The Rights Of Man

NEW BOOK: MEN CRY ALONE BY PHILIP PARIS

A new book charting the stories (albeit fictional, the author has spoken to many victims as part of his research) of three male victims of domestic abuse is available.

 

SANDRA CLINCH CASE SHOWS WHY EQUALITY DOES NOT COUNT IN THE COURTS

The conviction of Sandra Clinch for manslaughter last week for killing her husband highlights the lack of justice for men in the courts.

Firstly, nine years for this hideous domestic violece crime that ended the life of her husband is a joke - as is the fact she was not convicted of murder. Reverse the genders, and it would have been 19 years and murder. Women's Aid et all would have been jumping up and down about it otherwise.

The fact she "stabbed a previous partner with a carving knife and assaulted your children
on a regular basis" is beyond comprehension and the BBC have outlined her violent history with a spot-on comment from Esteem and the comments in the Daily Mail sum it up. Nine years when she has this history - sickening. His brother was rightly not happy.

Posted by Skimmington

 

CHERYL COLE THE LATEST IN A LONG LINE OF FEMALE POP STARS GUILTY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

If one issue in our times illustrates the terrible double standards faced by men, it's that of domestic violence. A prominent and topical issue is the differing ways violent and abusive pop stars are treated depending on their gender. For example, it seems barely a day goes by without some feminists condemning Chris Brown for domestic violence, and we even have a campaign of feminists vandalising CDs highlighting artists who allegedly beat women.

At the very same time we've seen female abusers openly admit to their violence and even commit it on camera, yet the media never see it as notable and certainly not wrong. This same attitude is found in the rest of society, such as in the police and justice system.

The latest major female artist to admit to domestic violence is Cheryl Cole, but you won't see any headlines condemning it. The Daily Mail has the information under a headline about her injecting vitamins into her rear end, so it's clear that domestic violence by famous women against famous men is less newsworthy than such a practice (if your'e interested, apparently the injection didn't even have much of an effect anyway). The Mail do at least report the information though, stating she admitted "shaking him, kicking him, scratching his face, pushing and shoving him like I was a lunatic". The Sun newspaper reports more details such as the following admission "I hit him in the face — I couldn’t help it". So there we go then, Cheryl Cole not only commits domestic violence against her husband, she seems rather unapologetic about the whole thing and it appears somehow she is so dangerous and out of control she is unable to stop herself from such acts and it is the victim's fault.

Just imagine if a male singer female in such a way, we'd never hear the end of it, particularly if he also had a history of violence. If I've I've missed anyone, particularly feminists,  or a domestic violence charity condemning her then perhaps someone can add ti to the comments section, I certainly can't find anything though. All the media reports appears to do is portray her as the victim and allow her to excuse and give the impression violence by women is entirely justified in cases of infidelity.

Remember, unlike with cases that often hit the headlines form time to time, we aren't talking about mere, unproven allegations of domestic violence here and one persons' word against another's. Cheryl Cole has admitted to her crimes in her book and is making money off such material. Given her previous conviction, perhaps the police should have a read of it?

Anyway, for the benefit of those adding stickers to CDs of artists who commit domestic violence, here's a few you seem to have missed:

Cheryl Cole
Whitney Houston
Rihanna
Amy Winehouse
Mary J Blige

Quite an impressive line up, I wonder how many albums they've sold combined? The last individual on that list even has a domestic violence centre named after her (and I don't mean one for male victims as recompense for her crimes).

by John Kimble.

 

Update, thanks to "TDOM" in the comment section for pointing out the following important detail I missed:

According to Cheryl, Ashley's mistress was quoted on the internet stating "The girl said Ashley had been so drunk he couldn’t walk straight — that he was incoherent and that he was vomiting during the sex."

This indicates that this was not just an affair, but that the woman sexually assaulted him. in many jurisdictions, being incapacitated by drugs or alcohol means that he could not have consented to sex. So not only was he sexually assaulted, but he was beaten by his wife for being sexually assaulted.

NO EQUALITY IN BRITAIN'S JUSTICE SYSTEM

The Daily Mail reported this awful story today where Beverley Jones from Swansea committed a terrible act of domestic abuse against her husband and walked away with a two year community order instead of going to prison. 

Can you imagine the judge making the same decision of the genders were reversed - it would be two years in prison for the man else there would be a lynch mob led by Women's Aid, Refuge and Fawcett Society.

It shows that those that advocate (first article listed here and this one too) that women should not be in prison are seeing their 'argument' turned into a reality by the judiciary.

