The Rights Of Man

FAWCETT SOCIETY LOSE LAUGHABLE BUDGET CLAIM BUT DANGEROUS PRECEDENTS ARE SET

When of the clear cases of hypocrisy in the so-called Feminist movement in the last few years as been their lies about the unemployment during this recession.

First we had Harman and Co saying the recession had affecting women in the private sector more than men. This was nailed as an untruth by the Government's own Office of national Statistics (here and here).

Then when the effects of the recession and government over-spending became clear and the need for retrenchment ion the public sector had top be made, there were the squeals of horror that this effected women more than men, and therefore had to be stopped.

We have argued long and hard on the site about the hypocrisy of this and also that any cuts in a woman's job or in benefits effects men as well (here and here).

The Fawcett Society, Britain's leading McCarthyite 'every man is a potential woman-hater'  anti-male organisation, challenged the UK government in the courts about the government's Budget in July this year and the fact they had not carried out an assessment on its effects on women and also that it affected women more than men. They wanted a Judicial Review of the Budget but Judge Ouseley refused on Monday. There response is here.

However, it is not all good news.

Firstly, the government admitted it had not considered a gender assessment of the Budget. It did so for the Comprehensive Spending Review in October which now means this type of assessment is now entrenched as the 'normal' way of policy-making. The government should of course repeal the rule forcing it to make such assessments as this was introduced by Harman and Co in the last government.

Secondly, the Judge says the Equalities Commission should carry out such a review, which then extends their power and influence. The government has to scrap this body but will be scared to do so because of the strength of the oxymoron - the so called 'equalities' lobby.

Thirdly, it gives more credibility to the Fawcett Society when they deserve absolutely none. Few if any real normal women support this orgainsation  - only political activists do.  

Lastly, it sets a precedent for this sort of activity through the courts, so all government's will be wary of upsetting the women's lobby. No one cares about the male equality so when it comes to making policy decisions they will become even more anti-male because they would be afraid of upsetting women's groups so they overcompensate. This will be unconscious and back of the mind decision-making leading to discrimination which will damage men and boys.

The Fawcett Society have made progress which is bad news for men and boys, and for all those women who like sharing their lives with men and boys.

Posted by Skimmington

Media cioverage  - Catherine McKinnell in the Guardian (one of the most laughable articles ever published and please read the comments section as well) and Press Association.

 

 

WHAT WOULD CRISPIN BLUNT SAY IF THIS WAS HIS SON?

Last month we reported another Coalition Government U-turn on ensuring rape defendants were to be treated equally before the law to plaintiffs and remain anonymous unless proven guilty.

Arch-coward Crispin Blunt MP, the minister in charge of the policy, alongside his Conservative and Lib Dem colleagues bottled the decision because of the campaign by anti-male feminists.

The outcome of this awful decision was seen this week in the Daily Mail. Here the man who was innocent is photographed but the woman who went to prison accusing of him of rape remains anonymous.

His name gets dragged through the mud and is now permanently in the media, even though he was innocent .

If this was your son Crispin Blunt, what would you say?   

Posted by Skimmington

SPAT IN BRISTOL ON WHETHER ALL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS WRONG

An interesting story broke out last week when Lib Dem Councillor Barbara Janke walked out of an event about ending violence against women. This was part of the UN event (see recent post) which many organisations such as councils and police force forces combine with White Ribbon Day (men to stand up against violence against women) and also domestic abuse awareness week.

We could argue to the cows come home about the UN event and the White Ribbon Day but it is often ends up being sexist when domestic abuse awareness week is wrapped up with it (on purpose of course) because it means domestic violence against men gets lost.

Anyway, the article in Bristol (inldunclduing the reasons by the feminists) and also the response on a feminist website is worth reading. What is amazing is the reaction to anything that feminists disagree with, that is the most telling. They cannot take an alternative view.

Posted by Skimmington

FAIRNESS IN FAMILIES INDEX - THE FATHERHOOD INSTITUTE'S REPORT IGNORES FAMILY CHOICE AND THE POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR FATHERS

The Fatherhood Institute is an organisation that is hard to pin down in terms of what it stands for and whether it's definition of equality on fathers and mothers is based on coercion or choice.

It does great things like attacking politicians who just slag off dads  because it is all their fault and to encourage government policy to include fathers (the current family law review is absolutely crucial) but then produces a report last week - the Fairness in Families Index (FiFI) - that seems to say that Britain is down the league table last week (18th of 21).

