The Rights Of Man

THE 53 SEXIST MPS OPPOSING CIVIL LIBERTIES AND JUSTICE

On 26 May an Early Day Motion was introduced into Parliament by Fiona MacTaggart MP opposing the proposal to give anonymity to those accused of rape. Interestingly, the motion was put forward at almost exactly the same time as the case of Olumide Fadayomi, a victim of a serial accuser. Mr Fadayomi almost committed suicide over the issue whereas the previous victim fared even worse and the incident ultimately resulted in his death.

Aside from the insensitive timing, lets examine the content of the motion to show exactly why it is so fundamentally flawed, illogical and offensive:

1. "The Government's proposal to grant anonymity to defendants in rape cases sends a message to juries and rape victims that the victim is not to be believed"

Complete nonsense. The process of naming those accused of rape in the newspapers before their trial actually undermines the concept of innocent until proven guilty. It enables false accusers to effectively gain a conviction in their communities merely by publicising the accusation and through the concept of "no smoke without fire". Naming those accused of rape is a big incentive for making false allegations as it is the best way to ruin the victim's life. By granting anonymity we take away such power from false accusers, thus encouraging less of them to come forward. Therefore any laws discouraging false accusations actually strengthens the cases of genuine rape victims and means they are more likely to be believed, not less.

2. "fears that this could inhibit the effective prosecution of serial rapists"

A very dishonest statement. Anyone guilty of rape is still going to have their name and picture plastered all over the newspapers once they're found guilty. Further victims can come forward at that stage just as easily.

3. "is further concerned that this will reverse the progress made on the prosecution of rape cases noted in the independent Stern Review"

I'm not exactly sure what to make of this statement. If the MPs are honestly suggesting our justice system and all the progress we've made somehow relies on a trial by media and ruining the lives of innocent men is an inevitable byproduct of achieving justice for others then either they're stupid or we've got the most hopeless justice system on the planet. As stated in point one the proposal will reduce the number of false allegations out there, thus meaning a increase conversion rate of allegations into convictions.

4. "is further concerned that the Government has put forward the proposal without any research, evidence or examination of these issues; and calls on the Government to withdraw its proposal."

This last point is the most valid aspect of the motion. There is something of a lack of research on this issues, yet you'll notice that the vast majority of this listed below who signed the motion are member of the Labour Party and have therefore been in power for the last 13 years. These politicians had all that time to conduct this research yet they've refused to even discuss the issue of innocent people having their lives completely ruined by false accusers. In fact it's worse than this, the Labour government created and nurtured a hysterical gender feminist climate in which the issue became almost completely taboo, so it's little wonder we're lacking in decent research on the issue. This is quite clearly a problem of their own making so it's quite pathetic to bring up such a point now.

Although such research would be most welcome here we don't exactly need it to pass such a law anyway. It's blatantly obvious that naming the accused in a criminal case whilst their accusers hides under the blanket of anonymity is totally unfair and unjust. The statistics would be very interesting, but ultimately it really doesn't matter whether the law is going to help to protect 800 or 8,000 innocent people every year. People are dying as a result of false rape allegations and have others have their lives completely ruined or are forced out of the country. Delaying the proposal will inevitably cost innocent people their careers, their marriages, their sanity and even their lives. Further research should surely only be a pre-requisite if a proposal wished to create an unfair one-sided situation where only one party was granted anonymity such as is the case at present?

The only legitimate argument against the law would be that it isn't appropriate to conduct criminal matters in secret and that anonymity shouldn't be granted to anyone in court cases and so the law would be making a bad situation even worse. I don't necessary share such a position and believe both parties should have anonymity but we should perhaps bear this last argument in mind when considering the last of names below as there may well be one or two who subscribe to this more rational position rather than the specific content of the motion itself.

In summary, almost the entire motion is poorly argued, illiberal, dishonest and ultimately quite dangerous. Those who created it talk about how "the victim is not to be believed" but such a position is a fundamental part of our justice system. If we suddenly automatically believe every single word of every defendant then why even bother with what would be a show-trial? it would be cheaper and no different to lock up the "rapist" as soon as  their accuser demanded it if factors such as evidence and giving a believable testimony are no longer of any relevance. People are innocent until proven guilty in this country and any jury should have a healthy scepticism of any testimony in court, regardless of whether given by the accused or the accuser and regardless of race or gender.

