Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Monday, 09 July 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Brilliant article! I am particularly pleased that you brought out some points which are usually swept under the carpet. All of this sickening behaviour from within our society is regurgitating itself even deeper into society using the power of the media…..
4. Men are sex objects. – totally agree that today’s society is getting besotted with male sexuality and using it as a replacement to the already frowned upon female objectification. You can’t open a magazine, watch a commercial break, walk around a shopping centre etc. without being bombarded by a bunch of sexualised, stripped to the waste hunks which are put there for the titillation of women. What effect do you think this will have on our young generation of boys? Does anyone actually care?
5. Men's views don't count. – yep, that’s right. Everywhere you look, and everywhere you go, you can find evidence of this. Take complaints made to ofcom. You only have to have a handful of women complain about something and it instantly gets banned. But I’ve seen cases whereby hundreds of men have complained about an advert but, despite this, nothing gets done! Women seem to have the most powerful voice, it’s evident everywhere and it’s entrenched into the media these days to besmirch men at every opportunity!
6. Men aren't important. – once again, totally true and there are literally thousands of examples where women’s issues are given preferential importance over men’s issues. It doesn’t matter what you talk about: health, education, crime, politics etc. women are given priority over men. And everyone knows this because that’s what the media says. And as far as our young generation is concerned, the media is always right!
7. Violence against men is great. – Yep, there’s another corker! Everyone just loves seeing men get beaten up in movies, kicked between the legs in comedies or slapped by a women (who never, ever is seen to face a consequence!). And the media just keep dishing out the same old recipe which ultimately damages society by polarising men and women against each other. The media is so powerful that men are now foolishly accepting that it is ok to be slapped by a woman and women are being taught that it’s fine to inflict violence on a man, because everyone else does it on the TV!
9. Men are worse than dogs – A TV programme called “How to train your husband” kind of says it all really! And, how many men complained about the series???? Could they get away with the role reversal? I think not. And for one reason only…men just don’t complain enough when it comes to things like this! They just obliviously sit back and let it happen. There’s all sorts of programmes that are sexist to men, but nobody seems to care about the effect it is having on their children. No wonder men are so disrespected. It’s ingrained into society and nobody gives a hoot.
10. Men are stupid – Again, who could argue with that statement. You only have to watch any mainstream broadcast from your living room sofa to see that that this is true. Men are dumb; they always get things wrong; they can’t look after children; they can’t be trusted with money; they can’t cook; they always need a woman to tell them what to do. Oh, and they smell, too, just in case you hadn’t noticed that air freshener adverts always use either a dog or a man to sell their products!


This article needs to be sent to Harpal Kumar, CRUK Chief Exec. And copied to the head of the Charities Commission and to Andrew Lansley, the secretary of state for health.
It's about bloody time CRUK was called into account for it's rampant, institutionalised discrimination!


Dave, nice one. from dave ;-)


Great article, John Kimble...

'tis hard to believe this blatant sexism still exists re Race for Life - after all the years since I sent my first letter to Cancer Research UK, way back on 23rd May 2002

Best wishes to one and all...

Keep up the good work...

generic viagra

Oh man… How did I ever not read your articles before? Do you write articles on only this topic or do you write on many others
as well. How and where can I find your articles so that I read them and gain the knowledge on the same, because I just love the way you write.


Tomorrow on "This Morning" they are going to show on daytime TV, when small children are watching, a full frontal of a man who has undergone a penis enlargement. Apparently, they have had to get the lawyers involved just to check everything is in order and hunky dory with doing that.

So, here we are again, with the media getting away with blue murder and acting in a blatantly sexist way because there is no way on this Earth that This Morning would show a woman's vagina or clitoris (sorry to be explicit) at such a time of day. Why oh why do they keep doing these things which would NEVER be done the other way around? Why don't men (or women) complain about such things, after all, this is a man's most private part and yet it is now ok to strip and reveal a man down to his genitals on daytime TV!?!

No wonder men are so disrespected when the media inflicts such things on our young generation.

It's not that I mind the human body, and yes, it's perfectly natural etc. etc. but the fact is that they only EVER do this using men.

This really does nothing to improve respect for the male species. We are now stripped of our dignity on daytime TV and it all goes right over most men's heads! And I suspect most women will sit smugly through it without a care in the world either.

How can people just let this sort of undignified, disrepectful behaviour by the media continue?

