The Rights Of Man

AUGUST ARTICLE SUMMARY

Been away so sorry for the lack of posts, anyhow, here are a few issues that have come up lately which should be shared:

General

Men's Hour - BBC Radio 5

Men's Matters - Express FM (scroll down)

Daily Telegraph - Feminism, forget it, sisters (by Neil Lydon)

The Spectator - The death of the male working class (by Fraser Nelson)

Domestic Abuse

Northern Echo - Women jailed for stab attack on ex-boyfriend

Dorset Echo - Weymouth councillor on assault charge (oh the irony)

Irish Times - Hypocrisy over ability to be hypocrites (by Padriag O'Moran)

Medical News Today - Counsellors struggle to treat male victims

The Herald - Male abuse victims face extra barriers

Scotsman - Male victim tells of decade of abuse

Scotsman - Council accused of ignoring male victims

False accusations

Daily Telegraph - Britons trapped in false rape sting

Daily Record - Boxer's son released

BBC Dorset - Warning after Bournemouth woman jailed

Scotsman - Father wrongly accused in flawed abuse inquiry

BBC Norfolk - False rape mother is jailed

If Caroline Flint & Co say there isn't a problem, why is it that every week a woman is jailed for making false accusations!

Employment

Daily Mail - Work experience at Foreign Office: Not if you're a white middle class male

Daily Telegraph - Debt 'Men are new underclass'

Mixed-sex wards and health

Daily Telegraph - Government announced the end of mixed sex wards

An issue raised some timeago as the last Government promised it way back in 1997!

Pfizer - Man MOT

This is a brilliant initiative by Pfizer

Education

European Union - Study into gender inequality in education

Why is the EU having to do this when the UK Government should have done it years ago, but even Gove, the new Education Minister is not bothering. 

Politics

BBC - Harman wants half of Shadow Cabinet to be women

 

 

WHY CAN'T CANCER RESEARCH COPY IRELAND'S MEN'S HEALTH FORUM

 

In a variation on Cancer Research UK's discriminatory Run For Life event the Men’s Health Forum Ireland is drawing attention to the need for focus on men’s health needs through runs for men, and women willing to dress as men! A fun idea to highlight the issues and raise money. Happening in September the Forum seems, with these runs, to have combined the idea of raising the issues and money without a blanket exclusion policy.

Meanwhile last year Cancer Research UK published the results of the most comprehensive research into the risks and treatment of all major cancers. The results shocked the researchers themselves.

 

Men are 70% more likely to die of cancers that are not sex specific (and 40% more likely if all cancers are included). Though such research indicates that many lives would be saved if there is little in the way of  action. CRUK in their own research establish men are more likely to contract all forms of cancer (apart from those specific to sex) and very much more likely to die in all apart from Melanomas.

 

However they continue to wriggle and squirm to avoid an inclusive approach to their Runs for Life. They may be correct that many men would prefer to do more challenging fundraising events, but why exclude those who do want to participate? Even better how about picking up the idea from Ireland to highlight men’s need for earlier diagnosis and treatment?

 

Posted by Adrian Ashby

 

Coverage of CR UK reseaerch is here - Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Telegraph and BBC

 

Editor's Note - Please read this article about John Taylor's fight for equality in the Yorkshire Press

 

 

NSPCC ADVERT "EMILY'S CALL" BETRAYS FATHERS, GIRLS AND THEIR OWN CHILDLINE FACTS

Before reading further, please watch this new NSPCC advert (courtesy of You tube) called Emily's Call and produced by RAPP.

A common theme in the gender and sexual discrimination that men face in the UK is the stereotyping they face in the media and especially in marketing and advertising (Pink and MFI and explained in a cracking Daily Mail column).

Not just in the "men are stupid, throw rocks at them" type of way but in the way that myths are perpetuated and become the accepted truth (if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth) even if the facts are different.

So what is wrong with the NSPCC advert?

