The Rights Of Man

ARTICLES UPDATE

A few articles for the end of the month.

Daily Mail - Woman chopped off man's penis as he 'attempted to rape her' before taking it to the police as evidence (Rob Cooper) - Read the awful awful misandry in the comments section.

Jersey News - Male domestic abuse stigma is shattered 

BBC Wales - Pale male courts need more women judges - More calls for discrimination against men

The Guardian - How the government is letting down women (Polly Curtis)

Posted by Skimmington

A PICTURE OF EVERYDAY DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN IN THE UK

A regular reader sent this over - a picture is worth a 1,000 words.

 

Posted by Skimmington

BRITISH MEN SPEND SEVEN YEARS LESS THAN WOMEN IN RETIREMENT

As the supine coalition government wavers on ensuring men and women enjoy equality at last in the state pension age, a report is published shows that men spend 13 years in retirement against a women's 20 years.

This inequality, driven by longevity and the fact that men retire later is not something that interests Age Uk or Saga of course. They want to keep the gap at least as it is.

Posted by Skimmington

 

 

MEN FIGHT BACK AGAINST COLCHESTER'S WOMEN-ONLY SAUNAS

One of the most discussed issues of last year was the discrimination against men in public services such as swimming pools (Sale, Sale 2, Oxford, Leicester and Bristol), and now we can add Colchester to the list.

Posted by Skimmington

 

EQUALITIES MINISTER 'ADMITS' EQUALITY DOES NOT APPLY TO HETEROSEXUAL MEN

Read the quote from Lib Dem Lynne Featherstone MP, the Equalities Minister (she reports to Theresa May - the Minister for Women and Home Secretary) in this month's Total Politics magazine .

In an interview she was asked , how do you define your remit?

"I have women, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender" 

It is not as though we did not know really, but at least the government minister for equalities has now plainly admitted that equality for men is of no interest to her, it is not part of the government's agenda and that equality for men does not apply to me in Britain.

If the coalition government ever says it believes in equality, it is not telling the truth. The equalities minister has no interest if you are a heterosexual man. She has admitted it. Case closed.

Posted by Skimmington

CALL FOR WOMEN TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MEN IN THE WORKPLACE

After spending most of the day yesterday tiresomely on the train and contributing to the gender pay gap by working hard, someone left their copy of the Guardian behind. Flicking through it I couldn't find any misandry anywhere until I stumbled across this gem of feminist fundamentalist double-think from Weedie Sisson (of People First) and Ann Halpern (of Women Lawyers and there seems to be lots of similar types of groups).

From a bigger picture perspective there is the clear feminist and politically correct call for group and victim status. Rather than treat people as individuals, the article's theme is that it is important to lump people into their groups and only converse with them or treat them on that basis. The emphasis in the article throughout is that women are victims of a conspiracy of discrimination without offering evidence. If a women does not succeed it is not about lifestyle choice or ability it has to be about discrimination. Any man that is successful is so solely down to discrimination against women not because he happened to be the better candidate.

Looking more deeply though, what the article is basically doing is to call for women to discriminate in favour of other women.

They are saying that successful women are letting down other women if they do not promote them, irrelevant of whether they are the best for the job. To most successful women this is rightly an anathema because they will have got their posts on merit not tokenism and want to judge others by talent not gender. The two authors are not interested in that and are having a moan at women who do not want to play the gender card.

This plays to the second point.  It ignores the fact that if a women (or a man) playing the gender card they are by logic discriminating against the other gender. In this case men. They want successful women to discriminate against men by favouring women without considering talent and ability.

The double-think is at its most laughable and shows the convulsions of logic that feminist fundamentalists have to go through to justify their reasoning. There is a sentence that says:   

We agree that quotas, women-only shortlists and any other positive action (not to be confused with positive discrimination) will work in helping to counteract past discrimination and break unhelpful stereotyping. What are government and the business community afraid of?

Where to start?

Well firstly quotas and women-only shortlists are positive discrimination. And as we know positive discrimination is negative discrimination for someone else - men. To stop someone because of their gender from being able to apply for something (women-only shortlists) or to only allow a certain number to apply (quotas) is pure gender discrimination. How can it be anything different? One is a lawyer, she will know that surely?

Plus positive action as we all know is politically correct spin for positive discrimination. In the legal profession there are more women becoming lawyers than men (and this has been the case for years) so why is there the need for positive action of women? Positive action means special treatment for someone because of their gender which therefore discriminates against other people because of their gender.

Plus of course, we come back to the point about past discrimination. Whatever the arguments of the past are, what these two are saying is that the men of today should be made to pay and should be discriminated against because of the alleged actions of the men of yesterday. This is not equality it is about some form of gender revenge against the men of today.

I always say it but of course any discrimination against men means discriminating against their mother, wife/girlfriends, sister or daughter but that is the call here. If any of these two have sons who want to be successful in business or law, they will be supporting discrimination against them.

An 'amazing' article.

Posted by Skimmington  

  

BRITAIN'S CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE ON MALE CIRCUMCISION

The issue of un-consenting male genital mutilation (circumcision) is a subject not tackled before on the website but as un-consenting female genital mutilation is a subject that continues to rightly garner much attention the lack of attention on men again is a symptom of how men are given second class status in Britain's society.

Lets get things clear before the site is hoisted on the petard, female genital mutilation is an awful crime that should be stopped - no right thinking person could ever support it (a curiosity of the internal conflict and hypocrisy in the politically correct metropolitan elite is the fact they criticise the practice but not the religious views of those who carry it out.)

