The Rights Of Man

NEWS UPDATE

Here are a selection from the last two weeks (in no particular order) and thanks to those that sent them through:

The Guardian: Neither breadwinners nor losers - what role do young men play next? (Ally Fogg) Ally's article makes a number of key cornerstone points - first about men being ignored by social policymakers and also the example on ESF funding. The only issue I take with Ally is he is reluctant to really name the guilty parties who are deliberately ignoring men and carrying out these discriminatory policies. I may well be unfair here as he does mention ESF, but who are the politicians responsible for this policy - list the guilty men and women. He has a new blog.

HR Magazine: Businesses hold dads back when it comes to family (David Woods)

The Guardian: These Tory women are narcissists, not feminists (Tanya Gold) If you read the comments sections, it shows these men-haters are bing challenged.

Equalities and Human Rights Commission: Reading Lists published - The EHRC is now making it even easier to find the texts they love - I have seen the JR Schackleton pamphlet on gender pay is on it though!

Equalities and Human Rights Commission: Staff reduction announced

London Evening Standard: London can seriously harm men's health (Sophie Goodchild and Emma Slater). The full reports from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can be found here and here.  

Various: French tennis-player Gilles Simon says men should receive more prize money than women at Wimbledon (Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian)

A Men and Women's MRA request for London

Daily Telegraph: Girls outperforming boys in masuline subjects (Graeme Paton)

Men's Network - Funding for male cancer

Please let me if I have missed any?

Posted by Skimmington

WHERE EQUALITY FOR MEN MUST TRANSCEND RELIGION TOO - MALE GENITAL MUTILATION (CIRCUMCISION)

Sorry everyone - been away again

Following the decision (and here) this week by a German court that infant male circumcision (male genital mutilation) is illegal (unless for medical reasons) and those carrying out the procedure can be charged with assault/GBH means another step has been taken in the issue being treated in the same was female genital mutilation.

The court ruling is clear why: The court weighed up three articles from the basic law: the rights of parents, the freedom of religious practice and the right of the child to physical integrity, before coming to the conclusion that the procedure was not in the interests of the child

There has long been a conspiracy of silence (and here) on this issue in the UK by the 'establishment' albeit one where the BBC and Guardian have spent time on and children are losing their life because of it.

And why has there been a conspiracy of silence? It is clear this is due to political correctness within the political, media (not all) and medical classes in trying not to offend people of the Jewish and Muslim faith. Offending Christians (and I am not defending Christianity) is OK.

Political Correctness is a pseudo-religion itself. Issues like this always leave those who practice it in ideological torture when a group the politically correct industry choose to support has practices that undermine political correctness itself and offend another victim group. Nick Cohen's What's Left? book articulates this clearly. 

On this issue the 'establishment' generally dare not want to cover the story or pass any comment. The BBC and the Guardian have covered it because of their atheist position but do not really have an 'opinion'.

Religion

Getting to the point, the condemnation poured on the Cologne court's correct (morally and legally correct) decision by the two religions shows why the conspiracy of silence has existed. It is an attempt to scare people into silence and to claim special treatment and exemptions from equality, humanity and human rights because of their tradition and opinion (religion).

 The Guardian reported as did the Telegraph that Muslim and Jewish leaders called it "insensitive and discriminatory" because in their opinion circumcising a boy without his consent is not insensitive or discriminatory. The News Statesmen reported  that Jonathan Arkush, vice-president of the Board of Deputies in the UK described it as "intolerant, ill-informed and deeply troubling."

Brendan O'Neill in the Daily Telegraph suggests it an 'anti-semitic' decision. 

Silence from equality campaigners

Why is there no comment or campaign by the UK government and Minister for Equalities, Equalities and Human Rights Commission and others.  Always quick off the mark on the female mutilation issue, silence on the male issue.

Are they following the lead set by Katrin Altpeter:

Women's rights groups and social policy makers also condemned the decision, but for the reason that it would have the effect of putting male and female circumcision on the same footing, when they were "in no way comparable", said Katrin Altpeter, social minister in the state of Baden-Württemberg. Female circumcision she said, was a far more drastic act. It is already outlawed in Germany.

As ever, women's rights groups are not speaking up for women (see discussion on Mumsnet).

Again, it shows that Women's groups and campaigners who condemn the decision do not believe in equality for men and women, just special treatment for women and special pleading. It helps their funding of course.

A complicit government

The government should just make male genital mutilation illegal as they have done female genital mutilation. What is the difference?

