The Rights Of Man

INSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION AT THE EQUALITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Just a quick post but if anyone ever wanted an example of the institutional discrimination endemic at the laughably titled Equalities and Human Rights Commission this is it.

The report 'The impact on changes in commissioning and funding commissioning women-only services' is paid for by the taxpayer to Cambridge Policy Consultants.

Its interesting reading as it looks at whether changes in funding and commissioning had a disadvantageous effect on women-only services.

While at face value the main area of discrimination would be the fact that there is not an equivalent report for men. It's worse.

The report (page x or page 14 of 100 if you look at it this way) explains how awful it is that some women's groups have to either open their doors to men or had to share funding to help support men's services. The complaint is that the law provides for services to disadvantaged groups but this is on the basis of women being placed at a disadvantage not in the context that men are group who may also need support hence why women-only groups are being asked to support them too. That is not recognised - men are swept under the carpet.

Complete bias but what do you expect from the anti-male Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

Posted by Skimmington

PS Debate on closing the Equalities and Human Rights Commission

PS PS Only three of its 14 governors are male - that's equality for you

CABINET RESHUFFLE MEANS LACK OF PROGRESS ON EQUALITY FOR MEN CONTINUES

So the new cabinet comes in and what changes for men?

 

Maria Miller is the Culture Secretary with responsibility for Women and Equalities. This role at Cabinet Level was previously Theresa May’s.

   

Helen Grant MP, replaces Lynne Featherstone at equalities minister to become joint Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at Ministry of Justice and for Women's and Equality issues. Helen Grant was one of Cameron’s A-listers which was specially designed to stop men from becoming MP’s. She has benefitted from sexism against men so no hope of equality from her.

 

On the Justice front, at least Ken Clarke recognised the need for reform on shared parenting and that even admitted that many mothers break contacts orders and get away with it. Chris Grayling his successor is a robust politician so we can hope he will drive things through on shared parenting and hopefully take a tougher stand on family courts.

 

Tim Loughton going as children's minister is a blow as he has been someone who has kept the flame alight on shared parenting. Let's hope his continues to do so on the backbenches.

 

In terms of health, I cannot see Jeremy Hunt being any more bothered about men's health than his predecessors. He seems the archetypical politician/corporate type who has no view on anything so it’s likely he just simply won't be interested.

 

Gove remain in place on education which means no reversal of the plans to do away with GCSE's and he at least wants rigour and discipline in schools which boys need.

 

The one additional issue is the continual pantomime about how many women and how many men are in the cabinet and have ministerial position. Of course, to anyone who believes in equality, the gender of those in government is irrelevant. But to those in the partisan/radical feminist camp like the Fawcett Society, BBC, Guardian and Equalities and Human Rights Commission - gender is more important than ability.

 

So the number of men and women in the new ministerial team will be picked apart and will do so I am sure over the next week. The Fawcett Society are on the case already.

 

Because of the political attention on the issue, it pressurises Cameron/Clegg (and Blair and Brown before them but that's their fault for encouraging it) to keep the numbers of women up. Cabinet is one thing and the number has been reduced to 4 from 5 but what about at the ministerial level. More will come out over the next few days.

 

We know there is someone into the Cabinet Office collating the information will be totting up the number of men and women. If the number of women are not high enough to satisfy the covert quota (the quota is at least the same as before with some upward ratchet – Cameron himself has declared hir goal to have women in one third of government postst by the end of this parliament) some women will be pushed up because they are women and some men pushed down or out all together because they are men. We know this is the likely answer. Even the Conservatives themselves see it.

 

It does not matter if Cameron/Clegg say there is no quota, there is one subliminally and the coming day or so will see what the shift is. We know The Guardian is watching with McCarthyite intent, and if the numbers are down overall it will be down to evil men not based on the available talent.

 

It is just like those in the 30 per cent club or Women on Boards who debated with Mike Buchanan on Radio 4 who say they do not want a quota. That is an untruth. Not only is the 30 per cent club named after a quota, whenever, there is not an increase of women in FTSE roles they scream blue murder, therefore an unofficially sublimely quota comes into existence.Covert pressure in terms of "if we don't put more women on the board, we'll be attacked for it, no matter whether or not we have suitable people or not."

 

Overall the cabinet reshuffle does nothing for men - many of us knew it would be the case so we'll carry on with our campaigning - its too important to stop.

 

Posted by Skimmington

WIMBLEDON SHOWS WHAT MODERN-DAY FEMINISTS THINK EQUALITY MEANS

When  French tennis-player Gilles Simon says men should receive more prize money than women at Wimbledon (Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian) he was attacked by the usual suspects - including of course some of the women tennis players.

Wimbledon changed the rules in 2007 so that men and women get equal pay. So what's the problem?