Simple.

Last year the NSPCC published research (covered on the site a year ago) that showed that girls who had rung its Childline had said they were more likely to be a victim of physical abuse from their mothers than their fathers. In fact, girls said that 37% of perpetrators were mothers and 25% fathers.

Or another way, for every five calls from girls about physical abuse, three said they had been physically abused by their mother and two by their father.

The report  said (page 10) "it can therefore be concluded that the children who call the Childline are most commonly phycially abused by a parent of the same gender."

To repeat, the NSPCC's own figures show that a girl is more likely to be physically abused by her mother than by her father.

But does the advert leave you with that impression? Of course not.

If the NSPCC advert was to more accurately portray a typical telephone call from a physically abused girl called Emily or portray the more likely scenario, the advert would be based on a call saying it was her mother that was hitting her.

But that wouldn't tug on the emotional heart strings as the NSPCC campaign wants to create maximum stress so it can raise more money. It would also go against the stereotypes and myths that society has about men and fathers and it is easier and less controversial (even if factually inaccurate) for the NSPCC to play along with that rather than worry about its own facts and experience (the NSPCC were probably worried about the Fawcett Society ranting to them as well).

The NSPCC is not concerned about wrongly portraying fathers, demonising men and reinforcing a stereotype/myth that its own figures have shown to be wrong. It is not interested in the truth.

In the war against men and the need to raise money, who cares about running hypocritical, misleading advertising campaigns. The NSPCC hypocrites certainly don't. It lets the poor girls who call down as well as it misleads people into thinking that fathers are more likely to commit physical abuse on them when its wrong.

Complaints about the advertisement should be made to the Advertising Standards Authority as the advert is misleading.

We look forward to them running a reciprocal though equally factually wrong advert called "Edward's call" about a boy being physically abused by his mother.Thought not.

Posted by Skimmington

CANCER RESEARCH UK IN SEXISM COVER UP

Previously this blog covered Cancer Research's sexist Race for Life fund-raising event exposing why such discrimination is so wrong. As esteemed author Brian Clegg stated so eloquently  when discussing the subjects: "just because it's for a good cause doesn't justify discrimination".

Dissatisfaction with the antics of Cancer Research UK is becoming increasing widespread, a quick search on Google shows just how many people are concerned about their sex discrimination against men. Protest videos are even to be found on Youtube and it appears that all this pressure is finally starting to have an effect.

Firstly it has emerged that CRUK are now attempting to hide the inherently sexist nature of Race for Life. For example their recent press adverts now neglect to mention that men are barred from participating in the event. Luckily there are laws against misleading adverting such as this, and I can exclusively reveal that veteran men's rights campaigner John Taylor (with a little help from this blog) successfully forced the organisation to stop producing misleading adverts via the Adverting Standards Authority. If readers of the blog could keep an eye on future Race for Life publicity for any misleading information I'm sure John would appreciate it.

A second change in the strategy of Cancer Research UK seems to be their attempt to censor information about Race for Life sexism from the internet. The Wikipedia article on the subject previously gave an excellent and balanced summary of the issue and the history of Race for Life. However, recent unnamed edits removed information such as how the event was initially only concerned with female cancers and how CRUK responded to criticisms of sexism. It has now become apparent that these edits were made from CRUK's own offices and rather ironically, they even removed links to their own press release about how men have a "significantly greater" risk of cancer and higher mortality rates!

It's often claimed the organisation neglects men, but to go so far as deleting such mentions of men's suffering is almost beyond belief and such edits are a clear breach of Wikipedia rules on Conflicts of Interest. CRUK's misleading adverting could possibly have been considered to be an oversight, but the Wikipedia censorship places the issue in a whole new light.

We place a great deal of importance on fairness and honesty on this blog so it should be noted that CRUK is far from the only UK cancer or health organisation giving vastly disproportionate attention to women. The Macmillian cancer charity has been equally guilty in neglecting prostate cancer though I'm not aware of any obvious or systematic discrimination in terms of banning men from most fund-raising activities.

