The Rights Of Man

DMAX SURVEY SHOWS THAT MEN HAVE TO LIVE BY FEMINIST RULES

According to a survey by new TV channel DMAX, 52% of men believe they have to live by women's rules and according to the report in the Daily Telegraph (link) today:-

Men say they "feel handcuffed" by political correctness - only 33 per cent feel they can speak freely and say what they think, whereas two thirds find it safer and easier to keep their opinions to themselves.

The survey also found that 82% of men felt they have lost their traditional male role in society, with 84% of women in agreement. More than half of all men said they felt undervalued,

With 52% feeling they have to live by women's rules yet only 10% of men and 14% of women agreed that women do not respect men today, there seems to be a clear dichotomy.

What the dichotomy shows is that that men feel they are second best but that is not at the hands of normal women.

They feel that they are handcuffed by political correctness and have to follow women's rules because they are at the mercy of the constant anti-male battering perpetrated by the political class (government, local authorities, media, political parties and anti-male pressure groups like the Fawcett Society and the Commission for Equality and Human Rights - formerly the Equal Opportunities Commission).

This battering of masculinity and male-ness is exactly what the political class of feminist fundamentalists want and as the research shows, they are winning.

That is why the men's rights movement is vital.

The story is also covered:- (link) and  (link- 3rd story down).

EVEN THE 2008 NEW YEAR'S HONOURS LIST IS POLITICALLY CORRECT

Looking through the New Year's Honours List web-site (link), it was bemusing to see that when the Cabinet Office listed the percentages of people who received Honours, they published this fact:-

There are 378 successful women candidates in the list, including 6 Dames, 32 Cubes and 4 CBS. This represents 39% of the total, the same as the last List but still higher than the historic norm.

It is surely irrelevant, in this allegedly world of equal opportunities, what the gender breakdown of those Honoured are. It should go to those who deserve an Honour and that should be all that counts.

As the Government is monitoring and publishing a gender breakdown, it means they are likely to have targets and these targets would be based on increasing the number of women who receive Honours. If the Government felt gender was irrelevant, they would not be monitoring it.

In the PC world that this Government inhabits, which is resolutely anti-equality, it is likely that some women may have been given an Honour whilst some men who were more deserving did not. This would have been done to boost the numbers of women receiving an Honour. It is a cynical point of view but the Government's record suggest it is a realistic one.

LOTHIANS COUNCIL ANTI-MALE PRACTICES THWARTED

Double-standards being applied to men and not women has been a recurring theme of this site in the past year. It has always been a clear example of the extra rights afforded to women over men, often perpetrated by those organisations (the government, council's etc) that claim they believe in equal opportunities.

A good example was shown by Lothians Council in Scotland who when having to give 300 female employees £1,800 compensation initially refused to give the compensation to 50 male employees who do the same job. They claimed they did not have to because they were men and that legally they were not entitled to the compensation. It would have meant that male staff would be paid less for doing the same job as a woman.

The story was revealed by Scotland's Evening News  which stated:-

'Around 3000 women are being offered average pay-outs of £1800 after they won the sexual discrimination battle. They successfully argued they had been unfairly treated because men in similar grade jobs, such as binmen and road repair crews, had been paid more.

The pay-outs are designed to compensate them for years of missing out on bonuses paid to the bin and road crews. But around 40 to 50 male cleaners have been told they will not get the same payments. Their claims are likely to cost the council less than £100,000 to settle.'

After the story was revealed, there was rightly uproar and the trade union, UNISON, threatened the council with taking them to court. Lothians MSP George Foulkes described the situation as "outrageous" and lodged a motion in the Scottish Parliament, demanding the council treat all staff equally. He placed a motion which stated '"The City of Edinburgh Council should abide by the spirit of the Sexual Discrimination Act and ensure that equal pay means equal regardless of gender."

The council in the end relented. The unfolding story can be found at these links (link), (link) and (link).

What lies behind this shameful act is that firstly the council and those running it (Lib Dem / SNP)thought that because it affected male pay, then it didn't matter and that they could get away with it. In their politically correct pecking order, equal pay does not apply to men.

It is the thought process that shows this double-standard though because if it related to women, the council would never ever had thought about not applying the equal pay principle. The council still did not sorry to those men and only grudgingly accepted defeat. They were still talking about legal loopholes. Unbelievable, or is it?