It's obvious that both men and women lie. Just look at Ms Fiona MacTarggart herself for example. She's known for being rather economical with the truth even on gender issues stating that "something like 80% of women in prostitution are controlled by their drug dealer, their pimp, or their trafficker." When challenged by the BBC on her claim she still insisted it "came from an official Government publication into prostitution and the sex trade". In reality the Home Office themselves state they have "neither made nor cited this calculation." and BBC research into the issue actually came to the conclusion "it is impossible to find that number in any research done on this subject" Should we somehow just believe this nonsense because MacTaggart is female?

Of course there are alternative solutions to reducing the issue of false rape allegations which would reduce any need for anonymity. For example, malicious accusers should serve the same sentence they attempt to inflict not heir victims, should repay the cost of any investigations to the police and should placed on the sex offenders register to ensure the safety of possible future victims. Perhaps some of those listed below are enthusiastic supporters of such proposals though I'm not aware of any of them trying to introduce such legislation or even mentioning such solutions. I certainly can't imagine Ms MacTaggart doing so. Therefore until such evidence comes to light, here are the names of what should be considered the 53 worst MPs in Parliament. People who detest civil liberties to such an extent the believe false accusers should be able to hide behind a blanket of anonymity not afforded to their victims, who couldn't care less about the devastating impact of false accusations and believe in guilty until proven innocent:

Mactaggart, Fiona
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Griffith, Nia
Phillipson, Bridget
Green, Kate
Blears, Hazel
Hodge, Margaret
Jones, Helen
Lazarowicz, Mark
McDonagh, Siobhain
McKechin, Ann
Miller, Andrew
Osborne, Sandra
Coffey, Ann
Curran, Margaret
Eagle, Angela
Efford, Clive
Flint, Caroline
Abbott, Diane
Begg, Anne
Twigg, Stephen
Walley, Joan
Winterton, Rosie
Hodgson, Sharon
Clark, Katy
Cooper, Rosie
Engel, Natascha
Johnson, Diana R
Keeley, Barbara
McCarthy, Kerry
Seabeck, Alison
Glindon, Mary
Alexander, Heidi
Greenwood, Lilian
Berger, Luciana
Hilling, Julie
Jones, Graham
Creasy, Stella
Onwurah, Chinyelu
Reynolds, Jonathan
Umunna, Chuka
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
McKinnell, Catherine
Fovargue, Yvonne
Ali, Rushanara
Skinner, Dennis
Hopkins, Kelvin
Glass, Pat
Vaz, Valerie
Kendall, Liz
Edwards, Jonathan
Mearns, Ian

by John Kimble

CONSERVATIVE MP SAYS DENYING MEN NINE BILLION IN PENSIONS NOT DISCRIMINATION

Although the media have been painfully silent in examining the Conservative policy of increasing the pension's gap, they haven't failed completely. Credit for tackling key election issues goes to 5 Live's Stephen Nolan, who as well as looking making a certain deputy leader look rather foolish, also raised the problem of pension's discrimination with Jeremy Hunt of the Conservatives.

Strangely, Hunt had little knowledge of his own party's  policy to raise the state pension age for men to 66 whilst still letting women retire at 60. Despite this, Hunt still defended the policy, informing Nolan he was "absolutely sure we’re not discriminating against men but I don’t know the details".

Fortunately we do know the details of the Conservative policy on this site and we've even conducted the relevant financial calculations. In all, the Conservatives are going to take nine billion pounds away from men aged 65-66 and use the money to fund women's pensions. This will enable women to continue to retire far earlier men, despite the fact women also enjoy significantly longer life expectancies and have generally paid less into national insurance. Quite frankly about the only person who you'd expect to deny claims of sexism here is Harriet Harman herself.

In all fairness I suppose such discrimination isn't likely to have too much impact on men such as Mr Hunt given his £4.1 million wealth, though I'm sure even he'd appreciate he could buy nine hundred billion 1p phone calls with the money he's happy to deny men.

CONSERVATIVES ANNOUNCE EVEN MORE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN

Last week we discussed how the Conservatives planned to deny nine billion pounds in pensions to men, instead giving the money to women six years younger. Many may have dismissed such plans to increase the state pensions gap as an oversight and not in keeping with the party's attitudes to men, despite previous warnings such a proposal to use all women short-lists. Today, the party launches it's "equalities" manifesto which brings such debate to an end, confirming the party fully supports sex discrimination against men.

The manifesto pushes so called "positive" discrimination on long lists for directorships, requiring half the candidates to be women. Clearly there is a a lack of females on the boards of bigger companies, but you can't just magic quality professionals out of thin air by introducing quotas.

