The Rights Of Man

MINISTER FOR MEN MANIFESTO AND PRIORITIES: 2010 UPDATE

In a post  three years ago, this site published what it thought the 12 key priorities for a Minister for Men should be, a position that has never been created by the British Government, even though it has had a Minister for Women since 1997 and also a Women's National Commission since 1969. There has been much debate on this site about the need for a Minister for Men.

Whilst there has been some mixed results from the new Coalition Government and the Liberal Democrats published a Manifesto for men at the General Election, there is now a need to update or reiterate what the priorities should be.

It would therefore be useful that before publishing updated priorities for a Minister for Men, if ever there a positionw as created, this site would be grateful for any ideas, in addition, to those covered previously.

There is no need for explanation just a line or two on any suggestion.

Posted by Skimmington

Hattip - John Kimble

COALITION GOVERNMENT - WHAT IT MEANS FOR MALE EQUALITY AND THE ENDING OF MALE DISCRIMINATION

Just before polling day on 6th May, this site concluded that the Liberal Democrats had the most man-friendly policies and now they are in a coalition with the Conservatives, their influence can be seen as there is much that is man-friendly in the Coalition Government's plans which were agreed after their negotiations.

In fact, and it seemed to have been hidden away as it received no publicity, the Liberal Democrats had actually produced a short manifesto for men during the election campaign. Nick Clegg said "Men are often a forgotten group in political debates."

While there are many good things in the Coalition Governments plans, there are also some areas of great concern especially on pensions and the fact that there remains a Minister for Women but not one for men.

The good things

(1) Anonymity for rape defendants (unless proven guilty).

John has covered the opposition to this in his last post and it has also been well covered in the media as anti-male organisations such as the Fawcett Society stir up their hatred of men.

This issue is totemic because it is clear that the Coalition Government are aware of the inequality in British Law where the defendant is named and the victim (rightly) is not. The law may not have been changed though if it was not for the epidemic of false accusations (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 , 6   and 7 plus more here). It is those women who are to blame for this and it is those women who should be attacked by The Fawcett Society, the Women Against Rape Group and those who signed the Early Day Motion.

The Coalition Government must hold its nerve against the onslaught from the anti-male marxist feminists who don't believe in equality, justice and do not care about those innocent men who have had their names and reputations dragged through the mud.

This though is ground-breaking.

(2) Anonymity to teachers accused by pupils and take other measures to protect against false accusations.

This is another area similar to the rape issue and again, because the false allegations are normally against men, this is hugely significant and to be supported. It is also backed crucially by a whole swathe of organisations including the teaching unions.

There is a case though for it to be extended to those in the medical professions as doctors (and indeed dentists as shown in this case) are also at great risk of false allegations.

(3) A comprehensive review of family law in order to increase the use of mediation when couples do break up, and to look at how best to provide greater access rights to non-resident parents and grandparents and encourage shared parenting from the earliest stages of pregnancy – including the promotion of a system of flexible parental leave.

This is hugely significant because probably the biggest and long-standing injustice against men to have been used in the past two decades or so has been the deliberate denial of access to their children by  (some) mothers and the legal establishment (many family court judges) and of course Cafcass who have all acted in cahoots. It's why we ended up with Fathers4Justice and Families Need Fathers who have supported estranged fathers up and down the UK.

The review is greatly needed and should not only enshrine the concept of shared parenting when and if custody disputes come to court but also that there is actual enforcement of contact orders. Families Need Fathers are very supportive.

The not-so-good things

(1) Minster for Women but no Minister for Men

When Blair became Prime Minister in 1997 he introduced the extremely invidious position of a Minister for Women without having a reciprocal Minister for Men. It meant that for every single day that that Government was in place it discriminated against men.

Sadly, the Coalition Government has gone down the same path and as well as being Home Secretary, Theresa May is also the Minister for Women. There is no Minister for Men.

(2) Discrimination over Pension Age

Currently legislation shows that the state pension ages for men and women will be equalised in 2020 at 65 and then gradually increase together over time including both rising to 66 in 2026 (Covered by John here).

The Conservatives when in Opposition proposed that the state pension age should be moved forward to 66 for men with no change for women except for that planned (move from 60 to 65 for women in 2020 and then to 66 in 2026). The Conservatives were questioned on this at the time and it was clear that they had forgotten to think about women (it was Ok for men to see if their retirement age of 66 brought before by ten years - men are expendable of course).

The details in the proposed Pension and Savings Bill are still sketchy (until it is published) but the Government has said that the first move, to 66, "will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women", which obviously shows some backtracking.

