The Rights Of Man

MORE ON DOMINIC RAAB MP

Just as a quick catch up linking through to the additional comments and commentary and debate about Dominic Raab's excellent and forthright comments this week as covered on the site (1, 2 and 3).

Mr Raab continues to stand up for himself and will not be brow beaten. The fact that many newspapers ran with the story that he was slapped down by the Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities, Theresa May MP, shows how embedded the anti-male culture is in our politics. Harman (Labour) was bad enough and now we have Theresa May (Conservatives) and Lynne Featherstone (Lib Dem). Can someone really say what the difference is anymore, three leading people from three different parties but all anti-male.  

It is also the hypocrisy of May when she says we should end the gender warfare - she is the Minister for Women but there is no Minister for Men. Unbelievable.

Men's Network - MP makes a stand for men against female bigotry '(Glen Poole)

Daily Mirror - MP gets dresses down 'feminist bigots' slur  backbencher 

Press Association - May slams MP over feminist remarks

BBC - Theresa May slaps down 'feminist bigots' MP

Daily Telegraph - Are men victims of obnoxious feminism (Dominic Raab MP and Fay Weldon)

The Guardian - Four myths about feminism and the one he is right on (Laurie Penny)

Posted by Skimmington

BBC FORCED INTO U-TURN OVER DOMINIC RAAB SLUR

Whilst there has been significant improvements at the BBC over the last two years in relation to proper and honest coverage of equality issues, most readers of this blog are more than aware that the much of the organisation still unfortunately represents little more than a toned down version of the Guardian in its output much of the time.

Evidence of this came today in the organisation's well known weekly news quiz, a regular feature of its website. The quiz is a prominent feature on the BBC's main news page (one of the most viewed such pages in the world) and features seven multiple choice questions about the week's news.

Question one of the quiz featured a quote from Raab's superb call for equal rights for males in which he stated "Feminists are now amongst the most obnoxious bigots" and highlighted various forms of sexism faced by men.

Viewers of the website are asked who came out with such comments, the choices given are Mr Raab, but also the hugely sexist Angy Gray and his marginally less sexist colleague Richard Keys. This is a rather disturbing set of options, the implication being that the disgusting individuals that are Gray and Keys are somehow similar in mindset to the brilliant Mr Raab. It's clearly the BBC view that anyone who dares to consider criticising sexist feminists such as Harriet Harman must somehow strangely actually be a sexist themselves. Peter Sissons confirmed this bias towards Harman earlier in the week, noting how most of the producers at the organisation "seemed to be fully paid-up members of her fan club".

OF course there's technically nothing wrong with with a smear by association, but when one chooses an answer in the quiz the BBC kindly gives us more detail on the story. The organisation informs us that the week's news had featured a "broadside against "equal rights" for women" by Raab and how it had coincided with Gray's and Key's derogatory remarks about women in football!. Such ridiculous assetionscouldn't' be further from the truth, it's blatantly obvious that Raab is fully in favour of equality for everyone and the only relevance of teh Key's/Gray comments in the way they've been handled compared to similar statements on Womens' TV programmes and also those by various female Labour politicians. Not once does Raab attack women' equality nor even hint at doing so, and it really sums up the mindset of thsoe who produced the quiz for them to have to jumped to assuch a conclusion.

Thanks to complaints the BBC have now been forced into a U-turn on this issue and have removed the smear against Mr Raab, replacing it with a summary of what was actually said. It's worth noting that you wont' find any acknowledgement of the previous mistake on the page, nor any apology to Mr Raab for the attack. Luckily the excellent News Sniffer site allows people to see how BBC articles have changed over time, and shows us both versions of the article so everoyne can see what has happened.

It's pretty clear the BBC have it in for Mr Raab. Firstly there's the instance of his rough treatment on Radio 4's PM program which contrasted hugely with the type  of questioning other guests were subjected too. Now we have these fasle statemtents and one hates to think what's next. On the plus side Radio 4 have now at least released a recording of the full interview with Mr Raab but it's really worrying that our public broadcaster behaves in this way.

If you want to let the BBC know you feeling on this issue (or any other instance of similar bias and lies) be sure to fill in the BBC complaints form.

by John Kimble

DOMINIC RAAB MP STANDS FIRM

Unlike Christopher Blunt MP and other Ministers in the Justice team whose knees buckled against the onslaught of the anti-male feminists, Dominic Raab is holding his line that men get a raw deal and that there is a lot of feminist bigotry in the UK.

