse tends to be even more common than with heterosexuals). In the past it was more common for the government to outsource broadcast of such propaganda to anti-male charities such as Women's Aid, but they're now brazen enough to put their own name to the material now.

The sexist theme continues throughout the site. For example the FAQ section does contain some gender neutral questions, but five types of abuse listed are written in an exclusively male on female context. Even the one question referring to help for males victim still doesn't' dare suggest said abuse came form a female, presumably it's only gay males who get abused and all girls are sweet, pretty and innocent?

The hypocrisy of the campaign when it comes to discrimination is quite bizarre. Clearly every attempt has been made to be neutral in terms of race. For example two inter-racial couples are shown in the videos, one has a black male abusing a white female, whereas the other shows white male abusing a black female. Such balance is hugely commendable, but why does such equality only apply when dealing with race and never, ever with gender?

The site appears to attempt to justify it's gender based approach by stating "Research shows that suffering from abuse in relationships is more common for young women but young men can experience it too." In a away this is true, at least in terms of the 13-18 year target age group. But the same research also shows that as soon as these children grow grow up and reach adulthood the roles are reversed, and it's mostly males who are the victims. Therefore, given the government's (admittedly ridiculous) premise of only targeting the gender with the most victims, are we also to see a further £2 million spent telling 20-24 year old women to stop threatening, hitting and controlling their male partners?

One of the worst things about these campaigns is that even in the event of a  male victim seeing past the dishonesty and realising they need to get help, not charities that actually care about male victims are listed as a resource. Rather than being referred to the quite brilliant Mankind Initiative or a similarly gender neutral organisation, the feminist leaning organisation Respect have a monopoly. Such an organisation worships at the alter of gender based approaches to abuse rather than living in the real world. Is a boy really going to gain anything from talking to such obtuse people who only basically only really see males as the guilty party? In fact I imagine it could be quite a damaging experience for them. Why does the government happily provide lines to the gender feminists, at Respect, the Men's Advice Line, Refuge, Women Aid etc, but doesn't have the decency to give equal access to an organisation genuinely interested in helping men?

Finally, lets not forget who the the victims of this misandry are. Yes it you and I who have to pay the taxes funding this hatred of males, but the campaign itself is of course aimed at children. Therefore we're talking about gender feminists trying to impose their "violence against women and girls" nonsense on vulnerable, young developing minds and brainwashing them into feeling guilty perhaps even before they've started a proper relationship. Further still, the campaign is simultaneously campaign sending out the subconscious message that these boys can't really be victims either, thus further compounding the existing barriers which stop male vicitms from coming forward.

To do these awful things to adults is bad enough, but what we've got here is quite simply child abuse in my book. Domestic violence is a psychological issue and really has little or nothing to do with gender whatsoever. It really is time to put a stop to this nonsense and for the government to stop playing gender politics with people's lives.

BTW, I don't wish to promote this sick campaign by posting a link to the site. If you want to see it for yourself just search for "thisisabuse".

DOES THE MOON REALLY EXIST?

"Does the moon really exist?" That's the question the quite brilliant Ali G put to Buzz Aldrin during this comedy interview. Now I'm all for challenging conventions and asking unfashionable questions, but clearly questioning the existence of the moon is ridiculous. People holding such a view would either be stupid, or immature and would not be taken at all seriously.

However, questioning such obvious and demonstrably true phenomena is actually a far from alien concept to many gender feminists too. For example, when discussing the possibility of setting up a false rape claim register in 1999, our female namesake group "Rights of Women" told the BBC: "given that the law is already so weighted against women, we should be looking at protecting them rather than targeting the few, if any, women who make false allegations". In other words, false rape claims are incredibly rare and there's a very good chance that they quite simply do not exist at all!

Think about that for a second. False rape claims are the perfect weapon for any women looking to gain revenge on a male and ruin his life. Yet despite this weapon being in every single woman's hands, somehow they're all so saintly that not a single one would ever be tempted to use it. Women are good, men are bad, and no exceptions either! False allegations happily exist for other crimes, how can any sane person possibly suggest they don't exist for rape, a crime which is a classic case of one person's word against another. As so many cases have shown, no evidence is even required, and we've got a government so friendly towards false rape accusers they want to make their activities even easier by lowering the burden of proof.

Spreading such falsehoods is bad enough given all of the above, but the flip-side of her statement regarding the saintliness of woman is to deny the existence of any victims of false rape accusations too. False rape claims are such a disgusting and serious crime in term of the impact they have. They ruin the victims' careers, relationships, self-esteem and reputations, even resulting in fleeing the country or committing suicide. In other words they're just as heinous an offence as rape itself. What then, if someone had instead being sick enough deny the existence of victims of rape instead of those of false rape? Such views wouldn't be tolerated if they came form a random individual, yet here we have a government funded charity happily belittling all these false rape victims with any consequences or comment whatsoever.

