The Rights Of Man

THE RADICALISATION OF SPORTSWOMEN WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN EQUALITY

The problem with modern feminism in its radical form is that it radicalises young women into believing everything that does not go their way is down to sexism, a sexist system and evil men. They want equality but when it does not 'work' for them - they don't want equality - though they would never say it. This McCarthyism can be seen in sport and the Olympics has given it a new platform.

Last month, the site pointed out the hypocrisy of those who wanted and got equality at Wimbledon when clearly there is a difference in the work needed to win a men's title compared to a women's title.

This week, we have had silver medalist Lizzie Armitstead raising the issue of sexism in cycling about the coverage and the money (Guardian1, Guardian 2 and BBC) . If women get paid less in the Velodrome competing in the same events (in terms of the races which are circa the same distances as the men's) that is unfair but is Ms Armitstead saying the men on the Tour De France should get paid the same as women in their Tour de France which is nowhere near as tough.

Following hot on the heels of this is Denise Lewis calling for a separate women's Sports Personality of the Year (thanks everyone for sending me the link). Again, on the one hand women like Denise want to be seen as equals to men but then when it does not work in their favour (as Bradley Wiggins is likely to win) they hypocritically call for inequality but dress it up as though they calling for equality. Ms Lewis is just indulging in man-bashing and witch hunting.

Gabby Logan though speaks up for equality in the coverage proving that many many women understand the meaning of equality (Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail). A short debate took place on the Daily Mail.

Lastly, there has been much about girl power in the papers about their achievements and there is nothing per se wrong with that if the tone is right (that is, it is not anti-male). Everyone in Britain should be pleased about the success of our female athletes, and of course, our male ones.

Except though, it is then taken up by the radical gender feminists and turned into a 'it proves women are superior to men debate'. This article in The Guardian sums it up , and sums up why they are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to equality. Who cares if women win more medals than men - it is not relevant in an equal society.

Posted by Skimmington

 

THE ANTI-MALE DISCRIMINATION OF ALL-WOMEN SHORTLISTS CONTINUES

Proving the old adage of "once you give an inch they take a mile" right can be clearly seen by the campaign for quotas for places for women on the boards of companies and the witch-hunt (the feminist witchocracy) on those who do not comply. The effect of the quotas is to end meritocracy and the blocking of individuals (men) from being on boards because of the gender.  

The precursor, and one that has never received as much attention as it should do is the anti-male all-women shortlist phenomena. Covered extensively on this site including a full research report outlining their history and how men are being disenfranchised in the political system.

This is the system where the Labour Party bans men from putting their names forward to be Parliamentary candidates for that party at General Elections. It is such a deliberate and mendacious piece of men-hating legislation. 

In April last year the site highlighted the fact that Labour were still intent on using them in a number of seats and now some of those seats have selected their candidates. No men and no women who believe in equality should vote Labour in any of these seats:

Dover - Clair Hawkins

Harlow - Suzy Stride

Worcester -   Joy Squires

Stevenage - Sharon Taylor

Swindon South - Anne Snelgrove

Hastings & Rye - Sarah Owen

Northampton North - Sally Keeble

Lincoln - Lucy Rigby

Thurrock - Polly Billington

 

Previously I had listed seats such as Peterbrough, Reading West, Brighton Kemptown, Burton and Redditch as using this procedure but could not find any reference to a candidate having eventually been chosen.

There continues to be much rancour within the Labour Party about the policy but none ever looks at the blatant discrimination against men. Articles include these:

Ben Cobley (against) versus Luke Akehurst (for) and then Atul Hatwal (against AWS but wants quotas)

Charlotte De Vere (a Conservative against them) versus Harman (for!!!!)

Scarlet Standard (unsmilingly for!)

As was seen by the use of quotas by the Conservative Party and the comments on the last News Update showing how the Conservatives have elected a cadre of anti-male women who enjoyed the benefits of quotas (A-List and special treatment). It means male related issues such as depression, family law, domestic abuse, men's health, health and safety and unemployment are not even being discussed.

