The Rights Of Man

NEWS UPDATE

A few from the last week or so

BBC - What jobs are male and what are female (Mark Easton): An old one from last year that I had not seen before.

Fighting Feminism - An attack by the V Spot (Mike Buchanan)

Daily Mail - Bring on quotas for women says TUC chief (Anna Edwards)

Daily Herald - Scotland lacking in male primary school teachers (Andrew Denholm)

Evening Standard - Soho restuarant continues trend in women-only bars (Emer Martin). Unless this is a private members club then KC’z Bar general manager and entrepreneur, KC Gates, will be breach of equality laws. See pubs and clubs section here.

Daily Telegraph - Government failing female entrepresneurs (Emma Barnett): More pleas for special treatment and discrimination against men. This time from Labour MP Seema Malhotra.

Amazon - Review on The Highway Rat (Tony Iqeq)

A Voice for Men - Interview with Erin Pizzey  

Daily Mail  - Diane Abbott MP says feminism destroyed the family (Tim Shipman)

The Observer - UK's top firms more male-dominated than FTSE rivals, new data reveals (Simon Goodley)

Daily Mail - Bias in the justice system (Peter Lloyd)

Daily Mail - John Leslie says false allegations destroyed my life

Posted by Skimmington

UNIVERSITY ENTRY FIGURES SHOW STRUCTURAL AND INSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST BOYS

On Tuesday, Prostate Cancer UK highlighted the institutional discrimination men faced in the area of cancer research and today in an interview and article in The Independent, Universities Minister David Willetts said that white working class boys should be treated as an ethnic minority because so few are now going to university.  He also was interviewed on the Radio 4 Today programme and there was a follow up article in The Independent on the issue.

The final figures for last autumn's university intake in the UK show a fall in applications from men which was four times that among women. Just 30% of male school-leavers applied to university for autumn 2012, compared to 40% of female school-leavers, according to UCAS.

In his interview he quotes:

"There are now more women who enter university each year than there are men who submit a Ucas form. That marks a tremendous achievement for women, who were in a minority among undergraduates as recently as the 1990s. But it is also the culmination of a decades-old trend in our education system which seems to make it harder for boys and men to face down the obstacles in the way of learning. That is a challenge for all policymakers."

There are four issues here.

Firstly, 'the challenge for all policymakers' that Willetts talks about is a challenge that has been known for decades but the educataion establishment has been too frightened and politically correct (only girls count - boys are disposable) to do anything about it. Politicians, policymakers and the establishment like the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the Government Equalities Department are too biased against men. No point in Willetts saying there is a challenge but not offering a solution. 

Secondly, Willetts and others are still to afraid to go that extra mile and admit that the education system and Britain as a whole) are institutionally biased against boys and has been captured by ideologues who only view women and girls as important.

Thirdly, as 'Groan' pointed out in his comments on the last post, if organisations such as the Fawcett Society, Equalities and Human Rights Commission, The Guardian, the TUC etc want quotas for women in boardrooms, then why not quotas for university places for boys? I am not in favour as all quotas are wrong, but it is a point worth making in showing up their hypocrisy. 

Lastly, this is another landmark story (I take the point as one reader mentioned this week that we have known about the figures for years but this and the cancer story have dominated the headlines on both days respectively). Both highlight beyond doubt the structural and institutional discrimination against men. In two areas, of fundamental importance - education and health.

The door of opportunity on these and so many other issues is starting to open. We need to keep the pressure on.

Posted by Skimmington.   

Media Update (other coverage) - BBC with debate

Ps tried a new font (Verdana) is it better than Arial?

INSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN EXPOSED BY PROSTATE CANCER UK

Thanks to Brian for sending over the link to the Daily Telegraph article on "prostate cancer -the neglected killer, loses out on research cash."

Breast cancer receives twice as much research funding as prostate cancer despite both diseases killing similar numbers of people, a charity has said.

Despite being the most common cancer in men and the fourth most common cancer overall, prostate cancer lies 20th in the “league table” of annual cancer research spend per case diagnosed, figures show.

