The Rights Of Man

SWIMMING DISCRIMINATION AT SALE LEISURE CENTRE

Just over a year ago the site highlighted how Leicester Council banned men from using a library one afternoon a week as it was women-only and Bristol Council did the same at a swimming baths.

Well one regular reader was barred from going to Sale Leisure Centre in Trafford Borough recently. On a Thursday morning, there is an hour set aside for women only as can be seen here. 

The reader has asked for the site to publish a request for help and of course we are happy to oblige (see end).  Help offered to be posted in the comments section please.

As well as helping the reader, what would be useful is if someone has the time (I know, who has?) could someone volunteer to undertake some Google research to find out how many other councils have these sorts of policies. If anyone wishes to undertake this project, can they contact me at [email protected] just so there is no duplication etc.

Posted by Skimmington

Update - See new post

Letter

I live in Trafford Borough in Cheshire and I really want to take my council to court over what I consider is either Sexist or Discriminatory practice against men.

 I was astonished and angered to discover that, when I turned up for my swim the other day at Sale Leisure Centre, that I was not allowed in because I was a man. The staff told me it was ladies only swimming. I protested to the manager and was subtly told that it was really meant to cater for Muslim woman because of their religious requirements. He said he sympathised with me but these decisions were made higher up the food chain by a committee.

I feel very passionately about discrimination towards men (and woman for that matter) and I would like to challenge my council in court over this issue. The problem is I don’t really know how to go about this challenge. Can you give me some information and advice or point me in another direction to seek advice and/or a very good solicitor/barrister who specialises in this area?

 Thanks for taking the time to read this,

 Mr C (white, lower to middle class, and yes, you’ve guessed it, MALE  L!)

 

UPDATE ON THE BRITISH AIRWAYS AND ITS SEXIST POLICY

The site commented last week on hero Mirko Fischer and it was gladdening to see that Libby Purves, columnist for the Times agree (no link available as The Times now has a paywall) explaining how it demeaned men everywhere. As did Rosie Murray-West in the Telegraph.

A reader wrote to British Airways last week stating that they would hear from his solicitor if they tried to move him in the same way they tried with Mr Fischer. He has asked that the reply is published which proves that British Airways are having to review it but also shows the contorted and convoluted way they try and defend the undefendable.

 British Airways

I am sorry you are dissatisfied with our seating policy for unaccompanied minors.  We carry tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors every year and take great pride in the service that we provide to them and their parents.  We have offered this service on all flights for many years for children aged between five and 11 years old, who are travelling alone.

Parents look to us to ensure the welfare of their children when they are travelling unaccompanied, who can be as young as 5 years old.  Given that some of these flights last up to 13 hours and are overnight, we take the responsibility of caring for these children, whose safety and security has been entrusted to us, extremely seriously.

There is a specific seating department, which oversees the booking and places the child in an appropriate seat.  To minimise risk to the child, whenever possible we do not seat unaccompanied minors beside adult male passengers.  On some services, this will be in a specially created Unaccompanied Minors zone within a short distance of the cabin crew in the galley. 

This procedure is not meant to cause offence to our male passengers, nor is it meant to imply that all men are a danger to children.  It is there as a precaution in the best interests of the welfare of our young passengers flying alone and will also protect male passengers from being the subject of false accusations.  However following recent court action taken by one of our passengers, this policy is currently under review.

Please be assured customer feedback such as yours is important to us.  We do hope that despite your current sentiments, you will give us an early opportunity to better serve you next time you travel with us.

Best regards

British Airways Customer Relations

Posted by Skimmington

 

GOVERNMENT MUST NOT BACKSLIDE OVER RAPE ANONYMITY

Ever since the Coalition Government announced its policy of giving rape defendants anonymity unless found guilty, they have been hounded and hounded by the anti-male feminists who do not want the Government to bring in this provision. Even to the point where hilariously Caroline Flint MP said this measure was the enemy of justice, even though the measure is the friend of equality. Also listen to her interview on the Today programme.