John Kimble have asked to republish this article on their front page and of course I'm very happy for them to do so:


Great news re antimisandry


Yes, brilliant and good on Antimisandry!!

Selena Truelove

Yeah brilliant, except you don't address the issue of the anti-women discrimination in society in general and in CRUK in particular.
On their website their officers are listed -

Board members - 4 men listed, then 3 women, then 1 man (presumably in order of superiority) - so the top 4 are all men !!!
Trustees - 8 men, 3 women
Members - 63 men, 30 women

Presumably you will mount a campaign to highlight the inequality of this.

Of course you won't, bunch of hypocrites !


Hi Selena,

"Yeah brilliant, except you don't address the issue of the anti-women discrimination in society in general"

Name a single example of western legislation which gives men rights that women do not have by law. You won't be able to. However, I can name half a dozen examples of legislation which acts directly against men's best interests, for the benefit of women.

People like you do make me laugh because you detail vague, all-encompassing, evidence-free "feelings" that women are somehow discriminated against and that the country - or indeed the western world - is somehow anti-women to its very core. Yet, when called on it, I know you will be unable to come up with a single example where women have less freedom of opportunity than men, in the western world, today.

The fact is, women are ALWAYS offered ALL of the opportunities, help, and support: by legislation, by all-women shortlists - even for political positions, by reduced standards being required in military fitness tests, to reproductive rights, to rights in the courtroom and parental rights.

When you complain about the make-up of positions in CRUK, you are complaining about lack of equality of result, not lack of equality of OPPORTUNITY. That you somehow just assume that this discrepancy in result is down to women somehow being oppressed is fairly typical. To explain it in simple terms, women are allowed more life choices when it comes to work, and they are choosing to exercise those life choices more and more. Women are not employed in equal numbers in these positions because women CHOOSE not to be employed in equal numbers in these positions. AND it should be noted they also choose to exercise those life choices by not going into OTHER roles - that of a miner, road worker, rubbish collector or undersea welder.

To summarise: men are dying and suffering more and more because they have the short end of the stick in a multitude of areas. It is about time we hold CRUK to account for not seeming to give a damn about men's cancers, because MEN ARE DYING because of it. So I think that is a little more important than some vague misgivings you might have about boardroom diversity.


John Kimble

Selena, thanks for posting, we welcome differing perspectives here. You're quite correct that there are more senior level men than women at CRUK but that doesn't really prove anything or demonstrate any sort of sexism against women.

The feminist argument for more female management tends to be that such staff are needed because men are sexist and don't address women's issues, and because the women will supposedly do a better job. Now I certainly agree that some of those people running CRUK appear to be lacking in ability, but their main failure is quite clearly that of neglecting to educate, engage with, represent and help men.

I've demonstrated a least 10 forms of sexism by CRUK and no one has thus far managed to disprove any of them. Therefore you seem to be calling for a blatantly feminised organisation to become even more so and to make the problem even worse.

The gender of whoever runs the organisation is irrelevant, it's their ability and ideology which is key. Everyone here couldn't care less whether males or females are at the top, just as long as they stop failing men and pandering to women in so much of what they do. We simply want equal treatment for men when it comes to cancer and chivalrous white0knight men can be just as much a barrier to achieving equality as any gender feminist.


Selena you miss out the discrepancy of systematically excluding men from participating. You claim that the gender ballance is skewed in management, however there is no systematic discrimination there whatsoever. Are you saying the management are pro-men? Did they not decide to exclude all men?

Can you imagine if you were barred from participating because of your color or religion? You go to your local gym and there is a "No Women" sign. The family dog can run in "Race for Life" but I am not allowed. Perhaps more accurately, how would you feel if the sign at your gym said, "Dogs Allowed. No Women". Even events such as Orangefest in Northern Ireland do not discriminate and all can participate. UKCR however can get away with blatant discrimination.

As Erin Pizzey says; Women in power are generally feminist and discriminate against men. She also says men discriminate against their fellow men aswell. So in this respect men are sexist. Casual discrimination aganist men is in many walks of life, especially the media. Have you ever counted how many men are killed, maimed, hit or injured on a single days broadcasting?

If men traditionally discriminated against women we'd all be sitting in front of the TV watching armies of women killing each other every Sunday afternoon on the numerous World War Two documentarties.

That of course is very far from what we see on these programmes and very far from the reality of what men have suffered for a very long time. Yet they can't even run in a race that is open to domesticated dogs.