There are hold-ups in more selections because of Parliamentary boundary changes (as a result of reducing the number of MP's from 650 to 600) so there seems to be a lack of selections for the next General Election (May 2015) at the moment. When the boundaries are sorted there will be a tidal wave, and that will lead to be a fresh tidal wave of male discrimination.

Posted by Skimmington 

"Women experience an average of 35 incidents of domestic violence before reporting an incident to the police" - 31 years old and not even British

When Kier Starmer, the Director for Public Prosecutions gave a speech this week about the success in ending violence against women and girls he threw a token to those who feel the CPS pays lip service to supporting men and boys with regard to sexual and domestic violence. Perhaps he and his speechwriters read this site as he said this below when before he has said nothing:

"In recognising these dynamics the CPS does not neglect abuse directed towards men or perpetrated by women. Male victims receive the same access to protection and legal redress and the gender of the perpetrator does not make a difference to the CPS approach to bringing offenders to justice. All of our existing policies are gender neutral, and are applied fairly and equitably to all victims of crime and all defendants are prosecuted in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors."

They are still mere crumbs from the table.

One BBC report on the speech quoted him as saying "Most victims of domestic violence suffer in silence - Mr Starmer said a woman would on average be assaulted 30 times before she sought help." There is no evidence in any of the press releases that he said this.

However, being naturally inquisitive, I remembered seeing a figure often quoted that says " Women experience an average of 35 incidents of domestic violence before reporting an incident to the police."  Even the CPS have used it - but so does practically everyone else it would seem.

So is it true (it could be higher or lower) and more importantly, in the name of equality, what is the male figure?

After much hunting around the web and looking for the source (via Women's Aid and Refuge) the source is Jaffe 1982. So already this statistic commonly used today is actually 30 years old!

The source is Canadian academic Dr. Peter G Jaffe and the research paper is called An integrated response to wife assault : a community model.

Some sources say 1982 and others say 1984, but let's stick to 1982 if this is the one quoted by many. However, we know the research took place in 1981.

So here we have it.

A figure used in 2012 by a myriad of statutory authorities in the UK about the number of times a woman is assaulted before she calls the police is based on a statistic that is not only 31 years old it is not even based on British research - it is from Canada.

The figure could be higher - it could be lower - as it could be for men but there is no equivalent available. 1981 is pure Jurassic age when it comes to recognising male victims.

So here we have a one-sided statistics, used continuously to create and justify a one-sided position on domestic abuse (women are the only victims) and those who use it do not even bother to find an up-to-date figure let alone one that relates to Britain.

It says so much about those who believe their ideology must come before telling the truth and telling it in a balanced and equal way.

Any authority that uses this figure as if it is recent and from Britain is now instantly discredited.

 Posted by Skimmington 

NEWS UPDATE

Work again everyone - sorry - here are a few:

Men's Hour (15 07 12): Male circumcision debate, prostate cancer and eating disorders

Men's Hour (08 07 12): Lack of lottery bids for men's groups (05.30 in)

The text of the interview is at the end of this piece  - and - while the Big Lottery CEO was a bit condescending towards men and why they don't get involved - he does clearly raise the issue about groups who proclaim to be for everyone - are only playing lip service to supporting men. The report from The Big Lottery Fund is here.

IEA Debate with Mike Buchanan on the gender diversity delusion: why companies shouldn't 'improve' gender diversity.

BBC Wales - BBC ex-servicemen banned from job because of beard

The Guardian -  German mayor defends 'men only' parking spaces

Posted by Skimmington

Men's Hour

 Projects helping men are five times less likely to
apply for Lottery funding than those projects helping women. The Big Lottery
Fund has looked into the figures and believes the fear of being stigmatised or
the pressure to man up and deal with stuff alone could be behind this trend.

 Peter Wanless, CEO of the Big Lottery Funds, said
"We looked at a range of projects and discovered in a three year period
there were five times as many projects aimed directly at women than men, perhaps
more surprisingly, a significant minority of all the projects we funded who
were aimed at everybody were struggling to attract men to what they were trying
to achieve - despite the issues they were interested in being of relevance to
men.

 Tim Samuels - "Let's try and unpick this - is
it a question of men not seeking help - is it men not putting the applications
in, in the first place.”