And going back to the politically correct point, female genital mutilation is a religious matter. The government is choosing what religions it supports (those that circumcise) and what ones it doesn't (or effectively what religions it can afford to upset and what ones it can't.

Where next?

I think there are a number of planets that are coming together that will lead to a ban at some point in the next two years.

Firstly, there are sensible mainstream groups in the UK such as NORM-UK, Ending Unneccessary male Cicrcumcision in the UK   and other wider groups such as the British Humanist Association and the Men's Helath Forum who want a ban. This means the issue will be  kept on the 'agenda'.

Secondly, the hysterical response from the two religions will ensure it remains on the agenda especially as it shows how out of touch they are (you only have to read the comments sections in the debates). They will now have to campaign against the courts decision, therefore keeping it in the spotlight and shining a spotlight onto how naked they are.

Thirdly, some doctors and hospitals will start to look themselves and also fear the law. One hospital in Germany has already stopped carrying out the procedure (There is a Circumcisions Direct company - as if mutilation is the equivalent of selling car insurance!)

Lastly, the case in Oldham will actually mean the judge will now be crossing the line into politics as the judgement (and the reason for the judgement) will have implications (one way or other) on male cicumsicion in the UK.

I think that if the campaigns continue and the spotlight is shone - there will be a tipping point and I think the German court has helped move this further - the Oldham case may be the one that does it in the UK.

Once again though, it is the courts that place male equality in its rightful place - an equalities, moral  and human rights issue. It remains shameful that male equality has to rely on the courts rather than politicians and the 'establishment' to make decisions for male equality.

Just like the issue on equalising state pension age, the British Airways ban  on allowing men to sit next to unaccompanied children and now this. All could have been be stopped at a stroke of a legislators pen, instead men have to go to court for equality.

Posted by Skimmington 

MEN'S HEALTH WEEK STARTS TODAY

The Men's Health Forum starts its annual Men's Health Week today and its the tenth anniversary of the campaign. The YOLO (You Only Live Once) campaign is aimed at:

• Men to think about the impact on their health of the decisions they make.
• Policy-makers locally and nationally, in government, local authorities and primary care to do exactly the same thing: to think about the impact on men's health of the decisions they make.
  
  At the moment health services often fail to do that with result that men are far less likely to access them than women.

The Men's Health Forum do a great job in highlighting issues and showing how men's health needs are ignored - but should they be more aggressive and be prepared to take the NHS and GP's to court about the lack of the support, information and access to healthcare for men. 

Go to your GP surgery - there'll be a rack of leaflets for women, teenagers, children, the elderly etc but nothing for men. Where is a big campaign to get GP surgeries to open after or on a Saturday morning therefore making them more accessible for men. The radical feminists are brilliant at running campaigns and getting their own way - the Men's Health Forum perhaps need to be like them and be more aggressive.

Posted by Skimmington 

WILL WE GET A WHITE WIDOWS CAMPAIGN IN BRITAIN?

One of the greatest casualties of economic downturns and recessions is the increase in depression due to financial hardship and the loss and/or lack of jobs and crumbling businesses.

This can lead to serious mental illness and sadly, to suicide. And this directly affects men more than women (more three times as many men commit suicide - 4,231 men and 1,377 women in 2010), though every suicide is a tragedy for those individuals and their families.

In Italy, there is a movement called The White Widows, those wives and partners of Italian men who have committed suicide due to the recession. This movement is putting the issue on the map so it is being openly discussed unlike in Britain, where male suicide is only a fringe issue when it comes to public policy and social recognition. Despite the best efforts of CALM, the Men's Health Forum and others, it is still a fringe issue. Why?

Partly, it is to do with anti-male anti-equality feminists who want to shut out any debate about the issue and all other male issues. The Fawcett Society (who laughably say they believe in equality - pure Orwell) launch lifeboat campaigns based on lies about female unemployment and child benefit, but would never launch a White Widows movement for women who have lost fathers, sons and brothers.

Also, more mainstream magazines and websites (Mumsnet) are so self-absorbed about themselves as are their readers that they never consider men and boys - even though they will have sons, husbands/partners and fathers.

Politicians as ever are cowed and infected by political correctness so don't say anything.

Women are the most powerful voice to ensure there is equality for men - this is why the White Widows campaign has had such an impact in Italy.

It is now time for such a campaign in Britain to highlight the plight of men who commit suicide because of the economic problems they cannot face.

And because the Male Equality Movement and Men and Boys sector believes in equality, we would be happy for a White Widows and Widowers campaign.

Posted by Skimmington

WHY DOES THE RATE OF MALE SUICIDE CONTINUE TO BE IGNORED?