It is an unhappy coincidence that S4 Wales is running a documentary about male victims maybe the sexist judge should have seen this before passing judgement.

Posted by Skimmington

PS Men were not allowed to apply to be CEO of Women's Aid

NEWS UPDATES

Thank you to everyone for their patience - here are a few from the past two weeks and thanks to those that have sent them through or added them in to the comments on the Citizen Khan story.

Daily Mail - The real price of feminism (Bianca London) Amazing misandry in the article by the journalist - this shows the cake and eat attitude of modern-day anti-male feminism. The journalist says you are not a true gentleman if you expect the woman to go Dutch.

The Independent - Take a bow, Sir Roger Moore (Ally Fogg)

Daily Telegraph - Domineering men face domestic violence proscutions (Martin Beckford) and Daily Mail - Stopping your wife having a bank account could be domestic abuse (James Chapman) More misandric headlines when the changes are clearly gender-neutral (although we know they may not be in practice) although any official involvement of the NSPCC in the Youth Panel means bias as boys as victims will be ignored as they are only seen by them as perpetrators.

Daily Mail - Forgiveness saved my life (Deborah Arthurs)

Daily Mail - Mother-of-four, 34, had sex with two schoolboys while her toddler slept in the  same (Larisa brown) No equality in justice as there is now way she should not be in jail.

Order Order - Disolve companies that do not meet gender quotas (Guido Fawkes)

BBC - Samaritans report that men born in their 60's and 70's at risk of suicide and Daily Mail - Why male suicide rates go up (Tamara Cohen) - The report is here.

Financial Times - Business leaders urge government to stand firm against boardroom quotas (Brian Groom)

Daily Telegraph - The BBC need more women (George Entwhistle) and then he tries to backtrack which we know is false -  his views are those that he stated first time. Watch this space.

Daily Telegraph - Thousands of boys are behind at reading (Graeme Paton)

Daily Telegraph - Father wins right to know who false accusers were (John Bingham)

Posted by Skimmington

 

POISONING YOUR HUSBAND IS FUNNY ACCORDING TO OLD JAMAICAN GINGER BEER

I've seen this advert play on Channel Four a number of times and find it more and more shocking after each occasion. It's 2012 yet somehow poisoning one's husband to death is not only seens as acceptable, but it's hilarious if it's becasue he cheated.

 

 

You can contact the Advertising Standards Authority here to ask why adverts condoning and mocking domestic violence are on tv.

 

by John Kimble

NEWS UPDATE

Sorry all, maybe away a bit, so here are a few

BBC Radio 4 and 5 - Women's and Men's Hour

Telegraph and BBC (et al) - Male politicians getting it wrong on rape and  Louise Mensch MP calls for female justice miniser (Louise Mensch MP): Firstly, we have a female Home Secretary/Minister for Women and a female Minister for Equalities. Secondly, this is sexist anyway as it is saying that a man could not possibly take rape/sexual assualt seriously.

Lastly, Mrs Mensch's hypocrisy (who is retiring as a MP) knows no bounds as she said it was right for the Sun to print the Prince Harry photo's. While that is an article for another day, but would she be happy with the same pictures of Zara Phillips or Princess' Eugenie or Beatrice were published like this. Breathtaking stuff. Not helped though by people like Galloway!

The Guardian - Pale, male and stale (Vera Baird): Failed politician who was Harman's henchwomen in the last givernement calls for special treatment and sexism against men who have the temerity to want to be a crime and police commissioner. She is the Labour candidate in Northumbria - heaven help the men there if she gets elected. The police will not be allowed to arrest a women and all men will be arrested just for being men.

 Prostate Cancer UK - Royal Mail chooses Prostate Cancer UK as charity of the year.

Irish Times - Men seeking help rises by one third (Amen)

BBC - Women-only art exhibition

Daily Mail - Wife calls for chnage in law over husband's sperm

Posted by Skimmington

CORONATION STREET SHOULD BE PRAISED FOR TACKLING MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE

A frustration when campaigning for equality for men is the ability to make your voice heard. Not just because of  the daily clutter of news but also because whenever equality is discussed it is always through the prism of women's issues and/or when it is about man it can often be trivialised.

 Getting cut through into the mainstream is vital. Turning  issues swept under the carpet for decades to become the topic of 'water cooler' conversations. 

 This is why the current Coronation Street storyline on domestic abuse against men is so strong 
and so powerful. By beaming the story into people's living rooms it will change society's view that domestic abuse only happens to women.