After the battle led by organisation like Parity for the equalisation of pension ages and other benefits, if the state pension ages are not equalised by 2020 then this will be certainly be discriminatory. How the detail will be worked out before then will also be significant. We will be watching.

(3) Gender equality in the boardroom

The Coalition Government has said they will promote more gender equality in the boardroom. Much will depends on how this is done.

The anti-male feminist wants quotas and to use discrimination to stop men from getting into the boardroom by ensuring that places are set aside for women, irrelevant if they are the best candidate for the job.

If a Labour Government had become re-elected then this would have eventually been legislated for as it is in Norway and elsewhere (link). How the Coalition Government go about this will be crucial but even by promoting it, it will put companies under 'social' pressure to do so.

There has been some talk also that the Coalition Government will not implement the parts of the Equality Act that it disagreed with. These were on the gender pay audits for all firms with over 250 employees and also the (laughably named) ' positive action' clauses that allowed employers to discriminate against employees or potential employees (mainly men) when it came to recruitment. Let us hope they do not implement these parts.

(4) The Missing Pieces

There were a number of issues that were missing but if they can brave it out against the anti-male feminist on the false accusations issue, then perhaps they will introduce them later.

This includes issues around support men's health (especially ensuring GP surgeries have man friendly opening hours) and boys education for example.

Conclusion

While there will be dismay that there is not more for bringing about male equality and ending male discrimination in the UK, the moves on false accusations and shared parenting are real landmarks. Certainly if a Labour Government had been re-elected men would have been done for and certainly none of these proposals would have been put forward.

This site will be monitoring and commenting on the Coalition Government as it trundles along but so far it is good start, but it could and can do better. 

Posted by Skimmington

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

  

LABOUR'S ALL-WOMEN SHORTLISTS BANNING MEN FROM STANDING FOR THEIR 'FAIR' PARTY AT 2010 GENERAL ELECTION

For the 2010 General Election called on Tuesday, Labour have banned men from standing as their candidates in 59 58 seats (full list below) by using all-women shortlists. This site is apolitical but no man should vote Labour in any of these seats because they have been sexually discriminated against.

If you believe in equality of opportunity then you cannot support all women-shortlists and as argued extensively before (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) on this site, the use of these by Labour for their candidate selection has disenfranchised men from the political process.

It is against the British Constitution (albeit these shortlists are legal), stops people (Labour males) from being allowed to take part equally as women in the democratic political process and furthermore means those women selected in this way will only ever be seen as second class candidates (or MP's if they win) because they did not win their nomination fairly.

It is even worse if you are a Labour man who has served your local community (as a councillor etc) but cannot even be considered by them to represent your community in Parliament.

All women-shortlists fall foul of politically correct victim politics, where people do not have individual identities because their identity is solely governed by the 'group' category they fall in. So men are banned no matter how good or what talent or commitment they have in representing people in their community in Parliament.

How can Labour go into the election claiming they want a create a fair society when they ban half the population from being their candidates solely because of their gender?  

The seats where Labour have selected their candidates from all women-shortlists (please tell the site if there are any missed) and banned men from being a Labour candidate are:-

• Airdrie
• Ashfield
• Birmingham Ladywood
• Blackpool North & Cleveleys
• Brighton Pavilion
• Bolton West
• Burnley
• Burton
• Bury North
• Camborne & Redruth
• Cardiff Central
• Clywd South
• Colne Valley
• Dudley South
• Durham North West
• Ealing Southall
• East Dunbartonshire
• East Lothian
• Edinburgh East
• Erewash
• Erith & Thamesmead
• Glasgow East
• Gravesham
• Hackney South
• Halesowen & Rowley Regis
• Hemel Hempstead
• High Peak
• Hornsey & Wood Green
• Houghton & Sunderland South
• Ilford North
• Keighley
• Kenilworth & Southam
• KIlmarnock & Loudoun
• Leeds North West
• Leeds West
• Makerfield
• Manchester Withington
• Newcastle Central 
• Nottingham South
• North Tyneside
• Nuneaton
• Reading East
• Rochester & Strood
• Scarborough & Whitby
• Selby & Ainsty
• Stretford & Urmston
• Sunderland Central
• Vale of Glamorgan
• Walsall South
• Walthamstow
• Warrington South
• Washington & Sunderland West
• Wavertree
• Wellingborough
• West Ham
• Wigan
• Wirral West
• Wolverhampton South East
• The Wrekin

No man voting in any of these seats should vote Labour - you have been discriminated against because of your gender, you are a non-person to them.

CORRECTION - As pointed out correctly by the Wirral Herald (thank you Wirral Herald for correcting this) Wirral West has a male candidate. Apologies but the local Labour Party did want an all-women shortlist but were over-ruled!