Breast cancer, the most common female cancer which has a similar death rate to prostate cancer, received more than double the annual research spend with  £853 per case diagnosed compared with £417.

Prostate Cancer UK are really stepping up a gear. Not just in launching their sledgehammer campaign  and their advertising campaign, but also in publishing this research. It certainly builds on the responsible campaigning theme and does make the case rightly that money should be switched from breast cancer research to prostate research.

The chief executive alludes to what part of the problem is in his comments: "Men in the UK have a problem and they don’t want to talk about it. Neither do the wives and partners who will end up supporting them, the doctors who will treat them, nor the politicians who will count on their vote. Prostate cancer is the UK’s best kept worst secret."

What he is saying but doesn't want to 'say it', is that this is as clear an example of the  institutional sexism and institutional discrimination that men face.

Play the 'reverse the gender' game and does anyone really think that politicians, and doctors would not do anything about, not lead campaigns, not increase funding etc. Of course they would but they stay silent when comes to men's health because as we know men are the disposable sex.

It also shows why we need a Minister for Men to ensure this state discrimination does not take place.

 And of course where is the anti-male Equalities and Human Rights Commission in all of this? They have a statutory duty under the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that this type of state institutional discrimination does not take place in terms of government research. Why are they so silent?   

This is a great start to 2013 in exposing discrimination against men, and then doing something about it  - fighting male discrimination that actually costs men their lives.

Posted by Skimmington

Media update - BBC and Daily Mail

2012 REVIEW OF MALE INEQUALlTY AND DISCRIMINATION IN THE UK

Thank you to everyone who has supported the site (despite the sometime intermittent service) and this year (the seventh year it has been going), the site had 83,000 page views and 160 published pieces.

Thanks to everyone who contributed either in submitting articles or in commenting upon them. I have also updated some of the groups on the left hand side of this page - please remember to send over any that are missing.

In terms of what progress has been made in male equality and ending male discrimination, this year can again be seen as two steps forward one step back. The gain has mainly due to the efforts of individuals and groups taking up the mantle of male equality through organising themselves and not relying on politicians or other groups to do it for them. As we know, institutional sexism remains rife in Britain, so the welcome realisation is that we cannot rely on those same institutions for help.

In terms of the positives on particular issues, there have been some.

Family Law reform is moving forward with the concept of shared parenting being the accepted direction of travel (Parliamentary Briefing and subsequent announcement). This was despite the Norgrove Report denigrating shared parenting - though the fact Norgrove remains Chair of the Family Justice Review Board is surely untenable.

Boys Education remains the truth that dare not say its name. While boys continue to lag behind girls, the public policy silence remains deafening, despite some starting to publicly recognise it as a concern. The one glimmer of light is that the government is to bring back O-Level type examinations (one of the first big topics this site set out) however this will not be until 2017 (in terms of first exams), so that means 30 years of destruction has befallen the education of boys by bringing in an examination system wholly unacceptable to the way boys learn. The problems facing boys was eloquently laid out in this report and can be seen feeding through into pay.

The re-introduction of O-levels though is more down to Gove's desire for rigour rather than an acceptance that the education establishment has got it wrong for three decades and left generations of boys behind.

Women rejecting discrimination and excuses - we know that modern-day radical feminists that dominate the BBC, the Guardian, the senior parts of the civil service/academia/publc sector, the media and politics (including their "White Knight's") are out of touch with the thoughts and needs of modern women. Especially those who actually like men and want their fathers, brothers, sons, husbands, boyfriends etc to succeed. Research at the beginning of the year showed this as did this report at the end of the year.

Three issues that were never 'seen' as affecting men have also started to be recognised - human trafficking, forced marriage/honour violence and circumcision (and here). The latter has really taken off with the German court verdict and the manslaughter of a baby in the North West.

Lastly, this was the year that male equality issues started to enter the mainstream. In addition, to the above issues and groups working within them, the 'movement' started to mature. We saw the fruits of sensible campaigning by father's groups, Mike Buchanan's work at the Campaign for Merit in Business challenging the status quo leading to Select Committee appearances and even campaigns against the NSPCC succeeding. We have also seen campaigns against Virgin in Australia.

