The Rights Of Man

THERESA MAY'S LEAKED LETTER SHOWS MEN STILL SECOND CLASS

There is always the hope that when a new Government comes in, things may change, the site certainly hoped so. However, we have already had the bringing forward of the state retirement age for men, then the backtracking on the rape anonymity issue and now we have been shown the true colours of Theresa May, the Minister for Women and Equalities.

The Guardian revealed today that Theresa May had written to the Chancellor George Osborne before he gave his Emergency Budget to warn him that it could break equality laws. How so?

Well, under the Gender Equality Duty, when policies are formed they must take into account the impact they have on the differing groups in society. However, accriodng to Theresa May, one group which makes up 49% of the population does not count, can you guess who?

In her letter she contends that because of cuts in public spending, there were real risks that women, the disabled, the elderly and those from an ethnic background would be disproportionately affected. Also she said that women are employed in public services and also use them more, they could be disproportionately affected.

Once again, what this shows is that the Government, whether blue/yellow or red not only does not count men as equals (not withstanding that some men obviously fall into these groups but certainly not white men/boys) but also do not even given an iota of thought to the wrongful generalisations they make.

(1) There is the assumption that all men and women should be just lumped into their politically correct defined tick boxes and that all those in the boxes are the same and have more advantages/disadvantages than those in the other box.

If a part of the public sector is cut and job losses ensue then it depends on where those cuts are (it could be a male dominated area as much as a female one - the police service and armed forces are undergoing large cuts but the NHS which is female dominated is ring-fenced!), plus it is about individuals not gender.

If a man loses a job it is of equal tragedy as a woman losing her job. May suggests not, she suggests that a women losing her job is more of a tragedy than a man losing his job.

May also makes the common but fatal assumption that men and women live in isolation. If a woman loses her job in the public sector, it will also affect any husband/boyfriends/son/father she has.

(2)  May says that because women use public services more, then cuts will affect them more. Baloney.

Firstly, I come back to the false assumption. If a woman uses health care for herself or takes her children to the doctors, is May saying that the man is not affected if his children/wife/parneter/sister are suffering from health cuts.

The same applies to education, cuts on schools means cuts in services for children and the last time I checked children had fathers as well as mothers. Plus, as boys are so far behind girls now educationally, any cuts will affect boys!

Also there will be plenty more examples as well.

(3) This is the most concerning.

What May is effectively doing in a Harmanesque way, is to pressurise Osborne to skew his Budget towards cutting services and jobs in male dominated parts of the public sector to 'even things up' if you like.

Essentially if you cut services or jobs in a female dominated area, then you need to do the same in a male dominated area (of course she again makes the false assumption that if a man loses his job it does not affect any woman that he shares his life with).

This is pure tokenism and special pleading and once again men are at the bottom of the heap. They are not an equality group, they are to be treated as second class victims of the cuts in jobs and public services. Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.

Posted by Skimmington

COALITION GOVERNMENT - WHAT IT MEANS FOR MALE EQUALITY AND THE ENDING OF MALE DISCRIMINATION

Just before polling day on 6th May, this site concluded that the Liberal Democrats had the most man-friendly policies and now they are in a coalition with the Conservatives, their influence can be seen as there is much that is man-friendly in the Coalition Government's plans which were agreed after their negotiations.

In fact, and it seemed to have been hidden away as it received no publicity, the Liberal Democrats had actually produced a short manifesto for men during the election campaign. Nick Clegg said "Men are often a forgotten group in political debates."

While there are many good things in the Coalition Governments plans, there are also some areas of great concern especially on pensions and the fact that there remains a Minister for Women but not one for men.

The good things

(1) Anonymity for rape defendants (unless proven guilty).

John has covered the opposition to this in his last post and it has also been well covered in the media as anti-male organisations such as the Fawcett Society stir up their hatred of men.

This issue is totemic because it is clear that the Coalition Government are aware of the inequality in British Law where the defendant is named and the victim (rightly) is not. The law may not have been changed though if it was not for the epidemic of false accusations (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 , 6   and 7 plus more here). It is those women who are to blame for this and it is those women who should be attacked by The Fawcett Society, the Women Against Rape Group and those who signed the Early Day Motion.

The Coalition Government must hold its nerve against the onslaught from the anti-male marxist feminists who don't believe in equality, justice and do not care about those innocent men who have had their names and reputations dragged through the mud.

This though is ground-breaking.

(2) Anonymity to teachers accused by pupils and take other measures to protect against false accusations.