Exactly the same issue occurs in politics, but the lack of female MPs mostly reflects the lack of suitable  candidates rather than any sort of discrimination. Just as in the workplace women put in less hours and less years into politics and so don't have the experience to make it to the top. As a result, when a party such as Labour introduces all women short-lists, the candidates are of often of low quality and we just tend to see the same faces applying for seat after seat.

The Conservatives top down approach to equality in business is similarly doomed to failure and it's incredibly unfair that half the candidates considered for such key roles will not have be there on merit. Similarly, any females recruited using such methods will be stigmatised for the rest of their careers if they've benefited from such sexism and the economic consequences of reducing the quality of staff running our most important companies doesn't' bare thinking about.

To some, the above policy may not appear too offensive when viewed in isolation, but it's the broader context of the Tory proposals and their other ideas which are worrying. Particularly objectionable is the insistence that any company who's board is less than 30% female will have to describe in their annual report how they will be rectifying the situation. The Conservatives are effectively deeming predominantly male run companies to be sexist automatically, regardless of the evidence. The policy isn't just misguided either - there's a lack of balance too. If the objective is equal outcomes for both sexes the legislation should also surely cover female dominated institutions who are hostile to men and set a 30% minimum of either sex?

Ultimately the only way to create more balance in boardrooms is to change attitudes in society. Unfairness in family law and parental leave forces men to spend more time in the workplace than women, until men have the option of having a family life then they're bound to dominate in the workplace. Similarly, the way for women to gain respect and be able to compete successfully is for them to be treated as equals in all aspects of life, be it in the workplace, the home or in the justice system.

I'm sure you've often heard people complain about how little there is to choose between some of the polices and the antics of Labour and the Conservatives. Today's announcement gives such a sentiment even more credence. Lets at least be thankful the party has had the decency to admit to their position before polling day.

John Kimble

WHY THE BNP COME LAST ON MEN'S RIGHTS

The hard work put in by JK into reviewing the manifestos has been one worth undertaking with just a few days to polling day. Obviously there would be much debate on the merits of each especially the ranking.

In terms of a broader outlook, I would disagree with placing the odious BNP into 3rd place, as they should be in 6th and a long way 6th.

The reason is that they advocate discrimination and antipathy against men who are non-white. One of the general strengths of the female equality movement is that while there are differences between women (different race, sexuality, background), the movement has (generally speaking) stuck together.

Those seeking equality for men should also do the same. That means all men, whether black, white, Asian, gay, straight, able-bodies, disabled etc must stick together under the one banner.

The problem with the BNP is that they don't believe this but would like to discriminate against people based on the colour of their skin. Some men would be treated as being inferior to other men (and women of course) based on their colour.

 It isn't an argument about a policy proposal - it is their ethos, no matter what policies they propose. 

It is why the BNP have to come last in any ranking on men's rights and why they always should be.

Posted by Skimmington  

MANIFESTO RANKINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Now we've examined everything the parities have to offer in terms of equality for the next five years what are the conclusions we can draw?

The most obvious finding from the review is just how disappointing so many of the documents were in terms of their attitudes and ideas for equality. Obviously we expected a reasonable degree of sexist nonsense from New Labour, but they were far from alone in that, and the Greens in particular have some incredibly discriminatory polices.

Whilst the position of men's issues is very much on the rise in society, most parties fail to recognise such a change and seem remarkably out of touch with the general public. It's not just Labour and the Conservatives who are the problem either, even the less mainstream parties such as UKIP fail to recognise many of the issues never mind offer solutions to them and the BNP turn gender issues on their head by discriminating against females instead of males. It really is disappointing how few options there are in for those passionate about making our society a fairer place.

On the positive side, you could at least cherry pick polices from the top four parties in our rankings and come up with a decent enough manifesto, but you still wouldn't be covering the gender education gap, domestic violence, false allegations, healthcare issues, nor more wide-ranging issues such as general contempt for men in society. It seems no one is really willing to recognise misandry ass an issue let alone do anything about it.

Please do go out and vote on May 6th, if you can't bring yourself to vote for any party we've reviewed there may still be a decent independents standing in your constituency. The following is a summary ranking of the documents from a gender equality perspective as we see it, readers are welcome to post their own rankings in the comments should their views differ. Please remember we haven't considered the manifestos as a whole, we've only looked at gender issues and discrimination against men in particular, and you'd need to look at the wider picture too, such as whether a party was perhaps racially or religiously intolerant. Further still we do not endorse any party on this site and remain strict neutral.