As a charity relying on people's generous donations and goodwill, CRUK has a duty to be open and honest about what it does. These donations fund the misleading adverts and the salaries of the CRUK employee's censoring Wikipedia. Surely it would be much cheaper and easier (not to mention fairer) to have fund-raising events open to everyone instead of banning every single male in the country from most event? There would certainly be less of a need for a cover up. Either way, it's becoming apparent that pressure on the charity is barring fruit and one has to wonder for how much longer their position can remain tenable.

by John Kimble

FOR EVERY £3,500 SPENT ON FEMALE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS, £1 IS SPENT ON THEIR MALE COUNTERPARTS

Last week a hugely significant and historic debate took place in Scotland when the Parliament got round to finally discussing domestic violence against men. As highlighted in the discussions it's quite shameful that it took 11 years after the initial Liberal Democrat proposal to actually have the debate, particularly given that debating "violence against women" is quite literally an annual event.

The debate itself makes fascinating viewing and a number of those taking part really should be commended for their knowledge of the issues and determination to expose the truth with particular credit going to Mike Rumbles of the Lib Dems. The most positive aspect of the proceedings was the recognition of how badly the Scottish Parliament was failing male victims. It was noted that the Scottish Executive had spent some £100 million helping females victims, compared to £28,000 on men. Feminists moan about all sorts of inequalities such as supposed discrimination in pay, yet even with their skills at fiddling the figures I doubt they can find any area where the disparity in government spending between the sexes amounts to more than 350,000%. As noted in the debate, such a lack of funding means there's no actual helpline based in Scotland for men, and further still no services that victims can be referred to one they call the helpline. It's  akin to setting up a "999" call centre but neglecting to employ any fireman, police or paramedics.

Another positive side of the debate was the recognition that abuse takes many forms, with one of the more serious being women denying fathers access to their children. It was also mentioned how young men suffer more abuse than any other group and there was a promise to investigate the disparity between the reported number of male victim in surveys compared with the actual of them feeling able to report the matter to the police. Similarly it was acknowledged that most domestic violence against men is of course committed by women.

An interesting aspect of the debate was the quite disgraceful conduct of the MSPs from the Labour Party with the event exposing their incredibly backward and one-sided approach to the issue (though it was refreshing to see the rapidly growing gap between their sexist views and those of almost every other party). First of all we got to hear from Johann Lamont,  who sought to add an amendment to the proposed motion stating ""that overwhelmingly victims are women". Fortunately MSPs from other parties were on hand to remind Ms Lamont of the work of Parity and the excellent Statistics Authority who had already taken numerous government departments to task for using such a dishonest and inaccurate statement which downplayed the large proportion of domestic violence victims which were men. Ms Lamont wasn't finished there either, her next attack on male victims of domestic violence was to suggest that many male victims were lying, and further still were in fact perpetrators of domestic violence themselves! Now I don't' doubt that some men lie on this issue, but given that the police invariably take the woman's side who exactly is in the best position to make false allegations of abuse? Lamont will no doubt have been aware of the gender feminist Labour colleagues telling us how female rape victims will supposedly not be believed if anonymity was introduced, yet here we've got an elected official herself denying men's suffering and accusing genuine victims of not only making it up but actually being guilty of the offence themselves! Further still, it emerged she had repeated such an accusation on a radio broadcast earlier that morning too! Lamont also exposed her contempt for the facts in other dishonest statements about men and children, even repeating the discredited and disgusting assertion that "Paedophilia is almost exclusive to men" whilst also downplaying the amount of violence women commit against children.