A few weeks ago, some friends and I were having a drink and there was someone of a similar age drinking at the bar on his own but was clearly listening to conversations in the hope of being able to join in. So we let him join and spoke about football etc, the things men enjoy talking about. I left quite heartened because loneliness can be a real problem for men whether they are in or out of relationship or in and out of work.Seeing someone just staring into their pint is never a good sign.

Late last month, the latest suicide rates were published and they are disturbing reading. The trend continues that men are three times more likely to commit suicide than women. In 2010 4,231 men took their own lives (17.0 per 100,000) compared to and 1,377 women (5.3 per 100,000). It is an issue the site has raised a number of times (1).

As the Men's Health Forum point out, traditionally the highest age group for men has been 15-44 year old group (currently 16.7 per 100,000) but now it is the 45-74 age group (17.7 per 100,000). The groups are very broad so the Office for National Statistics should refine the groups in the future becuase men (and women) go through a number of life stages between 15-44 and 45-74 so by looking at smaller age ranges will help with conclusions and identifying the reasons why this happens.

The issue of male suicide continues to be an area with little attention especially from policy makers in the government and the health service and the equalities sector. The fact that three times as many men commit suicide than women is a clear inequality but the policy response is limited (not discussed in Parliament) and often the issue is completely ignored. You never hear the Equalities and Human Rights Commission raising it and you never hear of a big government or NHS initiative on this subject. Of course, if three times as many women than men were committing suicide it would always be mentioned. We all wait to see whether the government will actually do anything when it announces the results of its consultation later this year on the subject.

While there are great groups like CALM (a new London helpline and campaign last November) but they need more support and also more policy attention to ensure there are services to help and more awareness campaigns to encourage men to come forward.

In terms of why more men commit suicide, much attention is placed on those with underlying mental health problems but that can be a cop out because it deflects attention from those without those problems. With long-term unemployment for older men being higher than for younger men exacerbated by the recession, it is clear that will be one reason in particular. It also gives the lie that women are the biggest losers of the recession.

There is also the changing role of men and the fact they are becoming second best and are the victims of the aggressive anti-male feminism that rules the UK. The fact that younger men are finding it tough to get on the employment ladder as many traditional male jobs go and the eductaion system continues to blight them.

Silence from policy makers is no longer an option but we all have an individual responsibility to try and ensure we all look after any men we know who we feel are lonely and depressed.

Posted by Skimmington

  

NEWS UPDATE

A few recent items and thanks to those who passed many of them on:

Roger Helmer MEP: Resignation update - Discrimination by the Conservative Party against a man 

The Independent: The man who was the target of Britain's worst stalker (Gerard Gilbert) - An old story but one not covered here before but certainly always worth forwarding whenever stalking in spoken in the context of women only.

Hull Daily Mail - Domestic abuse against men up by 30%

BBC News - Where women rule and men are suffragettes (Timothy Allen)

 Daily Mail - Woman's Hour psychologist who made false claim in custody battle is found guilty of misconduct.   (Chris Brooke)

The Guardian - We tell boys not to cry then wonder about male suicide (Ally Fogg) - Great stuff by Ally and his comment is most telling "As I've written before, attempts by men to address their own gender-specific issues are often greeted with hostility and disdain."

Daily mail - Why I'll never let my Ex's new girlfriend meet my son (Kelly Rose Bradford) - A record 1287 comments surely on this rant.

Daily Telegraph - New equality rules could cost companies millions (Louise Peacock) -  Equality is equality so why the moaning from the National Association of Pension Funds - surely not another body that thinks it is OK to discriminate against men.

Posted by Skimmington 

MALE BREAST CANCER CAMPAIGN

Sorry for lack of posts recently.

Once of the key themes expecting to come out of tomorrow's National Conference for Men and Boys is the need for men and men's groups to better work together or form groups in their local area like the Men's Network has in Brighton.

Part of the reason for this is that we cannot rely on the government, councils, NHS, Equalities Commission etc to do anything to support men in today's Britain. They are content for men to become the Second Sex. This is why we need to do things for ourselves or to lobby groups to extend their services to include men as well.

Last week, a new campaign by healthtalkonline about men's breast cancer was important with 70 men dying a year from this. It at least starts to put it on the agenda when it is clearly being ignored. The videos will encourage men to come forward.

As Professor Kate Hunt of the council's social and public health sciences unit rightly said: "We need some blue in those pink bows to remind everyone men get breast cancer, too."