There is of course an alternative possibility; perhaps Rights of Women do indeed accept that these victims exist, they just don't believe their side of the story. I.e. all supposed victims of false rape accusations are in fact liars and they are guilty as hell of rape regardless of what the evidence shows. Whichever is the position, it's equally abhorrent.

These tactics of denying the most basic of facts are very popular with gender feminists, perhaps even an intrinsic part of their movement. In order to stifle debate and draw attention away from their agenda and the damage they've caused, they attempt to refute the most fundamental of truths and attempt to turn reality on its head. For example, those such as Catherine Comins willing to admit that false rapes do in indeed occur, instead take the position that the falsely accused somehow gain from the experience. She helpfully lists describes how they can go through "a process of self-exploration" and lists hypothetical questions they might end up asking themselves about their relationships with women and whether they could have committed the crime had the circumstance been different. No matter the realities of the situation of course - I suppose it's something to pass the time whilst rotting in prison if nothing else.

For the benefit of those at Rights of Women, false rape accusers do indeed exist (and the moon does too for that matter). Further still, they're not just used in stereotypical high-stakes situations such as gaining revenge over an slightly unpleasant ex-partner or getting the upper hand in a custody dispute or divorce, they're actually used for increasingly trivial reasons these days.

Just this week a man was falsely accused of rape for to despicable act of bumping into a woman's car. Another was similarly accused as a result of being stabbed in the leg! Financial gain is often a motive too - some women see them as a method of gaining taxpayer payouts via the victims compensation scheme. Alternatively, some many false accuser are rather less ambitious, willing to use the weapon in lieu of paying a taxi fare.

it's worth remembering that these are only the cases we know about - they just the ones that actually made it all the way to court. Is your average taxi driver honestly going to stand up to a false accuser and risk a lengthy court case, possible violence and even their career? Surely in the vast majority of cases where women threaten them with false rape they simply take in on the chin and move onto the next fare?

It's pretty obvious that from being absolutely non existent, the problem false rape claims is more akin to an epidemic not incomparable to the problem of rape itself. Luckily public opinion is slowly changing and today's news show even many women now recognise the extent of the problem of false rape claims despite the government and police constantly sweeping them under the carpet. Lets hope hope more judges are brave enough to speak out so we can finally establish a register of false accusers so men can be afforded the same protection offered to women against sex offences.

NOW SWIFTCOVER INSURANCE THINK IT IS OK TO MOCK MEN

Last year this site revealedhow the Co-op's bank SMILE used PR research to mock men because they felt they needed more money than women to be happier.

Now Swift Cover (they with the bizarre Iggy Pop adverts) issued some PR survey research (link 1 and link 2)which says that "New research has shown that men are causing women to become stressed, and one website has recommended ways for females to battle their frustrations."

Without wanting to being too po-faced and lacking in humour but this lazy anti-male playing up to stereotypes is just part of the mainstream now. Why does no one at Swift Cover challenge this or do they just think it is OK to mock men?

Editor 1

WOULD CANCER RESEARCH LAUNCH A "RACIST FOR LIFE" EVENT?

Well, it's that time of year again where the UK population is faced with the annual relentless onslaught of material promoting Cancer Research's "Race for Life".

For anyone who's been in a coma for the last five years, the Race for Life (RFL) is a feminised five mile run, where participants adorned in pink clothing raise money for research into cancer. CRUK describe it as "unique opportunity for women to come together". Presumably all the other opportunities such as all our female only colleges, female only swimming sessions, female only hotels, female only gyms, female only taxis and female only libraries?

Obviously, such unnecessary segregation of the population by gender, or race nor any other arbitrary means is rather divisive, stupid and somewhat Talibanesque in nature, but it's not particularly sexist in itself if there's equal alternative participatory opportunities for all of the population.

However, that's clearly not the case at all here. Cancer Research (CRUK) is the biggest UK Cancer Charity, yet when they launched Race for Life they neglected to launched any corresponding opportunity for men to get involved whatsoever. Pressure by equality campaigners has reaped small dividends, such as the Run for Moore event, but it has been severely neglected by CRUK and is a half hearted effort at best. The event doesn't receive any significant promotion nor support and as a result isn't enjoying much success.

On the other hand, the Race for Life goes from strength to strength. Vast resources are put into supporting it - be it full page adverts on the front of local newspapers, glitzy TV ads, a barrage of radio spots, signs hanging from every conceivable location in your local branch of Tesco and even logos plastered on cereal packets exclaiming how "You're Invited! (as long as you don't' posses a penis that is).