He has been further interviewed on the BBC (see also blog) and Evening Standard  (the journalist Pippa Crerar says that women get paid 10% less than men for doing the same job - an assertion that is completely and utterly incorrect) and there has been further coverage in papers like the Daily Mail (423 comments in their comments section!) and Daily Express.

The BBC says Mr Raab defends his comments, why should he defend them? When Harman, May or Featherstone make their anti-male comments, do the BBC ask them to defend their views?? No, the BBC just accepts them.

As Jon said in yesterday's post, we should individually write to him via http://www.dominicraab.com/contact_dom.html and thank him for raising this issue and for standing firm.

Posted by Skimmington

AT LAST, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT STANDS UP FOR MEN AND BOYS: DOMINIC RAAB MP

At last an MP in the House of Commons has stood up for men in this country and said that equality means equality for men and boys too.

Dominic Raab MP has certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons in his first class article on the Politics Home website where he declares that "We must end feminist bigotry".

He also declares that:

"From the cradle to the grave, men are getting a raw deal."

"Meanwhile, young boys are educationally disadvantaged compared to girls, and divorced or separated fathers are systematically ignored by the courts"

" Maybe it’s time men started burning their briefs, to put an end once and for all to what Emmeline Pankhurst used to call ‘the double standard of sex morals."

At long long last we have a British Member of Parliament not only making the case that equality applies to men and boys too but also pointing out the facts about the gender discrimination gap which is used as a way to berate men and ask for special favours for women. His attack on soft discrimination beloved by Harman, May and Featherstone is spot on.

He also raises general issues about male employment, education and family law and also makes the valid point that feminists, especially the extremists like Harman et al, intensely dislike in that men and women like each other and are inter-dependent. Attack men and you are attacking their mothers, sisters, daughters, wives, partners, or girlfriends.

Has he been reading this site, we ask ourselves?

As you would expect, especially when the idiots Andy Gray and Richard Keys put the cause back, it is not long before the usual anti-male suspects line up to attack Dominic Raab.

Harman says "Women still earn 20 per cent less than men, domestic violence claims the lives of women every week and women bear the brunt of poverty in the developing world." And a new campaigner, Nia Griffith, the shadow business minister, called on Mr Raab to "get real and stop being so self-pitying”.

We have all been waiting for years for just one MP to raise the issue about male inequality and that equality means equality for men and boys too.

In Dominic Raab MP, perhaps we have now found someone who will stand up in parliament and speak up for men and boys, as well as their mothers,  sisters, daughters, wives, partners, or girlfriends. Let us all hope he sticks to it, all of the above are hoping he does.

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage - Daily Telegraph, Evening Standard (plus comments), Daily Mail

 

BOARDROOM GENDER QUOTAS TO STOP MEN SUCCEEDING STILL ON THE AGENDA

Just a quick post but after yesterday saying the coalition government were offering a glimmer of hope on family law, they could be taking the hope away again with the Daily Mail story that they intend to ensure there are gender quotas in the boardroom. Does this mean the stories in the Independent and Guardianat New Year were premature?

This  site has talked often about the fact that this will lead to discrimination against men because some men will not be permitted into the boardroom because they may have to make way for a less qualified/talented women to ensure the quota is met. Previous posts include these (1, 2, 3) and the arguments still stand. It is pure sexism and has now happened in France.

It also comes the day after that the unemployment figures (page 6) show that there were 450,000 unemployed male 18-24 years olds and 300,000 unemployed females of the same age.

Men can't get onto the employment ladder and eventaully with quotas it will be harder for them to get to the top of it.

Posted by Skimmington 

Ps In the comments section of the Daily Mail piece, this sums it all up from one reader:

So you work hard and are good at what you do - but if you're a man, you can't get a job on the board because the quota dictates it has to be a woman. Seems a bit...sexist to me. Or does sexism only work one way?

CHILD MAINTENANCE REVIEW OFFERS HOPE ON JUSTICE IN THE FAMILY COURTS

At the turn of the year the site commented on its despair at the actions, in-actions and u-turns of the Coalition Government on equality issues for men. A lot of this is because it has been driven by the Ministers for Equalities and Minister for Women.

The one area where there still remained a flicker of hope was the fact the government remained committed to reviewing family law and the way that family courts and other institutions operated. This is helped by the fact that 'the family' remains a central construct in Conservative ideology (less so for the Lib Dems though John Hemmings MP has been active).

In the Coalition agreement it stated: We will conduct a comprehensive review of family law in order to increase the use of mediation when couples do break up, and to look at how best to provide greater access rights to non-resident parents and grandparents.