Selena Truelove

Law on royal succession rules in favour of males - changes still not approved by parliament & will only appply to descendants of prince Charles - not that I'm a royalist - they're as bad as you lot.
Not surprised that some of you sit watching World War 2 'documentarties', kind of fits in with your view of the world I guess, let's kill millions of people to settle a dispute. Women are much better at compromises - witness we women who do Race For Life signifying to CRUK that we were happy to see boys up to age 11 being allowed in.
Hope to see you at your local Race For Life cheering us on.


Selena, thanks again for demonstrating that logical argument has no place in the mindset of someone determined to feel discriminated against and victimised, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

You have had to dig deep to find any example of discrimination against females, and the one you have come up with is very minor since it affects one family only and has little relevance to anything else; the monarch is just a figurehead these days and has no real political power. You could say that favouring boys over girls for the succession is no worse than ships having female figureheads and names rather than male ones; and in any case, that discrimination is already in process of being addressed.

But unfortunately for you, you have also shot yourself in the foot because the example you have chosen hides a clear case of anti-male discrimination, which is none the less real despite its being ignored. This is that when a king marries, his wife automatically becomes queen. But when a queen marries, her husband does not become king. Why not? Because of blatant anti-male discrimination that has been practised down the ages, that's why. Prince Philip has only ever been the royal "consort", standing in a decidedly inferior position to the present Queen. But if and when Prince William becomes king, Kate will be a full-blown queen alongside him. Indeed if you follow the media, she already seems to be a far more important personality generating more interest and attention, and we can expect that to continue.

But did you not notice that piece of gender bias? Well neither did anyone else, because in the scramble to give royal girls the same birthright as royal boys, everyone seems to have overlooked the discrimination operating the other way. But then again, discrimination against males is acceptable and nothing to make a fuss about, don't you agree?


"Law on royal succession" many women does that discriminate against. The Queen?

Yes Selena you may see me at race for life but to jeer not cheer. Think of the extra lives that could be saved if the other half of the population was allowed to participate. People who support "Race for Life" are in fact denying sufferers care and I hope that disgusts you as much as it does me.

Something for you to think about when you're on the starting line.

John Kimble

Since when did the Royal family have anything to with equality? The role of King or Queen is surely subject to the most amount of discrimination imaginable, being limited simply to having the correct mother and father. It's quite telling that our "Equality" Minister prioritised changing this over say stopping babies bleeding to death after having their penis mutilated without their consent.

I can't be king/queen and nor can anyone else here, that's no more or less discriminatory than banning some random, privileged wealthy female from the position who has never done a days work in her life and never will.


Hi Selena and one and all : Selena you state women are much better at compromises "We are happy to see boys up to age 11 being allowed"...

I ask: "should Cancer Research UK allow all little boys, under age eleven 11, to participate in next year's Race for Life - 2013? In 2013?...

Better still, will / should Cancer Research UK allow all members of the family? ... In asking, I stress, I applaud all the female participants in Race for Life for the millions raised since its inception - but the reality is that any female can be afflicted, or sadly die, from cancer - I sincerely hope not...

In those terrible circumstances - surely CRUK should allow all the Grandfathers, Fathers, Uncles, Sons, Brothers, Nephews and male friends of the family the opportunity to participate in Race for Life - to raise funds in memory of their deceased female relatives...

Incidentally, it was a cancer survivor mother who got CRUK to change the rules so her son could participate...

Now: "Will" / "should" you allow your Grandfathers, Father, Uncles, Sons, Brothers, Nephews and male friends of your family the opportunity to participate in Race for Life ???????????????????????????


Hi Selena,

Not being a royal, or knowing anybody royal, I can't really respond any better than the others who have clearly debunked your argument. I do love though how it is such a poor example you have come up with, and that it took you four whole days to do so! I love how this is the BEST example of women being discriminated against in law that you can find. LOL. I guess you really don't have too much to complain about, now do you? Unless you are directly related to royalty? :)

Most of the rest of your post is filled with silly ad-homs to be honest.

"Hope to see you at your local Race For Life cheering us on."

I will never attend, support, or sponsor RFL. It is a sexist, hateful event. Really, you should be ashamed of yourself for being involved. Is that clear enough for you Selena?



Hi again Selena,

Just thought I would add a little fuel to the fire.

