Search

Archives

More...

Categories

Minister for Men Manifesto

  • Minister_for_men_14

Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

Helpline Adverts

  • Poster__middle_age_man_bw
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Sunday, 10 February 2013

THE 100 MEN'S HUMAN RIGHTS SITES FEMINISTS SEEK TO CENSOR

In May last year, this blog and its readers broke the story of men's human rights sites been censored and smeared by major mobile phone companies in the UK. It has now emerged that Norton is also smearing most of our movement as hateful, with its DNS service blocking access to many of the most popular sites, this blog included.

It's unsurprising that people would try to censor us in this way and it's particularly disappointing that someone out there is stupid enough to regard this blog as hateful when it's abundantly clear we have no tolerance here for sexism towards anyone, and the whole point of this site is to campaign against sexism and gender hatred.

I've done significant research to find out the true scale the censorship of mens' human rights material and can exclusively reveal the most complete and accurate list of sites currently being blocked. I can also reveal that both O2 and Norton appear to be using the same list for their disgusting censorship. Previous lists of banned sites totalled 21 URLs, my research more than doubles that total to at least 48 sites and 54 urls.

As you can see from the roll of honour below, it's just obscure or slightly confrontational men's human rights sites that are blocked, even more academic resources such as manwomanmyth are barred too. For those yet to utilise this excellent resource, much of it consists of interviews with leading figures on gender issues, such as Erin Pizzey founder of the world's first domestic violence shelters and Michelle Elliot O.B.E. the founder of the children's charity Kidscape. Even completely mainstream figures such Glenn Sacks' nationally syndicated (and no doubt fully FCC compliant) "His Side" radio show don't escape Norton's censors. It's not just the wider men's humans right movement impacted by this scandal, more specific blogs by fathers in support of families are banned, I have to say it's a very strange world Norton are living in where a man's love for his children can be classed as "hate".

Most disturbingly of all, feminists even regard it as hateful to help/support male victims of domestic violence, abuse and even rape victims, with at least two sites solely focused on such subjects blocked under this absurd classification.

If any blog or site owners want to take a stand against this censorship then please add links to some or all of the 48 sites below or promote their articles on Facebook or your favourite forums.

ROLL OF HONOUR

(expanded to 122 sites on 10/07/2013)

 

Notes:

1. A number of other Mens rights sits are blocked due to being classed as pornography. This list is relatively small in number and thus could possibly constitute accidental blocking rather than a deliberate attempt to deny men their human rights and free speech. The above list only consists of sites blocked and smeared as hateful.

2. Sites marked with "*" can be accessed by changing the url to an international domain, e.g. .de, .fr etc

3. Sites highlighted in green were previously classed as hateful and have now been reclassified and un blocked as a result of our work.

4. Non clickable links indicate sites that no longer function but still continue to suffer the "hate" smear.

by John Kimble

Posted at 22:34 in Current Affairs/Political, False Accusations | | Comments (37)

| | |

Wednesday, 30 January 2013

TUC AND THEIR HYPOCRISY OVER "CAMBERWELL AND PECKHAM QUESTION"

Like many bodies and organisations trying to represent many different things or groups of people, they can end with 'twisted blood' in trying to ensure do not contradict themselves, act with hypocrisy or create a hierarchy of victims.

Nick Cohen's book "What's Left - How Labour lost its way" is brilliant at showing this where he describes the tautology of the left for example, in supporting the right to self-determination of muslim fundamentalists but not knowing what to do when this means accepting their mistreatment of women. 

The TUC last year issued a report on the plight of black boys and unemployment. Very worthwhile and very worthy - an issue we should all be concerned about.

However, its new leader, Frances O'Grady wants boardroom quotas for women. So if faced with one position on a board and the quota had not been met, she would place a woman on that board to meet the quota even if the other candidate was a black male - who not only may deserve the place because he is more talented but he would act as a brilliant role model for black boys to aspire to.

This is the ideological tautology of the TUC and how their concern for black boys is pure tokenism - gesture politics at its worst.

The question to ask O'Grady is similar to the West Lothian Question - it isthe "Camberwell and Peckham Question*" - does the TUC think a girl attending Roedean school faces more barriers and obstacles in her life and career than a black boy from a sink estate going to a sink comprehensive in Camberwell and Peckham. Seems like the TUC think the girl from Roedean is worse off to me.