Of course Labour can't pretend all male domestic violence perpetrators are liars or even the actual perpetrators of such offences, and they did begrudgingly acknowledge the existence of male victims with Bill butler significantly involved in the debate. So what was his attitude to these people faced with begin in such a desperate situation? Did he perhaps propose more funding, or setting up an actual helpline in Scotland itself, an advertising campaign or maybe even a shelter? No, Mr Butler instead sought to excuse women's violence against men. He told us how "When women use violence in intimate relationships it is often, though not always, in self defence or defence of a child or as a form of resistance." When Labour politicians talk about violence against women they always tell us you should "never hit a woman" and "there's no excuse for abuse" yet here was a Labour MSP justifying the abuse of men and even blaming the victim suggesting they are child abusers or a person who somehow need "resisting" whatever that means. His views were branded as "shameful" by the Liberal Democrats and quite rightly so.

My one criticism of the event is the failure to recognise the harmful anti-male agenda of the Men's Advice Line, the organisation receiving the £28,000. The group behind "service" is unapologetically gender feminist in it's outlook and mainly concerned with male perpetrators and female victims. There was some recognition of the fact that the helpline scheme hadn't gone out to tender with the Sottish Executive had only considering the Men's Advice Line or a Scottish feminist group as candidates. However, whistle quite rightly attacking the disgusting attitudes of the Labour MSPs to male victims, the politicians didn't seem to realise they were handing over money to an organisation with the exact same agenda and prejudices. When vulnerable male victims make a phone call they wouldn't be getting a genuinely sympathetic response, but instead someone with exactly the same attitudes as Johann Lamont, i.e. someone who believes that many men lie about being victims of abuse whereas women almost always tell the truth. Perhaps worse still, their words and experiences will almost certainly be twisted to suggest they were the perpetrator of the offence, with such statistics used by misandrists, even in the Scottish Parliament itself, as an excuse to deny help to men or to downplay their suffering..

On a more positive note we did see a tremendous understanding of the issues, for example the quite brilliant Mike Rumbles stated "I hope that we will all see the evil of domestic abuse for what it is—an evil that is perpetrated on the weaker member of a relationship. It is not a gender issue. If we treat it as such, no progress will be made in tackling its true evil. Members should not continue with the mistake of saying that it is simply a gender issue. It is about the abuse of one person in a relationship by their partner. Once we recognise that, we might at last get on the right track and have a chance of helping all those victims who really do need our help." However, such tremendous understanding of the problem didn't merely come from the Liberal Democrats, but also from the Conservatives and even some SNP members such as Christine Grahame. She quoted a domestic violence victim who stated "I find it painful that the Scottish Government has funded a series of TV ads for Christmases highlighting the awfulness of domestic violence in which every example is of male violence against women. It hurts to see messages on buses that men are violent and women are victims. Not a hint that it can ever be the other way. I have no sympathy for men who assault a wife or partner. But I object to my own experience being disregarded." These words led to calls for a campaign or even just a single poster showing males being abused by women, though alas no action was promised.

When writing the conclusions and summaries for pieces such as this I generally have to explain the problem myself and condemn the guilty parties where so many other have failed to do so, either due to a lack of understanding of the issues or a lack of interest in genuine equality. Refreshingly in this instance I can simply quote MSP Mary Scanlon who summed up the situation quite brilliantly herself: "To every male victim and associated child in Scotland, I say that Labour is not listening to you. According to Labour, men feel no pain."

by John Kimble

WHAT ABOUT MAKING GP'S AND THE NHS MORE MEN-FRIENDLY BEFORE BLAMING THEIR STIFF UPPER LIP

Research from Cancer Research UK (an organisation that bans men from its "Race for Life"!!!) and the National Cancer Intelligence Network proclaimed (Daily Mail) that their research showed that men are 70% more likely to die from cancer than women, the usual guff was trotted out that men better mend their ways and lose their stiff upper lip and see their doctor more often.

While accepting that men do smoke and drink more, and there is an issue about men 'just getting on with it' (BBC) so it's likely they will have a higher cancer rate unless that's changed, it is always too easy to just blame men and not look at ways the NHS and GP's should.