The story involving Tyrone who is being terrorised by his pregnant fiance is very emotional and vivid. It has also had cut through in the media (BBC Breakfast, Daily MIrror and Hull Daily Mail) features in discussions on Twitter and elsewhere.

Ian McNicholl and the ManKind Initiative have played a part (their number is featured after the episodes - what a coup!).

As well as the views of society, there will be the encouragement to men suffering in this way that it isn't just happening to them. With the helpline number at the end there is the encouragement to get
help.

It may also continue to diminish the influence of Women's Aid and Refuge (and 'Respect')
who still cling onto their ideological view of domestic abuse.

Congratulations to Coronation Street for tackling this  and let's hope the other soaps tackle other male issyes. How about Emmerdale tackle the bias in the family courts and Eastenders tackle male suicide?

Posted by Skimmington

DOMESTIC ABUSE ON LIVE TV IN INDIA AND THE MAN GETS BEATEN UP

I know this site is mainly about Britain but sometimes you see things from abroad that need sharing. The double standards and hypocrisy of the reaction is breathtaking.

 

Posted by Skimmington

 

CANCER RESEARCH UK FINALLY ADMITS RACE FOR LIFE IS OFFENSIVE (BUT CENSORS ANYONE POINTING IT OUT)

It's now over three weeks since I published my Cancer Research UK sexism investigation and, despite the record interest it generated, as far as I'm aware the organisation has failed to respond to a single point made. Therefore I'm now forced to reveal the next instalment of my investigation into the activities of CRUK. In the following article we examine the goings on over at their "cancer chat" forums and examine the problems in having an almost exclusively feminist female staff handling what is principally a male condition. A number of interesting developments have occurred, with the organisation and its staff repeatedly misleading users of the site and practicing their usual sexist double standards.

1. Criticism of CRUK is banned
While CRUK staff were previously quite tolerant of discussion and debate on their forums, anyone now criticising CRUK's sexism on their forums is immediately banned form the site without so much as a warning. This is a real shame as a useful debate on their sexist Race for Life event took place in the past and it was interesting to see how those touched by cancer largely detested the event and how former supporters came round to our point of view. Of particular note is that CRUK banned users for posting about a hypothetical version of Race for Life where instead of banning males, the charity instead barred ethnic minorities. Despite this point clearly being made as a vehicle for condemning CRUK's activities, with entirely decent language and tone and clearly not a serious suggestion, the posts was deleted for being "offensive". CRUK representatives thus admit this concept of a discriminatory and divisive type of fundraising event is wrong, therefore putting them in the rather precarious position of admitting the very concept of it's Race for Life event is offensive too, so many congratulations and thanks to them and particularly moderator Renata Sims for finally coming clean. (note - for balance I should state that once alerted to the fact that they effectively condemned their own event CRUK sought to "clarify" their position claiming that it was the tone of the language they were opposed to. Given their track record of misleading users of the site I'll let people draw their own conclusions about this issue).

2. Discussion of Race for Life is banned  (except it isn't if you say nice things)
When closing down discussions on Race for Life, CRUK's attempted justification was "they cause offence to members of this community". The issue is a clearly a hot potato and it would be understandable were CRUK to close down every conversation on the topic of Race for Life. However, this isn't what has occurred and people, including the management of the site, still openly show support for the sexist event, only dissenting voices are silenced. Most significantly of all, the clear consensus of the long discussion regarding Race for Life was that the event was sexist. So above all else, it is clearly those supporting the event who are the ones causing by far the most offence to users of the site. Site moderators also suggest people make contact with other staff/departments to discuss their concerns and that the forums are not an appropriate place for such material. However, all our questions go unanswered and our emails ignored, so once again their comments are incorrect and people have no other method of communicating their concerns to CRUK than the forums.

3. Critics of Race for Life openly subject to abuse
Contrary to CRUK's pretence of being concerned about the community and the site being "a safe and welcoming place", the fact is that genuinely offensive personal attacks are left in place, just as long as they are directed at critics of CRUK. Examples of this include one poster suggesting a man critical of the sexism should go back to his own country, while another labels the discussion as "hilarious" and boring and also makes personal attacks calling people "cry babies" also telling them to "man up". It is clear that those on the end of these sexist and xenophobic abuses, not to mention other site users, found these episodes distressing  and the last personal attack is of immense significance in the context of cancer, the "man up" attitude is at the heart of the problem which stops people taking men's health seriously. The posts have sicne been reported to the site's management but they are still left in place, presumably due to the fact they were written by Race for Life supporters. The fact that innocent criticism of Race for Life is censored, whilst at the same time as this content being left alone says it all. CRUK have no concern for its own site rules and would much rather censor a healthy and civil discussion than deal with any real personal attacks and abuses. The very same sub forum where Race for Life comments are censored also contains numerous offensive jokes aimed at men, the very first in the thread concerning a man trapped in a relationship with a violent wife, with "jokes" concerning fatal domestic violence against men a recurring theme.