ALL-WOMEN SHORTLISTS - MEN ARE POLITICALLY DISENFRANCHISED IN 26 SEATS AT THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION

One of the least explored and ignored areas of male discrimination in the past 12 years has been the introduction of all-women shortlists for Parliamentary seats which has lead to the political disenfranchisement of men by the Labour Party.

By operating all-women shortlists in large numbers of seats, they are denying men the opportunity to stand for Parliament and becoming MP's in key seats up and down the UK. It is a clear denial of the political franchise and many men who wish to represent their community in Parliament are stopped from doing so, on the sole basis of their gender.

This blatant form of sexual discrimination is unacceptable in a modern democracy but this can never get in the away of the "higher principle" of political correctness and feminist fundamentalism. Under these ideologies, individual identity is ignored whilst group victim status is placed as a higher virtue and as we know women's rights are top of the pile, whilst men are at the bottom.

The outcome is that 49% of people who happen to be men are denied the political franchise solely because of their gender. If it was a small unknown political party, it would still be an issue, but because it is the biggest party (in terms of MP's) in the UK, this sexual discrimination is completely against all known norms of equality and equal opportunity.

Often, the feminist fundamentalist groups like The Fawcett Society, The Commission of Equality and Human Rights (under its former guise as the Equal Opportunities Commission), The Women and Equalities Unit and others complain that more women need to be MP's.

To achieve this they loudly and proudly declare that they want all women shortlists and want to discriminate against individual men. This site is agnostic on this as MP's should be chosen on the basis of talent alone and their gender is secondary. A grown up democracy that is not overrun by political correctness would accept this but these organisations are not made up of democrats, they are single-issue pressure groups dedicated to the advancement of women over men. They do not believe in equality.

Historically fewer women in the UK are MP's and this is not because of sexual discrimination but because fewer women have wanted to be MP's than men. Instead of dealing with this supply issue and finding ways to encourage women to be MP's, these pressure groups take the easier politically correct discriminatory option and make seats all-women only.

This stops Labour supporting men, especially those involved in their local community like councillors (many of whom are trusted with actually being Council Leaders or council cabinet members), from even putting their names forward. This is solely because of their gender, a clear and unequivocal act of sexual discrimination. It cannot be disputed.

So desperate have Labour's politically correct army to enforce these all women-shortlists, they had to bring in a law The Sexual Discrimination (Election candidates) Act (2002) (link) that effectively gave political parties an opt-out from the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act. This law was introduced because of a legal challenge (via an employment tribunal) under the SDA (1975) brought by some Labour men in the late 90's. So all-women shortlists are now legal but of course all that has occurred is that this form of sexual discrimination has been legalised and used hand over fist to disenfranchise men.

Under the well-known 'Law of Unintended Consequences', there has been some fallout. Peter Law, a long serving Labour man and council leader was denied the opportunity in 2005 to stand for his local seat (Blaneau Gwent) because Labour wanted an all-women short-list. He rebelled and stood as an independent, winning handsomely. He unfortunately died in 2006. This great stand makes him a hero of the men's rights movement but this has largely gone unsung, especially as the media (BBC etc) did not really cover the issue in any great detail. They purposely wanted to hide the heroic stand that he made.

In addition, many in the Labour Party have complained that the party needs more people from a black and ethnic background (BME) to become MP's, yet all women-shortlists, often in BME areas, has meant that BME men have not been allowed to stand either.

Ambitious Labour men cannot complain aloud about it because they will simply be told to shut up, go away and be stripped of any chance of standing for Parliament in the future.

In addition to the political disenfranchisement issue, it has also lead to large swathes of Labour MP's whose sole qualification for being in the House of Commons is because they were a women, not because of their talent, experience or skill. This is because they only became MP's because 49% of the population were not allowed to compete against them for the seat. They are second class MP's who have their seats because of political correctness and sexual discrimination. Some are now Ministers and a link to those elected to Parliament from all-women shortlists are here (list).

The list below shows the seats that have used all-women shortlists so far in preparedness for the next General Election in either 2009 or 2010. The message is clear to all men who have a vote in these seats:

Do not vote Labour because they stopped you and your fellow men from having the chance to represent your local community in Parliament solely down to the fact that you are a man.

