The Rights Of Man

BRITISH MEN SPEND SEVEN YEARS LESS THAN WOMEN IN RETIREMENT

As the supine coalition government wavers on ensuring men and women enjoy equality at last in the state pension age, a report is published shows that men spend 13 years in retirement against a women's 20 years.

This inequality, driven by longevity and the fact that men retire later is not something that interests Age Uk or Saga of course. They want to keep the gap at least as it is.

Posted by Skimmington

 

 

EQUALITIES MINISTER 'ADMITS' EQUALITY DOES NOT APPLY TO HETEROSEXUAL MEN

Read the quote from Lib Dem Lynne Featherstone MP, the Equalities Minister (she reports to Theresa May - the Minister for Women and Home Secretary) in this month's Total Politics magazine .

In an interview she was asked , how do you define your remit?

"I have women, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender" 

It is not as though we did not know really, but at least the government minister for equalities has now plainly admitted that equality for men is of no interest to her, it is not part of the government's agenda and that equality for men does not apply to me in Britain.

If the coalition government ever says it believes in equality, it is not telling the truth. The equalities minister has no interest if you are a heterosexual man. She has admitted it. Case closed.

Posted by Skimmington

BRITAIN'S CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE ON MALE CIRCUMCISION

The issue of un-consenting male genital mutilation (circumcision) is a subject not tackled before on the website but as un-consenting female genital mutilation is a subject that continues to rightly garner much attention the lack of attention on men again is a symptom of how men are given second class status in Britain's society.

Lets get things clear before the site is hoisted on the petard, female genital mutilation is an awful crime that should be stopped - no right thinking person could ever support it (a curiosity of the internal conflict and hypocrisy in the politically correct metropolitan elite is the fact they criticise the practice but not the religious views of those who carry it out.)

But why does unconsenting male genital mutilation not recieve any attention in the UK?

If you look at the recent BBC article and its definition, can someone tell me broadly what the difference is between the females and males - its all about culture and religion. In fact female genital mutilation has been illegal since 1985 (a good overview in the Times) and governments spend a lot of money tackling it and have guidance on how to fight it.

There are some debates here and there on the UK web (Digital spy, Yahoo) and the BBC has a similar page as the one on female circumcision. But the practice has supporters not just in Judaism, Islam but it has consent through a conspiracy of silence, hypocrisy and double standards.

For un-consenting girls and boys, circumcision is illegal for the former but legal for that matter.

The British Medical Association doesn't protest or abhor it in men, the Scottish government  gives guidance on it but does not mention why it should not be practiced and of course there is nothing from the British government. The Minister for Women and Equalities is not interested when equality means equality for men.

So why the hypocrisy. It comes down to the power shift in the British political, cultural, social, state and media system since the late seventies that has meant men have become the second sex. A victory that the feminist fundamentalists have secured. This is because there is no logical, rational or balanced reason in a society that allegedly proclaims itself as being equal that can state that female circumcision is wrong and illegal but male circumcision in fine and legal. When do you hear a MP talking about this in Parliament?

The government and medical establishment in the the UK believe it is OK because of their silence on the issue  - it gives this horrendous practice tacit approval. Silence means assent.

In America, opposition is a lot more active as can be seen in San Francisco (Daily Mail) where there is now a campaign to ban it.  Such a campaign should be started in the UK in addition to that run by  Dr John Warren at NORM-UK.

Posted by Skimmington

Editors note - This is sick in the Philippines, can you imagine the outcry if women were abused in this way!

  

THE STINKING HYPOCRISY OF THE FEMALE PENSION CAMPAIGNERS IN AGE UK AND SAGA

Perhaps it was quite prescient to publish this week the history of the Campaign for Equality of State Pension Age when news reaches Rights of Man Towers that Age UK backed by Saga are campaigning against the equalisation of the state pension age (and retirement age) for man and women at 66 from 2018. Why any man is a member of these two organisations is beyond me.