Some like Simon say women should get paid less because their tennis is less entertaining and less interesting but the problem with this argument is that it is subjective.

However, if you look at the amount of time they are on court - there is a clear difference. In Wimbledon 2012, from the 4th round onwards, men in the singles tournament played 55 sets while women in their singles tournament played 36 sets - effectively 33% fewer sets.

Is this what the anti-male feminists mean when they talk about the gender pay gap and equality. That women get paid the same for less work.

As well as an argument about whether female tennis players should get paid the same or not as men, it is also the interpretation that feminists make. Part of their problem with their gender pay gap arguments, they are not interested in the contributions that men and women make as individuals - they want equality whatever the contribution.  

Posted by Skimmington

NEWS UPDATE

Here are a selection from the last two weeks (in no particular order) and thanks to those that sent them through:

The Guardian: Neither breadwinners nor losers - what role do young men play next? (Ally Fogg) Ally's article makes a number of key cornerstone points - first about men being ignored by social policymakers and also the example on ESF funding. The only issue I take with Ally is he is reluctant to really name the guilty parties who are deliberately ignoring men and carrying out these discriminatory policies. I may well be unfair here as he does mention ESF, but who are the politicians responsible for this policy - list the guilty men and women. He has a new blog.

HR Magazine: Businesses hold dads back when it comes to family (David Woods)

The Guardian: These Tory women are narcissists, not feminists (Tanya Gold) If you read the comments sections, it shows these men-haters are bing challenged.

Equalities and Human Rights Commission: Reading Lists published - The EHRC is now making it even easier to find the texts they love - I have seen the JR Schackleton pamphlet on gender pay is on it though!

Equalities and Human Rights Commission: Staff reduction announced

London Evening Standard: London can seriously harm men's health (Sophie Goodchild and Emma Slater). The full reports from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can be found here and here.  

Various: French tennis-player Gilles Simon says men should receive more prize money than women at Wimbledon (Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian)

A Men and Women's MRA request for London

Daily Telegraph: Girls outperforming boys in masuline subjects (Graeme Paton)

Men's Network - Funding for male cancer

Please let me if I have missed any?

Posted by Skimmington

WHERE EQUALITY FOR MEN MUST TRANSCEND RELIGION TOO - MALE GENITAL MUTILATION (CIRCUMCISION)

Sorry everyone - been away again

Following the decision (and here) this week by a German court that infant male circumcision (male genital mutilation) is illegal (unless for medical reasons) and those carrying out the procedure can be charged with assault/GBH means another step has been taken in the issue being treated in the same was female genital mutilation.

The court ruling is clear why: The court weighed up three articles from the basic law: the rights of parents, the freedom of religious practice and the right of the child to physical integrity, before coming to the conclusion that the procedure was not in the interests of the child

There has long been a conspiracy of silence (and here) on this issue in the UK by the 'establishment' albeit one where the BBC and Guardian have spent time on and children are losing their life because of it.

And why has there been a conspiracy of silence? It is clear this is due to political correctness within the political, media (not all) and medical classes in trying not to offend people of the Jewish and Muslim faith. Offending Christians (and I am not defending Christianity) is OK.

Political Correctness is a pseudo-religion itself. Issues like this always leave those who practice it in ideological torture when a group the politically correct industry choose to support has practices that undermine political correctness itself and offend another victim group. Nick Cohen's What's Left? book articulates this clearly. 

On this issue the 'establishment' generally dare not want to cover the story or pass any comment. The BBC and the Guardian have covered it because of their atheist position but do not really have an 'opinion'.

Religion

Getting to the point, the condemnation poured on the Cologne court's correct (morally and legally correct) decision by the two religions shows why the conspiracy of silence has existed. It is an attempt to scare people into silence and to claim special treatment and exemptions from equality, humanity and human rights because of their tradition and opinion (religion).

 The Guardian reported as did the Telegraph that Muslim and Jewish leaders called it "insensitive and discriminatory" because in their opinion circumcising a boy without his consent is not insensitive or discriminatory. The News Statesmen reported  that Jonathan Arkush, vice-president of the Board of Deputies in the UK described it as "intolerant, ill-informed and deeply troubling."

Brendan O'Neill in the Daily Telegraph suggests it an 'anti-semitic' decision. 

Silence from equality campaigners

Why is there no comment or campaign by the UK government and Minister for Equalities, Equalities and Human Rights Commission and others.  Always quick off the mark on the female mutilation issue, silence on the male issue.

Are they following the lead set by Katrin Altpeter:

Women's rights groups and social policy makers also condemned the decision, but for the reason that it would have the effect of putting male and female circumcision on the same footing, when they were "in no way comparable", said Katrin Altpeter, social minister in the state of Baden-Württemberg. Female circumcision she said, was a far more drastic act. It is already outlawed in Germany.