1st place - Liberal Democrats - Three excellent policies - shared parenting, shared parental leave and removing innocent people from DNA database. Seems they're still examining the issues from the wrong perspective though and as a result don't have enough answers.
2nd place - UKIP - Hints at pensions equality, but misses most of the other issues. Only in second place as the other offerings are so poor.
3rd place - BNP - Innovative ideas on higher education and local government, but poor and even slightly sexist on family breakdown.
4th place - Conservatives - decent all round attempt completely ruined by ridiculously sexist pensions policy. A real shame.
5th place -  Greens - some of the worst polices of any party, but not the same all round contempt for men as Labour.
6th place - Labour - As expected, even wants to release prisoners based on gender.

We do value debate and the right of reply on this blog. As a result we're invited Harriet Harman, Lynne Featherstone and Teresa May  as well as all other parties to respond to the issues raised. I know we have members of political parties reading this blog from time to time and we'd happily publish any responses.

John Kimble

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS PROMISE SHARED PARENTING

It's been good to see so much interest in our articles on the party manifestos and I'm pleased we're even reaching an international audience. Today it's the turn of the Liberal Democrats to have their plans scrutinised.

Whilst the party''s views on education seem somewhat average, they at least recognise that schools are failing if not the fact that they're failing boys far more than anyone else. The proposals on healthcare are marginally better, for example noting that "people often struggle to get convenient access to GP services" though the only genuinely progressive solution from an equality perspective is to allow people to access their GP via email which is something I imagine would particularly appeal to men.

It's not until one reads the section on families that we get to see the most positive and genuinely progressive polices the Lib Dems have to offer. Most significantly there's a commitment to "introduce a Default Contact Arrangement which would divide the child’s time between their two parents in the event of family breakdown" No other party even mentions shared parenting in their manifestos so the Lib Dems are way ahead here.

The party's commitment to fathers is then reinforced by a proposal to "allow parents to share the allocation of maternity and paternity leave between them in whatever way suits them best", with the party actually noting how the current system give fathers two weeks off and whilst the mother get the whole year! There are also smaller commitments to fathers too such as giving them "the right to time off for ante-natal appointments.". Significantly, there's a clear acknowledgement that children are vicitms of family breakdown, although they don't actually list any of the actual consequences. Additionally, there's a recognition the importance of the wider family, such a the role played by a child's grandparents. Of course there are still big gaps, but the party really give the impression they've actually got an understanding of this issue and solutions to offer.

The Lib Dems have always had a strong commitment to civil liberties and their proposals in this area are reasonably positive. Unfortunately there's absolutely no mention of the issue of false allegations but they do at least match the Conservative promise to remove innocent people from the DNA database. Given the issue of false allegations and female sentencing discount, it's obvious the beneficiaries of such a policy will predominantly be men.

The final positive in the manifesto is the recognition that we need more men working in childcare, although disappointingly there's no clues as to how this will be achieved.  The document simply states that "they will support efforts by childcare providers to encourage more men to work in this hugely important and undervalued profession". That's a completely meaningless statement, and you'll never tackle the problem without first addressing wider issues in society such as the threat of false allegations not to mention the "all men are paedophiles" culture nurtured by the Labour Party. Despite such failings, by merely acknowledging this issue Lib Dems are actually ahead of every single party we've reviewed so far which is a quite damming indictment of those organisations.

Regrettably there are several downsides to the Lib Dem manifesto, though nothing too severe. There's the mandatory nonsense on the gender pay gap with the party noting how "women are still paid less than men" without noting the main reasons for this, the most obvious being the fact they spend significantly less time at work! The party claims that "no tax system should try to create total equality of income", yet you do worry there may be elements within the party more concerned with exactly that rather than actual equality of opportunity.

The section on science also has a gendered component, with the party promising to "tackle the gender gap at all levels of scientific study and research to help increase the supply of scientists." I don't deny that there might be a small amount of discrimination against women in certain sciences, but at the same time most women just aren't interested in the field or simply don't have the ability. If your sole objective here is to have more scientists, then you'd be far better off stopping the entire eduction system discriminating against boys, thus meaning the biggest pool of potential scientists dropped out long before even considering higher education.

