The Rights Of Man

DOMINIC RAAB MP STANDS FIRM

Unlike Christopher Blunt MP and other Ministers in the Justice team whose knees buckled against the onslaught of the anti-male feminists, Dominic Raab is holding his line that men get a raw deal and that there is a lot of feminist bigotry in the UK.

He has been further interviewed on the BBC (see also blog) and Evening Standard  (the journalist Pippa Crerar says that women get paid 10% less than men for doing the same job - an assertion that is completely and utterly incorrect) and there has been further coverage in papers like the Daily Mail (423 comments in their comments section!) and Daily Express.

The BBC says Mr Raab defends his comments, why should he defend them? When Harman, May or Featherstone make their anti-male comments, do the BBC ask them to defend their views?? No, the BBC just accepts them.

As Jon said in yesterday's post, we should individually write to him via http://www.dominicraab.com/contact_dom.html and thank him for raising this issue and for standing firm.

Posted by Skimmington

AT LAST, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT STANDS UP FOR MEN AND BOYS: DOMINIC RAAB MP

At last an MP in the House of Commons has stood up for men in this country and said that equality means equality for men and boys too.

Dominic Raab MP has certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons in his first class article on the Politics Home website where he declares that "We must end feminist bigotry".

He also declares that:

"From the cradle to the grave, men are getting a raw deal."

"Meanwhile, young boys are educationally disadvantaged compared to girls, and divorced or separated fathers are systematically ignored by the courts"

" Maybe it’s time men started burning their briefs, to put an end once and for all to what Emmeline Pankhurst used to call ‘the double standard of sex morals."

At long long last we have a British Member of Parliament not only making the case that equality applies to men and boys too but also pointing out the facts about the gender discrimination gap which is used as a way to berate men and ask for special favours for women. His attack on soft discrimination beloved by Harman, May and Featherstone is spot on.

He also raises general issues about male employment, education and family law and also makes the valid point that feminists, especially the extremists like Harman et al, intensely dislike in that men and women like each other and are inter-dependent. Attack men and you are attacking their mothers, sisters, daughters, wives, partners, or girlfriends.

Has he been reading this site, we ask ourselves?

As you would expect, especially when the idiots Andy Gray and Richard Keys put the cause back, it is not long before the usual anti-male suspects line up to attack Dominic Raab.

Harman says "Women still earn 20 per cent less than men, domestic violence claims the lives of women every week and women bear the brunt of poverty in the developing world." And a new campaigner, Nia Griffith, the shadow business minister, called on Mr Raab to "get real and stop being so self-pitying”.

We have all been waiting for years for just one MP to raise the issue about male inequality and that equality means equality for men and boys too.

In Dominic Raab MP, perhaps we have now found someone who will stand up in parliament and speak up for men and boys, as well as their mothers,  sisters, daughters, wives, partners, or girlfriends. Let us all hope he sticks to it, all of the above are hoping he does.

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage - Daily Telegraph, Evening Standard (plus comments), Daily Mail

 

CHILD MAINTENANCE REVIEW OFFERS HOPE ON JUSTICE IN THE FAMILY COURTS

At the turn of the year the site commented on its despair at the actions, in-actions and u-turns of the Coalition Government on equality issues for men. A lot of this is because it has been driven by the Ministers for Equalities and Minister for Women.

The one area where there still remained a flicker of hope was the fact the government remained committed to reviewing family law and the way that family courts and other institutions operated. This is helped by the fact that 'the family' remains a central construct in Conservative ideology (less so for the Lib Dems though John Hemmings MP has been active).

In the Coalition agreement it stated: We will conduct a comprehensive review of family law in order to increase the use of mediation when couples do break up, and to look at how best to provide greater access rights to non-resident parents and grandparents.

Whilst that review remains ongoing, they have just launched a separate consultation on the future of child maintenance - a system riddled with anti-father bias and unfairness.

One of the biggest injustices in overall family law system has been the disconnection between child maintenace and access - where a father is denied access to their children despite court orders and agreements but still the CSA and now CMEC continue to demand (with menaces) the maintenance payments. These issues have been dealt with in a silo.

It has meant mothers who flout the law are still rewarded by the CSA/CMEC  - a morally corrupt situation especially made worse by the family courts failing to 'punish' mothers who ignore court orders. Mothers in this situation are gaming the system because policymakers have never made the connection between child maintenance and access.

This has also been enhanced because fathers recognise and worry about the consequences of withhloding payments on their children and recalcitrant mothers play on this as well.