As ever, women's rights groups are not speaking up for women (see discussion on Mumsnet).

Again, it shows that Women's groups and campaigners who condemn the decision do not believe in equality for men and women, just special treatment for women and special pleading. It helps their funding of course.

A complicit government

The government should just make male genital mutilation illegal as they have done female genital mutilation. What is the difference?

And going back to the politically correct point, female genital mutilation is a religious matter. The government is choosing what religions it supports (those that circumcise) and what ones it doesn't (or effectively what religions it can afford to upset and what ones it can't.

Where next?

I think there are a number of planets that are coming together that will lead to a ban at some point in the next two years.

Firstly, there are sensible mainstream groups in the UK such as NORM-UK, Ending Unneccessary male Cicrcumcision in the UK   and other wider groups such as the British Humanist Association and the Men's Helath Forum who want a ban. This means the issue will be  kept on the 'agenda'.

Secondly, the hysterical response from the two religions will ensure it remains on the agenda especially as it shows how out of touch they are (you only have to read the comments sections in the debates). They will now have to campaign against the courts decision, therefore keeping it in the spotlight and shining a spotlight onto how naked they are.

Thirdly, some doctors and hospitals will start to look themselves and also fear the law. One hospital in Germany has already stopped carrying out the procedure (There is a Circumcisions Direct company - as if mutilation is the equivalent of selling car insurance!)

Lastly, the case in Oldham will actually mean the judge will now be crossing the line into politics as the judgement (and the reason for the judgement) will have implications (one way or other) on male cicumsicion in the UK.

I think that if the campaigns continue and the spotlight is shone - there will be a tipping point and I think the German court has helped move this further - the Oldham case may be the one that does it in the UK.

Once again though, it is the courts that place male equality in its rightful place - an equalities, moral  and human rights issue. It remains shameful that male equality has to rely on the courts rather than politicians and the 'establishment' to make decisions for male equality.

Just like the issue on equalising state pension age, the British Airways ban  on allowing men to sit next to unaccompanied children and now this. All could have been be stopped at a stroke of a legislators pen, instead men have to go to court for equality.

Posted by Skimmington 

PROWESS 2.0 - PEDDLING MISANDRY

One of the uglier sides of 'girl power' is not female emancipation but the ugly twisted men-hating behaviour which is designed to show how superior women are over men. In employment terms this can also come together in a gang or 'pack' mentality where women form aggressive anti-male groups which more discriminatory as those men they allege are the cause of anything that gets in their way.

You cansee this at work where you have 'women-only' training courses, fast-streams and management courses - all discrimination against men.

Employment is a good example and as this site has regularly reported, women-only start up funds are discriminatory because a man is denied access to this capital solely because of his gender. And of course, if he has a wife/girlfriends, sister or daughter they are then discriminated against too - by their own sisterhood. There is now a Home office funded (through the laughably named 'Equalities Department' ) Women's Business Council.

In this vein I came across this form of misandry and anti-male 'pack' mentaility in its purest form.

Prowess 2.0 (Women in Business)  - the UK online centre for women in business. "It’s where you’ll find top-quality information and online resources for women who’re starting or growing businesses, plus links to women's business networks and  local business support."

 First example is a story by Erica Watson about the ten top tips for female entrepreneurs. The story starts with this anti-male, pro-women misandry, which has no factual basis at all:

"Women in business are more likely to succeed in getting grants than men are.  Lots of us have been brought up to be more careful about preparation.  Just think about school kids and homework: the girls tend to make the greater effort.  The good girl grounding is paying-off in more grants for women in business,  but even so, it is tougher than ever to get a business grant of any type."

Erica Watson pops up again with a piece on Feminomics -with her"short sharp Prezi turns the man-made economic crisis on its head.  How did macho values create the mess and what’s the feminomic alternative?"

That old feminist corker where there is no proof that the crisis is down to men - if they say the banking crash was a man made problem then the public sector deficits were a female made creation as it has led to the massive expansion in the public sector which is female dominated. Both are irrelevant and were nothing to do with gender.

When there are 1.5 million men and 1.1 unemployed women though - it is clear that Prowess 2.0 is a site prepared to make anti-male statements with no foundation - all in the name of equality and the sisterhood.

Posted by Skimmington 

HOW THE GOVERNMENT PURPOSELY IGNORES MEN IN THE NAME OF EQUALITY

If ever you wanted proof that the government does not believe equality applies to men, then please read the progress report from the governement on its prgoress on equality. It never mentions men in an overall sense once. Seriously, not once.

Even in key areas where it could have done - it chooses not to.

Early years, education and social mobility: Not a word on the underperformance (and here) of boys at school and the lack of male primary school teachers. Some welcome support for Afro-Caribbean boys is all there is.