 Peter - "I think there are some deep and
fundamental issues that underpin these findings, that are around the ability of
men to ask for help, to organise themselves, to seek assistance. We know there
are scary facts and figures around mental health problems and challenges facing
men especially young to middle-aged men and Five Live has done some brilliant
stuff about depression in sports stars.

 Peter – “Any there aren't that many well-being
projects particularly aimed at addressing those male issues and even where they
are they are more naturally attracting the participation of women more than men
- perhaps because women are more comfortable talking about these issues
through, more able and willing to take time off work, to participate in this
sort of activity, so there are some deep and societal issues underpinning this

 Tim – “So it’s not about men being a bit disorganised
about getting their applications in - it’s a much wider societal question about
men not coming together to ask for help”

 Peter – “Yes I think that is right but what is fascinating
- it is possible that Big Lottery has been supporting brilliant organisations
to identify ways in which men can be helped to cope with situation. some men
will enjoy and be part of targeted programmes for men but many others just want
to access a service but it is not easy. Some of us who have young children for example may
well go to a parenting projecting but it is for mums. Don't leave it to chance,
don’t assume if projects is available to men, they will come along. You have to
think carefully about how to engage and attract men to these important services.”

 

ENDING MALE CIRCUMCISION WITHOUT CONSENT GAINS MOMENTUM AND ATTENTION

Ending circumcision without consent in the UK is now becoming a mainstream equalities issue and there is a need now to push on for victory. It is a cornerstone issue that highlights the inequality that men and boys face in the UK. It is rightly illegal that girls suffer from this mutilation and there has long been campaigns, conferences, speeches and now laws against it.

But where has the debate been from those self-proclaimed self-appointed equalities campaigners about the male circumcision. Probably scared of taking on certain religions and also not being remotely interested in ensuring that equality means equality for men and boys too.

So rather than just the shrugging of shoulders, men and women have taken the campaign up themselves and momentum is being gained in turning it onto a mainstream equalities issue.

The starkness of the facts, figures and stories presented by Ending Unnecessary Male Circumcision - an issue that effects 100 boys per day. 

As the site says "When baby boys are bleeding to death in our communities as the result of being
subjected to a medically unnecessary surgery its time to take action."

The redoubtable Glen Poole has been on World Service and also was on Men's Hour tonight on Radio 5. On the World Service - never once did those that agree with circumcision recognise equality and consent.

The debate continues in Germany and Angela Merkel has buckled (and Guardian and Telegraph) because of the religious lobby.

This is a campaign that everyone should get behind - not just for the issue itself but what it means for furthering action on equality for men and boys.

Posted by Skimmington

Don't forget to sign the petition

Previous debate here

MEN'S HOUR IS BACK

Men's Hour is back on Radio 5 - worth listening because while it generally is a magazine it does  discuss serious issues and need our support.

MEN'S HOUR IS BACK

Men's Hour is back on Radio 5 - worth listening because while it generally is a magazine it does  discuss serious issues and need our support.

TEN THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT CANCER RESEARCH UK'S SEXISM

Over recent months and years this blog has published a number of articles highlighting sexism by Cancer Research UK, with a particular focus on its disgraceful Race for Life event. As the backslash against Race for Life grows ever stronger and as so many new readers become interested in this issue I felt it was time we took a wider look at CRUK's activities as a whole. Race for Life is simply a symptom of wider problems at the organisation and in my view the entire charity is institutionally sexist, particualr given the fact that, even according to CRUK's own reports "In general men are at significantly greater risk than women from nearly all of the common cancers that occur in both sexes".

I therefore present a summary of the ten of the prevailing sexist attitudes at CRUK. I strongly sugget readers support other cancer charites until some of the issues below are addressed.

1. Male fundraisers are not wanted
It's pretty obvious that the organisation who set up Race for Life and deliberately excludes men from "the biggest fight against cancer" doesn't want their money (unless it's arrives via a female intermediary who then takes the credit for raising it). Lets examine exactly what happened to get us into this situation of CRUK barring most fund-raising by men. In the mid 1990s CRUK (then under a different name) purposely went out and set up large numbers of female-only fundraising events. Contrary to the spin they put on things, at no point have they engaged with men in a comparable fashion, nor really attempted to do so. Unlike with some other fun-runs we don't merely have a case of gender segregation here, there simply is no parallel event for men and never was. The few attempts made to solve the problem occurred years after the launch of Race for Life and were all half-hearted afterthoughts, destined to fail due to their narrow scope. For the most part, male fundraisers simply are not wanted. CRUK describes a man's role as a "supporter", which in reality means a second class citizen who's purpose it to clean up after women at events.

