QUEEN'S SPEECH - ONE STEP FORWARD AND ONE STEP BACK

From the scant detail available on the Queen's Speech it seems clear there is one step forward and one step back for male equality.

The one step forward is clearly the recognition of shared parenting under the Children and Families Bill. As stated by the BBC that "Ministers intend to strengthen the law to ensure children have a relationship with both their parents after family separation, where that is safe, and in the child's best interests. The government says it will consult shortly on how the legislation can be framed."

The news was welcomed by Families Need Fathers. 

The one step back is albeit a potential problem but it would naive to think it won't happen. This is in the Crime and Courts Bill. The government's briefing document (page 37) states: "Reforming the judicial appointments process to introduce greater transparency in the judicial appointments process and improve judicial diversity."

Well we all know what that means - an extension of quotas, special treatment and positive discrimination for women which means the end of meritocracy and the institutionalisation of discrimination against men. Just like in boardrooms up and down the country (due to covert and overt 'pressure'), judges will no longer be selected based on their talent, skills and experience, all that matters is their gender - and if you are a man and good enough - there is no guarantee you will pass muster.

One step forward and one step back and all involve the justice system.

Posted by Skimmington

Comments

[Jon]

Cheers Skimmington.

I'm going to see this as an overall victory simply because I have so much sympathy for fathers denied the rights to a relationship with their children. Quotas suck and are bad news, but at least the suffering of some fathers will potentially be eased - of more importance to me.

I would say 1 step forward a 1/2 step back!

[Groan]

I,m not so sure. I note the Government is committed to yet more "consultation" and links the briefing to the Norgrove report, which of course does not recomend any legal presumption of contact. There can often be a disconnect between the politicians and what their officials draft into bills. Be prepared for more lobbying along the lines that estranged fathers are dangerous and the staus quo is necessary in the interests of children'safety.

[ian]

There will be NO shared parenting, that was made clear by the Conservatives who promised it at an F4J meet before election...then reneged.

The feminist agenda is as strong with this ba*tard government as it was the last.

This is nothing more than another snake oil sale.

[ian]

In other news:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2142659/Two-new-mothers-struggle-cope-demands-parenting-need-help--says-charity.html?ITO=1490

Before you ask YES I did raise two children for their first few years while the mother went back to work..not only was this a piece of cake, enjoyable and easy living but the mother soon got pissed off when SHE had to work and I was staying at home enjoying the easy life like women have for centuries before.

If they can't cope don't have babies. . . . Modern women make me sick.

- Kaz Hodgson, Pompey, 11/5/2012 08:25

Here we ago again! Victim mentality, haven't we all got it tough now etc. Mothers of yesteryear had much more to deal with and managed a better job without the whinging.

- Lee , Leeds, 11/5/2012 08:29

A reality check and a proper support network are whats needed not "professional advice". Women used to be home makers and know what their role was when they had children, they also had family close at hand and neighbourhood women for support. These days its all about "me" and striving for "things" ... life needs to get real again.

- Molly, Stockport, UK, 11/5/2012 08:38

Oh, grow up! My mother dealt with 3 crying babies in an air-raid shelter with bombs falling from the sky! On her own without all the timmings you've got now. We all brought babies up and got on with it. Trouble is that you don't want too give up your batchelor lifestyles and the socialising bit to hone the skills of being decent parents. This goes with the territory ......... learn to deal with it and stop whingeing.

- scinic, uk, 11/5/2012 06:04

The worm is definatley turning on feminism....

[ian]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/9257932/Girlguiding-UK-girls-just-want-to-be-actresses-or-hairdressers.html

Male sportsmen do out-perform the female by a long shot so don't try to make out they keep up. Equality is a joke in sports because women cannot accept the natural limitations, but of course they want the same rewards and recognition. As for the Actresses as role models , well don't that say it all.

Say's it better here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

What this woman says also casts light on the feminist nonsense of glass ceilings and women not being represented in certain occupations and at board level etc. According to their own study she shows us why it really is..they don't want those type of jobs.

[ian]

I had to LOL when I read this....

"I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of "Women's Rights", with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to "unsex" themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection. I love peace and quiet, I hate politics and turmoil. We women are not made for governing, and if we are good women, we must dislike these masculine occupations."

- Queen Victoria 1870

[Jon]

Those Who Oppose Us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG_Jxt6N-Ek

(not suitable for work!)

[dave]

Jon......EXCELLENT!

I hope some of those Feminists and associated dry holes who watch these sites are listening to it and realising it's about to go bang. I said many years ago Feminism and the slime behind it had gone way too far and perverted/polluted our law, society, media etc. with utter lies and total misandric agenda.