The National Conference for Men and Boys continues to grow, as does International Men's Day in the UK and also the celebration of Fathers on Father's Day. This maturity can be seen against the growing desperation of anti-male feminist groups trying to keep their requests for discrimination against men and special treatment on the political agenda.

On the negative side, we saw the continuing clamour for quotas and the ending of meritocracy over boardoom appointments gathering pace, however, while the governmet refused to accept EU legislation, there remains the social stigmatisation of companies if they do not comply with an 'unofficial quota'. Some have given in.

Mike Buchanan's campaign for Merit in Business has stood up to the argument mainly I think from a biological determinist sense, while this site's approach is mainly that quotas etc are discriminatory in blocking men because of their gender not talent and are against the fundamental tenets of equality.

Other areas that continue to be ignored are the male suicide rate, men's health especially on continual delays on a national screening programme, male victims of domestic abuse, male homelessness, male unemployment and the general demonisation of men by society, the media and groups such as the Fawcett Society, the Guardian and the government. We still have mobile phone sites defaming men's rights websites. There is still no Minister for Men, the most visible expression of anti-male equality (15 years).

What I am hoping for 2013, is that the growing maturity of the male equality sector continues with new sensible groups being created (only where there is a gap) or men and women joining existing ones.

There needs to be the celebratory groups such as International Men's Day and Father's Day, conferences, campaigns on particular issues, practical goups (like CALM, FNF, ManKind Initiative, Centre for Separated Families etc) providing practical on the ground solutions and also probably a more political group (not necessarily  political party).

The growing desperation of anti-male feminist groups like the Fawcett Society will be called into question mainly by women who are rejecting their hatred of the men they share their lives with.

This is what I would like to see so that come this time next year - we are starting to see equality for men, and the barriers that prevent them enjoying equality being further dismantled.

Posted by Skimmington

PS Forgot about this article

 

 

NEWS UPDATE INCLUDING ANNOUNCEMENT ON MEN'S POLITICAL PARTY

Hi everyone - thank you for sending through new stories and reporting the broken link (restored hopefully below).

I haev also caught up on the debate on the comments in teh comments section about Mike Buchanan's announcement of a political party and the Daily Mail article so have updated this post with the news.

The Guardian - Education is leaving boys behind (Ally Fogg)

Daily Telegraph - Women's unwelcome Xmas present (Jo Swinson - Minsiter for Women and Equalities): As expected, anti-male feminists do not like equality unless it benefits women. Note Minister for "Women and equalities" - no mention of men. Not sure what to make of this  from actor David Webb

Daily Telegraph - Stuntman's wife charged with domestic abuse 

Daily Mail - Amy Winehouse's ex hits out at false rape accusation (Mark Duell)

Posted by Skimmington

CHRISTMAS EVE NEWS UPDATE

Sorry for slackness, here are a few from the last week or so and thank you to those who sent them on.

Daily Telegraph: So you think you know about homeless (Cathy Newman) - No one wants to see anyone homeless, man or woman, but what would be good is to see an article about why 85% of those who are homeless are men and what is to be done about them - and of course those women in the same boat. There is a lazy acceptance that men being homeless is Ok and acceptable.

Daily Telegraph: Sexual display around board table is why women won't succeed (Louisa Peacock) - Coverage of Steve Moxon and Mike Buchanan at a recent select committee.

Daily Telegraph:  How Louise Mensch and the A-List will make it harder for women (Cathy Newman) - Ms Newman is taking on the we need special treatment and discrimination against men mantle in the Telegraph.

Daily Telegraph: Will Jimmy Saville case put men off from childcare (June O'Sullivan)

Daily Telegraph: Fathers earn more, mothers earn less (Patrick Hennessy) - Proof of the strength of the family unit and the clear cause of the diminishing gender pay gap - not discrimination against women.

BBC: Five things about women in the press - Nothing about all men being portrayed as idiots or potential sex offenders.