Against this onslaught, the Government is in danger of being faced down by the enemies of equality and men. A flavour of the backtracking can be seen in Parliament on 15th June where the Secretary of State for Justice, Kenneth Clarke MP, backslides and says nothing is certain. This follows David Cameron's backsliding as well as Clegg's, even though this is essentially a Lib Dem proposal. Clarke's backsliding was covered by the BBC and Daily Mail.

All this flies in the face of the continual damage down to innocent men covered in length here and the constant flow of stories about false accusers (Bernadette Core and here) and even the repercussions of the awful ordeal that Warren Blackwell went through where the police, brainwashed by the anti-male politically correct mafia , prosecuted him and ended up sending him to prison (Daily Mail and BBC) despite the evedience. Maybe Caroline Flint ought to listen to him.

Still others are doing their bit. The ManKind Initiative have written to the Government asking them to stand firm as has Thomas Byrne who also has set up a Facebook Group (if there are others that have written please tell the site).

Since the Coalition Government put forward this policy, the anti-male groups have gone into overdrive and the Coalition has been left floundering and is at risk of losing its nerve. Even the Independent reported they were looking at extending the anonymity issue but this has been met with the usual onslaught.

If the Coalition Government truly believes in equality, it has to face down the opponents on this issue.

If it does not, then the signal is that men will end up with the same rough deal dished out for 13 years by the Labour Government. It will mean that every time they put forward an measure that gives equality to men and women, they will cave in by being shouted down by the anti-male Marxist Feminists like Flint, Harman, the Fawcett Society and everyone else in that camp.

Posted by Skimmington

MIRKO FISCHER IS A MEN'S EQUALITY HERO AS BRITISH AIRWAYS CONTINUES ITS SEXISM AGAINST MEN

Every year or so, someone has the balls to publicly take on the anti-male establishment that we all suffer under and Mirko Fischer is one such hero. Down the years we've had people like the late Brian Law and Ertin Pizzey and now we can add Mirko Fischer.

This web-site has covered for some time the sexist and dangerous policies carried out many airlines including British Airways, Qantas, Air New Zealand who designate that men cannot sit next to children if the child is not theirs and is not accompanied by a related adult. Not only is this sexist because it only applies to men but also dangerous and offensive because the airlines tacitly believe that every man is a likely paedophile. Even the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has been a victim of it (link).

When the story first broke in January (attracting 460 comments in a debate in the Daily Mail) you would have thought that British Airways would just put their hands up, pay up and change their policy.

They didn't and even though he has won, you would think they would now change (BBC).

But still no, so infested in society's psyche that men cannot be trusted (it is why there are so few male primary school teachers) British Airways only admitted discrimination in the case of Mirko Fischer rather than say their whole policy is wrong.

It means right now in a plane in the air, British Airways could be sexually discriminating against a man and tacitly accusing him of being a paedophile by asking him to move because he is sitting next to an unaccompanied child (it is not he who has chosen the seat of course).

It also show the endemic and casual sexism against men that largely goes unchallenged. This is the same causal institutional sexism that allows the Government to propose bringing forward male retirement age by 8 to 10 years but only a women's by 4 years (it has not given a date yet). 

The other point of course is the pathetic silence from organisations like the Equalities and Human Rights Commission who have said nothing on this case. The Commission is supposedly meant to be about supporting equality for men and women, so it should be writing to the Chief Executive of British Airways demanding that they end this policy. But there is nothing but silence but like British Airways, the Equality and Human Rights Commission does not believe in equality if it means equality for men.

Posted by Skimmington

GOVERNMENT WILL PAY £25,000 IF YOU CUT OFF YOUR PENIS

Despite years of campaigning by groups such as Parity it's still very much the case that men in the UK are discriminated against when wanting to retire, having to wait five years longer than women to receive their state pensions. The present coalition government even proposes widening this disparity and believe men should wait until they are 66, despite the fact that men contribute far more in National Insurance and die much sooner than women too.

Fortunately there is now a way to avoid such discrimination and for men to receive the money that is rightfully theirs. Quite simply, if men who've worked hard all their lives wish to retire five years early and receive the extra £25,000 afforded to women all they need to do is to cut off their penis before their 60th birthday.

