The Rights Of Man

CANCER RESEARCH UK - NEGLECTING PROSTATE CANCER TODAY BECAUSE IT WAS NEGLECTED YESTERDAY

Despite the overwhelming evidence against them, CRUK still continue to deny their sexism against men. On the plus side it's certainly welcome to see the organisation finally engaging in dialogue, so lets examine their response to criticism.

Replying on behalf of CRUK chief executive Harpel Kumar, Carolan Davidge writes "let me reassure you that we are very much committed to helping men". Firstly lets analyse what she gets right in her email. For one thing she talks about CRUK's work on testicular cancer and I think this is one area where the charity's conduct isn't especially unreasonable. Testicular cancer has a very high survival rate and although far from rare, there is no epidemic of it. CRUK should be doing more, but there's nothing scandalous or vastly disproportionate about the resources they put into it it's hard to produce a compelling case for a "guilty" verdict of sexism by looking at that one issue.

Prostate cancer is the exact opposite, everyone hopelessly neglects it, and looking at CRUK's activities you'd never ever believe that it was almost as common as breast cancer (with the gap shrinking rapidly). Not only is awareness hopeless, but research and understanding it is at a primitive state due to decades of neglect. CRUK themselves admit that prostate cancer was neglected in the past, so what their response to this? Do they pump extra finding into the disease to make up for lost time or do they ignore the past and just give fair funding to prostate cancer today? The answer is neither. CRUK state "Although there has been a deficit in prostate cancer funding in the past, there’s been a substantial effort to remedy this..we’re now seeing some focused, concerted action on this front."  However, CRUK still spends twice as much on each breast cancer patients as it does for each prostate cancer patent, and more than three times as much per ovarian cancer patient. Their justification for doing so is "the simple fact is, we know much, much less about prostate cancer than we do about any other cancer in the ‘big four’" So we're stuck in a vicious circle, CRUK (and others) blatantly neglected so many men in the past, and because of the lack of understanding resulting from this neglect, they use this as an excuse to continue to do so in future!

CRUK's most recent defence against allegations of sexism highlights their cancer information pages and publications as supposed proof of their commitment to men, but just like someone who keeps digging when in a hole, all we get to see is more proof of their sexism. The CRUK page on cancer information prominently lists six cancer types for visitors to click on, other cancer require expansion of the list to find one's cancer type. Naturally the "big four" are included, but also in the six of these apparently key cancers is cervical cancer. Despite the attention given to it in society, cervical cancer isn't actually especially common and numerous other cancers are far more prevalent, such as bladder cancer, and skin cancer, both of which also have more male victims than female. In CRUK's list of the 20 most common cancers cervical cancer barely makes it in at all, being the 19th most common type so why is it given this undue prominence, particualrly given that the HPV vacine is likely to reduce incidence of it by the day? The female bias is even more blatant on the main CRUK home page. This list of six of supposedly key cancers is reduced to five, with pancreatic cancer (the ninth most common type) omitted but cervical cancer (number 19 remember) staying firmly in place. It's worth emphasising that this bizarre obsession with women's female body parts by CRUK is going to hamr women as well as men, as most of them will not get one of these specific cancers either.

Moving on, if a visitor expands the list of cancers they find a link to a page on "womens' cancers" but not one for men. This despite the fact there are actually more cases of cancers unique to men than to women each year (43050 compared to 19343). Similarly, as with their slogan, much of the breast cancer information seems unnecessarily gendered too, in fact I can't even see anything on the breast cancer information pages even acknowledging that men get the disease.

Finally we need to consider the publications and other information that CRUK provide. They boast about these in their denial of the allegations of sexism but it is perhaps their weakest area of all. Remember, CRUk has a dedicated breast cancer campaign, with its very own website, slogans and even merchandise. This same organisation cannot even be bothered to produce prostate cancer information in large print as it does with far less common cancers, in fact it can't even bring itslef to offer one measly prostate cancer poster anywhere on its site.

