The Rights Of Man

SWIMMING DISCRIMINATION IN SALE (UPDATE) - CAN YOU HELP?

One of the most popular recent posts was the issue of the discrimination against men at Sale Leisure Centre.

The author of the post (Carl) recently added an update and in case it gets lost as issues come up thick and fast please see his message below. Can you help (post below)?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Guys, thanks for your posts to date.

I'm currently in the very early stages of requesting information from Trafford Leisure Trust with a view to taking legal action against them.

I will continue to view the site and hopefully garner help and advice from you all. At some stage, I will be looking to involve the national press (Daily Mail or The Express) in this.

I am looking for a ballsy solicitor to take me on with this. Anyone know who might be up for a fight that could end up on the 6 o'clock news in about 6 months time outside the High Court?

Surely there has to be a Solicitor out there who feels the way I do about this, and wants to use their skill in taking this Leisure Trust apart, bit by bit?

This could be a very sweet victory for true equality with the right brief in my corner.

I just need some quality help guys, but I'm a man of limited means.

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

UPDATE ON DEFEATING THE BAN ON MEN SWIMMING

One of the most popular posts recently was prompted by Mr C who had been barred from going to Sale Liesure Centre becuase he was a man.

John Wallace also faced the same situation and he has kindly sent in how he tackled the problem, which is available here Download Women Only Swimming Sessions.

Posted by Skimmington

SWIMMING DISCRIMINATION AT SALE LEISURE CENTRE

Just over a year ago the site highlighted how Leicester Council banned men from using a library one afternoon a week as it was women-only and Bristol Council did the same at a swimming baths.

Well one regular reader was barred from going to Sale Leisure Centre in Trafford Borough recently. On a Thursday morning, there is an hour set aside for women only as can be seen here. 

The reader has asked for the site to publish a request for help and of course we are happy to oblige (see end).  Help offered to be posted in the comments section please.

As well as helping the reader, what would be useful is if someone has the time (I know, who has?) could someone volunteer to undertake some Google research to find out how many other councils have these sorts of policies. If anyone wishes to undertake this project, can they contact me at [email protected] just so there is no duplication etc.

Posted by Skimmington

Update - See new post

Letter

I live in Trafford Borough in Cheshire and I really want to take my council to court over what I consider is either Sexist or Discriminatory practice against men.

 I was astonished and angered to discover that, when I turned up for my swim the other day at Sale Leisure Centre, that I was not allowed in because I was a man. The staff told me it was ladies only swimming. I protested to the manager and was subtly told that it was really meant to cater for Muslim woman because of their religious requirements. He said he sympathised with me but these decisions were made higher up the food chain by a committee.

I feel very passionately about discrimination towards men (and woman for that matter) and I would like to challenge my council in court over this issue. The problem is I don’t really know how to go about this challenge. Can you give me some information and advice or point me in another direction to seek advice and/or a very good solicitor/barrister who specialises in this area?

 Thanks for taking the time to read this,

 Mr C (white, lower to middle class, and yes, you’ve guessed it, MALE  L!)

 

MIRKO FISCHER IS A MEN'S EQUALITY HERO AS BRITISH AIRWAYS CONTINUES ITS SEXISM AGAINST MEN

Every year or so, someone has the balls to publicly take on the anti-male establishment that we all suffer under and Mirko Fischer is one such hero. Down the years we've had people like the late Brian Law and Ertin Pizzey and now we can add Mirko Fischer.

This web-site has covered for some time the sexist and dangerous policies carried out many airlines including British Airways, Qantas, Air New Zealand who designate that men cannot sit next to children if the child is not theirs and is not accompanied by a related adult. Not only is this sexist because it only applies to men but also dangerous and offensive because the airlines tacitly believe that every man is a likely paedophile. Even the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has been a victim of it (link).

When the story first broke in January (attracting 460 comments in a debate in the Daily Mail) you would have thought that British Airways would just put their hands up, pay up and change their policy.

They didn't and even though he has won, you would think they would now change (BBC).

But still no, so infested in society's psyche that men cannot be trusted (it is why there are so few male primary school teachers) British Airways only admitted discrimination in the case of Mirko Fischer rather than say their whole policy is wrong.

It means right now in a plane in the air, British Airways could be sexually discriminating against a man and tacitly accusing him of being a paedophile by asking him to move because he is sitting next to an unaccompanied child (it is not he who has chosen the seat of course).

It also show the endemic and casual sexism against men that largely goes unchallenged. This is the same causal institutional sexism that allows the Government to propose bringing forward male retirement age by 8 to 10 years but only a women's by 4 years (it has not given a date yet). 

The other point of course is the pathetic silence from organisations like the Equalities and Human Rights Commission who have said nothing on this case. The Commission is supposedly meant to be about supporting equality for men and women, so it should be writing to the Chief Executive of British Airways demanding that they end this policy. But there is nothing but silence but like British Airways, the Equality and Human Rights Commission does not believe in equality if it means equality for men.

Posted by Skimmington

EDUCATION ASIDE, BNP MANIFESTO OFFERS LITTLE IMPROVEMENT IN EQUALITY

Our fifth manifesto to review from an equality perspective is that of the British National Party.