Whilst that review remains ongoing, they have just launched a separate consultation on the future of child maintenance - a system riddled with anti-father bias and unfairness.

One of the biggest injustices in overall family law system has been the disconnection between child maintenace and access - where a father is denied access to their children despite court orders and agreements but still the CSA and now CMEC continue to demand (with menaces) the maintenance payments. These issues have been dealt with in a silo.

It has meant mothers who flout the law are still rewarded by the CSA/CMEC  - a morally corrupt situation especially made worse by the family courts failing to 'punish' mothers who ignore court orders. Mothers in this situation are gaming the system because policymakers have never made the connection between child maintenance and access.

This has also been enhanced because fathers recognise and worry about the consequences of withhloding payments on their children and recalcitrant mothers play on this as well.

Welcome news has been received today though that this now being looked at in the round as the Family Justice Review team have said:

As part of the [child maintenance green paper], DWP have asked us to look at the extent to which decisions on maintenance or contact should have a bearing on each other – alongside our emerging proposals for whole-system reform.The full proposal is laid out in the Green Paper as follows:

We know that one of the most significant issues for non-resident parents is when contact with their children is denied or withheld. This can lead to tension and hostility between the parents, especially where maintenance is still being collected through the statutory system.

We are keen to explore approaches that allow maintenance arrangements to be considered in the round when determining appropriate contact enforcement measures. We recognise, however, that there are challenges in linking maintenance and contact in this way, most importantly how such decisions might impact on the best interests of the child. We also recognise that it is important that this issue is considered within the context of wider reforms that are currently being progressed elsewhere in government. We have therefore requested that the Family Justice Review consider this issue as part of its wider work in developing options for reform of the Family Justice System.

 I am aware that you may have an opinion on this issue, but might not have addressed it in your evidence to the Review. We plan to set out the issues and invite further views on this in our interim report, to be published at the end of March.

 If, however, you want to pass on any immediate comments on this proposal for our consideration ahead of this, we would be grateful to receive these by Friday 4 February.Please submit any evidence to: [email protected]

This is extremely encouraging news because it means a joined-up government approach and the review on family law is a root and branch review.

Not only does it mean the prospect of shared parenting is on the horizon but also that there may be justice and equality with regards to child maintenance as well.

Let us hope that those mothers who purposely deny their child(ren) the chance to maintain a meaningful relationship with their fathers, despite court agreements, no longer are allowed to sit at home counting the cash he is still forced to send through.

All is asked for is moral and legal justice in a supposedly civilised country.

Posted by Skimmington 

PANORAMA SHOW ON FECKLESS DADS SHOW INSTITUTIONAL BIAS OF BRITAIN'S MEDIA ELITE

One of the enduring and underlying themes of documentaries about men is the fact that there always seems to be room for naysayers who want to undermine the concept of the show. Sometimes this can take away the overriding message or dampen its effect.

The site picked up on the negative comments from a Damian Carnell from Nottinghamshire Domestic Abuse Forum (in the BBC's excellent and well received Last Refuge  programme) whose sole remit seemed to be to try and make out that official statistics on male victims of domestic abuse were not as they seemed on paper. I felt his contribution had been shoe-horned into the programme and certainly on a documentary about female victims of domestic abuse, the BBC would not have someone on whose purpose was to undermine statistics on female victims.

Other documentaries scratch the surface in such a way as to not do the subject justice or skew things to such an extent that meaning or relevance can go missing. It can obviously skew meaning to the detriment of the subject matter and often this can be deliberate and add more weight to a stereotype. It's all so easy to do if you are a member of the the anti-male media, public sector and political establishment.

This is the case with the Panorama programme on Monday night called Britain's Missing Dads, which left viewers with the impression with the fact that men were feckless and the plight of single parent mothers was the sole fault of men and the benefits system (which mothers were happy to exploit). Even to the point where Frank Field berated fathers for being feckless and they used the worst possible case in the UK  (a man with endless children by endless mothers).

It was almost as if Panorama was trying to be the TV equivalent of the Daily Mail (better than the Guardian of course!).

The progamme did not cover the bias in the family courts, the ideological disdain for fathers by  CAFCASS, the CSA/CMEC or of course, the fact that some mothers do not want the father around especially if it means they cannot 'game' the benefits system. The latter two points were made out to be the sole fault of the father.

The man bashing agenda can be seen by the response from the Fatherhood Institute about the way their quotes had been taken out of context and their view that the programme just perpetuated stereotypes. It is an excellent response as is the response from the Men's Network.