BBC: Child Abductions up 88% - FCO press release but Huffington Post says 70% of abductions are by mothers so why is this not in the headline. If it was 70% men then the headline would 'fathers responsible for spiralling numbers of child abduction cases'.

Daily Mail: Connors' family jailed for slavery (Mark Deull et al) - Now lets never hear a story about slavery in Britain without men being a core part of the narrative.

Front Page (US): Women's Studies and the spread of men hatred (Ben Bawer)- Plus watch the link to the Toronto video to see full-on misandry.

BBC News: Teenage fathers feel marginalised - Research by Barnado's show how teenage fathers are ignored and never thought of by the authorities. Groundbreaking work by the charity not only because of the research itself but just the fact it is putting it out there and speaking up for fatherhood. The report says the authorities are "driving fathers apart from their children through a ‘culture where fathers are not valued."

Daily Telegraph: A dad is tenth most wanted Christmas present (Hannah Furness): Perhaps if their mothers had not gone through the family courts to stop them enjoying life with their fathers then this would not be an issue.

BBC: Nurse kills baby in botched circumcision and calls for a ban

BBC: Half of men to get cancer by 2027 - The story touches upon but does not delve into why there is no effective screening for men and why there is such a lack of pace in making it happen. The Men's Health Forum are as pathetic as ever, blaming men for not getting screening for bowel cancer rather than taking on the authorities who do not tell men it is available.

The Sun: X Factor glasses ex and avoids jail (Alice Everley) - Equality in British courts and this laughably weak sentence shows what happens when you have campaigns against women going to prison. The subliminal message gets to judges.

The Guardian: More protection needed in family courts (Amelia Hill): Notice how the judge mentions crimes committed by 'fathers' and others by 'parents' - I wonder if the 'parents' were mothers but it would do to mention that in the Guardian.

Daily Mail: More boys put off university than girls due to hike in fees (Laura Clark) - Mary Curnock Cook, UCAS chief executive, said: ‘The fact that women remain more likely to enter higher education than men are  to apply is a striking and worrying finding.’ So what is she and government going to do about it? 

The Guardian - Education is leaving boys behind (Ally Fogg)

Merry Xmas everyone and thank you for your support.

Posted by Skimmington

NETMUMS SURVEY SHOW THE EMPRESS HAS NO CLOTHES

Returning to a Netmums survey I highlighted in October (half way down), there was a number of areas that showed how young women were rejecting the term feminism and women of all ages now saw that radical feminism was divisive and anti-male.

This was why in October the survey was met with such hatred from anti-male radical feminists because it shows the "empress has no clothes" and does not speak for mainstream women (this is my favourite response). They feel vulnerable because it undermines their ability to garner cheques for writing in The Guardian, running organisations such as the Fawcett Society and Equality and Human Rights Commission and a myriad of other public sector jobs. No more lecture fees on 'gender studies' courses.

The four key statistics in the survey were:

• Younger women are least likely to embrace the term. 25% of women aged 45 to 50 described themselves as a 'Feminist'. But just 9% of those aged 25 to 29 identified with it and only 8% of women aged 20 to 24.

• 39% criticised old-fashion Feminism for being too divisive, claiming they 'don't want to be equal - women are different to men and we should celebrate the differences.'

• Almost a third (28%) think traditional radical Feminism is 'too aggressive' towards men while a quarter (24%) no longer view it as a positive label for women. One in five describe Feminism as 'old fashioned' and simply 'not relevant' to their generation.

• In subsequent questions, 17% even claim Feminism has gone too far, oppressing men and 'losing sight of the natural roles of men and women

This can be seen by the female-led backlash to the infamous Daily Mail article from Esther Walker.

It shows the rejection by mainstream women of radical feminists because they are starting to see that it is driven by a hatred of men and also the conseqneces of it in their own lives. Female graduates see their boyfriend counterparts are still unemployed, mothers see their sons falling behind at school and wives see their husbands blocked from senior positions in companies because of activities of quota campaigners such as the 30% Club. 