Welcome news has been received today though that this now being looked at in the round as the Family Justice Review team have said:

As part of the [child maintenance green paper], DWP have asked us to look at the extent to which decisions on maintenance or contact should have a bearing on each other – alongside our emerging proposals for whole-system reform.The full proposal is laid out in the Green Paper as follows:

We know that one of the most significant issues for non-resident parents is when contact with their children is denied or withheld. This can lead to tension and hostility between the parents, especially where maintenance is still being collected through the statutory system.

We are keen to explore approaches that allow maintenance arrangements to be considered in the round when determining appropriate contact enforcement measures. We recognise, however, that there are challenges in linking maintenance and contact in this way, most importantly how such decisions might impact on the best interests of the child. We also recognise that it is important that this issue is considered within the context of wider reforms that are currently being progressed elsewhere in government. We have therefore requested that the Family Justice Review consider this issue as part of its wider work in developing options for reform of the Family Justice System.

 I am aware that you may have an opinion on this issue, but might not have addressed it in your evidence to the Review. We plan to set out the issues and invite further views on this in our interim report, to be published at the end of March.

 If, however, you want to pass on any immediate comments on this proposal for our consideration ahead of this, we would be grateful to receive these by Friday 4 February.Please submit any evidence to: [email protected]

This is extremely encouraging news because it means a joined-up government approach and the review on family law is a root and branch review.

Not only does it mean the prospect of shared parenting is on the horizon but also that there may be justice and equality with regards to child maintenance as well.

Let us hope that those mothers who purposely deny their child(ren) the chance to maintain a meaningful relationship with their fathers, despite court agreements, no longer are allowed to sit at home counting the cash he is still forced to send through.

All is asked for is moral and legal justice in a supposedly civilised country.

Posted by Skimmington 

IN THE NAME OF EQUALITY WILL THE GOVERNMENT LISTEN TO MEN'S REPRESENTATIVES THEN?

A kindly soul has sent over the text from the latest newsletter from the Government 'Equalities' Office (taxpayer funded remember with 100 staff!) which says:

Following the closure of the Women's National Commission, GEO has developed a new approach to  enable women and women's organisations to interact more closely and directly with government. As part of this, GEO will be holding a briefing event for UK NGO's on Wednesday 19th January prior to the UN Commission on the Status of Women 55th Session.

The GEO will also be sending regular updates to partner women's organisations, with the first one later this month, and publishing a dedicated web page as part of our engagement activity. There will also be an outreach programme to discuss key issues with government ministers.

As argued at the turn of the year, this government is no better than the anti-male Labour government of the past and this simply adds further proof.

The issue is not so much that the government is having a dialogue with groups representing women and making a big deal about it - it is the fact that they are having no similar dialogue (and making a big deal out of it ) with men's groups.

It is not as if the government could have an issue with mainstream groups like: Families Need Fathers, The ManKind Initiative, Mankind Counselling, The Men's Health Forum, The Men's Network, False Allegations Support Organisation, CALM, The Prostate Cancer Society and many many more. They even help fund some of them!

This site keeps reiterating that this government, just like the last, has no real interest in addressing issues that negatively affect men (and boys) and is guilty of a form of covert institutional sexual and gender discrimination against men. It is because rather than saying it is not interested in male issues, it just ignores them, turns a blind eye and hopes no one will notice.

Here it says it will speak to women's groups but has no interest in speaking to men's group. How is that equality from the Government Equalities Office?

It is another case of discrimination by omission just like the fact that men get a half hearted sentence (and only Caribbean boys at that) in its gender equality strategy. 

Posted by Skimmington

ACTION FOR MALE EQUALITY IN BRITAIN IN 2011

On New Year's Eve, the site contemplated on what had happened in 2010 and how it was another disappointing and bad year for equality for men.

The issue is what to do about it.

It has to be borne in mind that politicians, the central state machinery (government departments including the NHS, Cafcass, Justice Department, the Home Office and the oxymoron departments - the Government 'Equalities' Office and the 'Equalities' and Human Rights Commission) and local arms of the state (police and local councils) have absolutely no interest in ensuring there is equality for men and boys.

Joining Up

One response has to be either to set up or join existing organisations that promote men and boy's issues and believe that equality means equality for men too (and taking care not to be anti-women).

There are plenty (they are listed in the side bar on the left hand side of the page) and help in what ever way you can - whether paying a subscription, being active in the charity and help with fundraising.

Taking the establishment on

Sometimes it can be easy to moan about things without doing something about it and there have plenty of examples this year of men and organisations taking on the establishment.

The gender equality duty and the soon to be established single equality duty means that all public authorities have to ensure their services support men and boys (as well as women and girls). If they do not, there are legal remedies.

