The Rights Of Man

WHY DOES THE COALITION ON MEN & BOYS DO DOWN MEN & BOYS?

In 2007, a group called the Men's Coalition was set up by a number of public funded organisations who  speak up for men. The organisation mutated into the Coalition on Men & Boys and its members include the Fatherhood Institute, Men's Advice Line, Men's Health Forum, Relate, Respect and the White Ribbon Campaign.

A month or so ago they produced a report called Man Made: Men, Masculinities and Boys which attempts to "provide a unique, in-depth picture of the circumstances and needs of men and boys."

So far so good you would think, but as ever, it depends what lens you are looking through and the lens in this report is one that on one hand says public policy needs to ensure it better meets the need of men (good), but then blames and patronises men and is guilty of making some serious and glaring omissions. It is based on the fact that men need to change not that society or public policy needs to.

The 158 page report says that men need help but bases this on a feminist world-view (it says "The report draws significantly upon feminist scholarship" page 19) and throughout suggests that men need to change to help women, children and men themselves. Indeed, it keeps coming back to the theme that male dominance in positions of power (which is reducing all the time) means that men have to be more aware of gender equality and to stop blocking and being sexist towards women.

In addition, in key areas it fails to address the key problems of discrimination or the lack of help for men and boys such as education (exam results) and issues such as domestic violence, forced marriage,  and the bias of the family courts. It only really excels in the area of health which will be down to the Men's Health Forum's input.

It says that the Coalition of Men and Boys is committed to work with women's groups, but whilst at face value we should all be working for gender equality, the basis for this statement is to patronise and not recognise the discrimination that men regularly face in their lives. Would such a report on Women & Girls state that it would like to work with men's groups, I very much doubt it.

In fact, some of the things it says are a bizarre for a report and organisation purporting to be on the side of men. An example includes:-

"The Government's Equalities Dept and Equalities Commission should establish designated policy and research positions focusing on how men and boys can contribute to tackling gender and other inequalities." This though is about men and boys pushing a female equalities agenda and has nothing to do with helping men and boys in terms improving access to health, improved examination results etc?

There is plenty of mentions of a Minister for Women but the report does not mention that it is unequal therefore not to have a Minister for Men.

In addition, "it admits that the Government has no strategy or have not been a work stream within the work of the Women's Unit (page 33). This is partly due to lack of resources but probably also to the relative invisibility of masculinity as a gender issue". No mention of course to the fact that why would a Women's Unit look at supporting men and of course, no irony is given in the report to the fact there is no resources. The report mentions it but does not condemn it.

It's key policy-specific recommendations (page 16) on work, fatherhood and education do not mention the bias in the family law court system (the report in Chapter 6 rejects that men get a raw deal in the family court system), the poor results of boys in the context of a lack of male teachers and the switch from exam-related O' Levels to course-based GCSE's (it rejects the notion that the lack of male teachers is a problem) and domestic violence - it makes no mention of male victims and the lack fo support they receive.

It even says that the proposals in the Equalities Bill to allow men to be discriminated against in the workplace are 'mild' (page 41). Not if you are a man who is discriminated against.

The health section is the only one that could be said to be positive in that it demands more that the health authorities not only do more to educate men about male heath issues but also that an assessment of services is needed to ensure they are there to support men.

Overall, the report is negative about men and boys, it patronises them, wants them to change (to be less masculine)  and does not confront, on purpose, the obvious problems that men face in areas such in education and elsewhere.

The report is a wasted opportunity and one that look at the problems that men face not through a male lens but one that believes men are a negative force in the UK.

Editors Note

There are many references in the report to the "men's rights movement". References include

"..There are some risks in involving men in gender equality strategies" (page 12)

"Some men are resistant to change - especially if the proposed changes entail giving up some privileges (better pay than women) and result in them having less power at work and in the home. The emergence in recent decades of a range of vocal 'men's rights' groups, both in the UK and internationally, is evidence to this." (page 12)

"It should not be assumed, however, that all men and boys share the same hostile approach of many 'men's rights activists to the progress of women and girls" (page 26)

These accusations, probably aimed at this site and other organisations/sites are a disgraceful slur not backed by any evidence. This is a example of using a report to try and trash people who believe that equality should actually mean equality for both men and women. If the reports authors can find anything on this site that is anti-women, then they will not find it.