CRUK state that RFL's ban on men is "due to the wishes of our participants". In other words, some people in the event are somewhat hostile towards males, but what if their hostility was say racial or perhaps religious? Would some equally misguided BNP supporters be allowed to have their own Racist for Life event where ethnic minorities were totally excluded in order to create "an opportunity" for  Anglo Saxons "to come together…in a celebratory atmosphere?"

You may at this point be wondering why exactly Cancer Research's behaviour here is such a big deal and why this is such a key equality issue? Well, to answer such a question we need to consider the following key points:

1. There is a vast gulf in spending between male and female specific cancers. By far the biggest of any cancers in terms of victims are breast cancer and prostate cancer, yet the former gets more funding, around four times as much in all areas including research, and even support, both by the government and by cancer charities themselves.  In fact the traditionally approach to prostate concur has been to hope the men would die of something else first!

2. Cancer is very much seen as a women's issue and the race for Life merely reinforces this false message. The publicity given to cancer such as breast cancer dwarfs everything else out there - Pink this, pink that you really can't escape it. Don't get me wrong, in some ways it's great so much effort goes into dealing with breast Cancer, but it's hardly fair when it's at the expense of everyone else. Such inequality ultimately means less awareness of men's cancers and thus yet more dead men. Women already enjoy significant privileges when it comes to access to health care and life expectancy and such an intense and exclusive focus on breast cancer only furthers such inequality. One could argue pink really does stink, though not for the reasons feminists suggest.

3. Men suffering even from non gender specific cancers have vastly worse outcomes compared to their female counterparts. Cancer Research are at least honest enough to openly admit this themselves. Thus if anything, portraying Cancer as a female phenomenon is a subversion to reality on the part of CRUK and cancer is if anything more of a mens issue that a women's! Of course, as with domestic violence any sane person cares about all cancer victims rather than one a marginally more afflicted subgroup, but it's still useful to know the full facts.

4. Given that 49% of the UK population is male  (despite all the cancer deaths), wouldn't Cancer Research be better off involving the entire UK population in fundraising thus generating double the amount of revenue? Just think how many more lives could be saved and how much more research funded if CRUK suddenly doubled its income!

On top of the above there are smaller logistical issues to consider too. What exactly happens to young boys during the Race for Life? How exactly does one explain to a child that his mother and sister are going to raise money to help grandma, but he's barred from helping out because he's of the wrong gender. Presumably childcare has to be arranged for him too and paid for thus resulting in further lost revenue. Also participants in the event aren't just raising money and publicising CRUK. They're in an environment where they can talk about cancer, and learn and think about the issue. Again this means improved cancer awareness for such women, and ultimately better outcomes as a result. Why does CRUK insist on denying such an excellent opportunity to men also?

In all fairness CRUK have made a few tiny concessions over the years as a result of a years of pressure and campaigning from the likes of equality Charity Parity. For example, women can now run in the memory of a male relative, but progress is painfully slow and if anything they're going backwards these days. For example see how many references you can spot to men or male cancer victims in this years Race for Life TV ad . (Here's a clue - the answer is less than one)

I think Race for Life really says a lot about the position of men in our society and particularly how we treat the issue of men's health. CRUK are at least decent enough to allow a debate about their sexism on the forums so it's not a totally lost cause, but for now I'd urge people to give their money to other Cancer Charities, or at least only sponsor those competing in alternative CRUK events unrelated to Race for Life. Similarly try not to patronise RFL partners, which this year include Tesco, Nivea  Go-Ahead (United Biscuits) and rather appropriately the equally sexist Diamond Car Insurance.

There appears to be an increasing amount of concern about RFL, some of the most eloquent is by the highly respected science author Brian Clegg. In his article "Just because it's for a good cause doesn't justify discrimination" he writes"

"I can't understand why, for example, anyone would want to be a member of a club or organization that excludes half the population...There is no justification for it, except to reinforce the old stereotypes that only women can be caring and supportive."

"The organizers of Race for Life should drop their appalling sexism, and if they don't voluntarily, they should be forced to do so."

Indeed, although I'd actually go slightly further than Mr Clegg and suggest that the fact that we're dealing with such an important and worthy cause here is even more of a reason why this discrimination is wrong. If some random company wants to be sexist or racist then that would be bad enough, but for the UK's biggest cancer charity to be doing such a thing is nothing short of a scandal.

RECOGNITION OF MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE IN SCOTLAND AND WALES IMPROVES

Back in December, the site commented on events in Scotland regarding the campaign and petition led by Alison Waugh and Jackie Walls for the Scottish Government to support male victims.

On the 26th of January, the issue was discussed in the Scottish Parliament and was also featured in the media (BBC, Scotsman and The Sun) and it is clear that the Petitions Committee gave those speaking a fair hearing but also treated them with good grace. They have asked the Scottish Government to respond.

