The Rights Of Man

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.

SIGN THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT DOMESTIC ABUSE PETITION CALLING FOR EQUAL TREATMENT FOR SCOTTISH MEN

Two Scottish women, Alison Waugh and Jackie Walls, have put down a petition in the Scottish Parliament calling for:-

 "Scottish Government to ensure that all publicly funded action (campaigns, publications, action plans, projects, training programmes, etc.) on domestic abuse/violence are overhauled to fully acknowledge the extent to which men are at the receiving end and to address the needs of male victims and their children."

Please sign and please send to anyone you know from Scotland to sign.

This is crucial given the fact that the Scottish Government's latest figures show a clear need for support for male victims of domestic abuse and domestic violence in Scotland

In addition, there is also a new web-site called Men in Scotland on the issue.

EQUALITIES COMMISSION HAS NO SHAME IN LOBBYING GOVERNMENT ON 'EQUALITIES' BILL

Looking back in a few years time when people question why men have been marginalised in the workforce, then they would be best to look at the who was pushing the Equalities Bill (still wending its way through Parliament) and why they were doing it.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission, a public sector body paid wholly by us taxpayers, has been putting its full weight behind the Bill. This page shows how deep and often their lobbying has been. Rather than let the Government and others do its bidding and arguing, it unashamedly uses taxpayers money to lobby the Government when it is already part of the Government.

As set out before, this Bill is the most dangerous Act of Parliament ever passed because it simply will be used either covertly or overtly to discriminate against men. It is the intention behind the BIll.

Editors Note- The Daily Telegraph reports that Bill will only affect a few companies regarding the gender pay gap. In the long run though, once the inch has been taken the mile seems a whole lot nearer.

Hattip: Groan

FEMALE PERPETRATORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ARE NOT TREATED THE SAME AS MALE PERPETRATORS AS PATHETIC SENTENCING THIS WEEK SHOWS

Three stories this week have shown the sexist hypocrisy of the Government and other organisations (Equalities & Human Rights Commission, Fawcett Society et al) who deny there are significant numbers of male victims of domestic violence to be bothered doing anything to practically help or ensure they accept that victims are from both genders are supported. Never more so was this highlighted by the recent announcements on a strategy to End Violence Against Women and Girls, but not against men and boys. That's OK.

These issues also highlight the pathetic sentencing of women for cruel acts of domestic violence against men when if it was men carrying out the violence they rightly would have been sentenced for a lot longer. An issue raised on this site many a time.

The reason why this is important is that this week we have seen stories on:-

Thomas Cresswell's family receiving an apology from Jack Straw about the leniency showed to his killer Jane Andrews where she was allowed to be in an open prison such a short time (eight years) of a life sentence.

Terry Smith's attacker Alison Newman was sentenced to a sickenly bad two years (one in prison, one with a tag) for butchering him with a knife for five and a half hours. The judge states that she suffered from battered wife's syndrome (of which he denies) so was lenient but there is no evidence here that this was the case. Certainly nothing to say Terry Smith had been charged with it or been spoken to by the police. Look like the female judge took it at face value (coverage in Shields Gazette and Sunday Sun) and of course, will be used as a cause celebre for the disbelievers who think women cannot be violent. I would suggest the judgement is political because unless there is evidence, it cannot be said to be true.

Peter Hale's attacker, his wife Joanne Hale, got an abject six years for slitting his throat and stabbing him in the heart (coverage in The Sun, Telegraph and BBC).

These poor sentences are due to a number of factors.

Firstly, the judiciary as with all political parties, the establishment and multi-million pound domestic violence industry do not view or treat male victims of domestic violence in the same way as female victims. They know they cannot get away with such sentences if female were the victims, there would be one hell of backlash. They think male victims do not count.

Secondly, they can get away with passing such pathetic sentences because those mentioned above do not believe females can be this violent.

Lastly, because of three decades of social conditioning that only females can be victims of domestic violence, these sentences can be passed without comment by the media and others on how pathetic they are.