2. Men do not buy things
The merchandising work at CRUK again follows an overwhelmingly sexist and non-inclusive pattern. Other than clothing, items for sale on their website mostly consist of flowers, a selection of cake-related items, aprons, wedding planners, baby journals and pink diaries. An "Essential" section of the site includes a whole series of hideous Race for Life clothing and accessories for women and girls. Finally, just for even more gender balance, we then have a series of breast cancer awareness related goods on sale, including pink ribbons and bra key rings. Not one single item can be found anywhere highlighting a male specific cancer or a male focused event or where the funds solely go to combating a predominantly male specific cancer. I did find a number of rubber ducks which looked like nice gifts for children, but a closer look show even those to be plastered with breast cancer awareness ribbons.

3. Men do not get breast cancer
Race for Life began as a women-only event aimed at raising money for breast cancer, yet this is not a single sex cancer. Yes far fewer men get breast cancer than women, but those unfortunate enough to do so are more likely to die than female patients, mainly due to a lack of awareness. The way Race for Life portrays breast cancer as simply a women's issue therefore causes real harm but they don't stop there. CRUK's slogan for their breast cancer campaign is "join the fight for womens' survival", so once again, men are out of the picture right from the start.

4. Men are sex objects
A recurring theme in CRUK's work is their portrayal of men as sex objects. Previously we've seen breast cancer awareness videos featuring a woman groping a half naked male model and CRUK's notorious e-male app of male celebrities begging to perform a strip-tease to get women to participate in Race for Life. Newer developments in this area include teams of specially selected  "hunky" corporate male cheerleaders at Race for Life events. I've I've stated before, I'm not anti-sex, and such objectification doesn't necessarily present a problem in itself, particularly were it to work both ways. However I'm yet to see any evidence of CRUK presenting women in this way, and when considered in conjunction with CRUK's other activities it becomes clear they have an issue with their attitudes to men.

5. Men's views don't count
A key component of the CRUK world-view is that men's views on matters simply don't count. Time and again we've been informed that Race for Life remains a sexist event due to the wishes of a minority of the participants, but why don't CRUK survey non-participants interested in cancer and see what their impression of the event is? The theme of CRUK ignoring men's voices again came to the fore earlier this year when the option of boys running in the event was reinstated. This came about directly because of the actions of Claire Parker, even though the likes of John Taylor have argued exactly the same thing for over a decade. Of course I congratulate and thank Claire for her work, but it's unfair that, in the eyes of CRUK, her views should carry so much more weight than that of any man. The organisation is so blinkered that I understand they have now gone as far as even refusing to open emails from John Taylor, thus showing a huge amount of disrespect for such a successful and longstanding equality campaigner.

6. Men aren't important
CRUK produces many excellent posters and they can also be downloaded from their website. Mouth, breast and ovarian cancer posters are available but nothing for prostate cancer. This is despite the likes of ovarian cancer being  rarer by a factor of more than five. CRUK's complete disregard and failure to understand prostate cancer is also illustrated in more subtle ways. For example it's breast cancer and even gullet cancer publications are available in a special large print but not those for prostate cancer. We know that besides gender, the other reason prostate cancer gets neglected it due to agism, yet here we have a group of older cancer suffers, clearly with the greatest need of the larger text, but yet again they are ignored. Sexism is found elsewhere too, the most obvious example being CRUK's dedicated awareness sub-sites. Their breast cancer site in particular is highly comprehensive and has had a lot of effort put into it, but the corresponding site for prostate cancer (or any male specific/associated cancer) just doesn't exist! Their disregard for men couldn't be much more blatant. CRUK's report on "The excess burden of cancer in men in the UK" acknowledges that "a lack of knowledge of cancer" is one factor which results in the development of cancer in men, so why are they making this situation worse?