Is it that the producer interest (GP's/NHS) could do more to help their customers (men) who through their taxes pay their wages? 

The problem is (and it has been looked at before) is that GP's only tend to be open when men are at work.

More men are in full time work than women, more men work in jobs where there is no flexibility (manual work), more men spend time away from home working and men work longer hours than woman. It is easier for a woman to get to see a GP in the week during working hours than it is for a man.

Therefore, if the NHS/GP's and all those organisations that say men need to do more (except the excellent Men's Health Forum), well how about they do more. How about opening on Saturday's or later in the evening, how about meeting the needs of those who pay their wages and be more flexible.

If any of the parties are serious about men's health in this General Election then this should be a manifesto commitment.

Hattip - Groan

Posted by Skimmington

  

LISTEN TO MEN'S MATTERS ON EXPRESS FM

For some time now, James Williams has been broadcasting a show called Men's Matters on Express FM (scroll down from this link).

For some reason or other this show has never received the attention or credit that John deserves. It is probably the only such radio show in the UK broadcast on mainstream radio.

The latest edition includes:

• In-depth information and discussion on prostate cancer,
• an extract about the spread of misandry (hatred of men),
• talks about prison from feminist, Antonia Bunce and UKMM leader George McAuley; and,
• for something different, the virtues of chess from a couple of Portsmouth guys who love the game.

Anyone who is a mens rights campaigner and wants to appear should contact James on [email protected].

He has also said that he does not get paid "to make a one our pre-recorded show can take about 6 hours of work. To show your support, phone the station on 023 92 77 99 22 during office hours and say so. The more calls, the more prominence men’s issues get."

Enjoy listening and support John in his great work.

Posted by Skimmington

WOULD CANCER RESEARCH LAUNCH A "RACIST FOR LIFE" EVENT?

Well, it's that time of year again where the UK population is faced with the annual relentless onslaught of material promoting Cancer Research's "Race for Life".

For anyone who's been in a coma for the last five years, the Race for Life (RFL) is a feminised five mile run, where participants adorned in pink clothing raise money for research into cancer. CRUK describe it as "unique opportunity for women to come together". Presumably all the other opportunities such as all our female only colleges, female only swimming sessions, female only hotels, female only gyms, female only taxis and female only libraries?

Obviously, such unnecessary segregation of the population by gender, or race nor any other arbitrary means is rather divisive, stupid and somewhat Talibanesque in nature, but it's not particularly sexist in itself if there's equal alternative participatory opportunities for all of the population.

However, that's clearly not the case at all here. Cancer Research (CRUK) is the biggest UK Cancer Charity, yet when they launched Race for Life they neglected to launched any corresponding opportunity for men to get involved whatsoever. Pressure by equality campaigners has reaped small dividends, such as the Run for Moore event, but it has been severely neglected by CRUK and is a half hearted effort at best. The event doesn't receive any significant promotion nor support and as a result isn't enjoying much success.

On the other hand, the Race for Life goes from strength to strength. Vast resources are put into supporting it - be it full page adverts on the front of local newspapers, glitzy TV ads, a barrage of radio spots, signs hanging from every conceivable location in your local branch of Tesco and even logos plastered on cereal packets exclaiming how "You're Invited! (as long as you don't' posses a penis that is).

CRUK state that RFL's ban on men is "due to the wishes of our participants". In other words, some people in the event are somewhat hostile towards males, but what if their hostility was say racial or perhaps religious? Would some equally misguided BNP supporters be allowed to have their own Racist for Life event where ethnic minorities were totally excluded in order to create "an opportunity" for  Anglo Saxons "to come together…in a celebratory atmosphere?"