Update - Another article in Evening Chronicle shows that the judge is making it up when she says Newman was a battered women. No evidence. Read the comment from Terry3 on the newspaper's comments section. I would suggest that Terry Smith has probably been defamed by the judge.

Hattip - John Kimble

EQUALITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THE GENDER EQUALITY DUTY MEANS SO HOW CAN IT SERIOUSLY POLICE ITS COMPLIANCE?

Back in February, this site covered the Equalities and Human Rights Commission's Map of Gaps exercise which looked at whether local councils were providing services for women at risk of domestic and sexual violence.

The point was made that they were not producing a Map of Gaps exericse for male victims of domestic violence, a point picked up subsequently by the ManKind Initiative who were given short shrift by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission when they asked for this to happen.

Last week, the Commission issued compliance notices against three councils for not having a Gender Equality Duty plus 14 who were likely to be in breach of the Gender Equality Duty for not providing services for female victims of violence and a further 56 for possible breaches. Still nothing on whether councils are breaching the Gender Equality Duty failing to support male victims.

What is more sinister is how the Equalities and Human Rights Commission does not even understand (or pretends not to understand) how the Gender Equality Duty works and how it is to be applied even though under the Sex Discrimination Act it is the quasi-legal authority responsible for policing it. 

The Gender Equality means that all statutory authorities (police, councils, NHS, Government etc) have to ensure they meets the needs of both men and women within their communities. Each authority has to ensure that it "properly investigates, develops plans and delivers services for both genders." It is why the ManKind Initiative I presume complained about the lack of support for male victims of domestic violence.

However, read through the press release (link in paragraph three) again. 

It only mentions that the Gender Equality Duty means councils have to provide services for female victims of violence, when they have a duty for men as well.

Saving the worst to last, under Notes to Editors it says

"...this includes publishing a Gender Equality Scheme by April 2007, gathering information and consulting on the gender equality needs of their community and developing a plan for implementing services specifically for women."

This is not true, it also applies to servcies for men as well.

It is clear that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission does not know what the Gender Equality Duty means even though it is meant to police compliance with it.

Or the most likely reason is that it full well knows what it means but is not interested in ensuring it also applies to men and is not interesting in policing it when there are breaches in the Duty when it is relating to men.

It is almost Stalinist, as if they are trying to re-write the Duty and expunge any mention that it applies to both genders. Even to the extent that the so-called Director of Legal Enforcement puts her name to a press notice that is not telling the media and the public the truth about the remit of the Duty.

It says all you need to know about how equal the Equalities and Human Rights Commission is.

 

EQUALITY BILL (ACT) - GOVERNMENT SHOWS CLEARLY IT WILL DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MEN

The Equality Bill (previous posts 1, 2 , 3 and 4) is the most dangerous anti-male Act (when it is passed) ever to pass through Parliament. It was unmasked this week by the Conservatives (Hansard - Column 1123) for its anti-male intent.

Just to recap, the Equality Bill introduces the concept that where two candidates for a position are equally qualified, the employer can choose one person over another if they feel it will improve the diversity of their workforce (The Equalities Commission pathetically try to justify it by using the one area - male primary school teachers - where men could benefit. An obvious ruse to try and hide its anti-male intent).

The problems arise with regard to the definition of equal in the Bill and also how this will be used, as it will inevitably be, to stop men from being promoted or taken on if there are  'too many ' men in the workplace already. Although it can only be used if the man and women were equal, such is the pressure to employ more women in senior positions and the like, this threshold will not be used. If a man is better than the woman (qualifications, better interviewee etc ) but there are few women in an organisation then it is likely she will be employed.

Employers will be under pressure especially if they report a gender pay gap (not a real one where men and women doing the same job get paid differently, the alleged one where there is a difference between men and women's pay but because they are doing different jobs in a company) across the organisation. The law gives a nod and wink to it and it will lead to discrimination as men are denied a position on merit. It is sexist in intent and implementation. 

