Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Sunday, 19 May 2013


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

Gerry Dorrian

Abbott is an opportunist, and I think she's riding the wave of increased interest in men's issues that is another by-product of interest in UKIP. Just wish some of their counsellors would stop making gaffes about women's rights, eg women wearing trousers being "hostile". Men's and women's rights are two sides of the same coin.


International Mens day is a waste of time when it is run by chivalry as their website clearly shows.

Do they have vested interest in your little group too?


Yes something is definitely happening with the potential pressure from J4MB and UKIP. Important thing now will be to keep up the pressure and grow the support. Resting on laurels would be fatal for both parties.

Just Curious

Have to admit I would love to know what the psychology is behind Diane saying all those negative things. On her Twitter page, there's a big picture of her listening attentively and sympathetically to a quite a large young woman and it's almost like she's sending a deliberate signal as if to say 'this is my real constituency right here, everyone else doesn't count.' (Other than women, that is!)

She did a This Week show with Andrew Neil once in which she said that women and ethnic minorities were special groups of voters because they 'were to be respected'. Which strongly implied by the way that it was said, that certain other groups DID NOT deserve respect in the same way.
Today's professional politicians, what idiots they are!


Indeed Abbot is anything for a headline. However Cruddas is a bit more central to Labour's policy development. It isn't new that Labour want to encourage men into sharing childcare. Afterall the Fatherhood institute was set up on a feminist agenda of freeing up women for work. However just as that organisation has moved a little I wonder if Labour is courting working class men now, having ignored them for so long. The aspirations of family formation have been eroded by economic globalisation and falling real wages for working men, unemployment, poor education and "demonisation". The Tories generally continue on the chivalric route, possibly labour are Re - discovering ordinary men ? Somehow I expect no more than window dressing from them. Even so Cruddas has sparked something. Fanned into a small roman candle by Ms. Abbot. As mentioned here the media focussed on the abbot firework .

Fred G., Beds

There's a hilarious irony about the trouble Cameron has got himself in with his party. Namely that he adopted the "modernisation agenda" taking all the values and beliefs from the Blair years, in order to be fashionable. But fashions BY DEFINTION always go out of fashion. And this is exactly what has happened, the modernisation agenda has gone out of fashion with large parts of the country. For PR man, Cameron was a bit of a dunce not to realise this.


What a charming example of so many women today. When the fake ADHD excuses of an older woman having kids and bad parenting run out, she wants him killed....


50 min 30 secs onward...

What I hate about interviews like these:

- Pointless time wasted on an old black & white film when two dozen men's issues could be briefly talked about.

- The usual interviewer tactic of introducing men's issues in a light-hearted manner, as if they're too embarrassed to be seen to be taking it seriously!

- The way Dianne refers to Andrew as an Alpha male; what was all that about!

- the usual reference to the patriarchy without an ounce of defence from the men.

- Dianne states that the definition of a man from yesteryear was all about earning, providing and protecting. Again, no suggested extension to that definition from anyone else!

- She also states that today's men are defining themselves on materialism. Sounds like she doesn't want men to have anything!

- The usual reference to housework without a single counter argument including other chores that men do that women don't.

- reference to boys viewing porn but absolutely no reference to girls watching porn.

- Dianne states that we don't need a minister for men because only women have quantitative, economic issues, apparently.

- Dianne says that we don't need a men's conference despite the fact that we have a women's conference. Just listen to her excuse of an answer - pathetic.


It is a staged and seup media event Dave, what more can you expect?

Bit like this piece of misleading misandry in the Daily fail today:

Forget the fact more Mothers kill their children and over 60% of all child abuse is by women. Funny how they never done such a vicious article on that?


Regarding the above, please note how when a man does it he is ALWAYS a sickening , violent male scumbag responsible, when a woman kills her children she is ALWAYS a victim and never a scumbag.


Hilary clinton wants this barbarity done to millions of men and boys in Africa.


There was another "breakthrough" this week, one of the little MRM groups of the "cadre" had a meltdown, playing king of the castle. MRA London, this group Mike Buchanan and AVFM, this site and the other little profiteers had in their train.

You know why these groups always have melt downs and why the MRM will never get where it could

Because too many of those in it, have big ego's and are in it for THEMSELVES and what they are trying to make from it.

Just like I have been saying ;-)


Hate to be a wet blanket but Diane Abbott is a politician (so might change her mind at any moment to win votes), and also rather stupid, frankly.

She may have also swallowed a load of feminist nastiness about men. Some feminists will only accept that inequalities towards men exist as long as they can blame it on this imaginary "patriarchy". They can then pretend that we are on the same side and that men should join them in their crusade.

Similarly, Abbot will be happy to talk about Men "in crisis" because it makes men sound somewhat useless - the sort of thing feminists can agree on.

It sounds very negative of me, but unfortunately that is the way I fear the narrative will go with Abbott.

A lot more work needs to be done to explain to people how the concept of "equality" has been misused.


Hi Muggins. I completely agree that Ms Abbot has no consistent or real concern. It is however striking that she kicked off a debate even though her speech is confused and contradictory. One interesting strand of concern in her sort of circles is of course the lamentable educational attainment of black boys and high uneployment. Even though as you say her narrative is that it is "patriarchy" at fault it does weaken this very idea as it is clear that if patriarchy is at fault it clearly doesn't benefit all men and therefor all men cannot be "opressors". I think it also exposes another contradiction in that many feminists appear to be concerned that men aren't fufilling their traditional role of "human doing". In effect a tacit admission that it is also women who benefit from men's work in all its forms. It reminds be of Warren Farrel's observation decades ago that many in the feminist movement had the time and space to thorise and campaign because they didn't have to spend time actually earning a living because they had husbands or partners who did that!

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad

Reading List