But why does unconsenting male genital mutilation not recieve any attention in the UK?

If you look at the recent BBC article and its definition, can someone tell me broadly what the difference is between the females and males - its all about culture and religion. In fact female genital mutilation has been illegal since 1985 (a good overview in the Times) and governments spend a lot of money tackling it and have guidance on how to fight it.

There are some debates here and there on the UK web (Digital spy, Yahoo) and the BBC has a similar page as the one on female circumcision. But the practice has supporters not just in Judaism, Islam but it has consent through a conspiracy of silence, hypocrisy and double standards.

For un-consenting girls and boys, circumcision is illegal for the former but legal for that matter.

The British Medical Association doesn't protest or abhor it in men, the Scottish government  gives guidance on it but does not mention why it should not be practiced and of course there is nothing from the British government. The Minister for Women and Equalities is not interested when equality means equality for men.

So why the hypocrisy. It comes down to the power shift in the British political, cultural, social, state and media system since the late seventies that has meant men have become the second sex. A victory that the feminist fundamentalists have secured. This is because there is no logical, rational or balanced reason in a society that allegedly proclaims itself as being equal that can state that female circumcision is wrong and illegal but male circumcision in fine and legal. When do you hear a MP talking about this in Parliament?

The government and medical establishment in the the UK believe it is OK because of their silence on the issue  - it gives this horrendous practice tacit approval. Silence means assent.

In America, opposition is a lot more active as can be seen in San Francisco (Daily Mail) where there is now a campaign to ban it.  Such a campaign should be started in the UK in addition to that run by  Dr John Warren at NORM-UK.

Posted by Skimmington

Editors note - This is sick in the Philippines, can you imagine the outcry if women were abused in this way!

  

ARTICLES UPDATE

Here is a few from this month

The Guardian - Call for action to increase numbers of women in devolved parliaments (Severin Carrell) - I know, if all women shortlists aren't enough, why don't they just ban men altogether!

The Telegraph - Feminist judge resigns from Man Booker prize (Laura Roberts)  - Read the comments in the newspaper section

The Guardian - Slutwalk podcast , Debate, Slutwalk comes to Britain

Conservativehome -  Feminism taken to its most absurd conclusion (Catherine Marcus)

The Guardian - The trouble with gender economics - Is nowhere safe from feminist fundamentalism?

The Guardian - Where's the money for UN Women? (Jane Martinson)- er, where's the money for UN men?

National Coalition for Men - Anti-male media bias

Daily Mail - Six cups of coffee per day cuts prostate cancer risk (Fiona Macrae)

BBC - Boys cannot read past the 100th page - It may mean boys are allowed to read boy-centric novels at school not the girl-centric tosh they have to now

The Guardian -  Women and the Coalition: Education (Jeevan Vasegar)- Just more special treatment for women.

The Guardian - Parliamentarians ask G8 to focus on women

Posted by Skimmington

THE STINKING HYPOCRISY OF THE FEMALE PENSION CAMPAIGNERS IN AGE UK AND SAGA

Perhaps it was quite prescient to publish this week the history of the Campaign for Equality of State Pension Age when news reaches Rights of Man Towers that Age UK backed by Saga are campaigning against the equalisation of the state pension age (and retirement age) for man and women at 66 from 2018. Why any man is a member of these two organisations is beyond me.

By 2018, men will have received their state pension and retirement at a later date than women for 70 years. That is, 70 years of sexual discirmination against men. On top, men live shorter lives than women so enjoy retirement for even less than women. This 70 years has been a double whammy (covered here and here)

So instead of Age UK and Saga welcoming the news and saying what a great day it is for equality, they march on Parliament (Guardian, Independent, Telegraph , Daily Mail) .

The worst article is from Ros Altmann the director general of Saga who claims it is discriminatory. Yes that's right. The equalisation of state pension ages after 70 years of blatant sexism and discrimination against men is actually sexist towards women. Orwellian doublespeak of the highest order.

Such hypocrisy from people like Ros Altmann, Saga and Age Uk who claim to champions of equality when they stayed silent for 70 years shows how insignificant they feel equality counts for men.

If any men is a member of either Age Uk or Saga, they need their head tested. Rip up your membership book and send it back to these anti-male 'equality' hypocrites.

Posted by Skimmington

MEN CONTINUE TO BE THE FORGOTTEN VICTIMS OF THE RECESSION

Today's unemployment figures show that sadly 2.46 million people are unemployed in the UK. To further quote the BBC website (I pay my licence!):

"The latest ONS figures show that the number of unemployed men fell by 31,000 to 1.43 million, while the number of unemployed women fell by 5,000 to 1.03 million. But of the 12,400 extra people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance, 9,300 were women, the highest figure since October 1996. The number of male claimants rose for the first time since January."

So there is a fall in unemployment and a rise in those claiming Jobseekers allowance from both genders. As the BBC highlighted, the female figure is the highest since 1996. So what is the significance considering there are 400,000 more unemployed men and that the number of men claiming job seekers allowance is 994,000 compared to 474,000 women. In addition, of the 670,000  young people who are unemployed, 61% are male.

So what you may say. Well the press' ever growing obsession of ignoring men and focusing on women meaNS the unemployment stories suddenly focus on the plight of women.

Here are a few - Telegraph , Daily Mail and of course The Guardian.

There is no comment that there are far more men who unemployed than woman. Unemployment is a tragedy for all concerned but to pick out women as a special cases shows that the men who have suffered during the recession are expendable. No comments are made about them.

Posted by Skimmington