You say the maybe 2 or 3 women in the royal family are currently denied succession. This is currently being sorted out. Good. For the royals. I guess. Whatever.

Now my turn. In this country, today, it is legal to mutilate baby boys. It is illegal to mutilate baby girls. Why is this, do you think? And why does nobody seem to care about it? Why are there no plans to change this 'being considered'?



Although slowly changing both the rights to ask for and be paid for leave for infant childcare and the state retirement age both represent discrimination in law that affects millions of men. Antiquated laws on royal succession appears a very minor issue.
I,m sure Selena would agree there should be no delay in equalising the retirement age.


I agree 100% Groan - but the retirement age target, initially, as you may be aware, was at age sixty (60)...

John Kimble

I think Selena has taken the discussion off topic somewhat with her less than impressive previous post. Lets focus on the issue at hand please and not let trolling divert and distract us (it's a bit of a shame really as Selena's previous contribution was much more relevant and added to the debate).

So, in order to get back on topic, I'd ask whether anyone who drew CRUK's attention to this article has had a response yet.


No, no a thousand times no...I have neither had a response from CRUK - or TESCO...

Selena Truelove

I ask: "should Cancer Research UK allow all little boys, under age eleven 11, to participate in next year's Race for Life - 2013? In 2013?...

Now be honest, you guys are the 'People's Front For Judea' out of Monty Python's 'Life Of Brian', aren't you ? -
'man's inalienable right to have babies'.
And John Taylor has to be John Cleese's character Reg - hilarious !!

Oh and there's the FA's laws on girls playing football in a mixed team. My daughter was the best player in her team & was made to find a new team because of this rule.

And it was all of us that were asked our opinion on Clare Parker's request that got the Race For Life rules changed to enable her son to join in - not that many boys HAVE joined in.

People's Front For Judea ! Haha


Selena - they say a little knowledge is dangerous...

So "all of us females - including you", were asked your opinion that got Race for Life rules changed... How much publicity was given by CRUK re the change of rule? Do you know?...

Are you aware there are thousands fewer participants in Race for Life - despite the desperate efforts by CRUK with a Gloria Hunningford DVD on Facebook?

Further, on BBC Breakfast news, CRUK's Natasha Hill was interviewed on 15th May 2011, stressing they were struggling to find participants and expected them to be down by 10% compared with 2010. Cancer Research UK struggles to find race participants

In this link you will find that 64,000 fewer participated in Race for Life, as stated in CRUK's Annual Report, for year ending March 2011;

So, what do you suggest CRUK should do to increase numbers enormously?

Incidentally, you never answered comprehensively my previous comments...

"Should Cancer Research UK allow all members of the family? ... In asking, I stress, I applaud all the female participants in Race for Life for the millions raised since its inception - but the reality is that any female can be afflicted, or sadly die, from cancer - I sincerely hope not...

In those terrible circumstances - surely CRUK should allow all the Grandfathers, Fathers, Uncles, Sons, Brothers, Nephews and male friends of the family the opportunity to participate in Race for Life - to raise funds in memory of their deceased female relatives ???...

Would you deny your male relatives?


More infantile ad hominem abuse, Selena?

Not many boys have joined Race for Life because CRUK shamefully refuse to publicise the fact that they are finally allowed to. Plus of course it is difficult for young boys to take part in an event where they are surrounded by females of all ages, many of whom are hostile to their presence and will not make them feel welcome.

BTW the FA would be quite right to ban girls from boys' football teams. The presence of girls inhibits boys and brings a sexual dimension into the game that should not be there. Boys want to expend their energy focussing on playing the game, not being distracted by the presence of a girl they are not allowed to tackle and who will get all the attention and publicity purely because of her sex. Exactly the same reason why boys are banned from girls' sports teams. Let girls play in girls' teams if they want, nobody is stopping them.


I don't recall CRUK asking the opinion of those of us women who refuse to participate in or support RfL because of their blatant misandry.

Buy Marc Jacobs

In 1950 postcoowtq The fund may resemble good | Buy Marc Jacobs It was right spanning decide everybody a wrong single included in day Buy Marc Jacobs.
mceewghi ω〓

Selena Truelove

John Taylor, as an indicator, could you state how many males over 11 years (the upper age limit for Race For Life) and adult males entered your friend Claire Parker's Race In Unity that you've referred to ?
The total entry might also be interesting.


The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad

Reading List