This is another area similar to the rape issue and again, because the false allegations are normally against men, this is hugely significant and to be supported. It is also backed crucially by a whole swathe of organisations including the teaching unions.

There is a case though for it to be extended to those in the medical professions as doctors (and indeed dentists as shown in this case) are also at great risk of false allegations.

(3) A comprehensive review of family law in order to increase the use of mediation when couples do break up, and to look at how best to provide greater access rights to non-resident parents and grandparents and encourage shared parenting from the earliest stages of pregnancy – including the promotion of a system of flexible parental leave.

This is hugely significant because probably the biggest and long-standing injustice against men to have been used in the past two decades or so has been the deliberate denial of access to their children by  (some) mothers and the legal establishment (many family court judges) and of course Cafcass who have all acted in cahoots. It's why we ended up with Fathers4Justice and Families Need Fathers who have supported estranged fathers up and down the UK.

The review is greatly needed and should not only enshrine the concept of shared parenting when and if custody disputes come to court but also that there is actual enforcement of contact orders. Families Need Fathers are very supportive.

The not-so-good things

(1) Minster for Women but no Minister for Men

When Blair became Prime Minister in 1997 he introduced the extremely invidious position of a Minister for Women without having a reciprocal Minister for Men. It meant that for every single day that that Government was in place it discriminated against men.

Sadly, the Coalition Government has gone down the same path and as well as being Home Secretary, Theresa May is also the Minister for Women. There is no Minister for Men.

(2) Discrimination over Pension Age

Currently legislation shows that the state pension ages for men and women will be equalised in 2020 at 65 and then gradually increase together over time including both rising to 66 in 2026 (Covered by John here).

The Conservatives when in Opposition proposed that the state pension age should be moved forward to 66 for men with no change for women except for that planned (move from 60 to 65 for women in 2020 and then to 66 in 2026). The Conservatives were questioned on this at the time and it was clear that they had forgotten to think about women (it was Ok for men to see if their retirement age of 66 brought before by ten years - men are expendable of course).

The details in the proposed Pension and Savings Bill are still sketchy (until it is published) but the Government has said that the first move, to 66, "will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women", which obviously shows some backtracking.

After the battle led by organisation like Parity for the equalisation of pension ages and other benefits, if the state pension ages are not equalised by 2020 then this will be certainly be discriminatory. How the detail will be worked out before then will also be significant. We will be watching.

(3) Gender equality in the boardroom

The Coalition Government has said they will promote more gender equality in the boardroom. Much will depends on how this is done.

The anti-male feminist wants quotas and to use discrimination to stop men from getting into the boardroom by ensuring that places are set aside for women, irrelevant if they are the best candidate for the job.

If a Labour Government had become re-elected then this would have eventually been legislated for as it is in Norway and elsewhere (link). How the Coalition Government go about this will be crucial but even by promoting it, it will put companies under 'social' pressure to do so.

There has been some talk also that the Coalition Government will not implement the parts of the Equality Act that it disagreed with. These were on the gender pay audits for all firms with over 250 employees and also the (laughably named) ' positive action' clauses that allowed employers to discriminate against employees or potential employees (mainly men) when it came to recruitment. Let us hope they do not implement these parts.

(4) The Missing Pieces

There were a number of issues that were missing but if they can brave it out against the anti-male feminist on the false accusations issue, then perhaps they will introduce them later.

This includes issues around support men's health (especially ensuring GP surgeries have man friendly opening hours) and boys education for example.

Conclusion

While there will be dismay that there is not more for bringing about male equality and ending male discrimination in the UK, the moves on false accusations and shared parenting are real landmarks. Certainly if a Labour Government had been re-elected men would have been done for and certainly none of these proposals would have been put forward.

This site will be monitoring and commenting on the Coalition Government as it trundles along but so far it is good start, but it could and can do better. 

Posted by Skimmington

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.

LABOUR'S SEXIST MANIFESTO FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION

Most major parties have now published their manifestos for the 2010 General Election. Over the next week we'll be reviewing the proposals of the various parties analysing any obvious misandry as well as pro gender equality content. Let's start by taking a look at Labour's plans for the next five years.

Given their track record since 1997, not to mention their sexist MPs, and the use of All Women Shortlists, the Labour Party is a almost certainly the most sexist party in Britain. However, for the purpose of this post, lets stick solely to the content of the manifesto as we are going to do with the other parties. The first sign of sexism is their boasts regarding the disastrous Equality Act. This legislation allows employers to discriminate on the basis of gender when recruiting staff instead of choosing the best person for the job. Legalising sex discrimination really isn't a valid method of promoting "fairness across our society" as they claim. The manifesto cites how the Equality Act will increase equality of opportunity when it's actually reducing equality and pushing unfair equal outcomes instead.