I'm not pretending that everything about CRUK is anti-male and they did at least kick up a bit of a fuss when the government tried to deny prostate cancer drugs to men. Lets be honest here though- if CRUK had given half as much attention to prostate cancer as it does to the likes of breast cancer then the government would never have dared to try such a thing in the first place. Personally I think its noteworthy that of all is that of all the people to contact CRUK regarding their sexism, the only one to receive a reply thus far was female, again proving that not only are many male cancer patients neglected, their voices are ignored too. CRUK are quite correct to say they are "committed to helping men", the question is why they are so much less committed to helping men than women?

by John Kimble

CORONATION STREET SHOULD BE PRAISED FOR TACKLING MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE

A frustration when campaigning for equality for men is the ability to make your voice heard. Not just because of  the daily clutter of news but also because whenever equality is discussed it is always through the prism of women's issues and/or when it is about man it can often be trivialised.

 Getting cut through into the mainstream is vital. Turning  issues swept under the carpet for decades to become the topic of 'water cooler' conversations. 

 This is why the current Coronation Street storyline on domestic abuse against men is so strong 
and so powerful. By beaming the story into people's living rooms it will change society's view that domestic abuse only happens to women.

The story involving Tyrone who is being terrorised by his pregnant fiance is very emotional and vivid. It has also had cut through in the media (BBC Breakfast, Daily MIrror and Hull Daily Mail) features in discussions on Twitter and elsewhere.

Ian McNicholl and the ManKind Initiative have played a part (their number is featured after the episodes - what a coup!).

As well as the views of society, there will be the encouragement to men suffering in this way that it isn't just happening to them. With the helpline number at the end there is the encouragement to get
help.

It may also continue to diminish the influence of Women's Aid and Refuge (and 'Respect')
who still cling onto their ideological view of domestic abuse.

Congratulations to Coronation Street for tackling this  and let's hope the other soaps tackle other male issyes. How about Emmerdale tackle the bias in the family courts and Eastenders tackle male suicide?

Posted by Skimmington

THE RADICALISATION OF SPORTSWOMEN WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN EQUALITY

The problem with modern feminism in its radical form is that it radicalises young women into believing everything that does not go their way is down to sexism, a sexist system and evil men. They want equality but when it does not 'work' for them - they don't want equality - though they would never say it. This McCarthyism can be seen in sport and the Olympics has given it a new platform.

Last month, the site pointed out the hypocrisy of those who wanted and got equality at Wimbledon when clearly there is a difference in the work needed to win a men's title compared to a women's title.

This week, we have had silver medalist Lizzie Armitstead raising the issue of sexism in cycling about the coverage and the money (Guardian1, Guardian 2 and BBC) . If women get paid less in the Velodrome competing in the same events (in terms of the races which are circa the same distances as the men's) that is unfair but is Ms Armitstead saying the men on the Tour De France should get paid the same as women in their Tour de France which is nowhere near as tough.

Following hot on the heels of this is Denise Lewis calling for a separate women's Sports Personality of the Year (thanks everyone for sending me the link). Again, on the one hand women like Denise want to be seen as equals to men but then when it does not work in their favour (as Bradley Wiggins is likely to win) they hypocritically call for inequality but dress it up as though they calling for equality. Ms Lewis is just indulging in man-bashing and witch hunting.

Gabby Logan though speaks up for equality in the coverage proving that many many women understand the meaning of equality (Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail). A short debate took place on the Daily Mail.

Lastly, there has been much about girl power in the papers about their achievements and there is nothing per se wrong with that if the tone is right (that is, it is not anti-male). Everyone in Britain should be pleased about the success of our female athletes, and of course, our male ones.

Except though, it is then taken up by the radical gender feminists and turned into a 'it proves women are superior to men debate'. This article in The Guardian sums it up , and sums up why they are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to equality. Who cares if women win more medals than men - it is not relevant in an equal society.

Posted by Skimmington

 

BOOK - FALSE ACCUSATIONS: GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT by NIK GREENE

After hearing Nik Green's story on Men's Matters, it was worth giving his book a plug. He has a website.

