Search

Archives

More...

Categories

Minister for Men Manifesto

  • Minister_for_men_14

Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

Helpline Adverts

  • Poster__middle_age_man_bw
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

« May 2013 | Main | July 2013 »

Sunday, 30 June 2013

NEW NEWSFEED AND MUSTREAD CATEGORY

When this site was set up, it was partly to be a commentary site and a UK male equality news aggregator where possible. 

With a number of sites fulfilling the latter role and also a number of new commentators, this site is best placed to be a commentator and only aggregate now and again.

On that basis, to the left of this post, a new category has been set up which lists a mixture of aggregators and key commentators so readers can click through to these to see what else is happening. If there are any that have been missed please say so.

Posted by Skimmington

Posted at 21:36 | | Comments (5)

| | |

Saturday, 29 June 2013

SOME RECENT ADDITIONS TO THE O2/SYMANTEC "HATE" LIST

I'm continuously updating the list of men's human rights sites that O2/Symantec falsely declare to be "hateful" and people may have missed some of the newer additions. Below are the more recent entries into the hall of fame, I strongly recommend people browse some of them or even help promote their favourites so the censorship backfires.

I send out a notification email to all sites affected by this. As you can see there are a number of foreign language sites above, if anyone is fluent in Spanish I'd appreciate it if they could translate the document for me so we can reach a global audience with the campaign.

By the way, congratulations to J4M&B for successfully raising £1,000 to fund another candidate. No doubt they'd receive even mroe donations if O2/Symantec didn't try to stop people from accessing the site!

 

By John Kimble

Posted at 02:43 in Current Affairs/Political, False Accusations | | Comments (7)

| | |

Wednesday, 26 June 2013

An email to the Symantec board

Almost two weeks ago i sent out an email to the Symantec board outlining my research into the Rulespace filter and requesting they either fix it or explain themselves. It's a significant document as it's the first time anyone has really got their attention, as a result of it they have now at least promised to "look to updating our policies and processes around the way we categorize web content". Whilst this is rather vague and hasn't yet led to any improvements, it is certainly a significant change on the previous three months of standing by the "hate" classifications.

Here's what I wrote:

 

Dear Sir

My apologies for troubling you with this email, let me assure you you would not be receiving it were it not for the outrageous failings of your staff in the Rulespace team.

I am writing to you to let you know of some uncomfortable truths about your Rulespace product. This internet filter contains a fundamental flaw which has resulted in some astonishingly sexist and inappropriate site blocks. As a result of this flaw, the product denies assistance to male victims of domestic violence simply because they are male. It denies support to fathers who have suffered miscarriages of justice. It silences political parties who campaign for nothing more than gender equality. Incredibly, it even blocks sites advocating on behalf of victims of sexual abuse.

If this wasn't all bad enough, there's worse to come. In addition to the blocking, the Rulespace filter's classifications smear each and every one of the sites mentioned above as a "hate site". So, right now, according to Symantec, to assist any male who is being beaten and abused by his wife is "hate". To help a father have a meaningful relationship with his own children is "hate". And should you dare to advocate on behalf of young male victims of sexual abuse, then yes that's hate too. Below are several example links:

http://dvmen.co.uk

http://toysoldier.wordpress.com
 

http://www.menaregood.com
 

http://j4mb.wordpress.com/
 



in total there are more than 100 inappropriatly censored men's human rights sites, all wrongly classed as "hate" spanning a number of different countries. Your staff have repeatedly told me and the owners of the sites that they stand by the "hate" definitions for all these resources. They've made it quite clear that the ridiculous definitions are no mistake and they appear to be perfectly happy with this gender discrimination, thus everything outlined above appears to be entirely deliberate. To compound matters further still, the filter actually fails to block all the most extreme anti-male sites, such as "The Society of Cutting Up Men manifesto" and those promoting the castration of all males, so whilst almost every voice supporting equality for males is silence by the filter, no amount of male hatred gets even the most extreme radical feminist blocked. If you are serious about reforming Symantec and turning it around then the misandric nature of the Rulespace product is something that really needs urgent attention.