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO UK ORGANISATION SUPPORTING THIS YEAR'S INTERNATIONAL MEN'S DAY ON 19TH NOVEMBER

The new International Men's Day site is up and running and the site shows that last year the University of Kent supported the vent by running a charity event in aid of male cancer. No news is available on whether this happening again this year.

The Day is supported by the UN, UNESCO and received in principal support from men's groups in USA, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean. However, as pointed out before, there does not seem to be anything organised in the UK. Anyone have any views why not?

Surely the Coalition on Men & Boys would support it, wouldn't they?

CONSERVATIVES TO BAN MEN FROM APPLYING TO BE MP'S

The UK Parliament is currently holding what it calls a 'Speakers Conference' a very rarely used tool to debate key issues facing Parliament. The current Speakers Conference has been set up to "Consider, and make recommendations for rectifying, the disparity between the representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in the House of Commons and their representation in the UK population at large".

In laymen terms, Parliament is looking at how to boost the numbers of women in Parliament, which is not necessarily a bad thing, except when it means putting barriers up to stop men from having an equal chance of serving in Parliament and serving a constituency and our country.

Just to recap, the Labour Party has used the blunt instrument of All-women short-lists since the 1997 General Election. They were temporarily stopped because a number of male Labour members who wanted to stand for Parliament took the Labour Party to an industrial tribunal and won. The response by Labour was to introduce the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act in 2002 which meant they could start using All-Women short-lists again because political parties were exempted from the original Sex Discrimination Act.

This site has long highlighted how it continues to be used by Labour, effectively banning man from standing for the Labour Party which means that Labour supporting men who want to be a candidate at the next General Election are politically disenfranchised right across the UK.

The Conservatives under David Cameron have been going down a similar-ish route. Firstly they had an A-List of preferred candidates (that is, chosen by the Party centrally) which had more than 50% women. Only if you were on this list could you apply for a winnable seat. Then they abandoned this after 18 months when most of the winnable seats had selected their candidates from this list and moved to a system where each local Conservative Party had to ensure they interviewed equal numbers of men and women in each selection round. That is, if they wanted to interview 20 people there had to be 10:10 then narrow that down to 2:2 for the final selection round. It was irrelevant how many women or men had applied (there are 7 men for every 3 women on their 'candidates list'.). At the European Elections they also introduced a system for choosing candidates which made it far harder for a man to be elected.

The reason for raising all of this is that this week, the Conservatives have declared that from January 2010, if a MP decided that he/she is standing down from their seat, the seat will only be available to female candidates. That is, they are also introducing all-women short-lists and this was announced by David Cameron this week when he spoke at the aforementioned Speakers Conference.

This announcement has been met with a real backlash from within the Conservative Party (the party of meritocracy supposedly) and has engendered a massive amount of column inches and print ( a list of key articles are below). Part of the reasoning is that they are still not getting enough women in good seats (30% of their candidates are women, thereby matching the make up of their Candidates List so what's wrong?). In addition, they have recently been selecting candidates in winnable seats and all have been men but that has been becuase they are the best candidate at the interview.

John Maples MP, who heads up candidate selection, said this week "All 8 selections have produced male candidates.  The only woman selected has been Sarah Wollaston, in the all postal primary in Totnes.  This trend is not acceptable." Of course, all of the selections were independent of each other and the local parties pick their candidate based on who they think is the best person for the job.

What this all shows though is that the two major parties in the UK have been active in politically disenfranchising men. They have been doing all they can to stop men form being selected to stand for them atn the next General Election to boost the numbers of women. This is anti-democratic and undermine the liberal democrat 'unwritten constitution' which is the founding principle of modern Britain.

While there are more men standing at the next General election for the Conservatives at the next General election than women, this forgets that the issue that each person wanting to stand for Parliament or public office is an individual first and foremost. Their gender or anything else is irrelevant under the liberal democratic constitution.

Instead of trying to get more good women into Parliament by making it more attractive for high calibre women to become candidates (high calibre in terms of meaning they can beat/compete against high calibre male candidates), instead the two main parties have chosen to boost female numbers by sexually discriminating against men.

A travesty and the ultimate act of discrimination, and if the UK political system is meant to be the 'Mother of al Parliament's' then men across the world who want to stand for Parliament in their own country had better watch out.

Key Articles

Conservative Home 1, CH 2, CH 3, CH 4, CH 5, CH 6, CH 7, Iain Martin, Simon Heffer, Amanda Platell, Virginia Blackburn, Daily Mail,  Ann Widdecombe MP and Google News