The Conservatives raised crucial concerns in Parliament about the specific wording in the clause on this issue. The clause says "as qualified" but the Conservatives want "equally qualified". As John Penrose MP, the Conservative leading on this issue states, the former leads to an interpretation of "positive discrimination" and the latter "positive action". We could debate for hours on whether there is a difference in reality but positive discrimination certainly means allowing less able people to jump ahead of more able people because of their gender.

The issue with "as qualified" as John Penrose highlights is that if two people meet a minimum threshold then the discrimination can take place, but if they are equally qualified then it means they have to be as good as each other exactly.

For example, two engineers have the same minimum qualifications (they have the same bits of paper) but the man has 15 years experience and the female 5 years. Under the Labour proposal (and other things being equal such as interview performance) company x could use the Equality Act to give her the job but under the Conservative proposal they could not because the man has more experience.

It is all technical but it is crucial and Penrose did an excellent job in explaining it.

However, Attorney General Vera Baird MP (a pal of Harman's) refused to budge and the Conservative amendment was rejected.

The issue though is that the Conservative amendment was completely reasonable and in keeping with the ethos of the Bill (the Bill is anti-male but if it is going to be passed it was better that the Conservative amendment was included thereby making it clear what the law is and making it easier for a man to sue an employer for discrimination when being overlooked for a position because he is a man).

The fact that the Labour Government with Harman and Baird in full anti-male mode meant this amendment was turned down and shows their real intent. They want to discriminate against men in the workplace, it was always their intention. They want to make it harder for men to make a living. It is sexist and will deliberately damage the life and employment chances of men for decades and decades to come.

Newspaper coverage - Daily Mail (plus 189 comments in the debate) and Daily Telegraph.

ONLY ANTI-MALE FEMINISTS CAN OPPOSE MALE GROUPS AND SOCIETIES AT UNIVERSITY

The biggest and widest breeding ground for the anti-male feminism that drives UK public policy is our universities. They always have been the intellectual heartbeat of the country and many who are indoctrinated at university go on to dominate both politics and the civil service/public sector. Often there is an incubation period, where they join the public sector and then have to wait to rise to gain power.

Over the past 30 years or so, the plethora of women's officers, women's societies and other such organisations have been the norm at every student union. This means that even where there is a university that does have a gender studies department there is a ready and able place to stir up anti-male feeling on every campus.

The reason for raising this is the recent debate has been the small growth of men's societies on some campuses. The papers covered this week that both Oxford and Manchester universities have inaugurated such societies though others have or have had them. Ben Wild who set up MENS in Manchester has an excellent article in the Guardian (comments worth reading as well). These are a welcome antidote especially as many members are actually women, you know, the one that actually like men, appreciate their role in society and their life, those who may have brothers and certainly have fathers and certainly do not agree with the nonsense spouted by the anti-male feminists. 

There are others mens groups on campus. Kent University has one or certainly had one - an attempt to abolish was made here - see page 9) as does Hull University, Lampeter, De Montford, Southampton and I think the University of London.

Of course, this is all good news and if there is to be equality then if there is a women's officer then there should be a men's officer.

What has been astounding, but of course, not at all surprising has been the usual backlash. The National Union of Students (a body meant to represent all students including men) does not have a men's officer and Olivia Bailey, NUS national women's officer, said in the Guardian: "Discrimination against men on the basis of gender is so unusual as to be non-existent, so what exactly will a men's society do? To suggest that men need a specific space to be 'men' is ludicrous, when everywhere you turn you will find male-dominated spaces," she added. What planet??

Rumour has it that the Fawcett Society and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission are involved in a recruitment tug-of-war to employ her because she is so on-message for those two organisations.