The anti-male radical feminists whose existience depends on capturing the media, infesting the universities and public sector, and haranguing politicians do not speak for women. Modern women have said "not in my name".

 Posted by Skimmington

WHY DID THE "BIGOT IN A BRA" THINK IT WAS RIGHT TO PEN SUCH AN ARTICLE?

The fallout from Esther Walker's article on Monday about "beastly boys" continues to rightly attract deserved criticism. The fact that it has had 1,446 comments so far speaks volumes and the condemnation from women (mothers of boys especially) is very heartening.

Peter Lloyd's critique "Bigot in a Bra" is devastating not just for what he says about the article but his articulation of the bias against men. It is good that the Daily Mail has someone on their books clearly standing up for male equality. He is suing Kentish Town Sports centre for these women-only swimming classes.

As regular contributor Brian said on Monday:

To make the point of the above comment really clear, replace the word "Boys" in the article with any of the following words and see the reaction:

Nxxxxx
Jew
Asians
Homosexuals
Girls

and ask why has this woman not been arrested or at the very least sacked?

As well as the issue Brian mentions there is the issue about the thought process in the midns of both writer and editor - similar to why advertising agencies and companies think anti-male adverts are Ok but they would never dream of running an anti-women advert.

Why did she think it was right to hold these views and then write about them and then why did the Daily Mail think it was Ok to publish them? it says a lot about modern-day feminism's view of men and boys.

Posted by Skimmington

CHECKING FOR MALE CANCER

A kind reader asked that the site should point all readers to this article about checking for cancer.

LATEST UPDATE FROM JOHN TAYLOR ON CANCER RESEARCH UK

Michael Pragnell Esq., Chairman, Cancer Research UK.

Copy: (1) Harpal Kumar Esq., Chief Executive, Cancer Research UK; (2) Richard Taylor, Executive Fund Raising Director & Supporter Marketing, Cancer Research UK

(3) Jo Stephens, PA to Mr Pragnell

By e-mail and Recorded Delivery letter, dated:

Saturday, 1st December, 2012

M Pragnell Esq.,Chairman, Cancer Research UK. Angel Buildings, 407 St John Street, London, EC1V 4AD

Dear Mr Pragnell

OPEN IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

? ? WHY HAVE I RECEIVED NO CONFIRMATION THAT MY "RECORDED DELIVERY LETTER OF 13TH OCTOBER" HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM CRUK ? ?

WHY WERE THERE NO BOYS IN YORK’S RACE FOR LIFE - OR TRURO‘S?

CRUK’S RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

CRUK’S UNLAWFUL ONLINE PROMOTIONS

I send this further to my Recorded Delivery letter of 1st December and previous Recorded Delivery letter, of Saturday 13th October, which was delivered on 16th October - from East London Delivery Office. Circumstances makes me wonder if that letter was placed in your in-tray because I have not, as yet, received  confirmation that it has been received and I will be sent a considered response shortly…

Further, in my letter of 13th October, I stated: To my dismay, I have to comment further to your letter dated 30th March, in  which you state, inter-alia : "I would ask you to respect the professionalism of the fundraising team at Cancer Research UK whose responsibility it is to make these judgements . I recognise that your longstanding concern is unlikely to change. Nonetheless, I hope that we can now draw this exchange of letters and emails to a close…..

I stress, Mr Pragnell, I am "very, very much" looking forward to the day when I can sit back and think "Job well done" - I trust I will not have to write CRUK off as a lost cause??? Alas, I have to question the professionalism of CRUK, but first, I must stress I was very pleased to be informed by Cancer Chat Manager, Sarah, on 16th April, 2012. That the rules had been re-instated so that boys aged 11 and under can participate in Race for Life accompanied by a legal guardian.

I quote: Moderator_Sarah

456. 16-Apr-2012 16:55 in response to: XXXXXX

Re: Is Race For Life Sexist ??