Such a fact was illustrated this week with the case of Christopher Timbrell who had a sex change operation at the age of 59 though still remains married to his/her wife.   Due to the couple remaining married, Timbrell, along with millions of men had been denied a state pension between the age of 60 to 65. However the Civil Appeal Court order that the decision had breached European equality laws and thus those such as Timbrell were entailed to up to £25,000 in backdated payments.

The court case itself featured all manner of discussion about whether or not two women can be married with the government's defence being the Timbrells would received "preferential treatment" over any other couple. It doesn't' appear to dawn on any of those involved that millions of women receive the very same "preferential treatment" over their male counterparts every single day. If we actually had equality in retirement ages all these ridiculous debates and layers fees could be done away with as we'd simply just treat everyone the same, regardless of what genitalia they have, or what gender they happen to identify themselves as.

I don't wish this piece to be construed as insensitive to the now Mrs Timbrell or people who decide to have a sex change and I realise that their cases involved a lot of anguish and more than a simple operation. In contrast to your average transphobic gender feminist I really don't care what people do with their bodies or what gender they wish to be and I'd actually like to congratulate Christine on defeating the government's sexism, albeit using a method that might not have mass appeal. In fact as an alternative to surgery men could surely just identify as a woman for five years order to receive their pension, with this case setting the precedent that they can even remain married. 

In a wider context it's important to note that the benefits of changing one's gender  in the UK aren't limited gaining tens of thousands of pounds or having five years extra off work, that's just the tip of the iceberg. On top of such incentives there's the prospect of getting into Parliament much more easily, significant help with your business, a promotion at work, exclusive leisure and educational facilities and even perhaps even a get out of jail free card too (and certainly a reduction on any sentence). The Timbrell case is a stark reminder of the discrimination faced by men today, despite many welcome signs and making some of the right noises in some areas, the fact is that the present government wishes to increase the pension gap rather than introducing equality.

In conclusion, I'd say it's fantastic that equality laws are used to help transsexuals, but how about actually using legislation to stop discrimination against those who are happy to remain as men too?

by John Kimble

THE RECLAMATION OF FATHER'S DAY FROM THE CLUTCHES OF THE ANTI-MALE FEMINISTS CONTINUES

Whether it is just me or that my eyes are slightly more open these days, but this year's Father's Day has continued the trend from last year and seen an upsurge in sentimentality and positivity about fathers and the role they play in our lives. And of course for any fathers out there, the role we play.

Certainly the media have moved a long way from publishing drivel from people like Gail Hornby (link) and the only nonsense I saw this weekend was unsurprisingly from Gaby Hinsliff in The Guardian.

It does not seem to have been covered in any meaningful way in the UK as Father's Day is meant to be 100 years old today, having been started in Washington by Sonora Dodd in 1910. There's no problem of course with this understatement as most father's and men in general would not want fuss. If it was a female-related anniversary there would be marches, bra-burning ceremonies and all sorts organised by the Fawcett Society!

Fathers have become acceptable again despite the anti-male propaganda peddled by Harman, McTaggart, Flint, the Fawcett Society,, the Commission of Equalities and Human Rights and other members of our laughable metropolitan elite.

There have been articles all this week in the media (see end) and the BBC are running a series this week on Fatherhood (a great blogpost from the controller of BBC is here). Also there just is more in the shops, more special gift sets and features, noticeably more people out with their families and just more positivity about it.

It has been at the end of a  significant week for the family when the new Coalition Government announced it was forming a Childhood and Families Taskforce to be chaired by the Prime Minister (see Nick Clegg's speech here).

In the hands of the man-haters of the last Government and organisations such as the Fawcett Society who view the role of a man in a family as an inconvenience, this would be worrying. However, the Coalition Government as set out in their coalition document have said they believe in shared parenting, that grandparents have a role and that they want a fundamental review of family law (Cafcass will be shaking in their boots).

With both Father's Day and the announcement made on family law, the reclamation of Father's Day and the role of fathers for families up and down our country has started to be happen. No longer is the word Father, a dirty word.