Posted by Skimmington

*Camberwell and Peckham is the constituency of a certain Ms Harman 

 

Posted at 01:02 in Current Affairs/Political, Employment | | Comments (7)

| | |

Tuesday, 29 January 2013

MIKE BUCHANAN AND THE STRIDENT ANTI-MALE FEMINISM ON DISPLAY

Mike Buchanan was on the Daily Politics show yesterday (about 18 minutes in ) about gender quotas.

The peiece instantly revealed bias of course because it does not talk about the under representation of men in the public sector.

The interview with Louise Cooper (financial analyst) showed modern day anti-male strident feminism in all its glory as she said "...and in ten years time when we have lots of women running the world we won't need quota's" 

Suzy Stride, the Labour Parliamentary candidate in Harlow was selected via the ultimate in sexism - an all-women shortlist - so again she has benefited from sexism - no wonder she is in favour of more.

I still have some concerns about Mike's argument about focussing on performance and longitudinal studies when there are many women on boards. The issue for me is much more philosophical about equality and meritocracy, however, it still remains great that Mike is out there challenging the orthodoxy. Who else would be?

Posted by Skimmington

PS The issue remains very much alive in Europe

Posted at 00:02 in Current Affairs/Political, Employment | | Comments (20)

| | |

Monday, 28 January 2013

TAKING ON THE BBC'S FEMINIST BIAS (AND WINNING)

Readers may have recently seen the BBC article of the disproportionate impact suicide has on men, and I expect many were as confused by their coverage as I was. Although the article seemed to imply that thing had got worse for men, it also prominently stated that the rate of male suicide was "more than double" that of females.

Anyone with even a passing interest in such issues surely knows by now that men commit suicide at at least three times the rate of females in the vast majority of countries, with such contrasts especially common in reasonably "developed" countries. Therefore upon reading the article, one assumes the situation in the UK has much improved for men or that women have started committing suicide in much larger numbers than previously.

Hidden deeper in the article are the actual suicide figures for males and females, 4,552 men and 1,493 women, meaning the correct statement is "more than treble". The clear implication of the BBC using the statement "more than double" is that the quantity in question is NOT three times the rate, nor even approaching it, never mind more than this. Thus the BBC clearly downplayed the plight of men and misled viwers on the scale of the gender gaps in suicide rates.

In fairness to the BBC I contacted their correspondent Clive Coleman about his article, and it was fixed within two hours of my complaint. The excellent Newsniffer site shows us the history of the changes  regrettably, Clive didn't bother to thank me for helping tackle BBC bias, nor apologise, nor even acknowledge my complaint (other than fixing the article), thus I'm exposing the history what occurred here for all to see. This is far from the first time I've successfully complained about BBC's gender feminist bias in an article, for example their horrific smear of Dominic Raab was even more disturbing case.

I strongly encourage others to contact BBC staff directly about their bias when possible, the format for email address is [email protected]

Update - it's all worth noting that it's also misleading for the BBC to focus the begining of the article and gender differences on the raw figures for suicide, it's the suicide rate that is the key. There are almost 1.4 million more females than males aged 15+ in the UK (partly due to so many men killing themsleves), so whilst the raw figures for males are barely more than three times that of females, the actual rate is more comfortably exceeds three fold due to the female deaths being spread over a significantly larger population.

by John Kimble

Posted at 14:02 in Current Affairs/Political, Domestic Violence, Health | | Comments (11)

| | |

Sunday, 27 January 2013

MALE SUICIDE RISES AGAIN BUT GOVERNMENT AND HEALTH PROFESSIONALS DO LITTLE

This week, the annual suicide figures were released albeit covering up to the end of 2011:

  • There were 4,552 male suicides in 2011 (a rate of 18.2 suicides per 100,000 population) and 1,493 female suicides (5.6 per 100,000 population).

  • The highest suicide rate was seen in males aged 30 to 44 (23.5 deaths per 100,000 population in 2011).

  • The suicide rate in males aged 45 to 59 increased significantly between 2007 and 2011 (22.2 deaths per 100,000 population in 2011)

As the Daily Mail pointed out, more men commit suicide than die in road accidents. There was more coverage in the Guardian and Independent. CALM's, Jane Powell was in the Guardian (Suicide is a gender issue)

Norman Lamb, the care services minister, said the figures caused very real concern, and they needed to be tackled "head on". This was after he launched a new suicide prevention strategy last year (if you click on the link at the bottom of the release it is broken - says it all).