We wanted to update you quickly on a change to our current rules for Race for Life. Some of our members have recently expressed their disappointment that young boys weren’t able to take part in events this year.  So we’ve listened to feedback from a range of supporters to gauge their feelings on the subject.  As a result we’ve decided to reinstate the rule we trialled for the first time last year, so that boys aged 11 and under can participate in 2012, accompanied by a legal guardian.  We’re currently updating our processes so that this can happen and we will let you know as soon as it’s possible to register boys... Sarah, Cancer Chat Manager

Appendix 1 - to my Recorded Delivery letter of 13th October...

To my dismay, I never received a considered response to those emails - referred to in my RD letter of 13th October (attached)  I would willingly forward them again…I stress, I sent the emails because there was no reference to boy participants either in York’s Press Souvenir supplement of 30th June; nor in the report of Thursday, 28th June - "Thousands take part in York Race for Life" Please see Appendix 2 - also, this link: http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9785219.Thousands_take_part_in_York_Race_For_Life/ I assume CRUK has a copy of the souvenir supplement(too large to put online) ? ..

I stress, copy of my Recorded Delivery letter of 1st December, also of of 13th October, can be read by opening both "word docs" attached...

Further, re the Racial Discrimination,  referred to in my previous letter of 13th October - I quote:

"In Petryk v Cancer Research UK (2008 - ET) the Tribunal found that Cancer Research had started disciplinary proceedings against Ms Petryk for alleged financial misconduct because she was Polish, when it had not done so in respect of an English comparator, and that the disciplinary procedure, which had lasted for some 18 days, until Ms Petryk was cleared of the misconduct, had created an intimidating atmosphere and so constituted harassment.

The Tribunal accepted Ms Petryk had been prescribed tranquillisers as a result of Cancer Research's actions and noted that she had not received a full apology. Therefore, the Tribunal decided that an award in the lower band was appropriate and that the appropriate sum, taking into account a small award for aggravated damages due to Cancer Research's conduct of the Tribunal proceedings, would be some £6,500"... 

Proof can be read from this link : http://www.workplacelaw.net/content/25224  The Detail is third down - below Rowe...

Further re Truros event I copy that stated in my Recorded Delivery letter of  13th October :

Re the Truro Event: The following words give further cause for concern re "poor publicity" The info is from a female friend who participated in the event -

… Truro In Cornwall on 15th July - there was no prior mention of boys under 11 being allowed to take part (if you hadn’t mentioned it I would never have known). There were no small boys in the race either, and believe me I looked out for them and there was no mention over the speaker system prior to the race that the ruling had been relaxed in that direction either. Hope this helps. I’m not scared for you to name me either John, & my back is very broad in a manner of speaking…

To conclude, I copy that stated in my Recorded Delivery letter of 13th October re :

CRUK’S UNLAWFUL PROMOTIONAL ONLINE ADVERTS : Are you aware the Advertisements Standards Board recently had to contact CRUK re these? I am…There was numerous adverts in breach of the law. Were Press Releases sent to York Press & York's Minster FM - re boys being allowed to participate ? Was any sent to Truro's media ?

I take this opportunity to wish all at Cancer Research UK :

...A sincere Very Merry Christmas and Happy 2013 onwards…

I look forward for your considered response...

...Together we will beat cancer...

RECORDED DELIVERY & BY EMAIL

Saturday, 1^st December 2012

M Pragnell Esq.,

Chairman,

Cancer Research UK

Dear Mr Pragnell

 

OPEN IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

WHY WERE THERE NO BOYS IN YORK’S RACE FOR LIFE OR TRURO‘S?

CRUK’S RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

CRUK’S UNLAWFUL ONLINE PROMOTIONS

 

I send this further to my previous Recorded Delivery letter, of Saturday 13^th October, which was delivered on 16^th October - from East London Delivery Office. Circumstances makes me wonder if that letter was  placed in your in-tray because I have not, as yet, received confirmation that it has been received and I will be sent a considered response shortly…

 I stress, I will also be sending this by email (as a word doc) so you can easily read my previous letter of 13^th October - in the attached “word doc”(see above)

I take this opportunity to wish you :  

 ...A very Merry Christmas and Happy 2013 onwards…

With kind regards,

 

John Taylor