Skimmington

Media: BBC on the Church, Daily Star,  Daily Mirror, Telegraph 1, Telegraph 2, The Herald, Telegraph 3

FOR EVERY £3,500 SPENT ON FEMALE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS, £1 IS SPENT ON THEIR MALE COUNTERPARTS

Last week a hugely significant and historic debate took place in Scotland when the Parliament got round to finally discussing domestic violence against men. As highlighted in the discussions it's quite shameful that it took 11 years after the initial Liberal Democrat proposal to actually have the debate, particularly given that debating "violence against women" is quite literally an annual event.

The debate itself makes fascinating viewing and a number of those taking part really should be commended for their knowledge of the issues and determination to expose the truth with particular credit going to Mike Rumbles of the Lib Dems. The most positive aspect of the proceedings was the recognition of how badly the Scottish Parliament was failing male victims. It was noted that the Scottish Executive had spent some £100 million helping females victims, compared to £28,000 on men. Feminists moan about all sorts of inequalities such as supposed discrimination in pay, yet even with their skills at fiddling the figures I doubt they can find any area where the disparity in government spending between the sexes amounts to more than 350,000%. As noted in the debate, such a lack of funding means there's no actual helpline based in Scotland for men, and further still no services that victims can be referred to one they call the helpline. It's  akin to setting up a "999" call centre but neglecting to employ any fireman, police or paramedics.

Another positive side of the debate was the recognition that abuse takes many forms, with one of the more serious being women denying fathers access to their children. It was also mentioned how young men suffer more abuse than any other group and there was a promise to investigate the disparity between the reported number of male victim in surveys compared with the actual of them feeling able to report the matter to the police. Similarly it was acknowledged that most domestic violence against men is of course committed by women.

An interesting aspect of the debate was the quite disgraceful conduct of the MSPs from the Labour Party with the event exposing their incredibly backward and one-sided approach to the issue (though it was refreshing to see the rapidly growing gap between their sexist views and those of almost every other party). First of all we got to hear from Johann Lamont,  who sought to add an amendment to the proposed motion stating ""that overwhelmingly victims are women". Fortunately MSPs from other parties were on hand to remind Ms Lamont of the work of Parity and the excellent Statistics Authority who had already taken numerous government departments to task for using such a dishonest and inaccurate statement which downplayed the large proportion of domestic violence victims which were men. Ms Lamont wasn't finished there either, her next attack on male victims of domestic violence was to suggest that many male victims were lying, and further still were in fact perpetrators of domestic violence themselves! Now I don't' doubt that some men lie on this issue, but given that the police invariably take the woman's side who exactly is in the best position to make false allegations of abuse? Lamont will no doubt have been aware of the gender feminist Labour colleagues telling us how female rape victims will supposedly not be believed if anonymity was introduced, yet here we've got an elected official herself denying men's suffering and accusing genuine victims of not only making it up but actually being guilty of the offence themselves! Further still, it emerged she had repeated such an accusation on a radio broadcast earlier that morning too! Lamont also exposed her contempt for the facts in other dishonest statements about men and children, even repeating the discredited and disgusting assertion that "Paedophilia is almost exclusive to men" whilst also downplaying the amount of violence women commit against children.

Of course Labour can't pretend all male domestic violence perpetrators are liars or even the actual perpetrators of such offences, and they did begrudgingly acknowledge the existence of male victims with Bill butler significantly involved in the debate. So what was his attitude to these people faced with begin in such a desperate situation? Did he perhaps propose more funding, or setting up an actual helpline in Scotland itself, an advertising campaign or maybe even a shelter? No, Mr Butler instead sought to excuse women's violence against men. He told us how "When women use violence in intimate relationships it is often, though not always, in self defence or defence of a child or as a form of resistance." When Labour politicians talk about violence against women they always tell us you should "never hit a woman" and "there's no excuse for abuse" yet here was a Labour MSP justifying the abuse of men and even blaming the victim suggesting they are child abusers or a person who somehow need "resisting" whatever that means. His views were branded as "shameful" by the Liberal Democrats and quite rightly so.