By 2018, men will have received their state pension and retirement at a later date than women for 70 years. That is, 70 years of sexual discirmination against men. On top, men live shorter lives than women so enjoy retirement for even less than women. This 70 years has been a double whammy (covered here and here)

So instead of Age UK and Saga welcoming the news and saying what a great day it is for equality, they march on Parliament (Guardian, Independent, Telegraph , Daily Mail) .

The worst article is from Ros Altmann the director general of Saga who claims it is discriminatory. Yes that's right. The equalisation of state pension ages after 70 years of blatant sexism and discrimination against men is actually sexist towards women. Orwellian doublespeak of the highest order.

Such hypocrisy from people like Ros Altmann, Saga and Age Uk who claim to champions of equality when they stayed silent for 70 years shows how insignificant they feel equality counts for men.

If any men is a member of either Age Uk or Saga, they need their head tested. Rip up your membership book and send it back to these anti-male 'equality' hypocrites.

Posted by Skimmington

LABOUR STILL USING SEXIST ALL WOMEN SHORTLISTS AND NOW LIBERAL DEMOCRATS SIGN UP TO STOP MEN FROM BEING MP'S

A big theme of the site has been the political disenfranchisement of men through the political process by stopping them from being able to stand as MP's or other candidates. This is down to the invidious all-women shortlists used by the Labour Party (Labour used it 58 times at last year's General Election) and A-lists/quotas and other discriminatory tactics used by the Conservatives (Four of their MEPs are sitting in Brussels solely because they are women).

Only 22% (143 of 650, an improvement from 128 in 2005) MP's are women but that is down to Labour's defeat (few of those 58 got elected and many others who were previously MP's because of all-women shortlists also lost - ex Home Secretary Jacqui Smith being an obvious example). Of course, this is irrelevant to the big battalions from the Fawcett Society, who see anti-female discrimination everywhere - a form of Feminist McCarthyism.

However, it is apparent that Labour are continuing with the practice in:

Dover

Harlow 

Reading West

Worcester (Labour councillor resigns in protest)

Peterborough (plus this from the local elections Peterborough)

Stevenage

Swindon South

Hastings & Rye

Northampton North

Lincoln

Thurrock

Brighton Kemptown

Burton or Redditch

No man in those seats should vote Labour when men have banned from standing.

Now the Liberal Democrats are getting in on the act. They have announced specialist leadership programmes for women only and also want to fiddle the selection process so it is heavily skewed towards women (Guardian). Basically it is an A-List similar to the one adopted by the Conservatives for its 2010 selection round. This is where there were 100 people on the A-List and only they could apply for the best seats and explicitly over 50% on the A-Lists were women.

Rather than try to find out why do not want to stand and whether they are bothered about it, the parties bring in rules to stop men from seeking office on the sole criteria that they are men. This sexism is probably the most serious of all, because men are being prevented from getting into the legislature. That is what is called British democracy these days. 

 Posted by Skimmington

CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE - MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE DO NOT EXIST

I know the site bangs on sometimes about discrimination by omission being one of the most covert, insidious and invsible forms of discrimination against men, but it is used as a weapon so much.

One of the starkest examples was in the field of domestic abuse when Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions at the Crown Prosecution Service, launched a new domestic violence initiative and set out in his speech entitled - Domestic Violence: the facts, the issues and the future.

All male victims and those men and women who support and know them will weep at its content.

There is not one mention of men in the press release nor in the speech. Nothing at all. There are no facts about them.

It shows clearly that the Crown Prosecution Service - the state prosecutor that supposedly ensures there is justice in Britain and the upholder of equality before the law - has no interest at all in equality when it comes to domestic violence.

As shown by the government figures (via the ManKind Initiative), one in three victims are male yet they get no mention. 

What makes it worse is that in his speech Keir Starmer provides a whole bank of statistics on female victims yet there is no mention of the reciprocal male statistics even though they are from the same research. For example:

• Two women a week are killed by a partner or ex-partner (the figure is one per fortnight for men) - British Crime Survey 
• 1 million women were victims of domestic abuse last year (700,000 men were also) - British Crime Survey
• 19% per cent of women have said they have been stalked since 16 (9% of men also report the same) - British Crime Survey. Read this about Facebook.
 