Labour have selected their candidate from an all-women shortlist in the following Parliamentary constituencies:-

• Brighton Pavillion
• Burton
• Camborne & Redruth
• Cardiff Central
• East Dunbartonshire
• Gravesham
• Hackney South
• Hemel Hempstead
• Hornsey & Wood Green
• Ilford North
• Kenilworth & Southam
• Leeds North West
• Leeds West
• Manchester Withington
• Nottingham South
• Nuneaton
• Reading East
• Rochester & Strood
• Scarborough & Whitby
• Selby & Ainsty
• Sunderland Central
• Walthamstow
• Washington & Sunderland West
• Wellingborough
• West Ham
• The Wrekin

MEN - MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT

PROSTATE CANCER : LABOUR GOVERNMENT'S BETRAYAL CONDEMNS MEN TO DEATH

As reported in the Sunday Telegraph on 17th December 2007, "a life saving treatment will be denied to tens of thousands of victims of Britain's most common male cancer after a U-Turn by the NHS rationing body."

NICE (laughably called the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence) is a government quango which rations health treatment in England and Wales and decides what treatment the NHS can deliver. This though is a great lie as it rations health care and recently and rightfully there was uproar when it tried to restrict the breast cancer drug Herceptin.

This time it originally recommended that an ultrasound technique (HIFU) should be free on the NHS for prostate cancer victims as it is non-invasive and kills nine out of ten prostate tumours. The one-off cost is £13,000 whilst Herceptin is about £26,000.

NICE, according to The Sunday Telegraph, have decided to reverse this decision in an announcement due in February which means that many of the 10,000 men who lives are lost through prostate cancer each year will be denied the treatment that would save them.

The Sunday Telegraph story and debate is here (link) and a link to an article by Professor Roger Kirby, the Chairman of the charity Prostate UK is here (link).

What is frightening is the fact it shows how cheap the Government feels mens lives are and that they are not prepared, despite all the extra taxes, to pay for this treatment. If, as some commentators have said, it was women's lives at stake, the money would be found because of the outcry. But women's lives are at stake because men who die of prostate cancer are also husbands, fathers and brothers of women.

The only logical conclusion is that men are disposable and dispensable under this Labour Government and they are condemning many to die if this is unfunded.

Now, more than ever, we need a Minister for Men who will champion this issue.

We need a Government that supports all sexes, not one that purposely ignores men.

BRUCE HYMAN CASE : FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES

After reading the latest Familes Need Fathers magazine (McKenzie) I was amazed to read about Bruce Hyman's character witnesses in the infamous story of how he was jailed for perverting the court of justice in his attempt to frame a man fighting for access to his children (link).

One of the character witnesses was Sir Mark Potter - President of the Family Division of the High Court. He is in charge of the family courts. 

What chance have men got when the man in charge of fmaily courts is prepared to be a character witness for someone who was trying to corrupt a family court and smear a father?. 

MINISTER FOR MEN PETITION : DISMISSIVE RESPONSE FROM THE GOVERNMENT

There has been a government e-petition calling for a Minister For Men (link). It received over 380 signatories. The petition is set out below and the site has been alerted to the government's response. It is, as to be expected from this government which puts ignoring men at the centre of its policies, completely and arrogantly dismissive. It doesn't even answer the question why there is a Minister for Women and not one for Men.

In this era of single parents, divorce and blended families, the role and reputation of a man has been diluted to a point where he is severely discriminated against in almost all arenas.

I call on the Prime Minister to show true equality to men by creating a Minister for Men to reflect balance in Parliament as Ruth Kelly is currently the Minister for Women.

Government response

Thank you for your e-petition about the creation of a Minister for Men. Though the Government recognises that there are areas where men face disadvantage or discrimination, a glance at the income and poverty figures will show that, overall, inequality in our society affects women to a far greater extent than men.
That is why the Government appointed a Cabinet Level Minister for Women in 1997 whose remit was, and is, to promote equality of opportunity in our society. The current holder of this office is Harriet Harman QC, MP and she is supported by Barbara Follett MP.

Despite the passing of the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination legislation over 30 years ago, and other improvements since 1997, women in Britain still experience significant disadvantage in our society. For example:

• Women account for over half of the United Kingdom's population, but only make up 19% of MPs and 29% of local councillors.
• Black, Asian and Ethnic minority women account for 8% of the UK's female population but make up less than 1% of local councillors.
• Only 10.3% of the directors in the boardrooms of the top 100 FTSE companies are female;
• The gap between the pay of male and female workers is currently 12.6% for full time and a staggering 40% for part-timers.
• Women are the main victims of domestic violence in the UK and 83 of them are killed by their partners or ex-partners in 2005.
• Women still shoulder the lion's share of caring for the old and the young and 90.5% of lone parents are female.