My one criticism of the event is the failure to recognise the harmful anti-male agenda of the Men's Advice Line, the organisation receiving the £28,000. The group behind "service" is unapologetically gender feminist in it's outlook and mainly concerned with male perpetrators and female victims. There was some recognition of the fact that the helpline scheme hadn't gone out to tender with the Sottish Executive had only considering the Men's Advice Line or a Scottish feminist group as candidates. However, whistle quite rightly attacking the disgusting attitudes of the Labour MSPs to male victims, the politicians didn't seem to realise they were handing over money to an organisation with the exact same agenda and prejudices. When vulnerable male victims make a phone call they wouldn't be getting a genuinely sympathetic response, but instead someone with exactly the same attitudes as Johann Lamont, i.e. someone who believes that many men lie about being victims of abuse whereas women almost always tell the truth. Perhaps worse still, their words and experiences will almost certainly be twisted to suggest they were the perpetrator of the offence, with such statistics used by misandrists, even in the Scottish Parliament itself, as an excuse to deny help to men or to downplay their suffering..

On a more positive note we did see a tremendous understanding of the issues, for example the quite brilliant Mike Rumbles stated "I hope that we will all see the evil of domestic abuse for what it is—an evil that is perpetrated on the weaker member of a relationship. It is not a gender issue. If we treat it as such, no progress will be made in tackling its true evil. Members should not continue with the mistake of saying that it is simply a gender issue. It is about the abuse of one person in a relationship by their partner. Once we recognise that, we might at last get on the right track and have a chance of helping all those victims who really do need our help." However, such tremendous understanding of the problem didn't merely come from the Liberal Democrats, but also from the Conservatives and even some SNP members such as Christine Grahame. She quoted a domestic violence victim who stated "I find it painful that the Scottish Government has funded a series of TV ads for Christmases highlighting the awfulness of domestic violence in which every example is of male violence against women. It hurts to see messages on buses that men are violent and women are victims. Not a hint that it can ever be the other way. I have no sympathy for men who assault a wife or partner. But I object to my own experience being disregarded." These words led to calls for a campaign or even just a single poster showing males being abused by women, though alas no action was promised.

When writing the conclusions and summaries for pieces such as this I generally have to explain the problem myself and condemn the guilty parties where so many other have failed to do so, either due to a lack of understanding of the issues or a lack of interest in genuine equality. Refreshingly in this instance I can simply quote MSP Mary Scanlon who summed up the situation quite brilliantly herself: "To every male victim and associated child in Scotland, I say that Labour is not listening to you. According to Labour, men feel no pain."

by John Kimble

PEOPLE WHO EAT LEEKS ARE NO BETTER THAN PAEDOPHILES

This site recently revealed details of an Early Day Motion which opposes anonymity for those falsely accused of rape. Such an offensive an illiberal proposal was produced by Labour's Fiona MacTaggart and it would very much appear she's able to give Harriet Harman as run for her money in the New Labour misandry contest.

In addition to a contempt for victims of false accusations, MacTaggart also fits the feminist stereotype of inventing statistics to suit her arguments as we discussed previously. However we can also reveal the MP for Slough also has some particularly distasteful not to mention preposterous views on men who pay for sex.

In an interview with the Observer newspaper, the MP stated "I don't think most men who use prostitutes think of themselves as child abusers, but they are". She went on to describe the use of prostitutes as "the most common form of child abuse", though offering no statistics to back up her arguments (invented or otherwise).

MacTaggart's argument appears to be that some prostitutes begin to enter the profession before adulthood and some are cored into it or controlled by pimps/traffickers. This somehow leads her to the conclusion that all men who pay for sex are somehow responsible for all these wrongs rather than the actual perpetrators of the offences. MacTaggart ignores the fact that drug use and/or the prospect of earning easy money are attractive options in the deprived parts of Britain (a country in which inequalities between rich and poor widened significantly under her party's governance). Neither does it occur to Ms MacTaggart that there are a variety of catalysts for girls engaging in harmful practices at a young age, one of the most obvious being the absence of her father again an issue on which her government refused to act). It's also apparent that MacTaggart doesn't bother to make any distinction between children and adults, nor does she actually care about the issue of consent. Contrary to her false claim that 80% of prostitutes are controlled by pimps and work against their will, most are in fact consenting adults.