Part of the reason for the announcement was to ensure that all domestic abuse murders were reviewed as set out by the BBC (it is worth noting that the BBC use the figure for men which means all the lobbying has worked because a year ago they would not have done - congratulations to the BBC).

What the attitude of the Crown Prosecution Service shows (it also has 'previous') is that it thinks domestic abuse only happens to women and never to heterosexual or gay men. If the Director of Public Prosecutions cannot even bring himself to mention male victims of domestic abuse in his speech, press release or list of facts then what hope is there for male victims to ensure justice is served.

What hope is there also that the review into domestic abuse murder cases will be treat with the same diligence a murder of man as opposed to a woman. 

There is no equality of justice if you are a male victim of domstic abuse, the Crown Proscution Service do not recognise they exist.

These are the facts, the issues and the future from male victims, courtesy of the Crown Prosecution Service.

Posted by Skimmington 

 

Editors Note - a few updates on male victims:

BBC News - Esteem in Cornwall

American Psychological Association (British professor) - Male victims can suffer post traumatic stress

Daily Mirror - Saving the lives of men

ManKind Initiative - New videos and Dads on the Air (Chairman interview)

STRENGTHENING WOMEN'S VOICES SO MEN CAN BE SHUT OUT EVEN MORE

In February, the site commented on the fact the government were now producing newsletters for women's groups. This was a sop to those who complained about the closure of the Women's National Commission, a taxpayer funded organisation. The government said they would keep in touch with women's groups and the site complainedthat there was no reciprocal intention for men's groups

The intention is perfectly clear that the hat is tipped towards making cuts in the present climate so that even the sisters are showing they are making an effort. However, this is all illusory as the policy intention does not change and there is a continually move to not just ensure that women's issues remain absolutely central to the equalities policy making process but also that the voices of men (and groups that represent them) are shut out.

To make matters worse, the government has now produced a consultation document called Strengthening Women's Voices in Government. The government wants (see bottom)to know how it can be better effective at engaging with women and on hat particular issues.

It is clear that there is no intention of engaging with men. This is about lessening men's voices in government so that matters such as domestic abuse, health, family law, unemployment and boys education are never spoken about.

Posted by Skimmington

BELIEVERS IN EQUALITY - TELL THE GOVERNMENT TO SCRAP THE EQUALITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

In theory the Equalities and Human Rights Commission should promote equality but as we know they have absolutely no interest in equality if that means equality for men too. It is basically a front organisation for people who want men to continue to be second class citizens, all at the taxpayers expense.

This can be seen time and again when it pursues no policies or campaigns to support equality for men in healthcare, education, domestic abuse, depression, the family courts and employment. All too readily it will take on campaigns for eqaulity in parliament, the gender pay gap and domestic abuse but only when it comes to women. It is part of the network of anti-male organisations that infest the British state.

By purposely ignoring issues relating to ensuring men have equality (the covert discrimination by omission) on key issues where there is clear discrimination and then only promoting issues affecting women - the body has done no favours to men. When did you hear a campaign by the Commission on boys education?  

Rather than promote equality, it only does so if you are a woman. If you are a man it is not interested, therefore it is better that it is scrapped. It is un-reformable because of the people who work there and that it props up the whole anti-male system in this country. It is the mother ship (or sister ship). If it is scrapped, then at least there will be more of a level playing field and there will no longer the level of anti-male propaganda pumped out by this body at our (taxpayers) expense as well as the purposeful ignorance of key issues.

In Janaury the site reported it was likely to be forced to make massive cuts and now the government has launched a consultation.

Please let the Government know why this awful organisation has to be scrapped. True believers in equality from men and women would support this.

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage - Daily Mail, Daily Mail 2,

PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITY DUTY AND SECTION 159 GUIDANCE NOW AVAILABLE TO HELP MEN FIGHT FOR EQUALITY

One of the strongest weapons for men who are seeking equality is to rely on the equality rules which while are aimed at being used by women to drive more special treatment can also be used to benefit men. Equality legislation covers both genders but often its application does not.