Raising the profile

One area that needs to be significantly enhanced is helping to raise the profile of these organisations, not just in the media, but by word of mouth. Using your own networks, or social media (including Facebook etc). Too many which we think are mainstream issues still remain underground with the public at large. Spreading the message is vital.

Often these organisiations struggle with public relations and variants of it. Such as writing/issuing press releases, producing/publishing research, spreading the message around to the front-line and to the public.

If you have those skills in these areas, join up.

Umbrella group

One of the overall missing pieces of the jigsaw is the lack of a central hub organisation or site for men and boys - a rival to the Fawcett Society. This site acts as a disucssion site of issues as they arise and also pushes its own. But an organisation is needed (and certainly not the awful anti-male Coalition on Men and Boys which was set up by anti-male feminists and membership is only allowed if you sign up to its pro-feminist agenda). At least a website would be a good start.

Summary

Any other ideas and thoughts are welcome of course, but we are getting nowhere fast. All those men and women who want to support men and boys in the UK, need to take the action themselves because the establishment is not interested.

A few points have been raised here and happy for a discussion on anything additional.

Posted by Skimmington 

2010 - ANOTHER BAD YEAR AND ANOTHER BAD GOVERNMENT FOR BRITISH MEN

When the coalition government came together (also with lots of new MP's) there was some hope that the prospects for equality for men would improve after 13 years of a proudly anti-male Labour government with Deputy Leader, Harriet Harman, proudly proclaiming her anti-male credentials.

When the coalition government came to power, there were a number of positive things it outlined. Family law reform (still pending), anonymity for rape defendants unless found guilty and a commitment not to implement the controversial 'positive' discrimination sections of the Equality Act specifically designed to undermine the employment chances of men. Plus there was a general feeling that there would no longer be the harsh anti-male tone of the previous Government.

There were still troubling issues such as the fact that there was again a Minister for Women but no Minister for Men (how can a government state it believes in equality and have a Minister for one gender and not for the other, if it has to them at all). It also talked about equality in the boardroom (now going ahead), continuing with pension age discrimination and also nothing on men's health or education.

So what has happened, well its worse than we feared:

(1) The government performed a heinous u-turn on anonymity for rape defendants.

(2) The controversial section (section 159) of the Equality Act was implemented (on the link see latest news on 2nd December 2010) and hidden in the small print on its announcement on its Equality Strategy (see 8 below). This pernicious part of the Act was substantially covered on this site (1 and 2 ) and the u-tunr was covered in the Telegraph, Daily Mail, Metro, Daily Telegraph 2, Daily Telegraph 3

(3) Still no Minister for Men

(4) The government adopted the End Violence against Women & Girls strategy which has meant that male victims of rape and domestic abuse do not feature in government, police or local authority plans in tackling rape or domestic abuse. The outcome can be seen by the way the government handled its trials on 'stop' orders which were framed at female victims (thereby setting the tone for the way the police will handle the issue) or its Christmas campaign. For an example of how it percolates through the system, see a response the ManKind Initiative recently received from the Equalities Commission.

(5) Its continuing and deliberate misinterpretation of the gender pay gap, even though we now know younger women earn more than younger men. Plus resurrecting the issue that there are not enough women in the boardroom (1 and 2) and stating it has an aspiration to ensure 50% of appointees to public bodies are female.

Lord Mervyn Davies who is leading the taskforce looking at the female make up of boardroom has already declared "let's put women first for 2011". I kid you not. With this and the Equality Act, men are being shut out, make no mistake. Academies for female executives, board internships and now the 30% club.

Equality should mean the best people, now basing people on their gender but that is now what is happening and in many circumstances men (and of course that means their wife/partner or daughter as well) will lose out because good men will be held back to allow a woman with less skill to take their place. How can this be equality, gender is irrelevant.

Can Lord Mervyn Davies hand on heart say that a black boy from a run-down council estate attending a sink school has more chance of being on a board of a FTSE-100 company that a white girl living in Knightsbridge and going to a private school. Davies thinks so. 

(6) No action on boy's education, men's health (Prostate Cancer society article shows why) or suicide (80% of young people committing suicide are men).

(7) No one in Parliament (including the 232 new MP's - 35% of the total) and certainly no one in the Government is standing up for men and men's issues. It means the anti-male feminists in all parties are again riding roughshod over the true meaning of equality and doing all the can to marginalise men. 

(8) And finally - the coup de grace - the government's shiny new Equality Strategy - Building a Fairer Britain. At no stage (except fleetingly on Caribean boys)  does it ever mention men and boys or the isuses facing them. None of them in this post are ever mentioned. Nothing on education, higher rates of unemployment, health, suicide - just example after example on issues affecting women.