What is so sickening is the fact that the NUS and Ms Olivia Bailey are so anti-male, they even publish a document called "I will win the arguments". The documents sets out the themes to be used to secure women's representatives on campus student unions and openly admits what should be said to stop men's representatives from being established. Just reading this scandalous document you can taste the anti-male vitriol.

It should be dismissed as the absurd but in today's anti-male Britain this document will be circulated to all student unions plus their women's officers so that everything can be done to stop men's officers and men's societies from being established.

This author and anyone who uses its argument does not believes in equality - they are anti-male feminists and they will be all working in senior positions in the public sector within a decade. Let no one be fooled.

Other good articles - one great from Jenni Murray (Daily Mail), one recent and one old

GOVERNMENT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INITIATIVE PURPOSELY IGNORES MALE VICTIMS

The sickest irony of the Government's initiatives (including a ready reckoner, more to come in a later post) announced this week (entitled the Together We Can End Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy) is that it came in the same week as Jane Andrews who horrifically murdered her boyfriend had absconded briefly, a female teacher is jailed for having sex with a pupil and the Scotsman reported an increase in male victims in Scotland. 

What is clear (as if we did not know anyway) is that the Government is purposely and wilfully ignoring male victims. They do not even try to hide it as they have made it clear that the initiatives such as bringing education on domestic violence into schools is only to end domestic violence against women and girls not against men and boys as well. So men get told not to hit women, rightly so, but girls are not told to not to hit men. That is the true meaning of equality in the UK.

The deliberate decision to only use the "1 in 4 women will be a victim in their lifetime" figure and "two women per fortnight are murdered by a partner and or ex-partner" figure whilst ignoring the male figures of 1 in 6 men and two men per fortnight is shameful when the figures are from the same research. Sexism by omission.

Also, because so many people keep complaining to the BBC that when they publicise a DV story they only talk about it from a female victim perspective, Bill Turnbull, a presenter on BBC Breakfast, asked the Government Minister Alan Campbell MP about men on Wednesday. Attorney General Vera Baird repeats this on Women's Hour.

He asked him "Why does this initiative not include men because whenever we run a story like this, if men are not included, we get lots of complaints.". The Minister pathetically said "we decided that our priority was just on Women and Girls". Turnbull pushed him and Campbell basically said that as there were more female victims, this is where the priority was. Shameful, truly shameful and truly sexist.

If you are a male victim of domestic violence, this Government has made it clear, it does not care about you.

CALLING ALL DISCRIMINATED MEN - RESPOND TO THE EQUALITIES COMMISSION CONSULTATION

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission, one of the many organisations that says it believes in equality so long as that does not include men, is calling for evidence in its triennial review.

Not only can you fill in a questionnaire, there is the opportunity to have a face to face conversation with the Commission.

I would urge any readers to reply, I may just send them the link to this web-site...

MEDIA RAISE THE ISSUE OF WHO IS THE SECOND SEX AND CHALLENGE STEREOTYPES ON ABUSE

The media blow hot and cold on male issues but whenever they are raised they are most welcome. It is always a pity that no politicians, beyond Iain Duncan Smith MP who has raised the issue of boys education, fatherlessness and gangs, seem to care about the plight of men and boys in society.

Two articles have appeared in the past few days raising some fundamental questions and also challenging stereotypes.

The first was written by Eleanor Mills in The Times which in a wide ranging and thorough article which looks at whether men have become the Second Sex, a term used on this site to describe the situation men now face (here). Of course, there should be no first or second when it comes to gender as we are human first, last and always, but it is a useful term to show how far men are discriminated against in the UK.

The second is really shocking and was in yesterday's Daily Mail, written by Barbara Davies. It tells the story of a man who as a boy was abused by his foster mother. It is based around the Childline figures which showed that boys were more likely to be abused by a woman than a man, which goes against all known stereotypes and societal knee-jerk thinking.

These two articles both highlight the plight of men, an issue which has been hidden away for too long. It is welcome that the British media in some quarters publish them. If only politicians, members of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the Fawcett Society and others would take notice of them.