Further notable sexism in Labour's manifesto concerns the area of domestic violence. Section 5:3 concerning domestic violence states "we are committed to zero tolerance of violence against women". Whilst such a commitment is impressive, we mustn't forget that Home Office figures show that 40% of domestic violence vicitms are men. It's quite sickening that so many domestic violence vicitms dont' even get the slightest mention, nevermind any sort of commitment to their well-being or deal with their attackers. The party do at least note how domestic violence had fallen by 50%, though unsurprisingly, under New Labour the number of male vicitms bucked the trend and actually risen significantly! Clearly the number of male vicitms is likely to continue to rise under a Labour government given such a willingness to pretend that female perpetrators don't exist.

Perhaps the most offensive part of labour's plans for the next five years is the section titled "Punishment and Reform". On the one hand it talks about giving longer sentences to the most violent and serious offenders, yet the next sentence makes a commitment to  "work to reduce the number of women, young and mentally ill people in prison". Given that violence by females is on of the fastest growing crimes in society and that the number of male domestic violence vicitms is increasing, then surely the two statements are completely contradictory? Further still, given that the police have largely ignored female paedophiles until recently and caught a shamefully small proportion of them, is the party suggesting that raping children isn't a serious crime? A Labour candidate yesterday suggested the Liberal Democrats would be giving the vote to the likes of Vanessa George, yet given the content of the manifesto, presumably his own party is going to go further and release her altogether!

We should note that the policies proposed here aren't just misandric, the manifestos is also extremely offensive and damaging to women. Labour are also lumping in adult females with children and the mentally ill. There's a clear suggestion that women aren't at all equal to men, instead they're some sort of child like and mentally deficient beings, incapable of telling right from wrong and thus immune from punishment. Ending such infantalisation of women would do far more for equality in the workplace than any so called "positive" discrimination or pay audits.

Labour talk about a commitment to "always put the victim first" in criminal cases, yet there's no mention of how they' will protect men form false allegation allegations and put a stop to the deadly consequences of such incredibly serious offences.

In the interests of balance, we should examine any positive aspects of the manifesto in terms of commitments to gender equality. However, having read the documents I saw no mention of the gender education gap, the suicide rate, deaths at work, men's health and poor life expectancy, nor even any mention of equal parenting. It's all very well Labour proposing slightly more time off for fathers, but if they can't actually get to see their kids or if requires the mother's permission then they're basically just rubbing salt into the wound for so many dads. Further still, proposing four week's paternity leave for fathers, and 52 for mothers seems strange at best. The only positive aspects of the document are the recognition of the importance of marriage and that the Family Courts are in need of review. Yet even when talking about issues such as helping parents back to work, they bizarrely continue their misandry by stating the importance of "especially" helping mothers out of poverty.

Rather tellingly, Labour's manifesto doesn't' even restrict misandry to these shores, there's also a commitment to doubling funding to the new UN Women's Agency. I'm not exactly sure what the point of that is as most of the UN tend to be only concerned with the needs of women as it is, even going as far as denying food to male earthquake vicitms. If nothing else this certainly demonstrates quite clearly Labour's contempt for men, not only at home, but abroad too.

SHAMEFUL SILENCE ON GENDER EDUCATION GAP

Figures released by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills today showed that 51% of girls now enter higher education compared to 40% of boys. A gender education gap of 11%.

There is not a peep from the Government, the Conservatives or any other party about the gender education gap. Nothing from the laughably entitled 'Equalities' and Human Rights Commission.

Nothing, just silence.

Far more girls are entering the professions and boys are continually behind at all levels of education, nothing either is said on that

Compare it to the constant hullabaloo (and myth making) over the gender pay gap (12% for full time workers) even though it has been proven that the pay gap is due mainly to many women taking time out of the workplace to bring up a family.

No proper research, no proper thought as to why this gender education gap is happening and no policies that could help to boost boys education (rightly of course not to the detriment of girls' education) are ever expounded.

Can you imagine, if the genders were reversed and that far fewer girls were entering university than boys,  - we would never hear the end of it. But because it is boys, the figures just float by without comment. It shows inherently and culturally how much boys and men don't matter to the establishment in this country, they are the disposable sex -a culture explained very well by Conservative MP Paul Goodman yesterday.