7. Violence against men is great
In addition to its sexist slogan, CRUK's breast cancer campaign even appears to encourage violence against men. Posters inviting people to join "the fight for women's survival" featured two female figures wearing boxing gloves attacking a male figure. So, not satisfied with neglecting men and male cancers therefore consigning men to an early death, CRUK's advertising effectively endorses a quickening of this process thorough physical assault.

8. Men don't make good employees
Although I haven't been able to uncover any figures, one striking aspect of CRUK's activities appears to be the sheer volume of women employed there. In my experience, if you send them an email, phone them up or post a message on their forums the odds are that you'll almost never come into contact with a single male employee. For example, a quick glance at CRUK's cancer chat forums shows the entire moderation staff to be female, as were all those moderator's predecessors. It would appear that this female dominated workplace has resulted in a clear prioritisation of female-associated cancers and patients despite the fact that most cancer patients are male AND those male patients are more likely to die from cancer. I don't' believe in sexist quotas or anything of that nature but it's ridiculous that females dominate an area of most relevance to men and at the very least CRUK might provide a few token men for say prostate cancer suffers to talk about sensitive issues. Compounding this matter further is the particular type of female recruited to the organisation, with many I've come across fitting the Guardian-reading gender feminist stereotype, and therefore having the bizarre attitude that CRUK's sexism is acceptable or somehow even a good thing.

9. Men are worse than dogs
Strangely, CRUK allows dogs to participate in Race for Life. It's not just female dogs either, even male dogs are welcome to participate. This therefore means dogs actually have more opportunities for involvement in fundraising activities with CRUK than men, and suggests the organisation has a higher regard for these animals than actual human males.  If your dog is so crazed and likely to bite others that it needs to wear a muzzle it can still "Race for Life", yet even a Hannibal Lecter style mask, various restraints and being wheelchair-bound would not facilitate entry for a man. Obnoxious misandrist feminists regularly write hateful comments and signs about men being chaperoned so they don't rape anyone, but CRUK's position is in some ways even more extreme, and even a chaperone or two isn't sufficient supervision.

10. Men are stupid
Above all else, CRUK believes men are so stupid that they can lie to them over and over again without anyone noticing. Perhaps the most visible aspect of this is CRUK's laughably dishonest slogans for events such as Race for Life, whereby the organisation loudly proclaims  "it's all of us vs cancer". Other CRUK gems include repeatedly telling us "Together we will beat cancer", whilst simultaneously creating pointless gender divisions therefore and reducing "togetherness" at almost every possible opportunity. Further dishonesty and hypocrisy is in evidence in the organisation's strategy document, under the heading  "Tackling cancer inequalities".  CRUK states "a number of different groups in society experience unacceptable inequalities in cancer. The nature of these inequalities in cancer is complex, and we have only limited evidence in some areas. But we will push Government to do more to tackle cancer inequality where it can." As we showed earlier CRUK have already admittedly that men are significantly more likely to get cancer than women and those getting it also more likely to die, yet their spending patterns bear no relation to this evidence nor do they have any polices in place to solve the problem, instead only identifying LGBT, people, ethnic minorites and rural dwellers as legitimate groups needing help. Many of the previous nine points demonstrate clear inequalities in spending with regards to education/awareness etc and the trend continues for actual research. Using the statistics on CRUK's own website I calculated CRUK's 2010/11 spend on gender specific/associated cancers as:
£453 for anyone with prostate cancer
£902 for anyone with breast cancer
£1,615 for anyone with ovarian cancer.

Despite there already being clear cancer inequalities in society, and in particular a sickening neglect of prostate cancer, CRUK is actively making the gender gap worse in almost everything it does and it a major contributor to the phenomena. What on earth gives them the right to lecture and lobby the government on such an issue where they are so clearly such a major part of the problem?

CRUK really needs to decide if they care about men or simply want to be a women-only organisation. Right now it appears that they are the later, masquerading as an organisation that pretends to care about everyone.