In case you aren't aware, the issues that concern the men's human rights community include equal access to healthcare, equality in the justice system and family courts, the genital mutilation of children and and sexism in the education system. I'm not any sort of renowned businessman, though I do know it's poor business practice to attack and demonise an entire civil rights community based upon their gender, particularly one which is experiencing such rapid growth and media recognition. Given the demographic profile of your typical Symantec user, then In your case it would appear to be corporate suicide to be targeting this particular human rights group. Symantec have blocked and defamed over 100 legitimate organisations, all of whom have blogs and websites and are thus able to expose what's going on. I've contacted every single site owner on the list so your customers are almost certain to hear about this. Right now a video on the issue is receiving a very impressive amount of traffic on Youtube and it has already had coverage in a number of IT news publications and by civil liberties groups. O2/Telefonica are already losing significant numbers of customers due to Symantec's misandry, so I expect they'll be forced to switch to one of your competitors before too long if you don't fix this problem, as will other corporations using Rulespace. Quite simply, this issue is only going to get bigger and is not going to go away.

I therefore urge you to please either unblock these 100+ wrongly classified sites and give a sincerely apology for smearing the owners of the sites in such an horrific fashion for so long. Some sort of donation to a few of the victims may also be in order to help begin the process of restoring your company's reputation amongst egalitarian minded groups. please note that the unblocking of these sites will not be sufficient in the long term, and the discriminatory nature of the filter algorithms needs fixing to prevent future problems as new men's equality sites are established.

I think the core problem with the product is some confusion over basic gender equality issues amongst your staff. Communications I've had from Symantec and O2 suggest that the filter bars any criticism of feminism, with the implication being that to criticise feminism is somehow sexist and discriminatory and analogous to criticising females. Whilst criticism of a particular gender is inappropriate, the complete converse applies with feminism which is an ideology no less deserving of critique than Marxism, Communism or Capitalism. Any such political movements should be subject to unlimited critique and scrutiny in any free and fair society, and should be held accountable for their actions. The majority of men's human rights sites actually seek to expose hateful radical feminist ideas (e.g those of Valerie Solanas), yet under the Rulespace system, reality gets turned on its head, the hate groups become the good guys, and those exposing such gender-based hatred are silenced for daring to do so.



If you are not able to unblock the sites and insist on continuing to describe them as "hateful" then please answer the following questions:

1. What exactly is hateful about helping male victims of domestic violence? Does Symantec subscribe to the extreme radical feminist theories domestic violence in which the millions of abused men somehow cannot be victims and therefore do not deserve help? Where is there one single word on sites such as dvmen.co.uk

 
that is the slightest bit "hateful"?

2. Is it also Symantec corporate policy to deny assistance and support to any male employees who are domestic violence? (1 in 6 male employees) or do you only do this to your customers?

3. Does Symantec oppose the right of children to have a loving relationship with both parents following a divorce? If not why are you so vehemently opposed to so many of the leading egalitarian organisations campaigning for such things?

4. The Rulespace team regards as "hate" a site dedicated to advocating on behalf of abused boys, won't people come to the conclusion that Symantec protects child rapists?

5. Is it Symantec's corporate policy to interfere in the democratic process by silencing the voice of opposition political parties?

6. Give the almost blanket ban on sites advocating equality for males, would it be fair to say that Symantec opposes human rights for half the population of the planet including a majority of its own customers/users?



I do appreciate that Symantec took over Rulesapce in 2010 and therefore this is an inherited problem rather than one created directly by Symantec employees. However, there has been ample time to address this scandal and the reaction thus far to people's concerns has been completely unacceptable and appearing to condone misandry.

Many thanks for taking the time to read this email, I enclose the complete list of wrongly blocked/classified sites below.