It really is a tragedy that politicians and the establishment pay no attention to this matter when attention would be paid if the genders were switched. No explanation is ever given as to why this is the case.

It is sexism by silence. 

Posted by Skimmington

QUOTAS AND "POSITIVE" ACTION PROGRAMMES MARGINALISE MEN

The last post on quotas received much comment and as Thomas pointed out in a post Christine Odone quotas are being called for to increase the number of female scientists. It is not just boardrooms.

The issue runs much deeper because as pointed out before the Equalities Bill will do much damage to men and much has been in place for a long time but has never really been challenged. Even in a recession when more men have lost their jobs than women (see this section for previous posts on employment).

For example, one contributor has pointed out that Lloyds TSB bank, now merged with Halifax Bank of Scotland has its very own positive action programmes for women (positive action means negative action for someone else - basic maths) and a women's network. Often it is not direct, it is discrimination by omission where management courses and special training courses are made available to all but men. They do not say so directly but men are left off the list. 

A white boy from a rough council estate has hardly more advantages in life than a girl educated at public school, but according to Lloyds Banking Group he has.

The problem with this tokenism and discrimination is again down to the fact that in the age of political correctness we are not treated as individuals, only as members of groups. Some men will need help to get on the management ladder and some women will not need the help, but that does not matter at Lloyds Banking Group, it is your gender that matters. Excluded men also find their wives/girlfriends/daughters indirectly discriminated as well - second hand discrimination.

With so many more women now joining the professions than men partly due to better exam results and partly due to 'extra help', along with the recession and anti-male society we live in, men are becoming more and more marginalised. Quotas and positive action programmes ensure this will continue. 

Posted by Skimmington

FEMALE QUOTAS ARE ON THEIR WAY INTO BRITISH BOARDROOMS

Over the past year the issue of introducing female quotas into the boardroom of UK companies has been bubbling under the surface, and now it soon will be here as the Government has submitted evidence into the Financial Reporting Council (a body that sets the overall rules as to how boards of plc's should work) asking them to find a way to increase female representation.

This follows the lead of Norway who introduced a legally binding 40% quota for their boardrooms, with Spain following  in 2009, then France (1 and 2) this year plus German firm Deutsche Telekom. Italy and Holland may also follow. 

This issue was brought to life in the UK becausepeople like Harriet Harman and the institutional oxymoron ,the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, blamed the financial crisis on men, declaring it avoidable if there were less men running banks.

Quotas are wrong because they undermine the basic principles of a liberal democracy where everyone is equal and to be judged equally. Their gender, race etc is irrelevant. Bringing in quotas would mean that some people (men) would be denied a position on the Board solely because of their gender, not what they could offer. This is discrimination. As mentioned before, it affects their wives/girlfriends and daughters and sisters and mothers, as men do not live in isolation.

The way the UK Government is undertaking this is very subtle and pernicious. It has already built in discrimination against men at all levels of employment through the Equalities Act but rather than deal with the boardroom issue with a sledgehammer like other countries, it is trying to influence those who make business rules. These rules (known as the Combined Code) are based on what is known as a "Comply or Explain" whereby companies only have to explain why they do not adhere to the rules and it is up to shareholders to then vote them down.

The issue is that if these quotas are accepted by the Financial Reporting Council, they then become the normal way that companies have to behave. They would do so to avoid the risk of shareholder censure or simply having their reputation dragged through the mud by Harman and others. Once it is the norm then it makes easier for any quota rules to be passed through Parliament.

The Government's proposals like, all their anti-male proposals, are the thin end of the wedge. They seem 'harmless' to many at the time but once the inch has been taken, it will be soon be a mile.

Posted by Skimmington

MINETTE MARRIN SPEAKS UP FOR MEN

The site has mentioned before that all the media commentary on the war on men is being written by female journalists. It is as if male journalists are too scared to talk about the subject.

Minette Marrin of the Sunday Times has been extremely impressive of late and here are a selection of her recent articles:-

What women want is an end to hectoring feminists

Unwanted men, we need to curb the welfare Amazonians

Women aren't equal to men, especially the feminists

Hymn to him, men are good for women

 

Posted by Skimmington

RECESSION AFFECTS MEN MORE THAN WOMEN - EQUALITIES COMMISSION CANNOT BRING THEMSELVES TO SAY IT

Remember back in 2009, we had our Deputy Prime Minister Harriet Harman declaring that the biggest victims of the recession were women, which was debunked by all and sundry. The pity the media did not ask her to prove it exactly at the time she was saying it and it took a little while for the facts to emerge. Funny how she no longer persists with the line.