Posted by Skimmington

Other media coverage included - BBC Isle of Man

HIGH COURT JUDGE THINKS £4 BILLION DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NHS WIDOWERS IS RIGHT

Last month we reported that Iain Cockburn was taking the government to court over the fact that he received less pension because he was a widower than if he had been a widow.

While the government admitted it was discriminatory it still challenged his claim and it has won!

Yes you are right to read it. The judges said the discrimination is fair as it was "objectively and reasonably justified".

Mr Justice Supperstone,said : ‘in my view the absence of the non-dependant widower’s pension prior to the 1989 regulations was objectively justified.  

‘There is no evidence that overall female members in the scheme were in any different position to that of women in society and in the workforce as a whole.’

That is such sexism.

Such is the disdain the judiciary and establishment has for ensuring that equality applies to men too. Silence from the Minister for Equalities, as ever.

The Department of Health has said it would cost £4 billion to rectify. That shows the cost of the discrimination against men and also the discrimination against those poor women in the NHS who had died as they would not want their widowers to lose out because they were men.

When there were campaigns against women being unfarily paid less than men on the same grade at councils, if the same logic applied, then this would have been acceptable before 1988, and therefore they would not be entitled to have back their 'missing' pay before that year. Rightly nonsense, but the judges think it is OK if you are a man. 

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage: Result covered in Professional Pensions (original story on Professional Pensions) and GP online plus background coverage in Daily Mail, Birmingham Post, Daily Telegraph

BRITAIN'S CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE ON MALE CIRCUMCISION

The issue of un-consenting male genital mutilation (circumcision) is a subject not tackled before on the website but as un-consenting female genital mutilation is a subject that continues to rightly garner much attention the lack of attention on men again is a symptom of how men are given second class status in Britain's society.

Lets get things clear before the site is hoisted on the petard, female genital mutilation is an awful crime that should be stopped - no right thinking person could ever support it (a curiosity of the internal conflict and hypocrisy in the politically correct metropolitan elite is the fact they criticise the practice but not the religious views of those who carry it out.)

But why does unconsenting male genital mutilation not recieve any attention in the UK?

If you look at the recent BBC article and its definition, can someone tell me broadly what the difference is between the females and males - its all about culture and religion. In fact female genital mutilation has been illegal since 1985 (a good overview in the Times) and governments spend a lot of money tackling it and have guidance on how to fight it.

There are some debates here and there on the UK web (Digital spy, Yahoo) and the BBC has a similar page as the one on female circumcision. But the practice has supporters not just in Judaism, Islam but it has consent through a conspiracy of silence, hypocrisy and double standards.

For un-consenting girls and boys, circumcision is illegal for the former but legal for that matter.

The British Medical Association doesn't protest or abhor it in men, the Scottish government  gives guidance on it but does not mention why it should not be practiced and of course there is nothing from the British government. The Minister for Women and Equalities is not interested when equality means equality for men.

So why the hypocrisy. It comes down to the power shift in the British political, cultural, social, state and media system since the late seventies that has meant men have become the second sex. A victory that the feminist fundamentalists have secured. This is because there is no logical, rational or balanced reason in a society that allegedly proclaims itself as being equal that can state that female circumcision is wrong and illegal but male circumcision in fine and legal. When do you hear a MP talking about this in Parliament?

The government and medical establishment in the the UK believe it is OK because of their silence on the issue  - it gives this horrendous practice tacit approval. Silence means assent.

In America, opposition is a lot more active as can be seen in San Francisco (Daily Mail) where there is now a campaign to ban it.  Such a campaign should be started in the UK in addition to that run by  Dr John Warren at NORM-UK.

Posted by Skimmington

Editors note - This is sick in the Philippines, can you imagine the outcry if women were abused in this way!

  

WHY DOES CANCER RESEARCH UK NOT ALLOW MEN TO TAKE PART IN THE RACE FOR LIFE IF IT IS WORRIED ABOUT FALLING NUMBERS OF RUNNERS

Cancer Research UK's Race for Life, sponsored by Tesco, is concerned the number of women taking part this year is 10% down, a staggering 200,000.

The answer is very simple, allow men to take part (here and here).

Watch Cancer Research UK struggle to give a coherent answer. Pity the BBC did not ask the question why they don't allow men to take part.

It is such a shame that they won't give up on playing gender politics and end their discrimination against men. It means both men and women who have cancer or want to support loved ones lose out.

Incidentally the figures on their website show they spent £41 million on breast cancer (12,000 women sadly die per year) research and £19 million is spent on prostate cancer research (10,000 men sadly die per year). 

 Posted by Skimmington