So what are the issues.

Firstly, despite the biased rhetoric the recession and continuing problems in the job market will lead to more suicide and more amounts men (and women). Liverpool University showed that between 2008 and 2010, an extra 846 men had taken their lives and an extra 155 women.  When anyone from the Guardian, Fawcett Society, TUC and Labour Party state this remind them that men are literally dying because of the recession.

Secondly, the policy response in the strategy is startling and weak. If you compare the policy response to domestic abuse (c33% victims are male/66% are female) and suicide (c75% victims are male/25% are male) there are huge differences which prove once again the institutional discrimination faced by men in Britain.

For domestic abuse, the government strategy to tackle this is called Ending Violence Against Women and Girls  - and covers all genders (yes, I know, how can men be represented in a strategy called this and they get one mention). Yet the strategy for suicide is not gendered - it is not called Ending Suicide Amongst Men and Boys.

If there was no institutional discrimination and sexism against men then this is what the suicide strategy would be called.

The suicide strategy strategy's press release cannot even bring itself to mention men in the text (only in a fact at the end) even though the strategy does talk about men as the biggest high risk group. If 75% of those who committed suicide were women, it would run through it like words in a stick of rock. The strategy itself just seems full of public-sector speak with very little practical action. It looks like a tick box exercise. 

There is an argument rightly that strategies should be overarching but have gendered approaches within them if required (men and women are different and may need different approaches where necessary) so long as they do not negatively impact on the other gender. It is just the hypocrisy of highlighting gender when it affects women and not mentioming it when it effects men.

Posted by Skimmington

Posted at 20:28 in Current Affairs/Political, Employment, Health | | Comments (1)

| | |

Sunday, 20 January 2013

NHS MISANDRY - 5 A DAY ADVERT ON CAUSES OF OBESITY

More everyday misandry - on the taxpayer this one from the NHS (yes the very same NHS that treats men as second class citizens)- portaying men as buffoons. Seen on TV this weekend.

Posted by Skimmington

Posted at 21:36 in Current Affairs/Political, Health | | Comments (3)

| | |

Sunday, 06 January 2013

NEWS UPDATE

A few from the last week or so

BBC - What jobs are male and what are female (Mark Easton): An old one from last year that I had not seen before.

Fighting Feminism - An attack by the V Spot (Mike Buchanan)

Daily Mail - Bring on quotas for women says TUC chief (Anna Edwards)

Daily Herald - Scotland lacking in male primary school teachers (Andrew Denholm)

Evening Standard - Soho restuarant continues trend in women-only bars (Emer Martin). Unless this is a private members club then KC’z Bar general manager and entrepreneur, KC Gates, will be breach of equality laws. See pubs and clubs section here.

Daily Telegraph - Government failing female entrepresneurs (Emma Barnett): More pleas for special treatment and discrimination against men. This time from Labour MP Seema Malhotra.

Amazon - Review on The Highway Rat (Tony Iqeq)

A Voice for Men - Interview with Erin Pizzey  

Daily Mail  - Diane Abbott MP says feminism destroyed the family (Tim Shipman)

The Observer - UK's top firms more male-dominated than FTSE rivals, new data reveals (Simon Goodley)

Daily Mail - Bias in the justice system (Peter Lloyd)

Daily Mail - John Leslie says false allegations destroyed my life

Posted by Skimmington

Posted at 19:27 in Current Affairs/Political, Employment, Equalities Commission / Equalities Dept / Fawcett, Justice System, News Update | | Comments (35)

| | |

Thursday, 03 January 2013

UNIVERSITY ENTRY FIGURES SHOW STRUCTURAL AND INSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST BOYS

On Tuesday, Prostate Cancer UK highlighted the institutional discrimination men faced in the area of cancer research and today in an interview and article in The Independent, Universities Minister David Willetts said that white working class boys should be treated as an ethnic minority because so few are now going to university.  He also was interviewed on the Radio 4 Today programme and there was a follow up article in The Independent on the issue.

The final figures for last autumn's university intake in the UK show a fall in applications from men which was four times that among women. Just 30% of male school-leavers applied to university for autumn 2012, compared to 40% of female school-leavers, according to UCAS.

