The Rights Of Man

TORIES TO DENY MEN NINE BILLION POUNDS IN PENSIONS

Part three of our review of manifestos for the election takes a look at the Conservative's offerings.

By far the most concerning item in the manifesto is the Conservative policy on state pensions. At present men have to work five years longer than women to get a pennons despite the fact that they've put in more hours at work on average and thus contributed far more in taxes on average. On top of this, male life expectancy is rather poor in the UK (a fact which even the manifesto even touches on) and as a result your average woman can expect to receive some £81,000 in pension payments in her life, compared with £55,000 for a man.

Such is the unfairness of this situation we even have excellent groups such as PARITY campaigning for pension's equality and even Labour finally agreed to end this sexism one day far into the future. So what's the Conservative policy here? Are they going to equalise retirements ages as soon as possible and live up to their promise of "change"? Well actually, the manifesto promises change, but change that makes the problem even worse! They propose raising the retirement age to 66 in 2016, but only for men. Women will continue to be able to retire at 60 right up until 2020. Thus we'll have a six year difference in retirement ages instead of the present five and £49,000 paid to men compared to £81,000 for women. By my calculations the total sum the Tories will be denying men over the four years is a staggering nine billion pounds. Further still, David Cameron suggests the money is going directly to women so that they all get a full pension, I don't think I've ever seen a more sexist idea.

Obviously such a policy instantly rules anyone interested in equality out of voting for the Tories, which is perhaps a shame given that its proposals do contain a few positives. The first thing of note is the more incisive language used in the document. There's no sexist terminology anywhere to be found. For example the two party manifestos I've reviewed so far focus on the trafficking of women for sex, whereas Conservatives address "people trafficking" which is far more appropriate given forced labour is a massively larger problem. As most people know, the issue of women trafficked for purposes of prostitution has been blown out of all proportion by Labour.

The Conservative's plans in eduction also appear quite reasonable from an equality perspective. They recognise how broken and the current system is, not to mention how devalued qualifications have now become and appreciate the need to focus on core subjects such a maths and science. They also promise more challenging activities for especially gifted pupils, as well as help fro the least able. The Conservative perhaps don't' realise but this is in fact a gender, given that boys dominate both extremes of the intelligence spectrum. More significantly, they specifically mention the issue of false allegations against teachers and promise to protect staff.

Further help from the falsely accused can be found in the section on crime, with the Conservatives promising to remove innocent people from the government DNA database and instead replace them with convicted criminals. Other positives include numerous polices from helping those in the armed services, most notably policies helping them after leaving, and also support for married couples thus helping to remove the current financial incentives for divorcing. Finally there's a commitment to shared maternity leave, which is certainty preferable to Labour's 4 weeks for fathers and 52 for mothers.

However, overall the document is something of a disappointment. Whilst you fell the party has their heart in the right place, the generally feeling you get from the manifesto is that while the Conservatives mostly understand what's important, they really don't seem to quite have the right solutions yet and still seem out of touch. The polices on marriage are commendable for example, but you get the feeling the Conservatives just want to push the clock back to a different era. The party recognises more needs to be done in terms of contact after separation even recognising that we have " some of the worst rates of family breakdown in the world", yet there's no actual commitment to shared parenting. Yes they mention false accusations, but why restrict such polices to the teaching profession when the issue can ruin anyone's life regardless of their profession? The problem isn't schools in this instance, it's society as a whole and the lack of punishment and prosecution of the crime.

Similarly there are also concerns with the Conservative's "Big Society" theme. Concerns about government bureaucracy, waste and interference are sound, but the Conservative approach also brings concerns. For example they want to see charities proving public services, but in some areas that's already the case to some extent. Take domestic violence for example, do we really want to hand even more power to gender feminist organisations such as Women's Aid and Refuge so they can continue to deny help to male vicitms and pretend most of them are making it up?

In conclusion, it's a decent enough document for the most part, but the pensions policy is so horrific it essentially cancels everything else out. It shows us the traditional Conservative way of hurting men is still alive and well. Whereas the Labour party hates men due to it's gender feminist influence, Conservatives harm men through chivalry. The pensions policy shows they expect men to work even harder and longer than women for less reward. It sends out the message that men are an expendable resource to exploit, rather than people deserving of equal treatment and you have to fear that such an attitude will find it's way into other areas of policy. It's all very well coming up with decent education and civil liberties polices, but no one is going to take your seriously if your idea of pensions reform is to ring-fence women's income whilst his taking £9 billion from men to fund it.

John Kimble

BBC BROADCAST CANCELLED FOR "LEGAL REASONS"

Anyone hoping to watch Who Needs Fathers on BBC 2 last night would have been hugely disappointed to find themselves watching random repeats of the programme "Coast" instead. This blog has contacted the BBC and we were informed the episode was cancelled for "legal reasons".