However, the Government recognises that men do want to spend more time with their families and this is reflected in the action we have taken to improve work life balance. That is why, in 2003, we introduced the right to request flexible working for all parents with children of under six years old or with disabled children of under eighteen years old. In April this year this right was extended to include people who care for adults.

Our Government is determined to fight discrimination and ensure everybody in Britain can make the most of their talents regardless of their gender, race, sexuality, age, faith or disability and we are committed to tackling these inequalities to create our vision of a fairer society and the role of Minister for Women is crucial in delivering our aims.

The Government have established the new Equality and Human Rights Commission which will champion equality, diversity, and human rights as defining values of our society, encouraging all our institutions to operate for the benefit of every individual.

Harriet Harman will be working across Government with Ministerial colleagues to ensure that we deliver on this ambitious agenda.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS WEEK 2007 PROVES INSTITUTIONALISED SEXISM : NO SUPPORT FOR MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Over the past two weeks, this site has been collecting on-line stories coming from the 2007 domestic violence awareness week. I would also thank those from Mensaid (link) for sending over information.

What has been instructive is that with all of the pledges, promises and comments from politicians and the state, there has been nothing for men. Not a comment, not a grant, not anything.

The reason that this is proof of institutionalised sexism is the fact the Home Office itself recognises that 1 in 6 men will be a domestic violence victim in their lifetime (1 in 4 women) and that at least 1 in every 3 acts of domestic violence is against a man. Yet, they, other politicians and the state in general choose intentionally to turn a blind eye to helping these victims. They know it happens but choose do nothing about it.

Below are a selection of comments and pledges with the links to the relevant pages to prove the point.

Home Office Press Release

The Home Secretary has called on men everywhere to make a personal pledge never to commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women. (link)

Nothing about violence against men.

GMTV : Crisis centre shortage

Victims of domestic violence are being subjected to a postcode lottery. Victims of rape and domestic violence have no crisis centres or refuges to go to in some parts of Britain, according to a report published today. The Commission's chair, Trevor Phillips, said the organisation may take legal action in a year's time under gender equality legislation to ensure women have access to services. (link)

No mention from Mr Phillips about any legal action to ensure men have access to services, especially as practically none exist anywhere in the UK.

Peterborough Today - White Ribbon Day

The White Ribbon campaign aims to get men to stand up for women, and help to stop abuse in the home. Jemma Walton reports.

Men attacking the women they live with isn't the woman's problem. It's our problem. (link).

So the 1 in 6 men who will be domestic violence victims in their lifetime is not a problem?

£40 million in Scotland to tackle domestic violence.

Scotland's Children's minister Adam Ingram has outlined £40 million of proposals to tackle domestic abuse and violence against women.(link)

Nothing for male victims in Scotland

Other stories ignoring male victims include campaigns fronted by footballers can be found here: (link) and (link).

GOVERNMENT DENIES PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING - A SINISTER SIGN OF THIS GOVERNMENT'S INSTITUTIONALISED SEXISM

When any decent history books look back on this government-in-meltdown, they may well want to look at the institutionalised sexism that infests it.

Whether it is the Minister for Women (no Minister for Men), a widening gap in boy's education results or the wilful neglect of male domestic violence victims, nothing is as sinister as the government's decision this week not to invest in prostate cancer screening.

To much brouhaha, the government announced this week a five-year Cancer Reform Strategy which sets out a blueprint for cancer services in England for the next five years, £370 million of extra funds will be invested by 2010 on top of the present annual spending of £4.35 billion. This includes extending screening for women at risk of breast cancer, which of course is good news.

What was missed was the the Department of Health have ruled out a prostate cancer screening programme stating that there is not enough proof that it would be effective. This despite the fact 10,000 of the 35,000 men who contract it die.

As stated in the Daily Mail, The Prostate Cancer Charity attacked ministers for not funding trials of new tests to spot the cancer.

As ever, men are pushed to bottom of the pile. The extension of breast cancer screening is welcome and appeals to women (and their male partners) voters more than announcing a fight against prostate cancer, which is one way of cynically looking at it.

However, this isn't a matter of playing politics, it is matter of life and death and this government do not seemed interested in the lives of men. This is institutional sexism.

NOBEL PRIZE WINNER DORIS LESSING SAYS LAY OFF MEN

This week, I was sent an intriguing article published in The Guardian in 2001 from Doris Lessing who won the nobel prize for literature this year.

The article entitled -   Lay Off Men, Lessing Tells Feminists can be found here (link).