Editors Apology #1

In this post I originally called the Coalition - Coalition of Men & Boys but as Bob rightly pointed out (see comments) I was sorely mistaken. It is the Coalition on Men & Boys, a subtle mistake but one that is vital to be aware of because it shows emphatically and with more clarity that it is not a coalition about supporting men & boys at all. It is a coalition that hectors men & boys.

NEW BOOK - VENUS: THE DARK SIDE by ROY SHEPPARD AND MARY CLEARY

Roy Sheppard (former BBC TV and radio presenter) apprd and Mary Cleary (founder of Ireland's excellent Amen Project) have written a book on female predators called Venus: The Dark Side.

In addition, there is a youtube channel and also a dedicated web-site.

The book on how unscrupulous women do it. Helpful to men and fascinating to women, Venus: The Dark Side catalogues for the first time, how unscrupulous women attack innocent men, women (primarily mothers against daughters) and children; physically, financially, psychologically and even sexually. And in so many cases, they know how to get away with it. But how do you recognise their covert behaviour? How can you tell if she is preying on YOU?

Venus: The Dark Side is a practical guide on how to recognise the signs and provides detailed help and advice on what you can do (and NOT do) to extricate yourself from her clutches. Already described as Required reading for all young men today , the book also includes a Due Diligence Checklist to limit the risks of marrying one of these women. This checklist is equally valuable to women. With a UK divorce rate at 57%, anyone planning to marry would be well advised to study it.

 And what about the men who are already married to one of the women described in this book what can they expect when it comes to the divorce? The authors offer detailed protection strategies. 

 

AMFORTAS PODCASTS AND VIDEOS TO SHARE #4

The final instalment of podcasts and videos from Amfortas. I hope you have found them of interest.

Everyday Family Terrorism

"When Momma ain’t Happy, Nobody’s Happy". Amfortas and Paul Elam show how domestic violence and a lot worse are often caused by ‘controlling’ women who are willing to destroy their families to have their own way. Dr Eric Berne’s ‘Games’ are described including the major cause of broken families, the "Let’s you and Him Fight" strategy which uses the Police and Family Courts.

Is Feminism a Hate Movement?

Amfortas narrates MRA Fidelbogan’s well established, clear and logical analysis of the links between the spectrum of disaffection feelings that women have for men and the rise and sustenance of Feminism. This spectrum is lead from the top by hateful, sociopathic women and supported by ‘rent-seeking scum’ women in growing bureaucracies, who take immoral advantage.

 Video. You Tube. Everyday Family Terrorism

Paul Elam, Amfortas and Christian J show and tell of the damage done within families and society by intransigent people, in this instance Women, who are prepared to destroy their own families to get their own way. Erin Pizzey documented the effects of showing the Truth about violent women, for which she received Feminist death threats. Dr Eric Berne shows several 'Games' used including the 'let’s you and him fight' game so common today where cops and courts do the dirty work that leaves children unprotected.

Video. You Tube . The Pay Gap

Amfortas, Paul Elam and Christianj, examine the myth of the Pay Gap and show, name and shame the political women who lie to get the women's vote. Dr Warren Farrell demolished the mendacious claims but has been ignored by the media. Men do the dirty, dangerous work which pays well while women exercise choices that are more nurturing and 'safe'. The glass ceiling does not exist but the glass cellar does. Excellent video production by Paul Elam.

NO TIME OFF MOTHERS - IS THIS WHAT THE FAWCETT SOCIETY WANTS?

By Adrian Ashby

 

In a variation on the “gender pay gap” the Guardian (and a few other others) trumpets the 22% penalty for mothers in a report by the Fawcett Society. In addition, the Guardian refers to a recent research report by Vanessa Gash of the Cathie Marsh Ventre that compares the situation in six european countries. This report itself paints an interesting picture, and one suggesting some uncomfortable choices for the gender equality industry.