Earlier this month, a Women's Aid organisation in Wales realised that equality means equality when male victims are also supported. De Gwynedd Women's Aidis changing its name to De Gwynedd Domestic Abuse Service from April to ensure it is clear that it helps male victims. Three cheers to that. The ManKind Initiative put a submission into the Welsh Assembly's consultation on this issue (updated ManKind web-site) and as there is no more information, there does not seem to be a response to the consultation yet from the Welsh Assembly.

So progress in Scotland and Wales, but silence in England, only a strategy aimed at women and girls. We need a General Election.

By The Original Editor who thanks John for his help in continuing the site while I had a few things to sort out.We have two direct contributors now which is great.

 

THIS WEEK'S DOSE OF HYPOCRISY FROM HARMAN

Harriet Harman is of course one of the foremost practitioners of the "do as I say, not as I do"  approach to politics, and this week has been no exception.

She is a highly vocal supporter of the disaster that has been All Women Shortlists, and as a result Labour's usual policy is to use such a scheme any time a safe seat is vacated. Thanks to the on going expenses scandal some of the most recently vacated seats have been in the Wanstead and Leyton constituency and more recently in Birmingham Erdington.

Strangely enough, neither of these seats are required to use to usual all women shortlists whilst at the very same time it has emerged Harman's husband Jack Dromey was rather keen on becoming the candidate. In fact, Harman even went as far as missing the Labour National Executive Committee meeting to ensure she didn't have to vote on policies for the Birmingham seat.

The good news is that the local Labour party in Wanstead and Leyton have decide that they don't much like the look of Mr Dromey and certainly don't like being told what to do, hence the decision in allowing men to stand for Parliament in Birmingham too. I suppose having constituency after constiuency repeatedly rejecting Mr Harman is one way of doing away with sexist shortlists (albeit very slowly), though it would surely be preferable to just restore democracy and have candidates selected on merit instead of the arrangement of their genitalia.

What we need in Parliament is more normal people there on merit who want to represent every single one of their constituents. The country doesn't need out of touch privileged gender feminists in government, nor do we want powerful Trade unionist getting into Parliament by virtue of their organisation possibly buying them the seat.

Anyway, perhaps I'm doing Harman a disservice and she merely missed the meeting because she's realsied the error of her ways when it comes to being sexist against men and she now no longer opposes democracy. Either way I'm sure we'll find out soon.

SICKENING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MURDER AND TORTURE CASE

Last month saw one of the most sickening domestic violence cases I've ever come across. You may well have missed the story given the relative lack of coverage it received in the media, undoubtedly it would certainly be be front page material if the victim were female. The case involved Clare Nicolls torturing her partner Andrew Gardner ove several week, eventually resulting in his murder.

Although she was assisted by others, it's clear from the sentencing and evidence that she was the primary offender in the case and the dominant figure in the household. There's such a huge catalogue of abuses the victim suffered that I can't really include them all and you have to read several news articles to get something close to the full picture. In summary Mr Gardner:

• Had 100 injuries including 21 broken ribs, burns, cuts, abrasions, a massive head injury, bleeding on the brain and blood poisoning.
• Suffered whipping and cuts with a knife.
• Had karate practised on him by Nicholls.
• Was marked as a result of people playing horrific games of noughts on crosses on his body.
• Had abuse written on his body using nail varnish.
• Suffered starvation and further beatings any time he tried to "steal food".
• Was deprived of sleep, being beaten any time he should fall asleep.

Any time gender feminists seeks to belittle and refuse to help male domestic violence victims I strongly suggest referring to cases such as this. Of particular note is the fact Nichols actually got other members of the household to restrain the victim whilst she carried out the beatings. In fact, she even encouraged their children to attack the victim too!

The only good news from the case case is that Nicolls actually received a sizeable life sentence for her deeds as opposed to the usual female sentencing discount we see all to often in such cases. Of course not everything is equal though - there are no quotes from any domestic violence charities in any of the coverage as would occur with your typical female victim, and the term "domestic violence" is of course totally omitted from ant articles on the case.

It's little wonder we fail to help people such as Mr Gardner when the term "domestic violence" is strictly reserved for female vicitms.

Clare Nicholls has admitted killing 35-year-old

Court told of lover's words after final attack

Torture victim had 100 injuries, court told

Life sentences for Chilton torture murderers

WE'RE BACK, THOUGH WITH A FEW CHANGES

Apologies to regular readers for the lack of updates recently.

The founder of The Rights of Man is taking some time off from blogging, so I've agreed to keep things ticking over here until his return.

There shouldn't be too many differences in our style. I don't think I'll be able to dig up quite as many enlightening stories relating to the inequalties faced by men as occurred here on such a regular basis. However, I'll be looking to examine the most important issues and news items in even more depth where possible.

Thanks for all the support and comments.

John Kimble