In his interview he quotes:

"There are now more women who enter university each year than there are men who submit a Ucas form. That marks a tremendous achievement for women, who were in a minority among undergraduates as recently as the 1990s. But it is also the culmination of a decades-old trend in our education system which seems to make it harder for boys and men to face down the obstacles in the way of learning. That is a challenge for all policymakers."

There are four issues here.

Firstly, 'the challenge for all policymakers' that Willetts talks about is a challenge that has been known for decades but the educataion establishment has been too frightened and politically correct (only girls count - boys are disposable) to do anything about it. Politicians, policymakers and the establishment like the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the Government Equalities Department are too biased against men. No point in Willetts saying there is a challenge but not offering a solution. 

Secondly, Willetts and others are still to afraid to go that extra mile and admit that the education system and Britain as a whole) are institutionally biased against boys and has been captured by ideologues who only view women and girls as important.

Thirdly, as 'Groan' pointed out in his comments on the last post, if organisations such as the Fawcett Society, Equalities and Human Rights Commission, The Guardian, the TUC etc want quotas for women in boardrooms, then why not quotas for university places for boys? I am not in favour as all quotas are wrong, but it is a point worth making in showing up their hypocrisy. 

Lastly, this is another landmark story (I take the point as one reader mentioned this week that we have known about the figures for years but this and the cancer story have dominated the headlines on both days respectively). Both highlight beyond doubt the structural and institutional discrimination against men. In two areas, of fundamental importance - education and health.

The door of opportunity on these and so many other issues is starting to open. We need to keep the pressure on.

Posted by Skimmington.   

Media Update (other coverage) - BBC with debate

Ps tried a new font (Verdana) is it better than Arial?

Posted at 22:51 in Current Affairs/Political, Education, Equalities Commission / Equalities Dept / Fawcett, Minister For Men | | Comments (34)

| | |

Tuesday, 01 January 2013

INSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN EXPOSED BY PROSTATE CANCER UK

Thanks to Brian for sending over the link to the Daily Telegraph article on "prostate cancer -the neglected killer, loses out on research cash."

Breast cancer receives twice as much research funding as prostate cancer despite both diseases killing similar numbers of people, a charity has said.

Despite being the most common cancer in men and the fourth most common cancer overall, prostate cancer lies 20th in the “league table” of annual cancer research spend per case diagnosed, figures show.

Breast cancer, the most common female cancer which has a similar death rate to prostate cancer, received more than double the annual research spend with  £853 per case diagnosed compared with £417.

Prostate Cancer UK are really stepping up a gear. Not just in launching their sledgehammer campaign  and their advertising campaign, but also in publishing this research. It certainly builds on the responsible campaigning theme and does make the case rightly that money should be switched from breast cancer research to prostate research.

The chief executive alludes to what part of the problem is in his comments: "Men in the UK have a problem and they don’t want to talk about it. Neither do the wives and partners who will end up supporting them, the doctors who will treat them, nor the politicians who will count on their vote. Prostate cancer is the UK’s best kept worst secret."

What he is saying but doesn't want to 'say it', is that this is as clear an example of the  institutional sexism and institutional discrimination that men face.

Play the 'reverse the gender' game and does anyone really think that politicians, and doctors would not do anything about, not lead campaigns, not increase funding etc. Of course they would but they stay silent when comes to men's health because as we know men are the disposable sex.

It also shows why we need a Minister for Men to ensure this state discrimination does not take place.

 And of course where is the anti-male Equalities and Human Rights Commission in all of this? They have a statutory duty under the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that this type of state institutional discrimination does not take place in terms of government research. Why are they so silent?   

This is a great start to 2013 in exposing discrimination against men, and then doing something about it  - fighting male discrimination that actually costs men their lives.

Posted by Skimmington

Media update - BBC and Daily Mail

Posted at 13:57 in Current Affairs/Political, Health | | Comments (21)

| | |

Monday, 31 December 2012

2012 REVIEW OF MALE INEQUALlTY AND DISCRIMINATION IN THE UK

Thank you to everyone who has supported the site (despite the sometime intermittent service) and this year (the seventh year it has been going), the site had 83,000 page views and 160 published pieces.

Thanks to everyone who contributed either in submitting articles or in commenting upon them. I have also updated some of the groups on the left hand side of this page - please remember to send over any that are missing.