One adult paying another for sex is in itself an entirely consensual activity. It might be a somewhat distasteful transaction to some, but in a free society adult men and women should be free to do as they wish with their own bodies. It goes without saying that we should crack down extremely hard on violent and controlling pimps, on people traffickers and of course actual child abusers grooming girls for prostitution, but none of these awful crimes form any sort of intrinsic or compulsory aspect of sex work. Whilst there are indeed parts of the country where the grooming of girls for prostitution is an issue, there's actually evidence the Labour government and the police failed to protect the victims of such crimes to the racial component of many such offences.

MacTaggart is perfectly happy to make sexist comments falsely proclaiming three million men to be no better than baby rapists, somehow holding them account for other people's crimes occurring perhaps a decade previously or, as in the vast majority of cases, not at all. At the same time any common link in terms of the identity of actual perpetrators of the crimes she's supposedly so concerned about (other than gender) is strictly taboo.

Similarly off limits is any mention of the fact that women use prostitutes. Why? Well the gender feminists like to pretend women don't commit any sort of abuse and therefore any time a woman pays for sex it must therefore be an entirely consensual act (I'm sure it is in most cases too). However if so many men are voluntarily engaged in such a profession than it surely follows that plenty of women are similarly happy working in the sex industry? (or fully willing participants at the very least). Mactaggart's points are yet another attempt to infatalise women as completely unable to consent to anything or make rational decisions, a view which is actually a huge barrier to women achieving full equality.

If we take MacTaggart's arguments to their logical conclusion and apply it to other areas then it surely means all sorts of other consumers are guilty of serious offences too? Contrary to McTaggart's claims, evidence from arrests shows most people trafficking involves the agricultural sector. Given cases such as this one, MacTaggart presumably feels that all people who eat leeks must be automatically be guilty of violence, abuse and trafficking and they should certainly put a stop to their disgraceful consumption of such vegetables. I expect some of the victims come form disadvantaged backgrounds and were possibly even sexually abused when they were younger so perhaps all Leek eaters are paedophiles too? MacTaggarts system of finding the worst practices in any given industry, assuming they apply across the board and then delving into the victim's childhood to find more issues to which she holds consumers accountable you can link any person to any crime if you try hard enough.

MacTaggart's illogical, not to mention offensive comments aren't all bad though. They actually help us to understand her motivation for blocking measures to help victims of false rape allegations and perhaps those of her Labour colleagues. As with so many other such highly privileged and wealthy gender feminists, she demonstrates no real understanding of the issues. Her "arguments" suggest she has no actual interest in helping rape victims nor protecting prostitutes from dangerous clients and pimps. Anyone wanting to help sex workers would have introduced a New Zealand style system of brothels by now to ensure the workers were all adults, working voluntarily and in safety. Similarly anyone concerned with the plight of the many genuine rape victims out there would be demanding far stronger sanctions against false accusers and the removal of any legislation facilitating or encouraging their crimes, most notably the ability to ruin the lives of their victims before trial. Instead she prefers to brush the issue under the carpet, with her Early Day Motion pretending all accusers are in fact victims who's accusations should automatically be believed regardless of the evidence.

MacTaggart's hysterical attitudes to consensual sex illustrate exactly why false rape accusations present such a problem today. Rather than help the victims of such offences who have their lives ruined she prefers to play politics with such issues in order to further her anti-male, anti-sex agenda. Her comments on prostitution are in fact little short of false rape allegations themselves, though aimed at the male population as a whole rather than one specific victim. It's little wonder she's so opposed protecting people from such offences given that she shares so much in common with false accusers herself.

by John Kimble

SIGN THE PETITION SUPPORTING ANONYMITY FOR THOSE ACCUSED OF RAPE

Recently a petition has been established supporting the coalition government's proposals for anonymity for those accused of rape. The policy was democratically agreed at the Liberal Democrat Conference in 2006 and was was also announced as an official coalition policy last month.