However, the Government's Equalities Office and Equalities and Human Rights Commission are never one to stop flogging a dead horse even when they know the facts don't stand up. Perish the thought that the Commission might one day say that x, y or z affected men more than women, that would be go against their Orwellian mantra '"Everyone is equal but some people are more equal than others."

Their latest report, even though clearly showing that male employment has fallen by 2.7% compared to 0.8% for women, does not say a jot about the plight of these men (and of course their wives or female partner), it just concentrates on the female angle even to the point of saying (page 26):

Over the longer-term, the rise in women’s employment is a clear triumph for women’s greater autonomy at the expense of both discrimination and disadvantage. But recessions reduce autonomy by reducing the options available to some women and by forcing others into choices that they might not otherwise make. And recessions also render many women more vulnerable to both discrimination and disadvantage.

Where is the evidence for this and a failure to say that "recessions reduce autonomy for men by reducing the options available" is an outstanding piece of wilful and conscious piece of purposely ignoring the impact on men.

One of the main reasons female employment has not fallen as swiftly as male employment is that many women work in the public sector which so far has not been impacted as much as the private sector. So what about the fact that there are fewer men (teachers, health, social services etc) in the public sector, is that not discrimination and disadvantage as well? I would suggest not particularly (except in teaching) as many men do not want to work in the public sector but if they make the point about women then on the same basis they should do about men.

They do not of course, the report just exposes their bias and proves they only look through female eyes and not one male eye and one female eye which they are meant do.

The Policy Exchange think-tank said the recession had meant that it was a Full-Monty recession affecting more men than women. No spin just facts. 

WILL 2010 BE THE YEAR OF EQUALITY FOR BRITISH MEN?

As a new year starts, it is worth reviewing the events of the past year and look forward to 2010 to see what hope there is for male equality in 2010.

2009 was a mixed bag. We had the awfulness of the Equalities Bill trundling through Parliament allowing men to be discriminated in the workplace and the recession taking its toll in increasing male unemployment (and the associated depression), particularly damaging for young men who cannot get on the job ladder and hampered by their lack of academic achievement at all levels compared to women. The Coalition on Men and Boys produced an awful paper that basically said that men are bad and are to blame for everything that affects them.

We had the continuing and wilful ignorance of male issues from the Labour Government and its acolytes at the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. In fact, both organisations did all they could spin the myths that women were more affected by the recession, that the Gender Pay Gap was leading to more discrimination against women and the refusal to accept that men are also affected by domestic violence.

On the other hand, there has been a greater awareness of the issues affecting men. The Men's Health Forum continue their good work (with others in the prostate cancer field), Families Need Fathers have opened up new centres with a growing recognition of the bias of the family courts and the ManKind Initiative speaking with more authority on the plight of male victims of domestic violence. The NPSCC also produced some authoritative work showing that abuse at home affected boys as well as girls highlighting that mothers were as involved in this than just fathers.

We also have seen what I would call an epidemic in the numbers of women falsely accusing men of rape, a concern for the men accused as well as those poor women who are attacked.  

But does 2010 bring any hope?

The only answer that can be offered is that it may do and this is dependent in large measure to the result of the General Election.

The odds are that it looks like a hung Parliament or a small Conservative majority. Whatever happens, as long as Labour, the most anti-male Government in the history of the United Kingdom, are turfed out then that has to be something positive. In addition, this will tend to allow a change in the mindset of the civil service and other public servants to one based on genuine equality not on Labour's and the Equalities Commission's Animal Farm meaning of Equality ("everyone is equal but some are more equal than otehrs") .

We can hope that the recession ends and that men (and women) can find themselves back in work. We can hope that family law reforms such as a presumption fo share parenting come to fruition and that the needs of men in education, health and domestic violence find themselves higher up the political agenda. The need for a Minister for Men (if there is to be the continuation of a Minister for Women) should be at the very least the first step (this site will be updating its manifesto this month).

We really do need some politicians especially female politicians (they are mothers, sisters and wives to men) taking the lead on this. With so many new politicians coming into Parliament whoever wins, let us hope so.

There is a risk of course that David Cameron as part of his touchy feely positioning continues to only concentrate on the needs of women and not on men. He has not made a good start with the threat of using All-Women short lists.

Whatever happens, groups wanting genuine equality for men will continue to fight and express their views, we hope that in 2010, politicians and public servants actually make the changes necessary. We just have to keep going and hope that the plight of British Men starts to receive the recognition needed. Now that would be EQUALITY.