It should be noted that it wasn't actually the final part the the series that was cancelled (that was shown last week), the far more significant part two is the episode in question. The programme was titled "The Right to be Dad" and followed three fathers attempting to keep in contact with their children. It seems a terrible shame that such an eagerly anticipated and much needed programme has been kept off the air. Lets hope it is still shown in the near future.

You can still catch episodes one and three of the series on Youtube and there's also an interesting video reviewing the series.

John Kimble

WHO NEEDS THE FAMILY COURTS?

Wednesday evening saw the broadcast of the first instalment of the BBC's "Who Needs Fathers" series. The programme featured two contrasting separated couples - one, Alex Bronckaerts and Juliette Thomas locked in a bitter dispute in the Family Courts, and the other, Chris Cooke and Angela Anderson trying their very best to avoid such an institution.

The contrasts between the couples were huge - Alex and Juliette were very well off to put it mildly, whereas Chris and Angela (well mainly Chris to be honest) was struggling to make ends meet. Similarly, the first couple barely communicated (aside form the occasional abusive text by Juliette), whereas Chris and Angela discussed things civilly on almost every time. Rather than eventful occasions, the transfer of their two children between the their homes were relatively insignificant an amicable events, with each parent reminding the children to say their goodbyes or to "give your mother a kiss". Juliette's conduct couldn't have been more different, constantly trying to deny Alex access to their four children and the tensions and uncertainly she caused clearly created significant distress.

Perhaps the only thing the couples had in common was the awful impact the separation had on the fathers. Alex's suffering was clear for all to see, with this wife's attempts at stopping him take his kids on holiday leaving him in tears. Chris' suffering was more financial and physical - paying for both his own mortgage and that of his ex forced him to take a weekend job, have lodgers move in, and ultimately resulted in him living out of just one small room. (Of course Alex obviously suffered vast finally losses too thorough fidgeting such a long legal battle to see his kids, though one got the impression he could afford it).

By far the biggest contrast in the programme was between the two mothers. Although we saw occasional moments of anger and thoughts of denying contact from Angela, these were merely momentary lapses and entirely understandable in the circumstances. They were clearly heat of the moment events and once she had given an issue any thought her concern for the children won over. Despite the problems they faced or any differences of opinion, the couple  always reached a compromise and an agreement on every issue which was genuinely in the best interests of the children.

Juliette on the other hand, was very much from the gender feminist school of thought when it comes to parenting. We got to hear various anti-male or anti-father statements from her, such as "who needs a man". The similarities with Harmanesque philosophy didn't end there, with her claiming to suffer verbal abuse from the children's father whereas in reality we see her sending out quite awful text messages insulting him with absolutely no provocation whatsoever. The programme also quite brilliantly highlights her dishonesty, for example in a discussion on her refusing to allow the children go on holiday with their father she denies that the father had attempted to collect them one morning. Unfortunately for her the BBC filmed most of the event in question, with a third party former court employee even witnessing the event!

The broadcast was especially effective in highlighting some of the tactics employed by custodial parents in making life so miserable for their ex-partners. There's emotional abuse such as the huge worry and uncertainly the father goes through every time he hopes to see his children and there's also the economic damage such as from cancelled holiday bookings. Perhaps the most effective tactic was where Juliette disrupted and ruined what little time Alex had with his four boys. She did this quite simply by just denying contact with one child each time rather than all four. The boys were used to always being together, so separating them this way caused anxiety and confusion, what should have been happy occasions we ruined by the uncertainly of when or if their brother would be joining them not to mention the endless waiting and travelling.

For purposes of balance and fairness we should note that unlike Alex, Juliette actually had no warning such a programme was being made - she was only actively participating in the broadcast from a quarter of the way through. This means that unlike other participants, she's wasn't aware that the consequences of her despicable behaviour were being caught on camera, thus we only really saw her true side and no one else's. That said, once agreeing to be filmed, Juliette carried on in exactly the same vein as previously, blatantly and deliberately denying court ordered contact on camera as if the children were her personal possessions,. Perhaps the only change the presence of the cameras caused was to put a stop to the abusive text messages.

The programme left me wondering how the family courts might have reflected on some of the content of the programme. For example one wonders if they'd view Chris' tiny home as an appropriate place for children and would have denied him contact if they'd been involved? Further still, a determined and malicious mother could presumably cite the fact he had lodgers as a further factor for denying contact. If someone such as Chris had been unfortunate enough to have been in a relationship with Juliette the consequences don't bear thinking about.

Fortunately Juliette's opponent in the Family Court's was Alex and not Chris, and despite her best efforts  he finally got to see his children for one third of the year, albeit after another 13 months of fighting (and goodness knows how much expense). This for me shows perhaps the biggest weakness of the programme, Alex and Juliette are so far removed from your typical couple in terms of wealth and resources. Not all fathers can afford the endless legal fees and it would have been nice to see your average father go through the system too to show even more realism. The fact it even takes someone as wealthy and well connected as Alex such an incredibly long time to achieve some sort of success certainly illustrates just how unfit for purpose the family courts really are and perhaps that was the point.