This would not necessarily be a problem but it is the basis that it makes such an issue that is troubling as would be the unintended consequences of even more efforts to allegedly 'even' up the playing field. This would lead to even more discrimination against men and fathers than we have already.

The ranking is based on ten factors including the number of men in the part-time workforce, % of women in senior positions, % of women in Parliament and the gender pay gap, the amount of time spent caring for a child per gender, amongst other things. Basically, the lower down the figure, the lower the fairness score.

The problems with this are many fold.

Firstly, it by effectively suggesting that fathers and mothers should not choose their domestic arrangements when they have children unless it fits with variables in the Fairness in Families Index.

The Institute is basically stating that if a couple decide that the man as part of the family unit should be the one (if they have to choose of course) to work longer hours, or be an MP, be in a senior position, to invest more of his time in building a career etc , whilst his wife/partner chooses to spend more time bringing up their children then this a bad and unequal thing. If it does not fit the Index criteria then it is a bad thing.

Part of the genetic make up of men and women is that many women when they have children want to spend time bringing them up in their early years at least (thereby reducing their work) while the man works full time and does all he can to ensure the household is financially OK. Of course, and rightly, it happens the other way around or that both men and women work equally as hard and bring up the children.

To the Fatherhood Institute, their interest is in stereotypes and not about individual household choice. The reason there are less women in Parliament is because less want to be politicians and also it makes no difference to how 'man-friendly' family policy is (We had 13 years of an anti-male Labour Government and this government is no better!). Just because there are less women in senior positions or there is a gender pay gap (the biggest myth ever perpetrated to undermine men is to suggest the gap is due to discrimination) does not men there is not fairness in families if the father and mother make a mature decision about it.

It is almost as if the Fatherhood Institutes's view of family fairness is about circumventing mature and rational decisions made by the father and mother. They rae saying they want more women in management positions because it is fairer to the family, but that may not be what mothers and fathers in each individual family want for their family unit.

The second issue is of course our old chestnut - equality in the UK means that some people are more equal than others as well as the unintended consequences of the changes to 'even' things up are for fathers.

It counts as a fairness negative that there are not enough women in Parliament, in senior positions and too many work part-time (has the Fatherhood Institute asked those mothers working part time if this is something they and their husbands/partners are happy about?).

So to change things more quickly than they are already would mean more positive discrimination to get more women into Parliament and into senior positions. This means positive discrimination/action (do not be fooled by those who believe that positive action is different to positive discrimination - the latter is the outcome of the former). This means more all-women shortlists and gender quotas. To get more women into part time roles does this mean not employing men in full time roles (and switching topart time) or stopping women from choosing to work part time? 

All these would help improve the position of the UK in the Fairness in Families Index (FiFI) but to ensure this happens would mean discriminating against fathers and their families because it would make it harder for a father to be a MP, or be in senior position or work full time. Is this what the Fatherhood Institute want?

And of course, is this in the best interest of the family, the children and the mother. Of course not, but according to the Fatherhood Institute's index it would be.

In summary, the Fairness in Families Index is a PR wheeze looking for a headline and to give some sort of credibility to the Fatherhood Institute. But actually its definition of what is fair and what the policy response would need to be to make it even more fairer would damage fathers and their families.

The Fatherhood Institute needs to think a lot deeper about what it does and what it stands for.

Posted by Skimmington 

   

HYPOCRISY IN WEYMOUTH

This week, Councillor Christine James (a campaigner for female victims of domestic abuse) from Weymouth and Portland Council was convicted of physically attacking her husband (also a councillor though he is Conservative and she is a Lib Dem). The report in the Dorset Echo says she she rained punches down on him. 

She received a sentence of an 18 month conditional discharge (basically the judge convicts someone but passes no sentence unless a similar incident occurs) and had to pay £200 in costs. She also refuses to resign from the council.

Now if this was a male councillor there is no way such a weak and pathetic sentence would have been passed. There would have been a campaign of vilification by local women's groups (the local Women's Aid group especially), he would have been disowned by his political group on the council and the council itself would have condemned him. Yet, because the councillor is female nothing of the sort happens and the council itself says it is a 'domestic' and therefore none of its business!  

As an elected member of the community and someone who is meant to lead by example and having broken the law, the councillor has to resign. A male councillor would have come under such pressure he would have no choice, but not a word from the Lib Dems on this council. Eeveryone available would be lining up to condemn him.

As ever, double standards are shown to be norm when it comes to male and female victims or perpertrators of doemstic abuse. Silence and sweep under the carpet, keep moving, there is nothing to see here...

Posted by Skimmington 

Other Media Coverage - Dorset Echo#2, Daily Mail