Regards

John Kimble

 

Posted at 07:00 in Current Affairs/Political, Domestic Violence, Sexual Offences | | Comments (4)

| | |

Tuesday, 25 June 2013

GRANT THORNTON AND ITS SEXISM IN CARE QUALITY COMISSION SCANDAL

When consultants Grant Thornton published its report into the Care Quality Commission  scandal where it buried its report about its findings on the appalling problems at a hospital in Barrow-in-Furness, one of the bizarre episodes is around the naming of those involved.

When the report appeared, the names of the three female protagonists were redacted (concealed).

The names given were Mr E, Mr F and Mr G. Despite the fact that one was Cynthia Bower, another Jill Finney and another is an unnamed woman.

So why not state that these were Ms E, Ms F or Ms G?

Is it because if anything bad happens, Grant Thornton's default setting is that it must be a man or it thinks society's default setting is that it is a man) and would Grant Thornton choose a Ms J, K  or L, if the protagonists were men. I very much doubt it.

By Grant Thornton choosing male 'addresses' for women, it shows a high level of level of cynicism about men and that if there is a scandal it must be down to men. In other words, a form of covert sexism and a negative stereotype about men.

It is a supporter of International Women's Day so we look forward to their support of International Men's Day.

Posted by Skimmington 

 

 

Posted at 11:04 in Current Affairs/Political | | Comments (0)

| | |

"IS IT COS I'M A WOMAN?"

It was political correctness that meant that the authorities (police and councils) trned a bling eye when gangs of men from Pakistani-heritage backgrounds groomed young girls in Oxford, Rochdale and Blackpool. Is it the same reason why institutions let Rebecca Shuttleworth get away with torturing her son when she was known to the authorities?

If Rebecca was called Richard, would the institutions have been onto it straight away or did they turn a blind eye because it was a mother?

Posted by Skimmington

 

 

Posted at 06:41 | | Comments (1)

| | |

THE EXTREMISTS FEMINIST SITES THAT O2/SYMANTEC DEEM SUITABLE FOR UNDER 18'S

We've already throughly examined the types of men's equality sites O2 and Symantec pretend are hateful. They vary from those helping victims of domestic violence, to political parties and even ones highlighting the plight of male victims of rape and abuse. So what about feminist sites? are they censored too? Well the good news is that things are improving and since I started this campaign, some radical feminist sites have finally gained the "hate" classification such as the one run by Cathy Brennan. The only problem is that it appears to only be transphobic feminist sites that get automatically blocked at present, so really O2 and Symantec are still as ani-male as ever and radical feminists can continue calling for men and boys to be attacked and abused, just as long as they remember to keep their transphobia in check.

To see how bad the situaiton is lets take a look at some of the examples of anti-male groups and topics that O2/Symantec still deem suitable for under 18's (note - I will not be linking to such vile material so you'll have to Google the sites if you want to see them).

Femen - Violent feminist extremists who assault and seek to murder the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. A Femen logo shows a woman with a bloody sickle in one hand and a severed scrotum in the other and they also use the term "sextremism" to describe their work. Rulespace classes their site as "blogging" and in total I found all three Femen related sites were unblocked.

Femithiests - An extremist group who want to see a "new era of feminism". Their "solution" is the castration of all males via "International Castration Day". where "males of all ages will be brought to the public squares of their cities nude, to stand together in a circle, as they await castration by a woman known as "The Castrator", who will be a woman chosen from the public much like a juror. Girls of all ages will attend, lining the streets to cheer and applaud the males as they join the rest of civilized society." Three femithiest sites are currently classed as "hosting" or "blogging" though Symantec have partially blocked one domain following the mention I gave the group in the recent ISP Review article. 