By far the strongest aspect of the BNP manifesto in relation to equality is their education polices. They propose the reintroduction of sporting and academic competition and by reverting to a more traditional syllabus - policies which would perhaps start to close the gender education gap. There's a promise to rid schools of political correctness, which would at least rule out brainwashing kids with sexist messages about domestic violence.  There's also a promise to challenge gifted pupils, which is inline with Conservative policy. Finally, the strongest part of the policy concerns higher education with the party stating "politically correct degrees have also proliferated and while they may be of use to ‘equalities’ minded left-leaning councils, they are of little use to the productive economy". The BNP promise to withdraw subsidies for such degrees and even wish to see "ideological balance in university faculties" which would certainly put many of the bigoted women's studies professors under the microscope.

Another interesting aspect of the BNP manifesto is the fact they'll hold the media to account for publishing falsehoods and slandering people. This would be particularly useful with regards to the media coverage of dubious rape prosecutions or domestic violence allegations which prove to be false.  especially as such laws also promise a right of reply.

The BNP promises to close the council run diversity schemes, something likely to increase fairness. It would certainly be positive to see an end to the plethora of sexist "women-only schemes" such as ones relating to business especially as many are failing anyway. There's also a promise to close the Equality and Human Rights Commission. There's no doubt that this organisation has huge flaws at present, though I'd argue the BNP might be wrong here. Just because the organisation totally ignores large sections of the population doesn't mean they need shutting down. Why not just get rid of the worst staff and force the organisation to be fair, honest and non sexist in future? Either way it's at least a positive that the BNP have raised such concerns.

The BNP has some reasonable economic polices, they favoursfocusing on science, technology, engineering and manufacturing, sectors of the economy in decline under Labour. More jobs in such areas would help many of the real victims of the recession.

As with UKIP, the main downside of the BNP manifesto from the perspective of gender equality relates to crime and punishment. For example they seem to be rather fond of the government's DNA database stating "A person’s DNA is only added to that database when in police custody for a recordable offence", therefore suggesting they have little concern for false allegations and concepts such as innocent until proven guilty.

Whereas so many other manifestos have polices that are sexist towards men, the BNP actually take the opposite position and discriminate against women instead through their "married man's allowance". Don't' get me wrong , it's brilliant to encourage couples to stay together, but benefits need to be payable to husband and wife, rather than just one aprtner. Admittedly this isn't a sexist as some Conservative or Labour polices as the money ultimately will be shared between the two parties in most cases, but principles are important too, and despite the relative lack of harm, such a policy sends out completely the wrong message regarding fairness.

The BNP's response to family breakdown is actually very disappointing in other ways too. They seem to recognise some of the issues around the edges, for example noting on the section on economics that "a child may be better cared for at home than in a day-care centre". Similarly they note how the cost of legal services is too high and they do have policies to address the financial incentives for separation as discussed above. However, there's no mention of family law nor shared parenting. Such absences are  compounded by the length of the manifesto - it extends to some ninety pages, so it's not even as if they've been omitted just to keep things concise.

In conclusion we should certainly commend the BNP education polices. Some of their ideas for higher education in particular are hugely impressive and have a few decent ideas on local government issues and Quangos too. The party's offerings on the really key issues such as family breakdown really aren't at all impressive though, and if anything actually discriminate against women. I find this particularly disappointing given how the BNP supposedly prides itself on tackling the tough issues. The BNP is marketed as being different to the other parties and while there are glimpses of this, they're actually very similar to the likes of Labour, both in their ignorance of many issues and in their tendency to pick on particular groups.

John Kimble

PICTURES SHOW THE HYPOCRISY OF ALL-WOMEN SHORTLISTS AND POSITIVE ACTION

Over the past fifteen years, there have been continual complaints from the political establishment about the lack of female MP's. The Labour Party brought in all-women shortlists for parliamentary seats in 1997 (which were ruled as being illegal until they changed the law) and as shown earlier this month, they have used them in 58 seats at this election.

The Conservatives have used A-Lists deliberately full of female candidates at the exclusion of equally qualified male candidates and also used other gender quota tactics to make it harder for men to compete on equal terms as a women. Cameron even hinted at using all-women shortlists but as his tactics were working anyway he didn't need to bother

This has all been supported by the Government, the Fawcett Society, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and even resulted in a Speaker's Conference (a rarely used tool such is the supremacy of the anti-male movement) on the subject wanting to put even more barriers up against allowing men to stand for parliament for a main party thereby disenfranchising them from the political process.

But wait a minute, how we can take many female candidates seriously when they pose for these pictures(Conservative and all parties) - Cameron's Cuties, Brown's Babes, and Clegg's clothes horses.

These female candidates cannot have their cake and eat it. They cannot along with their sisters in the Fawcett Society, Women 2 Win, the Equalities Commission et al go around saying women are discriminated against, they are not treated seriously and do not receive the same credibility as male candidates when they pose for pictures like these. Many of these candidates have benefitted from all-women shortlists, A lIsts and gender quotas all demanding equality (except if you are a man) and then pose like Barbie doll's.

Such is the hypocrisy, one can only feel for those men who have been shut out of the political process by Labour and the Conservatives.

Posted by Skimmington

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

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.