The Equality Strategy published this month, makes it completley clear - this governement is no better and no more interested than the last in tackling issues that affect men & boys (and consequently their mothers, sisters, daughters and wives/partners/girlfriends).

It actually wants to make things worse not just by the overt discrimination (see 1, 2,3,4 and 5 above) but the covert discrimination of discrimination by omission. And with Parliamentary terms lasting five years now, we have over four years of this to go.

There have been a few advances, equality of pesnion age, a family review still pending (who know what the result will be) and Mirko Fischer's BA win. Plus some organisations seem to be pushing more and more (Men's Network, ManKind Initiative, Prostate Cancer Society, Families Need Fathers, Parity, False Allegations Support Organisation, Men's Health Forum amongst others) and they will need to be encouraged by us all to continue.

However, looking back, the hopes at the beginning of the year have proved unfounded and it is clear that things have got worse in 2010 for men and boys.

Posted by Skimmington 

MEN'S NETWORK LAUNCH STRATEGY FOR MEN & BOYS IN BRIGHTON & HOVE

The excellent Men's Network has launched its Citywide Strategy for Men & Boys in the city of Brighton & Hove.

There a large number of positives to come out of the work the Men's Network are undertaking.

Firstly, it is based solely on the concept that equality means equality for men & boys too. It is not a patsy of the anti-male feminist establishment.

Secondly, it challenges in a mature and responsible way the politically correct orthodoxy that men & boys do not matter and are the cause of all the problems that women and society face.

Thirdly, instead of throwing rocks, it is doing something positive in producing its own strategy and using that as a basis to challenge the statutory agencies in Brighton & Hove about the lack of practical support and help there is in the city.

More on this in a New Year round up, but men who believe in equality and believe that men & boys are discriminated against, ignored and ill-served by society, statutory agencies and others, cannot rely on politicians, civil servants and throwing rocks. We have to set up or join (and fundraise for) sensible organisations and do it ourselves.

Posted by Skimmington 

 

GOVERNMENT SAYS MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE DON'T COUNT AT CHRISTMAS

A few weeks ago, this site highlighted the issue about the government's "stop order"trials and how they had been couched in terms of just female victims even they also apply to male victims. This had to be literally dragged out of Lynne Featherstone, the Minister for "Equalities" by Nicky Campbell on Radio 5.

After receiving a tip off from a keen eyed reader, it is now completely clear that the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition government is no more interested in male victims of domestic abuse than the previous Labour government.

The government's campaign against domestic abuse at Christmas looks laudable on paper but then you read the press release and watch the video (at the bottom of the release) and there is not one mention of male victims, just female victims.

So men (and their children) suffering at Christmas are not even worthy of a mention. They don't exist according to the government, swept under the carpet

If there are other Christmas campaigns like this or like this one in Lancashire where men don't get a mention but only women do, please list any more in the comments section.

Posted by Skimmington

FAWCETT SOCIETY LOSE LAUGHABLE BUDGET CLAIM BUT DANGEROUS PRECEDENTS ARE SET

When of the clear cases of hypocrisy in the so-called Feminist movement in the last few years as been their lies about the unemployment during this recession.

First we had Harman and Co saying the recession had affecting women in the private sector more than men. This was nailed as an untruth by the Government's own Office of national Statistics (here and here).

Then when the effects of the recession and government over-spending became clear and the need for retrenchment ion the public sector had top be made, there were the squeals of horror that this effected women more than men, and therefore had to be stopped.

We have argued long and hard on the site about the hypocrisy of this and also that any cuts in a woman's job or in benefits effects men as well (here and here).

The Fawcett Society, Britain's leading McCarthyite 'every man is a potential woman-hater'  anti-male organisation, challenged the UK government in the courts about the government's Budget in July this year and the fact they had not carried out an assessment on its effects on women and also that it affected women more than men. They wanted a Judicial Review of the Budget but Judge Ouseley refused on Monday. There response is here.

However, it is not all good news.

Firstly, the government admitted it had not considered a gender assessment of the Budget. It did so for the Comprehensive Spending Review in October which now means this type of assessment is now entrenched as the 'normal' way of policy-making. The government should of course repeal the rule forcing it to make such assessments as this was introduced by Harman and Co in the last government.

Secondly, the Judge says the Equalities Commission should carry out such a review, which then extends their power and influence. The government has to scrap this body but will be scared to do so because of the strength of the oxymoron - the so called 'equalities' lobby.

Thirdly, it gives more credibility to the Fawcett Society when they deserve absolutely none. Few if any real normal women support this orgainsation  - only political activists do.  