Other than missing several key issues, such as men's health, false allegations and the gender education gap, perhaps the key flaw in the Lib Dem manifesto isn't any actual policy, but instead the wording and emphasis of some components. For example they state that "When a baby is born, the mother gets a year’s leave and the father gets just two weeks, meaning the mother has to take the lion’s share of the responsibility, even if their partner would rather share things more equally." The phrasing of this sentence tries to suggest that women are somehow the main vicitms of what is clear discrimination against men. The emphasis is totally wrong here, and the key consequences aren't so much the impacts on the mother, but the way the law forces fathers out of a child's life right from the moment they are born. Similarly, aspects such as the the excellent proposal on shared parenting really are far too hidden away in the document rather than a key component, with summarised versions of the manifesto ignoring them completely! One has to wonder why the Liberal Democrats don't make more of the fact they're the only party with such an incredibly progressive and important policy. It's quite strange to see how the campaign has given more emphasis on trivial topics such as the airbrushing of magazine images.

The trend of unfortunate phrasing continues in the proposals on shared parenting with the party adding caveat of "if there is no threat to the safety of the child." I'm not arguing for contact for abusive parents, but the fact is children shouldn't be in contact with abusive adults regardless of their particular marital status. Child abuse and parental separation are completely different issues, it's a bit like saying "we need more male teachers as long as they're not murders or rapists". Further still, the policy isn't actually a commitment to equal parenting and there's no specific mention of who the time is going to be divided. most children have their time divided between two parents, usually at a 20:1 ratio in favour of the mother!

There's also a tendency for the party to pick an choose, for example they correctly note how science education seems to be failing women, yet they choose to pretend the gender education gap doesn't exist.

In conclusion, although the emphasis of Lib Dem manifesto is wrong at times and at times slightly misguided, you really don't detect any of the same nastiness as with say Labour, none of the stupidity of the Conservatives, nor the disgraceful dishonesty of the Green Party. The document contains excellent commitments to shared parenting, fully shared parental leave, promises to remove innocent people form the DNA database and even hints at an awareness of the lack of men involved in childcare (though alas not in education). For the most part, the party does genuinely seem concerned with fairness and even the more dubious parts of the document, such as a focus on the gender pay gap don't actually propose any particularly harmful, or discriminatory actions.

There are obvious concerns such as completely ignoring key issues and they clearly lack answers in some areas. Similarly, shared parenting laws can still be rendered useless through false allegations, so that would be a concern too. Ultimately though, they do appear to understand family breakdown and the Lib Dems are perhaps the only party remotely worthy of any support at the election from an equality perspective. That really doesn't reflect well on the state of our democracy and it would be nice to actually have some sort of choice next time around.

John Kimble

EDUCATION ASIDE, BNP MANIFESTO OFFERS LITTLE IMPROVEMENT IN EQUALITY

Our fifth manifesto to review from an equality perspective is that of the British National Party.

By far the strongest aspect of the BNP manifesto in relation to equality is their education polices. They propose the reintroduction of sporting and academic competition and by reverting to a more traditional syllabus - policies which would perhaps start to close the gender education gap. There's a promise to rid schools of political correctness, which would at least rule out brainwashing kids with sexist messages about domestic violence.  There's also a promise to challenge gifted pupils, which is inline with Conservative policy. Finally, the strongest part of the policy concerns higher education with the party stating "politically correct degrees have also proliferated and while they may be of use to ‘equalities’ minded left-leaning councils, they are of little use to the productive economy". The BNP promise to withdraw subsidies for such degrees and even wish to see "ideological balance in university faculties" which would certainly put many of the bigoted women's studies professors under the microscope.

Another interesting aspect of the BNP manifesto is the fact they'll hold the media to account for publishing falsehoods and slandering people. This would be particularly useful with regards to the media coverage of dubious rape prosecutions or domestic violence allegations which prove to be false.  especially as such laws also promise a right of reply.

The BNP promises to close the council run diversity schemes, something likely to increase fairness. It would certainly be positive to see an end to the plethora of sexist "women-only schemes" such as ones relating to business especially as many are failing anyway. There's also a promise to close the Equality and Human Rights Commission. There's no doubt that this organisation has huge flaws at present, though I'd argue the BNP might be wrong here. Just because the organisation totally ignores large sections of the population doesn't mean they need shutting down. Why not just get rid of the worst staff and force the organisation to be fair, honest and non sexist in future? Either way it's at least a positive that the BNP have raised such concerns.

The BNP has some reasonable economic polices, they favoursfocusing on science, technology, engineering and manufacturing, sectors of the economy in decline under Labour. More jobs in such areas would help many of the real victims of the recession.