A number of gender feminists have come out strongly against protecting vicitms of false rape allegations and it would be a real tragedy is such desperately needed civil liberties legislation was watered down due to pressure from anti-male groups. There's even an Early Day Motion in Parliament against the proposals, with some of the usual suspects opposing protecting such vulnerable men. For more on why such a policy is needed I strongly recommend reading some of our recent articles on the issue or visiting the excellent False Rape Society website.

Please sign the petition and to ask friends and colleagues to do the same.

by John Kimble

THE NEW STATESMAN PUBLISHES HATE SPEECH AGAINST MEN

Recently the New Statesman recruited extreme feminist Labour supporter Laurie Penny to write a blog on their website.

In her latest piece Penny writes of how her demeanour often means men sometimes suggest to her that she might perhaps smile. Now of course any reasonable person knows smiling to be a positive thing which has health benefits for the wearer and for those around them, something that should clearly be encouraged. However, Penny takes great exception to such a recommendation and somehow links it to "men's indisputable right to pass public judgement on absolutely any woman’s appearance and demeanour". She seems willing for one man to make such a suggestion as long as it is early in the day, but be warned if you make such a comment in the evening because as Penny states "that sort of thing makes even the gentlest soul long to execute the scumbags with a great big gun." Yes - that's right - if you are a man who suggests a woman should smile then your are deserving of execution for committing such a heinous act.

This brings us on the the main content of the article which a a violent feminist computer game, allowing the man-haters such as  Penny to fulfil their sick fantasies and execute men who they deem to be sexist in some way. Penny quotes Ellie Levenson author of The Noughtie Girl’s Guide to Feminism, who states "it’s definitely not feminist to fantasise about shooting men, although I can imagine it might be quite satisfying sometimes" Just imagine if the comments of these two women were about how satisfying it is to fanatise about killing black people, or Jews or gays or how they are scumbags in need of executing? The authors would be out of a job instantly and be facing an investigation by the authorities at the very least. The comments are a million times worse than anytihng written by  Jan Moir, yet her article provoked an outcry the likes of which we've not seen in years. Admittedly the New Statesman have done the decent thing and removed the hate speech but we really need to see a full apology and some wider condemnation.

Penny's sexist doesn't stop there either. She goes on to further apologise for the game by asking a series of questions, such as "What if we wanted to take bloody revenge on our oppressors?", "What if we wanted to create fear and havoc?" and "What if we wanted to rule the world?" It really is very troubling stuff.
I discovered this story though Iain Dale's quite excellent blog, though some of the concern there appears to be in the timing of the article as much as the content itself. To be honest I find such an argument quite offensive and timing merely compounds the issue rather than being of much significance. The fact is that the piece is sexist hate speech against men encouraging genocide against them. It isn't suitable for publication just after a gun massacre, but neither is it suitable for publication at any other time either.

It really disturbs me that that it's still socially acceptable in some circles to discuss the genocide of men as something that might be appropriate or at best some sort of slightly regrettable "final solution". Harriet Harman spoke about men fleeing the country if she got into power and Penny's piece comes from the very same mindset (albeit one far, far more extreme than even Harman).

Ironically, Penny's previous article consisted of a rant about violence against women where she condemns filmmakers as apologists for "thoughtless sexualised violence". She mentions Danny Dyer's "joke" of advising a reader to cut his girlfriends face and quotes Laurie Olivia who complains about how the media dehumanises female victims of violence. Now I'm sure some of these points are valid, but Penny's antics are immeasurably worse. She's excusing thoughtless violence, dehumanising men and urging far more extreme actions than Dyer all in a couple of sentences, and she's done so just several days after complaining about how violence against women is encouraged by the media. It's a classic case feminist double standards at their very finest.

Unsurprisingly, Penny's sexism has also gained her employment at the Guardian in addition to her role at New Statesman. I'd urge readers to write to these publications airing your concerns about this hate speech by their employee. Obviously it's the New Statesman who bear the most responsibility here and lets hope they do the decent thing an write full apology explaining why such an article is so sickening and harmful to the 40% of domestic violence victims who these publications continue to belittle and ignore (and worse).

by John Kimble