4. Obsession with female cancers
On a site where every single past and present staff member is females is unsurprising to find a highly feminised environment, but they don't' even attempt balance. I've examined the posts of all CRUK staff on the forums and the site has a handy "tags" feature for the most common terms they use. Of the four current staff members every single one had repeatedly used terms for a least one form of cancer associated with females whilst not one was tagged with any form of male specific cancer whatsoever despite there being a similar number of sufferers. Even relatively rare female cancers get far more mentions than prostate cancer, one of the most common cancers there is.

I've also examined other online activities of the these staff members on sites such as Twitter and the theme of ignoring men continues there too. For example, Sarah Broughton, the manager of the site follows various female associated cancer causes on Twitter and female patients yet no males other than one child. She also has interest in other events which discriminate against men, such as the Orange prize for fiction and not only raises money for breast cancer but for ovarian cancer too (the later event taking place in the CRUK office). Her Facebook accout includes "likes" for numerous cancer casues and charities, with appproximately 20 pertaining to female associated cancers or patients and a fair few gender netural casues also "liked". About the closest she comes to supporting a male cancer charity is the "real men wear pink" breast cancer campign. Just to really rub it in she also lists on of her favourite TV shows as the hideously sexist "Loose Women" programme! Other site staff Tweeted comments warning people against saying "I'm not a feminist" and mocking the sexual prowess of young male pop stars. Predictably, most staff appear to use the misandrist Guardian newspaper as their sole news source with one even providing an interview for the paper.

5. CRUK are misleading users of the site
If we again examine CRUK's statement attempting to justify comments on their forums they claim "the moderators and nurses are not directly involved with Race for Life or any other fundraising activity". This statement is a complete fabrication. Having uncovered the identities of the moderators I've found a number of them have participated in the event, usually on multiple occasions and they even have Race for Life pictures plastered all over their Facebook profiles. Further investigation shows some of these pictures to be highly prominent publicity photos, used to publicise the event and to advertise Race for Life merchandise. Quite incredibly, one person modelling said clothing is the manager of the cancer chat site!. Thus far from being uninvolved in the event, the manager of the forums is actually arguably the face of Race for Life.

Having pointed out these facts to CRUK management, there appears to have been quite a cover up, with the organisation hastily attempting to remove all the images in question from their website. However, they've missed one so you can still see the proof for yourselves (for now).  No apology has been forthcoming from CRUK for lying to users of the site, something which would have been particularly appropriate given that the forum rules state users should not post "any material or links to any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate"

6. Race for Life breaches' CRUK's forum rules
One problem with engaging in borderline illegal and discriminatory activities is that even if you mange to get away with it, you're still breaching fundamental principles and basic sound practices. We've previously proved CRUK management break their own site rules, but in a wider sense the very concept of Race for Life is against the rules too. The section of the rules on "respect for others" states: "Do not post nor privately message any material which may be discriminatory or cause offence on the grounds of an individual's sex, race, religion or belief, ethnic or national origin, sexual orientation, age, marital status, disability or working status." Even if you don't find the event offensive (something which is a matter of opinion), Race for Life is quite clearly both a sexist and certainly a discriminatory event and therefore posts promoting or endorsing it are in breach of the forum rules. As mentioned previously, the majority of site users find the event to be offensive anyway, thus giving yet further cause to remove all such material.

CRUK have again turned reality on its head. As well as there being no good justification for barring Race for Life criticism from CRUK's forums, the opposite is required because anyone endorsing and supporting the event is clearly in breach of CRUK's own terms and conditions (including the manager of the site!). To get themsleves out of this mess CRUK either need to ban/censor all discussion supportive of Race for Life, or they can manipulate their site rules so that material that is sexist against men is no longer banned. A far more sensible solution would be to open up Race for Life to all participants, therefore avoiding all these stupid problems all of CRUK's own creation. Whichever option they chose, it's clear the only truly unacceptable position is the present one.

by John Kimble