As with UKIP, the main downside of the BNP manifesto from the perspective of gender equality relates to crime and punishment. For example they seem to be rather fond of the government's DNA database stating "A person’s DNA is only added to that database when in police custody for a recordable offence", therefore suggesting they have little concern for false allegations and concepts such as innocent until proven guilty.

Whereas so many other manifestos have polices that are sexist towards men, the BNP actually take the opposite position and discriminate against women instead through their "married man's allowance". Don't' get me wrong , it's brilliant to encourage couples to stay together, but benefits need to be payable to husband and wife, rather than just one aprtner. Admittedly this isn't a sexist as some Conservative or Labour polices as the money ultimately will be shared between the two parties in most cases, but principles are important too, and despite the relative lack of harm, such a policy sends out completely the wrong message regarding fairness.

The BNP's response to family breakdown is actually very disappointing in other ways too. They seem to recognise some of the issues around the edges, for example noting on the section on economics that "a child may be better cared for at home than in a day-care centre". Similarly they note how the cost of legal services is too high and they do have policies to address the financial incentives for separation as discussed above. However, there's no mention of family law nor shared parenting. Such absences are  compounded by the length of the manifesto - it extends to some ninety pages, so it's not even as if they've been omitted just to keep things concise.

In conclusion we should certainly commend the BNP education polices. Some of their ideas for higher education in particular are hugely impressive and have a few decent ideas on local government issues and Quangos too. The party's offerings on the really key issues such as family breakdown really aren't at all impressive though, and if anything actually discriminate against women. I find this particularly disappointing given how the BNP supposedly prides itself on tackling the tough issues. The BNP is marketed as being different to the other parties and while there are glimpses of this, they're actually very similar to the likes of Labour, both in their ignorance of many issues and in their tendency to pick on particular groups.

John Kimble

UKIP TO EQUALISE RETIREMENT AGES?

The fourth manifesto I've decided to review is that of the UK Independence Party.

The manifesto is a relatively brief and uncontroversial document. Unlike the three manifestos I've reviewed so far there's nothing remotely discriminatory or offensive in the UKIP policies and the document actually seems more concerned with all people rather than just specific identity politics. This is reflected in the section on pensions, which merely promises £130 to everyone over the age of 65. It's not stated explicitly, but this suggests they'll be equalising the retirement age, which certainly puts them ahead of the other parties and in particular the Conservatives who want to widen the gap. This really would be a really positive step if true.

Other positives to the manifesto is their promise to cull political correctness and to focus on manufacturing jobs rather than unnecessary "non-jobs", clearly something that would help the huge number of unemployed men who are the real victims of the recession. There's also a strong recognition that the education system is failing, with the party noting the reduction in standards and quality of teachers.

The most noticeable negative aspect of the manifesto is the how the party completely fails to mention the issue of family breakdown, never mind offering any solutions. Even New Labour have been forced to admit there might be something wrong with their Family Courts, yet the UKIP seem so obsessed with Europe that the issues has passed them by. Similarly, issues such as male life expectancy, healthcare, domestic violence and false allegations are completely ignored.

Clearly the manifesto is rather right-wing, with the obvious downside of this being the party's approach to crime. There's no mention of civil liberties or innocent prisoners, and given that the party is ignorant of family breakdown issues then the vast numbers of new prisons they want to build will almost certainly be filled with disadvantage young men from single parent or no-parent families and perhaps more Fathers 4 Justice protesters.

Really there isn't much on offer in the manifesto either way in terms of equality. Incredibly, that alone actually makes UKIP preferable to the offerings of the Labour party or the Greens and perhaps even the Conservatives. Ultimately it's rather uninspiring stuff - more the sort of document that makes you just want to stay at home and watch TV instead of actually bothering to visit the polling station.

John Kimble

TORIES TO DENY MEN NINE BILLION POUNDS IN PENSIONS

Part three of our review of manifestos for the election takes a look at the Conservative's offerings.

By far the most concerning item in the manifesto is the Conservative policy on state pensions. At present men have to work five years longer than women to get a pennons despite the fact that they've put in more hours at work on average and thus contributed far more in taxes on average. On top of this, male life expectancy is rather poor in the UK (a fact which even the manifesto even touches on) and as a result your average woman can expect to receive some £81,000 in pension payments in her life, compared with £55,000 for a man.