In terms of what progress has been made in male equality and ending male discrimination, this year can again be seen as two steps forward one step back. The gain has mainly due to the efforts of individuals and groups taking up the mantle of male equality through organising themselves and not relying on politicians or other groups to do it for them. As we know, institutional sexism remains rife in Britain, so the welcome realisation is that we cannot rely on those same institutions for help.

In terms of the positives on particular issues, there have been some.

Family Law reform is moving forward with the concept of shared parenting being the accepted direction of travel (Parliamentary Briefing and subsequent announcement). This was despite the Norgrove Report denigrating shared parenting - though the fact Norgrove remains Chair of the Family Justice Review Board is surely untenable.

Boys Education remains the truth that dare not say its name. While boys continue to lag behind girls, the public policy silence remains deafening, despite some starting to publicly recognise it as a concern. The one glimmer of light is that the government is to bring back O-Level type examinations (one of the first big topics this site set out) however this will not be until 2017 (in terms of first exams), so that means 30 years of destruction has befallen the education of boys by bringing in an examination system wholly unacceptable to the way boys learn. The problems facing boys was eloquently laid out in this report and can be seen feeding through into pay.

The re-introduction of O-levels though is more down to Gove's desire for rigour rather than an acceptance that the education establishment has got it wrong for three decades and left generations of boys behind.

Women rejecting discrimination and excuses - we know that modern-day radical feminists that dominate the BBC, the Guardian, the senior parts of the civil service/academia/publc sector, the media and politics (including their "White Knight's") are out of touch with the thoughts and needs of modern women. Especially those who actually like men and want their fathers, brothers, sons, husbands, boyfriends etc to succeed. Research at the beginning of the year showed this as did this report at the end of the year.

Three issues that were never 'seen' as affecting men have also started to be recognised - human trafficking, forced marriage/honour violence and circumcision (and here). The latter has really taken off with the German court verdict and the manslaughter of a baby in the North West.

Lastly, this was the year that male equality issues started to enter the mainstream. In addition, to the above issues and groups working within them, the 'movement' started to mature. We saw the fruits of sensible campaigning by father's groups, Mike Buchanan's work at the Campaign for Merit in Business challenging the status quo leading to Select Committee appearances and even campaigns against the NSPCC succeeding. We have also seen campaigns against Virgin in Australia.

The National Conference for Men and Boys continues to grow, as does International Men's Day in the UK and also the celebration of Fathers on Father's Day. This maturity can be seen against the growing desperation of anti-male feminist groups trying to keep their requests for discrimination against men and special treatment on the political agenda.

On the negative side, we saw the continuing clamour for quotas and the ending of meritocracy over boardoom appointments gathering pace, however, while the governmet refused to accept EU legislation, there remains the social stigmatisation of companies if they do not comply with an 'unofficial quota'. Some have given in.

Mike Buchanan's campaign for Merit in Business has stood up to the argument mainly I think from a biological determinist sense, while this site's approach is mainly that quotas etc are discriminatory in blocking men because of their gender not talent and are against the fundamental tenets of equality.

Other areas that continue to be ignored are the male suicide rate, men's health especially on continual delays on a national screening programme, male victims of domestic abuse, male homelessness, male unemployment and the general demonisation of men by society, the media and groups such as the Fawcett Society, the Guardian and the government. We still have mobile phone sites defaming men's rights websites. There is still no Minister for Men, the most visible expression of anti-male equality (15 years).

What I am hoping for 2013, is that the growing maturity of the male equality sector continues with new sensible groups being created (only where there is a gap) or men and women joining existing ones.

There needs to be the celebratory groups such as International Men's Day and Father's Day, conferences, campaigns on particular issues, practical goups (like CALM, FNF, ManKind Initiative, Centre for Separated Families etc) providing practical on the ground solutions and also probably a more political group (not necessarily  political party).

The growing desperation of anti-male feminist groups like the Fawcett Society will be called into question mainly by women who are rejecting their hatred of the men they share their lives with.

This is what I would like to see so that come this time next year - we are starting to see equality for men, and the barriers that prevent them enjoying equality being further dismantled.

Posted by Skimmington

PS Forgot about this article

 

 

Posted at 18:51 in Current Affairs/Political, Education, Family Law, Gender Pay Gap, Justice System, Minister For Men | | Comments (3)

| | |

« | »

Total Politics

  • Ukpolitical300

Twitter

About

Subscribe to this blog's feed
Blog powered by Typepad

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Reading List

CIVITAS PAMPHLETS