Ending male violence blog - A prominent header to every page states the need for a "decontamination" of the earth and how this will be accompanied by a drastic reduction in the number of males. Classed as "news". Comments state: "Its a pity men are not raped more frequently by women"

SCUM Manifesto - A hate site paying tribute to Valerie Solanas and describing her as "my personal hero" is not blocked and classed as "non-profit". For those who aren't' aware of her, Solanas is the author the the SCUM Manifesto, arguably the most famous example of feminist hate speech. "SCUM" stands for "Society for Cutting Up Men", and it seeks to "destroy the male sex.", furthermore, Solanas also tried to murder men so she wasn't simply all talk. Some quotes: "Every man, deep down, knows he's a worthless piece of shit.", "To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo", "He [the male] is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and is far worse off than the apes because, unlike the apes, he is capable of a large array of negative feelings". "The male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples."

I hate men - I decided to Google this term and found a site with this actual title. As expected, O2/Symantec do not consider it "hate". The message couldn't be clearer yet the Rulespace system is so useless and misandrist that it stills fails to pick up on it.

Andrea Dworkin - The official website of Andrea Dworkin, a radical feminist openly hostile to men, is not blocked. She referred to women's sons as " the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman". and regarded men as "biologically inferior" and stated that to eliminate male violence one needs to eliminate the male species/race. The site is currently classed as "wedding". An additional unblocked Dworkin fan site has a "non profit" classification.

Brown Power - A Tumblr site which states "kill all men", "death to whites" "unless ur brown then get outta town".

My Misandry - "A tumblr website by misandrists for misandrists. It is a place for misandrists to feel free, express themselves and to meet other like-minded people" The statement on the first page reads "HELL YEAH KILL ALL MEN FUCK THOSE GUYS AND THEIR RAPE ORGANS", in fact a quick glance at Tumblr shows the whole place to be arguably the biggest hotbed of misandry on the internet. Perhaps there's sufficient grounds to block the whole thing as hate until the admins get their act together?

Sally Miller Gearhart - Famously said "the proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race". I'm not aware of any men's site suggest the female population be reduced to parity with men nevermind forcing them to become a tiny minority. Gearhart sells her books via her website so therefore benefits financially from O2/Symantec's failure to block her work.

SCUM Conference - in 2011 a group of radical feminists organised a "SCUM Conference" in Perth, Australia. One of the advertised objectives of this event was to "destroy the male sex". Neither of the blogs of the two feminist organisers/promoters of the event are blocked.

Die White Cis male - another Tumbler site, doesn't really need any more explanation does it?


Hopefully, as with previous examples I've highlighted, O2/Symantec will take action to block the above sites but that's not really the point. It's not my job to fix the Rulespace filter and police feminist hate. If O2/Symantec put 1% of the effort into targeting feminist extremism as they do in denying access to legitimate men's human rights sites then no doubt at least some of the above would have the correct hate classification automatically.

More on this issue later this week.

by John Kimble

Posted at 06:15 in Current Affairs/Political, Domestic Violence | | Comments (4)

| | |

LATEST MEN'S MATTERS

James Williams' latest - his show goes from strength to strength - a real must listen for all male equality campaigners in the UK.

Posted by Skimmington

Posted at 01:32 | | Comments (0)

| | |

Monday, 24 June 2013

PETITION ON STATE PENSION EQUALISATION

A regular reader has sent this petition over for those it interests.

Posted by Skimmington

Posted at 21:54 in Pensions/Welfare State | | Comments (0)

| | |

Thursday, 20 June 2013

WHY ARE BROADWAY'S FIGURES ABOUT LONDON'S HOMELESS MEN HIDDEN? SEXISM, THAT'S WHY

A common type of discrimination is not just the overt discrimination but covert discrimination, effectively discrimination by omisson - where figures relating to men are ignored or not given equal status as figures affecting females.

 Another way of seeing this in action is to reverse the genders (The Lyndon Concept, named after the concept Neil Lyndon first set out) and then see what the prominence would be with the media, politicians, opinion formers, pressure groups etc. What would be the outcry if it was a 'Neil' Lawson who was at the end of domestic abuse at the hands of a 'Charlotte' Saatchi for instance.