Such is the unfairness of this situation we even have excellent groups such as PARITY campaigning for pension's equality and even Labour finally agreed to end this sexism one day far into the future. So what's the Conservative policy here? Are they going to equalise retirements ages as soon as possible and live up to their promise of "change"? Well actually, the manifesto promises change, but change that makes the problem even worse! They propose raising the retirement age to 66 in 2016, but only for men. Women will continue to be able to retire at 60 right up until 2020. Thus we'll have a six year difference in retirement ages instead of the present five and £49,000 paid to men compared to £81,000 for women. By my calculations the total sum the Tories will be denying men over the four years is a staggering nine billion pounds. Further still, David Cameron suggests the money is going directly to women so that they all get a full pension, I don't think I've ever seen a more sexist idea.

Obviously such a policy instantly rules anyone interested in equality out of voting for the Tories, which is perhaps a shame given that its proposals do contain a few positives. The first thing of note is the more incisive language used in the document. There's no sexist terminology anywhere to be found. For example the two party manifestos I've reviewed so far focus on the trafficking of women for sex, whereas Conservatives address "people trafficking" which is far more appropriate given forced labour is a massively larger problem. As most people know, the issue of women trafficked for purposes of prostitution has been blown out of all proportion by Labour.

The Conservative's plans in eduction also appear quite reasonable from an equality perspective. They recognise how broken and the current system is, not to mention how devalued qualifications have now become and appreciate the need to focus on core subjects such a maths and science. They also promise more challenging activities for especially gifted pupils, as well as help fro the least able. The Conservative perhaps don't' realise but this is in fact a gender, given that boys dominate both extremes of the intelligence spectrum. More significantly, they specifically mention the issue of false allegations against teachers and promise to protect staff.

Further help from the falsely accused can be found in the section on crime, with the Conservatives promising to remove innocent people from the government DNA database and instead replace them with convicted criminals. Other positives include numerous polices from helping those in the armed services, most notably policies helping them after leaving, and also support for married couples thus helping to remove the current financial incentives for divorcing. Finally there's a commitment to shared maternity leave, which is certainty preferable to Labour's 4 weeks for fathers and 52 for mothers.

However, overall the document is something of a disappointment. Whilst you fell the party has their heart in the right place, the generally feeling you get from the manifesto is that while the Conservatives mostly understand what's important, they really don't seem to quite have the right solutions yet and still seem out of touch. The polices on marriage are commendable for example, but you get the feeling the Conservatives just want to push the clock back to a different era. The party recognises more needs to be done in terms of contact after separation even recognising that we have " some of the worst rates of family breakdown in the world", yet there's no actual commitment to shared parenting. Yes they mention false accusations, but why restrict such polices to the teaching profession when the issue can ruin anyone's life regardless of their profession? The problem isn't schools in this instance, it's society as a whole and the lack of punishment and prosecution of the crime.

Similarly there are also concerns with the Conservative's "Big Society" theme. Concerns about government bureaucracy, waste and interference are sound, but the Conservative approach also brings concerns. For example they want to see charities proving public services, but in some areas that's already the case to some extent. Take domestic violence for example, do we really want to hand even more power to gender feminist organisations such as Women's Aid and Refuge so they can continue to deny help to male vicitms and pretend most of them are making it up?

In conclusion, it's a decent enough document for the most part, but the pensions policy is so horrific it essentially cancels everything else out. It shows us the traditional Conservative way of hurting men is still alive and well. Whereas the Labour party hates men due to it's gender feminist influence, Conservatives harm men through chivalry. The pensions policy shows they expect men to work even harder and longer than women for less reward. It sends out the message that men are an expendable resource to exploit, rather than people deserving of equal treatment and you have to fear that such an attitude will find it's way into other areas of policy. It's all very well coming up with decent education and civil liberties polices, but no one is going to take your seriously if your idea of pensions reform is to ring-fence women's income whilst his taking £9 billion from men to fund it.

John Kimble

SEXISM AND DISHONESTY IN THE GREEN PARTY MANIFESTO

From reading the newspapers, watching the tv of even visiting this blog one might get the impression that in politics, misandry is something at which only the Labour Party truly excels. However, one look at the Green Party's manifesto shows just how widespread and acceptable discrimination against men is in our society.