You may at this point be wondering why exactly Cancer Research's behaviour here is such a big deal and why this is such a key equality issue? Well, to answer such a question we need to consider the following key points:

1. There is a vast gulf in spending between male and female specific cancers. By far the biggest of any cancers in terms of victims are breast cancer and prostate cancer, yet the former gets more funding, around four times as much in all areas including research, and even support, both by the government and by cancer charities themselves.  In fact the traditionally approach to prostate concur has been to hope the men would die of something else first!

2. Cancer is very much seen as a women's issue and the race for Life merely reinforces this false message. The publicity given to cancer such as breast cancer dwarfs everything else out there - Pink this, pink that you really can't escape it. Don't get me wrong, in some ways it's great so much effort goes into dealing with breast Cancer, but it's hardly fair when it's at the expense of everyone else. Such inequality ultimately means less awareness of men's cancers and thus yet more dead men. Women already enjoy significant privileges when it comes to access to health care and life expectancy and such an intense and exclusive focus on breast cancer only furthers such inequality. One could argue pink really does stink, though not for the reasons feminists suggest.

3. Men suffering even from non gender specific cancers have vastly worse outcomes compared to their female counterparts. Cancer Research are at least honest enough to openly admit this themselves. Thus if anything, portraying Cancer as a female phenomenon is a subversion to reality on the part of CRUK and cancer is if anything more of a mens issue that a women's! Of course, as with domestic violence any sane person cares about all cancer victims rather than one a marginally more afflicted subgroup, but it's still useful to know the full facts.

4. Given that 49% of the UK population is male  (despite all the cancer deaths), wouldn't Cancer Research be better off involving the entire UK population in fundraising thus generating double the amount of revenue? Just think how many more lives could be saved and how much more research funded if CRUK suddenly doubled its income!

On top of the above there are smaller logistical issues to consider too. What exactly happens to young boys during the Race for Life? How exactly does one explain to a child that his mother and sister are going to raise money to help grandma, but he's barred from helping out because he's of the wrong gender. Presumably childcare has to be arranged for him too and paid for thus resulting in further lost revenue. Also participants in the event aren't just raising money and publicising CRUK. They're in an environment where they can talk about cancer, and learn and think about the issue. Again this means improved cancer awareness for such women, and ultimately better outcomes as a result. Why does CRUK insist on denying such an excellent opportunity to men also?

In all fairness CRUK have made a few tiny concessions over the years as a result of a years of pressure and campaigning from the likes of equality Charity Parity. For example, women can now run in the memory of a male relative, but progress is painfully slow and if anything they're going backwards these days. For example see how many references you can spot to men or male cancer victims in this years Race for Life TV ad . (Here's a clue - the answer is less than one)

I think Race for Life really says a lot about the position of men in our society and particularly how we treat the issue of men's health. CRUK are at least decent enough to allow a debate about their sexism on the forums so it's not a totally lost cause, but for now I'd urge people to give their money to other Cancer Charities, or at least only sponsor those competing in alternative CRUK events unrelated to Race for Life. Similarly try not to patronise RFL partners, which this year include Tesco, Nivea  Go-Ahead (United Biscuits) and rather appropriately the equally sexist Diamond Car Insurance.

There appears to be an increasing amount of concern about RFL, some of the most eloquent is by the highly respected science author Brian Clegg. In his article "Just because it's for a good cause doesn't justify discrimination" he writes"

"I can't understand why, for example, anyone would want to be a member of a club or organization that excludes half the population...There is no justification for it, except to reinforce the old stereotypes that only women can be caring and supportive."

"The organizers of Race for Life should drop their appalling sexism, and if they don't voluntarily, they should be forced to do so."

Indeed, although I'd actually go slightly further than Mr Clegg and suggest that the fact that we're dealing with such an important and worthy cause here is even more of a reason why this discrimination is wrong. If some random company wants to be sexist or racist then that would be bad enough, but for the UK's biggest cancer charity to be doing such a thing is nothing short of a scandal.

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.

REMEMBER MOVEMBER MONTH

Before anyone forgets its Movember Month. Great web-site here