 

by John Kimble

NEWS UPDATE

Here are a selection from the last two weeks (in no particular order) and thanks to those that sent them through:

The Guardian: Neither breadwinners nor losers - what role do young men play next? (Ally Fogg) Ally's article makes a number of key cornerstone points - first about men being ignored by social policymakers and also the example on ESF funding. The only issue I take with Ally is he is reluctant to really name the guilty parties who are deliberately ignoring men and carrying out these discriminatory policies. I may well be unfair here as he does mention ESF, but who are the politicians responsible for this policy - list the guilty men and women. He has a new blog.

HR Magazine: Businesses hold dads back when it comes to family (David Woods)

The Guardian: These Tory women are narcissists, not feminists (Tanya Gold) If you read the comments sections, it shows these men-haters are bing challenged.

Equalities and Human Rights Commission: Reading Lists published - The EHRC is now making it even easier to find the texts they love - I have seen the JR Schackleton pamphlet on gender pay is on it though!

Equalities and Human Rights Commission: Staff reduction announced

London Evening Standard: London can seriously harm men's health (Sophie Goodchild and Emma Slater). The full reports from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can be found here and here.  

Various: French tennis-player Gilles Simon says men should receive more prize money than women at Wimbledon (Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian)

A Men and Women's MRA request for London

Daily Telegraph: Girls outperforming boys in masuline subjects (Graeme Paton)

Men's Network - Funding for male cancer

Please let me if I have missed any?

Posted by Skimmington

INSTITUTIONAL SEXISM AGAINST BOYS HAS LED TO THE GENDER READING GAP

The report today by the All Party Parliamentary Literacy Group Boys' Reading Commission and the National Literacy Trust is the first major piece of research work recently in the UK that has seriously looked at the gender reading gap.

In fact, there is hardly any research on the educational gap because academia and the establishment are not interested in men and boys only women and girls. It was therefore refreshing that this report was produced and also that it was led by politicians.The report pulls a lot of the statistics together and shows the journey boys are taking through their educational life so it is a good compendium of the latest statistics.

Some key facts include

• 59% of boys achieved an A* to C in English GCSE compared to 73% of girls
• 76% of respondents said boys in their school did not do as well in reading as girls
•  82% of schools have tried to tackle this issue

The report does give a view about what causes the problem whether it is parental interaction, the school environment and male gender identities.

Three issues stand out.

School system

Firstly, there is the point (Chapter 2, page 12), and the report is brave enough to say it (it should not have to be classed as brave but others are too scared to say it) that the feminised education system is working against boys. Whether that is because there is bias in marking, reading selection, lack of male teachers, national curriculum (exams versus coursework), boys not as interested in 'pleasing the teacher', the differences in reading materials being available and so forth.

All in all that is some list and when you combine them together - it is no wonder that boys are behind. What it clearly shows is the system is stacked against boys - it is institutionally sexist.

A comment on the BBC site from a mother (Catherine Beak) is worth sharing:

 I have both a daughter and a son. They are completely and utterly different in what they choose to read. Why do they push boys into reading books, if what they want to read is newspapers or sports magazine

I believe that it doesn't really matter what they read, as long as they do. My son is well above average for his reading and we just get him things that he's interested in.

Fathers   

Chapter three highlights the problems where fathers are not around to read to their children and that can harm boys reading. Perhaps if the family courts and CAFCASS believed in shared parenting then this could be avoided.

Policy Response

The conclusions at the end are an impressive list and are practical way that boys reading can be supported without damaging girls reading.

The subtext is clear though and this is the most shameful and disgraceful part as it shows the institutional sexism with in the system. Sexism by omission.

Basically the report is saying that the the education establishment, the Department for Education, Government more widely and all the other opinion formers have deliberately done nothing to investigate this problem that they have known about and then delivered policies to solve it. 

They still have no strategy to solve it. If the genders were reversed, there would be armies of people armed with case full of money and projects to deal with it. 

For decades boys reading has been damaged by a system that is not suitable or flexible for them, and as the report says, "while it is an international problem, we do not believe that it is simply biological or inevitable; girls are not more likely to be 'wired' as readers."

This report is an invaluable contribution and I hope its recommendations are taken forward. It has also served to show the institutional sexism within the education system in this country - which has been a blight on generations of boys.

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage - BBC (recognises the lack of action) , Daily Mail, Huffington Post