Lastly, it sets a precedent for this sort of activity through the courts, so all government's will be wary of upsetting the women's lobby. No one cares about the male equality so when it comes to making policy decisions they will become even more anti-male because they would be afraid of upsetting women's groups so they overcompensate. This will be unconscious and back of the mind decision-making leading to discrimination which will damage men and boys.

The Fawcett Society have made progress which is bad news for men and boys, and for all those women who like sharing their lives with men and boys.

Posted by Skimmington

Media cioverage  - Catherine McKinnell in the Guardian (one of the most laughable articles ever published and please read the comments section as well) and Press Association.

 

 

FAIRNESS IN FAMILIES INDEX - THE FATHERHOOD INSTITUTE'S REPORT IGNORES FAMILY CHOICE AND THE POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR FATHERS

The Fatherhood Institute is an organisation that is hard to pin down in terms of what it stands for and whether it's definition of equality on fathers and mothers is based on coercion or choice.

It does great things like attacking politicians who just slag off dads  because it is all their fault and to encourage government policy to include fathers (the current family law review is absolutely crucial) but then produces a report last week - the Fairness in Families Index (FiFI) - that seems to say that Britain is down the league table last week (18th of 21).

This would not necessarily be a problem but it is the basis that it makes such an issue that is troubling as would be the unintended consequences of even more efforts to allegedly 'even' up the playing field. This would lead to even more discrimination against men and fathers than we have already.

The ranking is based on ten factors including the number of men in the part-time workforce, % of women in senior positions, % of women in Parliament and the gender pay gap, the amount of time spent caring for a child per gender, amongst other things. Basically, the lower down the figure, the lower the fairness score.

The problems with this are many fold.

Firstly, it by effectively suggesting that fathers and mothers should not choose their domestic arrangements when they have children unless it fits with variables in the Fairness in Families Index.

The Institute is basically stating that if a couple decide that the man as part of the family unit should be the one (if they have to choose of course) to work longer hours, or be an MP, be in a senior position, to invest more of his time in building a career etc , whilst his wife/partner chooses to spend more time bringing up their children then this a bad and unequal thing. If it does not fit the Index criteria then it is a bad thing.

Part of the genetic make up of men and women is that many women when they have children want to spend time bringing them up in their early years at least (thereby reducing their work) while the man works full time and does all he can to ensure the household is financially OK. Of course, and rightly, it happens the other way around or that both men and women work equally as hard and bring up the children.

To the Fatherhood Institute, their interest is in stereotypes and not about individual household choice. The reason there are less women in Parliament is because less want to be politicians and also it makes no difference to how 'man-friendly' family policy is (We had 13 years of an anti-male Labour Government and this government is no better!). Just because there are less women in senior positions or there is a gender pay gap (the biggest myth ever perpetrated to undermine men is to suggest the gap is due to discrimination) does not men there is not fairness in families if the father and mother make a mature decision about it.

It is almost as if the Fatherhood Institutes's view of family fairness is about circumventing mature and rational decisions made by the father and mother. They rae saying they want more women in management positions because it is fairer to the family, but that may not be what mothers and fathers in each individual family want for their family unit.

The second issue is of course our old chestnut - equality in the UK means that some people are more equal than others as well as the unintended consequences of the changes to 'even' things up are for fathers.

It counts as a fairness negative that there are not enough women in Parliament, in senior positions and too many work part-time (has the Fatherhood Institute asked those mothers working part time if this is something they and their husbands/partners are happy about?).

So to change things more quickly than they are already would mean more positive discrimination to get more women into Parliament and into senior positions. This means positive discrimination/action (do not be fooled by those who believe that positive action is different to positive discrimination - the latter is the outcome of the former). This means more all-women shortlists and gender quotas. To get more women into part time roles does this mean not employing men in full time roles (and switching topart time) or stopping women from choosing to work part time? 

All these would help improve the position of the UK in the Fairness in Families Index (FiFI) but to ensure this happens would mean discriminating against fathers and their families because it would make it harder for a father to be a MP, or be in senior position or work full time. Is this what the Fatherhood Institute want?

And of course, is this in the best interest of the family, the children and the mother. Of course not, but according to the Fatherhood Institute's index it would be.

In summary, the Fairness in Families Index is a PR wheeze looking for a headline and to give some sort of credibility to the Fatherhood Institute. But actually its definition of what is fair and what the policy response would need to be to make it even more fairer would damage fathers and their families.

The Fatherhood Institute needs to think a lot deeper about what it does and what it stands for.

Posted by Skimmington