Today's homelessness report (summary and full report) called Street to Home by the Combined Homelessness and Information Network in London (led by Broadway) is a classic example.

The press release states that "6,437 people were seen sleeping  on the streets of the Capital between April 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013. This  compares to 5,678 the previous year". So what is the gender breakdown?

Er...well it mentions that 786 female (12%) were female, but does not mention that 88% were male - nine out of ten.

Now all homelessness is awful and no man or women should be homeless - it's what we pay our taxes for to make sure that doesn't happen to anyone. But how in the name of equality can a report's press release fail to mention that 88% of homeless people are men (the overwhelming majority) and even worse not mention men at all. It is why it is not mentioned in the Evening Standard report. This is why people do not realise the plight that so many men face on our streets because they are not told about it.

Using the Lyndon Concept can you imagine the headlines if the genders were reversed. It would not dominate the news it would be the main hook on the press release. But because it is men - it does not even get a mention.

Why did Broadway choose to highlight the female figure and not the male figure? Why did they think it was OK? Why did they feel that the number of female homeless was far more important to raise than the number of men even though men are more than seven times as likely to be sleeping rough on the streets of London than a woman.

The only rational and logical conclusion is sexism. Insidious, anti-male, anti-equality, institutional  cultural misandry.

The thought process was that men are not as important than women, that no one is interested in men and the plight of homeless men. Men according to Broadway are the disposable sex and only 12% of homeless people are worth mentioning, and that is because of they are not men.

Shame on Broadway for their sexism.

Posted by Skimmington

PS Glen Poole's excellent Telegraph article set out some aspects

Posted at 23:57 in Current Affairs/Political, Health, Women-only | | Comments (4)

| | |

Wednesday, 19 June 2013

O2 AND SYMANTEC - EQUALITY FOR MEN IS MORE HATEFUL THAN STORMFRONT

Most of my posts this year have concerned the O2 and Symantec censorship scandal, some readers may becoming bored of the issue by now but I make no apologies for them in fact they'll keep coming until the censorship stops. To be honest, I've probably been rather two soft on these companies in the past and things are going to step up a gear from now onwards.

I keep learning more about the Rulespace filter by the day and I made a quite astonishing discovery recently. O2 and Symantec have two possible ways of blocking a site, it can either be classed as a "hate site" or be placed in the "hate" category, either way it gets censored and access is restricted.

Take a racist site such as Stormfront, O2's url checker shows us that it is in the "hate" category. The same goes for a site such as the National Coalition for Men, one of the oldest men's organisations in existence. However, in addition to it's place in the "hate" category, it also receives a "hate site" classification, something not found for Stormfront.org. So Stormfront is blocked once, yet a perfectly legitimate organisation such as NCFM.org is blocked twice over just for good measure, just to make sure it never gets seen.

A quick glance at Stormfront's forums soon reveals racistand derogatroy comments about Africans and Jews, whereas the top article on NCFM.org concerned the need to defend the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Despite this, O2 and Symantec are clearly saying a respected non profit organisation advocating for men's human rights and gender equality is worse than Stormfront, and more deserving of censorship and a "hate" classification. The Rulespace filter system is so misandrist or so flawed that it favours proud racists over  men's human rights advocates.

The list of sites deemed worse than Stormfront by these companies even includes dvmen.org, a site for male victims of domesitc violence in Colerado run by the Equal Justice Foundation. Also apparantly worse than Stormfront is mensdefence.org, the site of author and pioneering men's equality advocate Richard F Doyle.

Please remember to cancel your O2 contract if you haven't done so already and uninstall your Symantec software, in both cases there are quite a few cheaper and better alternatives out there anyway. Also don' forget to give the reason for your cancellation.

by John Kimble

Posted at 01:19 in Current Affairs/Political, Domestic Violence | | Comments (4)

| | |

»

Total Politics

  • Ukpolitical300

Twitter

About

Subscribe to this blog's feed
Blog powered by Typepad

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Reading List