The anger about the programme can really be felt by the comments left on the BBC website. Instead of looking at the issue in the round or concentrating on an issue where there is clear problem (the family courts for example), the BBC's Panorama chose the ideologically easy target - the feckless dad.

It is easier you see to concentrate your fire on men and fathers in this way because they are a not politcially correct victim group. It is far harder to produce a programme on the bias of the family courts denying children access and support from their fathers. All hell would break loose if the BBC told the truth about the family courts system.

Posted by Skimmington

PS There are lots of comments on the BBC's site but this one says it all in a nutshell (listed at 8.55pm). 

"Yet another program that only shows one side of the problem.What about showing the mothers that refuse to give fathers any access to children after a divorce, then spread rumours like, 'I think he may have been doing something to them', even when completely untrue.

 "I lost my career because my ex decided this was the best way to stop me having any access, and went from £25000 a year in 1990 to £9500 in 2010. I had difficulty paying bills, let alone maintenance, and as for contact I have recently found out she destroyed any letters I sent to my children or any they sent to me.

 "Is that the actions of a caring mother?

"How about another program showing the other side of the problems, not just the governments or mothers."

 

ARTICLES ROUND-UP

Just an update on a few recent articles worth looking at:

Daily Mail - My wife hugged me and then stabbed me in the back (Penny Marshall) Please read comments section.

This is Leicestershire - Support for male victims of domestic abuse (Ciaran Fagan)

Daily Telegraph - Poor white boys score lower than chinese classmates (Tim Ross)

Daily Telegraph - Mother stunned after being accused of kerb-crawling (Chris Brooke) : Mother attacks police tactics mentioning what would happen if it was a man accused.

Evening Standard - Fathers at risk from legal aid cuts (Martin Bentham)

Daily Mail - The children who never see daddy (James Chapman): 369 comments in this section

Daily Mail - More rights for women has led to fewer jobs in the recession (Harry Phibbs)

Daily Mail - My dad is number one role model

Posted by Skimmington

 

 

IN THE NAME OF EQUALITY WILL THE GOVERNMENT LISTEN TO MEN'S REPRESENTATIVES THEN?

A kindly soul has sent over the text from the latest newsletter from the Government 'Equalities' Office (taxpayer funded remember with 100 staff!) which says:

Following the closure of the Women's National Commission, GEO has developed a new approach to  enable women and women's organisations to interact more closely and directly with government. As part of this, GEO will be holding a briefing event for UK NGO's on Wednesday 19th January prior to the UN Commission on the Status of Women 55th Session.

The GEO will also be sending regular updates to partner women's organisations, with the first one later this month, and publishing a dedicated web page as part of our engagement activity. There will also be an outreach programme to discuss key issues with government ministers.

As argued at the turn of the year, this government is no better than the anti-male Labour government of the past and this simply adds further proof.

The issue is not so much that the government is having a dialogue with groups representing women and making a big deal about it - it is the fact that they are having no similar dialogue (and making a big deal out of it ) with men's groups.

It is not as if the government could have an issue with mainstream groups like: Families Need Fathers, The ManKind Initiative, Mankind Counselling, The Men's Health Forum, The Men's Network, False Allegations Support Organisation, CALM, The Prostate Cancer Society and many many more. They even help fund some of them!

This site keeps reiterating that this government, just like the last, has no real interest in addressing issues that negatively affect men (and boys) and is guilty of a form of covert institutional sexual and gender discrimination against men. It is because rather than saying it is not interested in male issues, it just ignores them, turns a blind eye and hopes no one will notice.

Here it says it will speak to women's groups but has no interest in speaking to men's group. How is that equality from the Government Equalities Office?

It is another case of discrimination by omission just like the fact that men get a half hearted sentence (and only Caribbean boys at that) in its gender equality strategy. 

Posted by Skimmington

GOVERNMENT SHOWS NO INTEREST IN MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE - EXAMPLE 1,999

Just a quick post but yesterday we had the BBC running two features on male victims of domestic abuse on the same day the government confirms (as they did before Christmas) that they do not think they exist.

The Parliamentary Question from Louise Bagshawe MP asks what action the government will take to push up conviction rates for domestic abuse and sexual offences. The Attorney General then talks about the Violence against Women strategy and how that and the governement will push up conviction rapes under this policy umbrella.

But Bagshawe never mentioned just women, her question mentioned no gender at all. Obvioulsy, male victims are so low down the government's food chain they don't get a mention, only female victims do.

Posted by Skimmington