The countries considered are Finland, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. The first three have a labour market with a very small part time segment while the other three have a large part time segment.

Unsurprisingly

Finland

and

Denmark

have very little “penalty”. However the reasons for this are; that mothers returning to work, work full time and they do this having had very short maternity leave. In effect mothers are out of the workforce for a very short time and return quickly to their full time job. Next is

France

with comparatively generous leave (up to 3 years)  but the same pattern that once in the workforce mothers work full time. Finally there are Netherlands Germany and the

UK

with varying degrees of  maternity leave (but all much longer than

Finland

and

Denmark

) and a wide array of part time working. Surprise surprise it is these countries which have the “penalty”. Interestingly in all countries women crowd into employment in the public sector.

So in practice it seems if you take little time out and work full time you carry on earning! You will also keep up with women without children, go past men without children and earn just a little less than men with children. However if you take longer periods of time out and return to part time work you pay a “penalty”. Far from an evil patriarchal plot it seems simple practicalities are at issue. If the goal is equal pay then part time work should be the exception and maternity leave needs to be very much shorter indeed!.

(The previous CEO of the Equalities Commission was seen off for suggesting that the extension of maternity leave and “flexible working” was a feminist own goal- seems she was right.) 

In separate reported research the surprising discovery was made that successful female bosses are “bossy” just like male bosses. So just maybe the role of boss requires certain character traits irrespective of who fulfils that role. After all the majority of men aren’t bosses either!

AMFORTAS PODCASTS AND VIDEOS TO SHARE #1

This week this site was contacted by Amfortas a male rights activist who works with colleagues across the globe on producing podcasts and videos on a wide range of male discrimination issues.

Therer are plenty to listen to so will put four to five up every weekend. I hope you enjoy listening to them though they just make you angrier.

 Stolen generation Pt.1.

A professional analysis of the Family Court’s ‘Bible’ that justifies the ‘ least detrimental alternatives’ to the traditional family. "We have a generation of fathers who are shell-shocked, heartbroken". It was Adolph Hitler who first said that people will take any reduction to their freedom if you tell them it is in the best interests of the children. Could we not have a non-detrimental alternative, Amfortas asks.

Stolen Generation Pt.2

The Family Court brings about the detrimental conditions that lead to a delinquent culture of fatherlessness in children. The ‘most deserving parent’ is chosen on genitalia. Professionals make judgements that cause parental alienation syndrome. A juggernaut is driven over Magna Carta. An equal society is replaced by a superior class of people.

Give a Dog a Bad Name. Pt.1.

The mass media is anti-male

by commercial design. Comprehensive study data shows the depth of disrespect for men. Even ‘Old-school’ feminists are appalled at the damage being done to men. The media is ‘Wrong, both factually and morally", says MRA Amfortas. Government pays for an agitprop war on men’s reputation to frighten women. At what cost?

Give a dog a Bad Name. Pt.2.

Women have unconsciously adopted a habit of disrespecting men. "Men are feeling profoundly disappointed, disillusioned and disgusted" and are withdrawing their support and protection of women. Society, and women in particular, are losing a valuable resource needed for its healthy continuance. The Love of men. Is this what women want?

FAMILY COURTS - WHEN OPEN DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN OPEN

There has been much debate (link, link) about whether the landmark change in allowing accredited journalists into the UK's family law courts will make much difference.

The reason for the concern has been about the fact that judges can still stop journalists from reporting what they see and hear and also from attending in the first place.

Some of the outrageous judgements made by judges on custody issues and the enforcement of custody orders means that they themselves can still hide behind many of their absurd views. This also helps to protect the inept and bias against fathers by Cafcass and Social Services.

Another concern is that because of the savage cutbacks in the local media, apart from any very serious cases, there are not enough reporters to cover the courts. Many a journalist cut their teeth as a court reporter for a local paper but these newspapers can no longer keep such posts going and nearly all such positions have gone. It means that apart from this week and perhaps in an outrageous/serious case, the interest in this issue by local papers will wane.

At least there is some transparency but it is doubtful there will be a change in attitude on custodial/parenting issues when the judges who make the rules up as they go along still have the power to hide and be unaccountable. There will still be no justice.