A particular concern of the Green Party appears to be the gender pay gap. Now don't get me wrong, women do earn slightly less than men, but it's almost all about choice - there aren't any women doing the same job as men for less money. Men work longer hours, less sociable shifts, do more dangerous and unpleasant tasks and even travel much further to work than women. And it's not just more hours that men put in - they're forced to put more years in at work too, with women getting to retire a full five years earlier than men. Rather than pointing out this direct discrimination and making it campaign issue, the Green's prefer to focus only on it's financial consequences which, just as with the pay gap, is less money as a result of doing less work. 

It's already illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender in employment and pay, yet the Greens also want to "enforce penalties against employers who continue to implement unequal pay". In other words, if your happen to be an employer who's male employees are more talented and experienced than the females, then you're going to be in trouble if you reward such talent and hard work through say bonuses, commission and promotions. The Green's really don't seem to appreciate or encourage success, all they want is equal outcomes and the same pay for less work.

The most despicable part of the Green's manifesto is the dishonesty in terms of the figures they use to justify their polices on pay gaps. The only statistics on the issue are in their statement that "the pay gap per hour between men and women remains as high as 38% for part-time workers". Now any reasonable person would assume the party here is stating that part time women get paid 38% less than their male colleagues also working part-time. However, this is absolutely false, what Caroline Lucas and her colleagues have done in reality is to compare part time women's wages with those of full-time men! They're comparing apple with oranges and not even admitting it either! Given that Harriet Harman attempted use a 23% figure for the pay gap was officially deemed to be misleading, then I'd say the Green's preferred measure is nothing short of a lie.

Given the party's obsession with the pay gap anyone would think the Green's just wanted women to be promoted and paid extra because of their gender and didn't care in the slightest about minor details such as actually being competent or the best person for the job. However, we don't need to speculate as to their position here, as they gone on to actually admitt eh truth of the matter. The Green's manifesto states that they "require 40% of board members of larger companies to be female within five years." Thus the party not only wants to artificially raise women's earnings, they also want to force our most important and best companies to get rid of some of their best staff, instead filling the positions based of a person's genitalia. I'm sure we do need more women in business, but just as with politics any so called "positive" discrimination is certain to be a disaster and actually harm not just the economy, but the prospects of women themselves in the longer term. I suppose the resulting reduction in GDP as a result of this policy would at least help to cut carbon emissions if nothing else, perhaps that's the purpose of the policy?

In the Labour Party manifesto we saw a commitment to sexism in terms of domestic violence policy, yet the Green Party's publication is arguable worse still. Not only dot hey use dishonest terminology such as "violence against women" when referring to domestic violence, they even state a policy of "providing funding for Women’s Refuges" and really seem to be pretending that domestic violence is a gender issue. Official figures show us that 40% of victims of domestic violence are men yet Caroline Lucas seems to believe that only women suffer domestic violence, and even if men suffer, they certainly aren't worthy of obtaining shelter and safety from their abuser as that's for women only. Interestingly, Lucas is not just ignoring heterosexual male victims here, but also homosexuals too - a group suffering more domestic violence than any other. You would have though that she might at least be sensitive to their needs given the demographics of her constituency.

So what about the positives of the Green Party's manifesto? There's a brief mention of paternity leave, which is far from unique these days. To be honest, the only real sentence of any genuine merit regarding discrimination against men is a recognition that poorer men suffer from low life expectancy, though there was no actual indication of how the Green's are going to tackle such an issue.

If anything, the Green Party appears to view men as a problem, for example emphasising how so much crime is committed by young males. They propose tackling this by raising the criminal age of responsibility, opening some youth centres and improving literacy in prisons. Don't' get me wrong, these are commendable actions, but it's far too little and far too late and misses the point entirely. Young men need a relationship with both their parents and a decent and fair education system if they are to succeed in life and be an asset to our communities. They should be taught to read by good teachers in primary schools and by their mothers and fathers and grandparents, not in a dingy prison cell.

I find it somewhat bizarre that a document with no less that fourteen specific LGBTI related policies pretends issues pertaining to half the population don't really exist. There certainly wasn't anything in the manifesto on the gender education gap, nor male suicide, false allegations nor the most important issue of all, that of family breakdown. Even on the odd occasion the party stumbles across a key equality issue they offer no real solutions.

I can remember a time when the Green Party was a genuinely forward thinking, fair, honest and progressive party which was genuinely a force for good and brought real change in UK politics. However, parts of their manifesto are now so sexist and discriminatory they could easily have been written by Julie BIndel. If the party truly is committed to "work to ensure respect for everyone whatever their ethnicity or gender" then I'd suggest they could make a start by re-writing their manifesto, removing both the lies and the discriminatory polices.