I said years ago it will result in extremism on a large scale by western men.

If that's what it takes...so be it.

[Jon]

"Extremism" is what MRAs are described as, simply for existing. We should denounce the label; we aren't extremists by any modern definition of the word.

Personally I will fight them till my dying breath, but through politics and verbal/written campaigning, and certainly no violence of any sort.

Sorry dave I know you probably know all this but we can't afford our opponents any ammunition, phony or otherwise.

Going back to the song, it really gee'd up my day.

There are actually a few good "MRA" songs on youtube, from both the aggressive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjZqw0UbDXU

to the heartbreaking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEk5l55atHA

[dave]

Jon, so much as daring to speak publicly against feminism or any of the Marxist agenda is deemed extremism and treated as a national emergency!!

If you fight it through only those two things, I suggest you probably won't overcome the issue. Men have already been doing that for generations now, especially in fathers rights and it has only got worse.

[Jon]

dave, F4J faltered severely because they were so much as associated with extremism. If you remember they lost what little credibility they had with public opinion when somebody made a silly comment about kidnapping Leo Blair.

If we make the same mistake on these boards then it would be a shame. Disobedience to what society expects of us is fine by me. Violence never is, unless it is in self defence or to defend another in immediate danger. If we decide to forget this, then we have definitely lost the fight IMO.

[dave]

They lost it because of their silly antics and Matt O'connors personal agenda's. There was also a very highly charged effort by feminist media and powers that be to bring them down, not sticking together helped that happen.

You think it's harsh what I say? Go tell that to the women charities in the Haiti earthquake who refused to treat men who were sick or dying that? Better still Jon, if you recall your history Feminists used extremism constantly, look where it got them? You might want to remember that before you go down the do as mummy say's route and stay going around in circles?

I am not talking about blowing people up and such, I am talking about what I said above and that is not as extreme as much of what feminism has done.

[Jon]

Hi dave. I read your list of 6 after I posted my last comment.
I won't treat women as feminists treat men.
I will treat women as I treat MEN.. no better, no worse.
I would rescue any stranger in a house fire if I had the option.
I would not so much "hold the door" as I wouldn't let the door swing in ANY stranger's face, male or female. And I wouldn't demand a male health professional before agreeing to treatment.

Please bear in mind this is coming from somebody who has pretty much given up on intimate relationships with women, since it is far too risky. Marriage is out of the question at the moment, and there is little indication that is about to change. This is NOT a war against women IMO. It is a war against feminism and the negative EFFECT it has on men and to a lesser degree women - turning them in some cases into narcissistic witches who nobody with any morals would associate with.

[dave]

Then I will expect to see you in 20 years Jon, sat here saying the same thing. Good luck with it.

[dave]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2143745/Moment-woman-driver-attacks-cyclist-holds-traffic-country-lane.html?ITO=1490

Jon, this article above, what would you have done?

Write her a letter and had a debate or realised it was your right to punch her to the ground in self defence? How many well trained men think the former and keep us going around in these circles?

[Jon]

Hi dave, I would've punched her to the ground. I have no issues with using violence in self defence, even against women. And I agree with you 100% that far too men do defend themselves against women using violence against them.

[Jon]

" And I agree with you 100% that far too men do defend themselves against women using violence against them."

*"far too few men"
** "women who use violence against them"

(excuse me, had a few beers!)

[dave]

Well that is good to hear at least, if it had been me I would have planted her straight away without hesitation, clear case of self defence BUT...

....then you have to just put up with the agenda corruption of the Police and law, false allegations, stupidity of people believing a woman over a man because she is a woman.The beyond reasonable doubt going out the window when the twot stands on the witness box...ad infinitum.

People think I joke when I say all men should carry a Micro DVR video recorder with them 24/7 because of women today.

No man however corrupt the law should hesitate to plant her one in such a case, however most still do and it is chivalry and such that causes it.

[dave]

Actually Jon, with hindesite there is one bit of my comment I wanted to clarify before the usual hysterical feminists use it and contort it out of all meaning for their victimology "glorification". When I said about burning buildings and women, what I was meaning was "women and children first" My attitude is Children always first, women can fend for themselves. Most women have been polluted by the thinking of feminism, to help de-programme them they need to be forced into realising what it will be like with no assistance, help, recognition from men in any way. THEN they might start to realise again the real value of men in every minute of their everyday lives

Some women sitting at home child-less, love-less and dying alone are starting to be among the first (victims of 60's feminism)to realise it and what feminism has cost them when Men walk out of their lives because of what feminism made them beleive. It just needs a big boost to make the younger ones realise it too.

[What Causes Cancer]

very nice site loving article your site thanks for sharing information i like this blog.