DOMESTIC ABUSE ON LIVE TV IN INDIA AND THE MAN GETS BEATEN UP

I know this site is mainly about Britain but sometimes you see things from abroad that need sharing. The double standards and hypocrisy of the reaction is breathtaking.

 

Posted by Skimmington

 

CANCER RESEARCH UK FINALLY ADMITS RACE FOR LIFE IS OFFENSIVE (BUT CENSORS ANYONE POINTING IT OUT)

It's now over three weeks since I published my Cancer Research UK sexism investigation and, despite the record interest it generated, as far as I'm aware the organisation has failed to respond to a single point made. Therefore I'm now forced to reveal the next instalment of my investigation into the activities of CRUK. In the following article we examine the goings on over at their "cancer chat" forums and examine the problems in having an almost exclusively feminist female staff handling what is principally a male condition. A number of interesting developments have occurred, with the organisation and its staff repeatedly misleading users of the site and practicing their usual sexist double standards.

1. Criticism of CRUK is banned
While CRUK staff were previously quite tolerant of discussion and debate on their forums, anyone now criticising CRUK's sexism on their forums is immediately banned form the site without so much as a warning. This is a real shame as a useful debate on their sexist Race for Life event took place in the past and it was interesting to see how those touched by cancer largely detested the event and how former supporters came round to our point of view. Of particular note is that CRUK banned users for posting about a hypothetical version of Race for Life where instead of banning males, the charity instead barred ethnic minorities. Despite this point clearly being made as a vehicle for condemning CRUK's activities, with entirely decent language and tone and clearly not a serious suggestion, the posts was deleted for being "offensive". CRUK representatives thus admit this concept of a discriminatory and divisive type of fundraising event is wrong, therefore putting them in the rather precarious position of admitting the very concept of it's Race for Life event is offensive too, so many congratulations and thanks to them and particularly moderator Renata Sims for finally coming clean. (note - for balance I should state that once alerted to the fact that they effectively condemned their own event CRUK sought to "clarify" their position claiming that it was the tone of the language they were opposed to. Given their track record of misleading users of the site I'll let people draw their own conclusions about this issue).

2. Discussion of Race for Life is banned  (except it isn't if you say nice things)
When closing down discussions on Race for Life, CRUK's attempted justification was "they cause offence to members of this community". The issue is a clearly a hot potato and it would be understandable were CRUK to close down every conversation on the topic of Race for Life. However, this isn't what has occurred and people, including the management of the site, still openly show support for the sexist event, only dissenting voices are silenced. Most significantly of all, the clear consensus of the long discussion regarding Race for Life was that the event was sexist. So above all else, it is clearly those supporting the event who are the ones causing by far the most offence to users of the site. Site moderators also suggest people make contact with other staff/departments to discuss their concerns and that the forums are not an appropriate place for such material. However, all our questions go unanswered and our emails ignored, so once again their comments are incorrect and people have no other method of communicating their concerns to CRUK than the forums.

3. Critics of Race for Life openly subject to abuse
Contrary to CRUK's pretence of being concerned about the community and the site being "a safe and welcoming place", the fact is that genuinely offensive personal attacks are left in place, just as long as they are directed at critics of CRUK. Examples of this include one poster suggesting a man critical of the sexism should go back to his own country, while another labels the discussion as "hilarious" and boring and also makes personal attacks calling people "cry babies" also telling them to "man up". It is clear that those on the end of these sexist and xenophobic abuses, not to mention other site users, found these episodes distressing  and the last personal attack is of immense significance in the context of cancer, the "man up" attitude is at the heart of the problem which stops people taking men's health seriously. The posts have sicne been reported to the site's management but they are still left in place, presumably due to the fact they were written by Race for Life supporters. The fact that innocent criticism of Race for Life is censored, whilst at the same time as this content being left alone says it all. CRUK have no concern for its own site rules and would much rather censor a healthy and civil discussion than deal with any real personal attacks and abuses. The very same sub forum where Race for Life comments are censored also contains numerous offensive jokes aimed at men, the very first in the thread concerning a man trapped in a relationship with a violent wife, with "jokes" concerning fatal domestic violence against men a recurring theme.