Fair and Flexible Labour: No mention that men are more likely to be unemployed than women. All there is, is a list of barriers and discriminatory measures to stop men from being managers and entrepreneurs on a level playing field with women.

Changing Culture and attitudes: "We have also committed £28 million of funding for specialist VAWG services, a further £10.5 million over next three years for new rape support centres and £900,000 for domestic violence helplines until 2015." Hardly any of this to men (not that anyone wants money taken from women in this situation). Some recognition of gay men of course welcome.

It all proves once again, that the government does not believe equality applies to men.

Posted by Skimmington

WHO SHOULD BE THE NEXT CHAIR OF THE EQUALITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION?

Thanks to 'Groan' for sending this through as the Cabinet Office is advertising for the above position.

Obviously, there is a big hint as to what the gender of the person will be - "Accountable to the Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities."

This selection process will be worthy of Freedom of Information requests to get to the bottom of how they will eliminate men from the shortlist let alone from getting it.

But putting that aside, who do you think should apply?

Posted by Skimmington

EQUALITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION'S ASSESSMENT OF SPENDING REVIEW 2010 PROVES THEY BELIEVE EQUALITY DOES NOT INCLUDE MEN

We have all known it, but this time it is proven beyond doubt - the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (ECHR) does not believe equality means equality for men as well as for women.

Here is the proof.

Due to political pressure from a number of groups especially the Fawcett Society, the ECHR carried out a formal equality assessment of the government’s 2010 Spending Review. It says in its statement:

"Public bodies, such as HM Treasury, were legally obliged at the time of the Spending Review to demonstrate that they had fully considered the potential effects of their decisions on women, ethnic minorities and disabled people, and that any decisions with an effect on these groups could be justified."

That is not true.

Public bodies have to consider men and women when making their decisions. That is the law under the Equality Act.

Such is the knee-jerk sexism and nati0-male feeling at the Equalities and Human Rights Commission that they forget who the law applies to and feel they have no qualms about forgetting that men exist.

A classic case of sexism by ommission and institutional sexism.

This is why, although in theory the Equalities and Human Rights Commission should stand up for men and women - we know it institutionally opposes men. This is why it should be abolished because it is part of the anti-male institutional apparatus.

Perhaps, we should complain about to the Commission about its own sexism in this statement - which is in fact a breach of the very same Equalities Act that it is supposed to police.

Posted by Skimmington 

WHY DID SEXIST CANCER RESEARCH IGNORE PROTESTS FROM MEN BUT ACCEPTS PROTESTS FROM WOMEN

The wonderful news that Cancer Research UK has changed its rules to allow boys 11 and under take part in its Race for Life is a real victory for Claire Parker and a big thank you for her campaigning in making it happen (Derbyshire Times, Civil Society , Look North and previous coverage - Derbyshire Times).

There are a number of points to make.

The most significant issue is that John Taylor has been campaigning to allow men take part in the Race for Life for a decade. This was in response to his daughter who sadly died from cancer. Complaints to the organisation, complaint to Advertising Standards Authority and others such as the Fundraising Standards Board have gone unheeded. Even the sexist Equalities and Human Rights Commission ensured the Equality Act was modified allow it.

So nothing changes and then Claire launches her complaint and succeeds. Great. But what it does say is that Cancer Research and others were comfortable about dismissing the protests of a man but when it comes to a woman complaining about men (and boys) being banned they give in. What it shows is that not only that Cancer Research have been found to be guilty of sexism in terms of banning men (and still are sexist for banning men and boys aged over 11) they have also been found guilty of sexism because they ignored John Taylor's protests based solely on the fact that he is a man. If Claire Parker was Clive Parker, Cancer Research would not have crumbled.

Other points are of course is there is still the ban on men (and boys over 11) from taking part and Claire has already said she wants that overturned.

The advertising of course, which is everywhere and helped by Tesco's sponsorship, does not mention that men are banned. No mention on the home page of the website. If Cancer Research are comfortable that men are banned why not say it openly - why try and hide it - is it because they do not want to be so obvious about their sexism?

The comments made by Cancer Research UK about why they originally said to Claire that her son could not run was because women felt uncomfortable with young boys running with them is beyond laughable - it is like women do not have sons, brothers, husbands/boyfriends and fathers. Race organisers had told Claire that Connor couldn’t take part in the female-only event as some women felt “uncomfortable” when boys were allowed to join in the race last year. At the time, Claire blasted the “disgusting and discriminatory” move. The fact that Cancer Research UK felt OK to say women found it uncomfortable shows how easy it is to make such misandric lies up and think you can get away with it.

The last point is really that you would expect lots of media coverage on this considering it is a national event. Where is the coverage in the Guardian - or even on Mumsnet?

All in all, well done to Claire and also to John Taylor for a partial victory but we need complete victory because all we want is equality.

Posted by Skimmington