The Rights Of Man

NEWS UPDATE

Having been away for a little while means a few articles and news pieces to update everyone on if they have missed them.

The Guardian - Equalities Minister issues warning over unfair impact of cuts on women (Polly Curtis): Lynne Featherstone is a dangerous laughing stock in the same mould as Harman. A bad as anti-male tyrant as you can get. Awful.

Daily Telegraph - How pension changes will make women better off and men worse off (Ian Cowie)

Bristol University - Women experiencing domestic violence want their GPs to raise the issue with them: Glad to see Bristol University - a hotbed of anti-male feminists (Professor Marianne Hester)forget to ask the same question about men experiencing domestic violence.

The Australian - Feminists exposed by rush to judgement (Emma-Kate Symons)

BBC Derby - Woman jailed for revenge rape claim.

Bolton News - Teenager jailed for fale rape claim

One East Midlands - Women now eligible for European Social Funding: More exclusion of men

The Guardian - At last, the government stumps up for UN Women (Jane Martinson): More exclusion of men. 

ConservativeHome - Why we must end the gender gap on teh state pension age (Harriett Baldwin MP)

Daily Mail - It's fathers Cameron is demonising (Peter Hitchens): see end of article.

Posted by Skimmington

 

EQUALITIES ACT ATTACKED BY DOMINIC RAAB MP

This site and its readers have long been saying that the Equalities Act (especially clauses 158 and 159) are the most anti-male pieces of legislation ever to be passed into British law. Not only because of the discrimination they promote directly but also because of the indirect social pressure which leads to anti-male sexist organisations like the 30% club.

Dominic Raab MP wades in with his view on how wrong it is but the most telling point in his article are points out in the Independent from a young Asian woman, Kat Akingbade - who was told that a key factor on her getting a job was because she was a Asian woman, not because she was the best. The fact she was the best is of no matter to her - it is what people believe.

Positive Action and Positive Discrimination = bad news for all men and talented women and = good news for untalented women who want to play the gender (and sometimes the race) card.

Posted by Skimmington

 

MEN CAN USE FALSE ALLEGATIONS CRITERIA BUT WHY SO MANY WOMEN'S GROUPS ARE SILENT?

The Crown Prosecution Service this week announced the results of its review on prosecuting those who retract allegations of rape and domestic abuse (covered on the site here). The CPS decided that the law in this area needed to be clearer because of a case in Swansea where a woman was sent to prison for retracting an allegation, even though she was forced to retract it.

The problem with a case like this is the failure of the CPS and police to understand why this woman was placed in this position which therefore opens up the floodgates for the anti-male feminists to bring in new laws and rules in favour of women. They never miss a trick.

However, given the epidemic of prosecutions in the papers each week (61 women prosecuted for false allegations last year), the CPS have also recognised this remains a problem. This has been helped by some male Conservative MP's raising the problem in Parliament before the government's infamous u-turn on defendant anonymity, the numbers of clear cut cases where women have been sent to prison and the pressure from organisations like Parity, Men's Aid and of course the False Allegations Support Organisation (respondents listed here).

Whilst the premise for the CPS policy remains on protecting women who retract allegations and making it easier for them to do so (thereby it can be said encouraging them to make false allegations), there is now a clear test in the guidance for prosecuting false allegations which will help organisations helping men, men themselves and the police/prosecutors. Not just rape but also domestic abuse/violence.

These are in section 26 of the guidance which says:

Applying the public interest factors set out in the Code, prosecutors should bear in mind that a prosecution for perverting the course of justice is more likely to be required where -  

• a false complaint was motivated by malice
• a false complaint was sustained over a period of time (particularly where there were opportunities to retract)
• the suspect in the original allegation was charged and remanded in custody
• the suspect in the original allegation was tried, convicted and/or sentenced
• the person who made the original allegation has previous convictions or out-of-court disposals relevant to this offence, or a history of making demonstrably false complaints
• the suspect in the original allegation was in a vulnerable position or had been taken advantage of
• the suspect in the original allegation has sustained significant damage to his or her reputation.

By stating it so clearly, this actually gives men and organisations supporting the falsely accused clearer power to challenge those making false allegations and put pressure on the police and CPS who refuse to prosecute.

One last point is on the silence of female groups involved in providing support to women who are raped or are victims of domestic violence. Whenever there is a story of women going to prison for a false allegation, you never hear a peep from Refuge/Women's Aid/Fawcett Society etc, even though that person making the false allegation is damaging those women who have been raped.

The only conclusion is that anti-male Marxist feminsists can never bring themselves to criticise a woman no matter how awful she has been. Their ideology dictates it so and shows that beneath the bonnett, no matter what has happened it is men=bad, women=good.

Posted by Skimmington 

Media coverage - Guardian

WHY DOES NO ONE SAY THE OBVIOUS - THE 30% CLUB IS SEXIST

Sorry everyone it has been a while, been away working.

And on that point, a keen-eyed reader highlighted the launch of the 30% Club, a sexist organisation that promotes gender selection and therefore gender discrimination in the membership of the boards of UK companies. Its site says that a better balance positively influences decision making - a sexist notion that says having too many men (and also too many women you presume) negatively influences decision-making.

The idea is to ensure that all UK boards of the FTSE-100 have a membership of at least 30% women. This is by definition sexist as selection to be a board member is based on gender and not ability.

And before, the usual suspects rant on about dinosaur views - it is never a problem if a board was made of 100% women so long as they were the best people for the job.

The outcome on the ground of this is that it will mean actual discrimination against men. As argued many times before (here), it means some men will not be able to be considered to go onto a board because it may mean the magic 30% figure ratio will be broken. Even though that man may be the best and most talented candidate if a spot becomes available.

On the reverse, many talented women will be viewed suspiciously and tokenly as being just there to make the 30% figure even though they may be a great board members. And of course, some women may be placed on a board who really are not good enough but again the numbers need to add. Dear 30% Club - this will negatively effect decision-making!

The point this site never loses sight of is that if a man cannot get onto the board becuase of gender quotas then his wife/girlfriend and any daughters are also being discriminated against by proxy, all done in their name.

Lastly, it is not just about the membership. What will also be happening underneath the board level is the whole continuation of schemes such as talent spotting for women, mentoring, specialist senior management training and the like for women only. Thereby leaving men in their peer group at below board level at a disadvantage. That is, they will be sexually discriminated against.

A parallel in some ways can also be drawn with the current News of the World saga. In that for years the behaviour of the paper has been tolerated and people been too scared to take it on. The whole anti-male set up in the UK is similar - no politicians or business leadwers are prepared to take it on. This can be seen in this subject where it is so blatantly sexist against men and breaks the British tradition of meritocracy and equality but no one is prepared to challenge it (except Stuart Rose).

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage: Guardian (of course),