The classic case where PARITY fought for equal treatment with regard to state retirement ages and then sponsored cases such as John Taylor's fight for equal eligibility of Winter Fuel Payments (the wikipedia site tells the story with some great links) shows how to turn equality laws upon those who think equality should not include equality for men.

Back in 2007 we commented on the gender equality duty  and the opportunity it gave men to ensure statutory agencies investigated their needs, ensured they supplied services for them and also that they were non discriminatory. As we know, the government, councils, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission have ignored this when it comes to men. However, the power is there and it is up to men to use it.

The same is now in the case of the Public Sector Equality Duty and the infamous Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010. Helpfully the government and the Equalities Commission provide guidance on how to use them.

The Public Sector Equality Duty came into force on 5th April 2011. It is a souped up version of the Gender Equality Duty and means that as well as gender, statutory agencies have to ensure that everyone (race, gender, sexuality, disability etc) are treated the same. The key thing is that the agency (lets say a council) has to research the needs of the groups (known as protected groups) and then ensure it can meet their needs on a proportionate basis.

For example, a council has to investigate the numbers and the needs of both female and male victims of domestic abuse and then supply proportianate and relevant services to support them. As statistics state one in three victims are male, then one in three refuge/safe house spaces should be for men (it could be less if refuges are not so relevent for men but there has to be some spaces for them!). They must also ensure campaigns are aimed at female and male victims. 

Guidance on the Public Sector Equality Duty is on the Equalities and Human Right Commission website and should be read by all MRA's in the UK. 

The Equality Act 2010 has come into force  which combines all previous equalities legislation into one piece of legislation. Guidance is also available on the Equalities and Human Rights Commission website.   

The most insidious part of the Act is Section 159 (discussion can be found here, here, here, here and here which allows employers to take positive action to promote people or employ them over and above equally qualified candidates. Guidance is published in a quick guide for employees and one for employers.

Both the Public Sector Equality Duty and Section 159 of the Equality Act are designed to ensure that men remain second class citizens. But they are available to ensure that equality means equality for men too. It is not just about 'keep your friends closer and your enemies closer' it is about knowing how you can use these to support men and your cause against the anti-male state we live under.

Posted by Skimmington

Editors note - an example of a feminist fundamentalist victory in this field can be seen here

WILLETTS MUST TAKE ACTION ON SOCIAL MOBILITY FOR BOYS

Yesterday, I lambasted the government for failing men and giving them false hope even though there are MP's on the Conservative benches who wish to stand up for them. I mentioned Brian Binley and Charlie Elphicke on shared parenting, Dominic Raab on feminism (he has been quiet on it recently) and there were Conservative backbenchers who wanted anonymity for rape defendants.

Then last week Universities Minister David "Two Brain's" Willetts said that feminism had reduced social mobility for working class boys (Daily Mail and Telegraph).

The government seems to be split between those MP's who just want equality and fairness and then people like Theresa May and Lynne Featherstone who do not think it applies to men and boys.

The issue that Willetts should be looking to address though is that it is the aggressive female fundamentalism that is crushing boys. Equality for girls and ensuring there are opportunities for them is of course no problem. But the feminist fundamentalists have taken it a stage further. Not only do they want to give special treatment to women from all backgrounds (including the already 'privileged' middle class women that Willetts alludes to) such as the hideous Section 159 of the equalities act but they actively stop anything from being done to help social mobility.

Education results show that boys are around six years behind girls when it comes to exams results and that fewer boys go to university than men (51% women and 40% men) but there is no public policy response. Not anything even in the government's laughable 'equalities' strategy.

So there is no point Willetts pointing this out unless he is going to do anything about it. We wait to the social mobility report he alludes to and what it will say.

Posted by Skimmington 

Postcript - the usual backlash from the fundamentalists: Suzanne Moore (Daily Mail), Barbara Ellen (Guardian) laughably calling Willetts ludicrous!, Guardian news story and BBC,

Great article on feminism by Christine Odone (Telegraph)

BBC article