4. Obsession with female cancers
On a site where every single past and present staff member is females is unsurprising to find a highly feminised environment, but they don't' even attempt balance. I've examined the posts of all CRUK staff on the forums and the site has a handy "tags" feature for the most common terms they use. Of the four current staff members every single one had repeatedly used terms for a least one form of cancer associated with females whilst not one was tagged with any form of male specific cancer whatsoever despite there being a similar number of sufferers. Even relatively rare female cancers get far more mentions than prostate cancer, one of the most common cancers there is.

I've also examined other online activities of the these staff members on sites such as Twitter and the theme of ignoring men continues there too. For example, Sarah Broughton, the manager of the site follows various female associated cancer causes on Twitter and female patients yet no males other than one child. She also has interest in other events which discriminate against men, such as the Orange prize for fiction and not only raises money for breast cancer but for ovarian cancer too (the later event taking place in the CRUK office). Her Facebook accout includes "likes" for numerous cancer casues and charities, with appproximately 20 pertaining to female associated cancers or patients and a fair few gender netural casues also "liked". About the closest she comes to supporting a male cancer charity is the "real men wear pink" breast cancer campign. Just to really rub it in she also lists on of her favourite TV shows as the hideously sexist "Loose Women" programme! Other site staff Tweeted comments warning people against saying "I'm not a feminist" and mocking the sexual prowess of young male pop stars. Predictably, most staff appear to use the misandrist Guardian newspaper as their sole news source with one even providing an interview for the paper.

5. CRUK are misleading users of the site
If we again examine CRUK's statement attempting to justify comments on their forums they claim "the moderators and nurses are not directly involved with Race for Life or any other fundraising activity". This statement is a complete fabrication. Having uncovered the identities of the moderators I've found a number of them have participated in the event, usually on multiple occasions and they even have Race for Life pictures plastered all over their Facebook profiles. Further investigation shows some of these pictures to be highly prominent publicity photos, used to publicise the event and to advertise Race for Life merchandise. Quite incredibly, one person modelling said clothing is the manager of the cancer chat site!. Thus far from being uninvolved in the event, the manager of the forums is actually arguably the face of Race for Life.

Having pointed out these facts to CRUK management, there appears to have been quite a cover up, with the organisation hastily attempting to remove all the images in question from their website. However, they've missed one so you can still see the proof for yourselves (for now).  No apology has been forthcoming from CRUK for lying to users of the site, something which would have been particularly appropriate given that the forum rules state users should not post "any material or links to any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate"

6. Race for Life breaches' CRUK's forum rules
One problem with engaging in borderline illegal and discriminatory activities is that even if you mange to get away with it, you're still breaching fundamental principles and basic sound practices. We've previously proved CRUK management break their own site rules, but in a wider sense the very concept of Race for Life is against the rules too. The section of the rules on "respect for others" states: "Do not post nor privately message any material which may be discriminatory or cause offence on the grounds of an individual's sex, race, religion or belief, ethnic or national origin, sexual orientation, age, marital status, disability or working status." Even if you don't find the event offensive (something which is a matter of opinion), Race for Life is quite clearly both a sexist and certainly a discriminatory event and therefore posts promoting or endorsing it are in breach of the forum rules. As mentioned previously, the majority of site users find the event to be offensive anyway, thus giving yet further cause to remove all such material.