As I stated before broadcast, it's clear this programme has come ten years too late at best and it's a disgrace that a public broadcaster such as the BBC hasn't addressed such key issue sooner given the awful impact malicious parents are having on children and society as a whole. However, it truly was an excellent production, and on the evidence of part one, maybe it was almost worth the wait.

Update - International readers can now watch the programme on Youtube.

John Kimble

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.

FACELESS BUREAUCRATS AT CSA TAKEN ON BY DAUGHTER

Just to start the New Year in good style, enter the Byzantine mindset of the CSA/CMEC as outlined in this story in the Daily Mail.

FAMILY COURTS - NOTHING CHANGED IN 2009

The issue of the continuing injustice and anti-father bias of the family courts will have been on the minds of many this Christmas as hundreds of thousands of men will have had limited or no access to their children over the period.

The story continues to play out in some parts of the media and Sir Bob Geldof has continued to play his heroic role during 2009.

The Custody Minefield organisation's Relocation campaign (with Sir Bob's foreword) highlights the problem clearly where the courts do not have the interests of the children at heart (they need both parents involved in their lives) and are more interested in ensuring that men are banished and refuse to enforce contact orders.

The issue is covered in two articles where Sir Bob accuses the family courts as 'state sponsored kidnappers' (Telegraph, Daily Mail). Some further sage comments in The Telegraph and certainly in the comments section on the Telegraph debate. An example of what happens can be found here and here.

An Early Day Motion by David McClean MP sets out the issue and Sir Mark Potter 'El Presidente' of the Family Courts Division sets out his "you're all wrong" response here. John Hemming MP has also laid down an Early Day Motion over further secrecy concerns in the proposed Children, Schools and Families Bill.

With the much trumpeted and failed attempt to open up the courts, 2009 has meant a further tragic year of misery for many fathers and the children who want to see and be with their children. We can only hope that in 2010 it will change though it will need a change in Government to make it happen.

WORLD FIRST: GUARDIAN ARTICLE ATTACKS WOMEN WHO CHOOSE TO HAVE CHILDREN WITH NO FATHER

It is not often this site has said it but there was a great post on The Guardian site this weekend (from Veronica Lee) stating that "Depriving children of a father is selfish."

STORIES ROUND-UP

Below are some links to stories found but not yet covered over the past few weeks. Still some more to write up (thak you everyone for sending issues over).

Daily Mail (Liz Hull): Myth of 'Mr Useless'

The Independent (Susie Mesure): March of the new Feminists

Diamond Car Company: Women-only garages (which would be illegal by the way)

Daily Mail (Luke Salkeld): Women who cried rape 8 times spared jail

The Observer (Richard Reeves): Hard for dads as well as working mothers

UNDERMINING MEN IS THE ULTIMATE AIM OF CALLS TO ACCEPT THE END OF THE TWO-PARENT FAMILY

I said in a recent post that I was speechless but I am not when it came to the speech made by Dr Katherine Rake the new Head of the Government funded (ie - by you and me) Family and Parenting Institute. After all, she was previously Chief Executive of the Fawcett Society, an organisation that not indulges in male bashing but also ignores the mainstream concerns of normal women, instead concentrating on bashing their husbands, sons, brothers and fathers and politicising debates about gender. The Fawcett Society does not speak for normal women.

The commentary in the Daily Telegraph shows the difference between the defeatism of those on the left and the recognition of those mainstream people who want to reverse the decline in the nuclear family.

Context is important because of what it says about the role of fathers in the lives of their children.

By accepting that the two-parent family is dead, is as David Willetts the Conservative Shadow in this area, ignores the aspirations of normal people and of course as Iain Duncan Smith would I am sure conclude, exacerbates the problems some children face being separated from their father/male role model (or mother in some cases).

But it is the wider issue as well as to accept that the two parent family is dead means it makes it easier to continue the trend of father bashing, commentators saying fathers are not important and therefore why is it a problem if they cannot get access to their children or what happens to men. Katherine Rake is trying to set the terms of the debate not just on families but also on the role of fatherhood and men. A debate she has to lose.

Her record at the Fawcett Society would suggest fathers, like men, are not important.

Interesting to see what happens to her if the Conservatives win in 2010?

Editors Note

Excellent response from Jill Kirby at the Centre of Policy Studies

PETITION TO STOP THE SEXISM IN THE FAMILY COURTS

Dr Joel Robisnon of Familes Need fathers has submitted this e-petition to the Prime Minister:-

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to put an end to the demonization of separated fathers in the family law courts!.