Coverage from the the Times, who won awards for opening up the secret family courts is here (1, 2, 3. Other coverage includes (Press Gazette, Families Need Fathers, Daily Mail, Daily Mail 2, BBC, Guardian, Independent)

OPENING UP FAMILY COURTS A 'CON TRICK'

The last post welcomed the outline proposal to open up the family courts to the media. It would seem according to the analysis by John Hemming MP (link) and Marcel Berlins (link) that all is not what it seems.

In many respects, what these two commentators have revealed is worse, because at least before there was no pretence of openness, now the judiciary and Government can say there is, when there is not.

Very Orwellian but is anyone surprised?

Hat-tip: Mensaid

BREAKTHROUGH ON OPENING FAMILY COURTS UP TO THE MEDIA

One of the biggest complaints made about the UK's Family Courts System is the fact that because the media are not allowed access, they are unaccountable and not transparent. Basically, it all goes on behind closed doors and there is no scrutiny, and therefore justice is not being seen to be done. There is no public confidence.

The Government has been well aware of this and has been lobbied by the media (link) and groups such as Families Need Fathers for this transparency.

At last, the Government (link) looks like it will deliver and they are measures now before Parliament to allow accredited media into the family court system. Fingers crossed it goes through.

HAMPSHIRE SOCIAL SERVICES CASE SHOW HOW ANTI-MALE VIEWS INFEST SOCIETY

In a story revealed by the UK's Daily Mail (link) earlier this month, it is clear how constant male bashing and the undermining of men shows itself in reality. Every day it happens in the family courts system and by no means are social services immune. It was also covered in the Daily Echo (link)

The story of how Hampshire Social Services staff causally believed that a child could be a victim of shaken baby syndrome because the father (of course) was male and a soldier is quite sickening.

The problem is that these people in Hampshire's Social Services department are immune from any scrutiny or accountability. The councillors running the council should be on the case but there will met a Berlin Wall protected by a code of Omerta.

The people making this comment should be sacked, but they would only find a job elsewhere and would probably be snapped up. I wonder if they thought their own fathers must have been violent because they were men.

SHAMEFUL 'UNIVERSITY' REPORT UNDERMINES BOYS AND BRITISH MEDIA LAP IT UP

A story produced by the University of Ulster came out yesterday (link) that said that sisters spread happiness while brothers breed distress. These so-called academics quizzed a mere 571 people aged 17 to 25 about their lives and found those who grew up with sisters were more likely to be happy and balanced.

This was covered throughout the UK media (BBC, GMTV, Times, Independent, Telegraph, Mail)

There are a number of specific issues:-

Firstly, the sample size is small (only 579) and because of the myriad of ways that families are constructed (for example, two sisters with one brother or one sister and two brothers etc) these conclusions cannot be drawn. In addition, the research is not quantitative or objective, it is based on   the subjective opinions of those surveyed.

Each family is unique - will have different incomes, make up, parental attitudes, geography etc so you cannot draw these types of general conclusions without understanding each family's background.

Plus of course, with the discrimination that boys face especially poor schooling because the education system is geared towards girls plus the problems many boys face if they have no male role models (especially if there is no father in the home because of the family court system), this would also need to be taken into account.

What is concerning is that because this has been produced by 'experts' at a 'university', it is given plenty of coverage by the media even though it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There is no quote from anyone anywhere in the coverage that challenges this so all the UK media have done is taken the spin from the university (who make it as sensationalist as possible to get the coverage) and rehashed it unthinkingly. Not one journalist has stepped back for a minute and thought about challenging it.

It also means that it is now too easy for every brother in the land to be labelled and stigmatised as a problem - someone who causes distress. And of course, the generalist nature of it all means that the report is basically stating all sisters are good, when as outlined in this debate on the BBC (link), it is not true.

What this 'university' and the so-called 'experts' are doing is saying girls=good, boys=bad, and the media, because it is socially acceptable to attack boys/men, play along with it. Shocking but alas, not surprising. 

Could you imagine the coverage if their research said it was sisters who caused distressed? It would be very little, if any.