CRUK have again turned reality on its head. As well as there being no good justification for barring Race for Life criticism from CRUK's forums, the opposite is required because anyone endorsing and supporting the event is clearly in breach of CRUK's own terms and conditions (including the manager of the site!). To get themsleves out of this mess CRUK either need to ban/censor all discussion supportive of Race for Life, or they can manipulate their site rules so that material that is sexist against men is no longer banned. A far more sensible solution would be to open up Race for Life to all participants, therefore avoiding all these stupid problems all of CRUK's own creation. Whichever option they chose, it's clear the only truly unacceptable position is the present one.

by John Kimble

LATEST MEN'S MATTERS

From James:

If you would like to spend a little time to listening to something other than the
Olympics then click on this link and listen to 52mins of the last Mens Matters
show.

http://www.expressfm.com/player/od/

The subjects covered are:

1) Male Circumcision - Dr. Ball talks about male circumcision from a medical
persepctive. This was produced and broadcast before the Mens Hour edition on BBC Radio 5

2) Nik Greene – author of a book called False Accusations

Nik Greene describes the horrors of what can happen after he is accused by his adopted daughter of rape whilst living in France. This interview reveals possible corruption in the British social services and medical profession. The natural father (not Nik) was said to have raped his daughter, but French
doctors found that she was a virgin. The man apparently still carries a mark against his name in spite of his innocence.

I have to rely on emails being spread to advertize these shows. Each show takes about 7 hours to produce and I don't get paid. Mens Matters always has the censor's knife hanging over everything that is uttered. The next show, which has been ready for broadcast for 4 weeks is a hard hitting critique of the domestic violence industry and the demonization of men which is key to generating the
cash.

Express FM have not said they will allow it to be broadcast at all, but it was unofficially scheduled for Tues 31st July at 1900 BST (= GMT+1)**

 

If you would like to support my efforts, I am not asking for money. I would appreciate supporting emails and calls to ExpressFM or any other media outlets who might be interested in taking on the show.

http://www.expressfm.com/about-us/contact-us/

Kind Regards

 James Williams

**Editor's note it - it did go out so will be on Express FM Iplayer soon

 

THE ANTI-MALE DISCRIMINATION OF ALL-WOMEN SHORTLISTS CONTINUES

Proving the old adage of "once you give an inch they take a mile" right can be clearly seen by the campaign for quotas for places for women on the boards of companies and the witch-hunt (the feminist witchocracy) on those who do not comply. The effect of the quotas is to end meritocracy and the blocking of individuals (men) from being on boards because of the gender.  

The precursor, and one that has never received as much attention as it should do is the anti-male all-women shortlist phenomena. Covered extensively on this site including a full research report outlining their history and how men are being disenfranchised in the political system.

This is the system where the Labour Party bans men from putting their names forward to be Parliamentary candidates for that party at General Elections. It is such a deliberate and mendacious piece of men-hating legislation. 

In April last year the site highlighted the fact that Labour were still intent on using them in a number of seats and now some of those seats have selected their candidates. No men and no women who believe in equality should vote Labour in any of these seats:

Dover - Clair Hawkins

Harlow - Suzy Stride

Worcester -   Joy Squires

Stevenage - Sharon Taylor

Swindon South - Anne Snelgrove

Hastings & Rye - Sarah Owen

Northampton North - Sally Keeble

Lincoln - Lucy Rigby

Thurrock - Polly Billington

 

Previously I had listed seats such as Peterbrough, Reading West, Brighton Kemptown, Burton and Redditch as using this procedure but could not find any reference to a candidate having eventually been chosen.

There continues to be much rancour within the Labour Party about the policy but none ever looks at the blatant discrimination against men. Articles include these:

Ben Cobley (against) versus Luke Akehurst (for) and then Atul Hatwal (against AWS but wants quotas)

Charlotte De Vere (a Conservative against them) versus Harman (for!!!!)

Scarlet Standard (unsmilingly for!)

As was seen by the use of quotas by the Conservative Party and the comments on the last News Update showing how the Conservatives have elected a cadre of anti-male women who enjoyed the benefits of quotas (A-List and special treatment). It means male related issues such as depression, family law, domestic abuse, men's health, health and safety and unemployment are not even being discussed.

There are hold-ups in more selections because of Parliamentary boundary changes (as a result of reducing the number of MP's from 650 to 600) so there seems to be a lack of selections for the next General Election (May 2015) at the moment. When the boundaries are sorted there will be a tidal wave, and that will lead to be a fresh tidal wave of male discrimination.

Posted by Skimmington 

NEWS UPDATE

Some feisty and 'testing' articles to report

Conservative Home - Prison for girls is not the answer (Claire Perry MP) Amazing piece of sexism rightly derided in the comments section of the piece but this is someone tipped for big things. Just another part of the movement that believes that justice should not be gender blind and that equality only means equality when it suits.

The Guardian - Harriet Harman, you're wrong - Conservatives make better feminists (Amber Rudd MP and Andrea Leadsom MP) Two more Conservatives hellbent on the gender war. Funny how these two benefited from Cameron's A-List which was hideously anti-male in stopping men from being able to become Conservative MP's.

Teaching Agency - Record numbers of men teaching in primary schools : Still very small and was covered in Men's Hour

Daily Mail - Our schools need tough guys teaching teenage boys, not feminised men (Kathy Gyngell)

Ministry for Justice - David Norgrove appointed Chair of Family Justice Board: What a disaster

Daily Telegraph - Father's rights breached by mother too 'upset' to let him see children (Tim Ross)

Department for Business Innovation and Skills - Women on boards (One year on)

Campaign for merit in business - A remarkable statement and more on Fighting Feminism

Scottish Government - £34.5m to fight domestic violence against women: and not a penny for men

Ally Fogg - We don't call it sexism

Always welcome any I have missed to be included in comments

Posted by Skimmington

"Women experience an average of 35 incidents of domestic violence before reporting an incident to the police" - 31 years old and not even British

When Kier Starmer, the Director for Public Prosecutions gave a speech this week about the success in ending violence against women and girls he threw a token to those who feel the CPS pays lip service to supporting men and boys with regard to sexual and domestic violence. Perhaps he and his speechwriters read this site as he said this below when before he has said nothing:

"In recognising these dynamics the CPS does not neglect abuse directed towards men or perpetrated by women. Male victims receive the same access to protection and legal redress and the gender of the perpetrator does not make a difference to the CPS approach to bringing offenders to justice. All of our existing policies are gender neutral, and are applied fairly and equitably to all victims of crime and all defendants are prosecuted in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors."

They are still mere crumbs from the table.

One BBC report on the speech quoted him as saying "Most victims of domestic violence suffer in silence - Mr Starmer said a woman would on average be assaulted 30 times before she sought help." There is no evidence in any of the press releases that he said this.

However, being naturally inquisitive, I remembered seeing a figure often quoted that says " Women experience an average of 35 incidents of domestic violence before reporting an incident to the police."  Even the CPS have used it - but so does practically everyone else it would seem.

So is it true (it could be higher or lower) and more importantly, in the name of equality, what is the male figure?

After much hunting around the web and looking for the source (via Women's Aid and Refuge) the source is Jaffe 1982. So already this statistic commonly used today is actually 30 years old!

The source is Canadian academic Dr. Peter G Jaffe and the research paper is called An integrated response to wife assault : a community model.

Some sources say 1982 and others say 1984, but let's stick to 1982 if this is the one quoted by many. However, we know the research took place in 1981.

So here we have it.

A figure used in 2012 by a myriad of statutory authorities in the UK about the number of times a woman is assaulted before she calls the police is based on a statistic that is not only 31 years old it is not even based on British research - it is from Canada.

The figure could be higher - it could be lower - as it could be for men but there is no equivalent available. 1981 is pure Jurassic age when it comes to recognising male victims.

So here we have a one-sided statistics, used continuously to create and justify a one-sided position on domestic abuse (women are the only victims) and those who use it do not even bother to find an up-to-date figure let alone one that relates to Britain.

It says so much about those who believe their ideology must come before telling the truth and telling it in a balanced and equal way.

Any authority that uses this figure as if it is recent and from Britain is now instantly discredited.

 Posted by Skimmington