The Rights Of Man

INTERNATIONAL MEN'S DAY UK WEBSITE LAUNCHED

It is quite prescient that this being the 1,000th ever post on this site is to let readers know that we were emailed last night to state that a new International Men's Day website has been launched.

As well as highlighting the key theme: Keeping Men and Boys Safe, it is also looking for organisations to annouce their events and also become supporters.

Just as an aside as well, remember to come to the National Men and Boys Conference in Spetember. Anyone seriously interested in the male equality movement (men's human rights movement etc) has to come along - if we do not support events like this, we cannot complain at being rolled over and ignored.

Posted by Skimmington

 

UNIVERSITY GENDER GAP REVEALED TO BE 45,000 BOYS PER YEAR

A few stories back, the site looked at the issue that politicians, the elites and the commentariat were more concerned about male-only golf clubs than the fact far fewer boys went to university than women. A kindly reader sent over the detailed facts from UCAS and they show clearly the year on year gap between the number of boys and the number of girls going to university.

Covering, a six year period 2007 - 2012, 445,035 (average 74,173) fewer boys applied to go to university and 270,554 (average 45,092) fewer were successful. This means 45,000 fewer boys per year are going to our universities each and every year.

This shows the reality of the crisis in the education of boys at the top level as well as the crisis at the bottom level where so many boys leave school with no qualifications.

The misandry and spinelessness of today's politicians, commentariat and education establishment is that none of them are interested and none of them are prepared to do anything about it. They do not even speak about.

This crisis plays out in terms of men not being able to find work leading to depression, crime and a sense of rootlessness/identity and also the inability to use their talents and skills to the full (why is it that boys did better than girls 20 years and now the reverse has happened). No wonder younger women earn more than younger men and more women are the main breadwinner (not a problem per se) 

Who is speaking up for boys and the missing 45,000 who are not going to university? Or is it that golf club membership really is more important? Where is the Government's Equalities Department? Where is the Secretary of State for Education? Where are Barwell and Willetts?

Posted by Skimmington

MEN ARE TROLLED TOO

Great article from Glen Poole on the above. The elite's hypocrisy was discussed here.

Posted by Skimmington

 

PS - idiots at Frank's Red Hot and their anti-male narrative and media sterotyping, more like Frank's White Knight

NEW BOOK: MEN ON STRIKE by HELEN SMITH

It may be a bit late in the day but this is another book to add to the pantheon outlining the plight of modern men and boys.

Available at Amazon and with coverage and features on A Voice for Men.

WHTY ARE MEN NOT AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDED IN EQUAL PAY APPEALS AGAINST LOCAL AUTHORITIES?

There have been a number of equal pay cases over the past few years involving the unions fighting for equal pay, normally around bonuses or pensions, for women undertaking jobs such as care/classroom assistants, dinner ladies and the like. These roles were governed by one set of employment rules and more manual roles, such as dustmen for example, who were governed by another set of rules. However, the latter were able to get bonuses, overtime, pay rises etc and the former were not or recoved lower benefits.

The cases that have come out of the woodwork suggest that the same conditions should have applied and the litigants keep on winning.

Now, we can get into arguments on whether in reality they should be viewed as the same type of job but that can take us down a cul-de-sac. The real issue for me is whether men are being included in the litigation and also whether by default men who were also carrying out the same jobs as the women were also winning backpay etc. Not all care assistants, classroom assistants, dinner 'ladies' etc are women.

The "Equalities" and Human Rights Commission in Scotland won a case against Dumfries and Galloway council recently but they only mention women: "The Supreme Court has today ruled in favour of 251 female employees in their equal pay case against their employer, Dumfries and Galloway Council."

The court papers also state that they classroom assistants et al did not want to be compared to janitors who did not get bonuses etc - is this because they were men! Why were the janitors not included in the case? Plus would Alastair Pringle of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission support a case if the roles were reversed - I think we know the answer to that!

 (media coverage - here, here and here)

The site has covered other cases before:

Were men included in the Birmingham victory? Have any men claimed, does it apply to them, can they piggyback?

And we know that men in Tyneside, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough had to fight for their rights when they were excluded (full judgement here). It looks like the councils did shamefully appeal but I cannot find the outcome. It would be very interesting to see whether they did successfully appeal and also even if they then lost or withdrew - how much did that cost local male council taxpayers.

Overall though, why are men not automatically included in these appeals?

If it was about equality for all, then men would be but when has equality been an issue of interest to Unison or the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

Posted by Skimmington

 

Here is the solicitor responsible and helpfully at the botom you can click through to the court papers.

 

HOW THE FEMINIST NARRATIVE TEMPLATE DISCRIMINATES AGAINST MEN AND BOYS

This week, has been a landmark in showing how modern-day feminism (mutated from being an equality movement to one about gender supremacy and misandry) is actively denying both equality for men and boys through misandry but also even recognition that men and boys have problems to whether men and boys actually exist.

We have seen these issues as showing how the feminist man-hating narrative has become the mainstream view, the new normal, the standard view for Britain and its elites. Every issue that a woman faces is the fault of a man and/or only happens to a woman - so men get excluded from the story even through they also form part of the story.

We had at the start of the week the trolling story. As stated earlier this week, the lunatics trolling the MP's and campaigners do a great disservice to our cause, but the assumption of the feminist discourse readily picked up and accepted as Gospel by the media and the "elites" is that only women are trolled. Er, what about this then, on GQ (Telegraph, Independent). The professor in this story who says it is not a gender issue gets little traction all week.

Then there was a story on the introduction of application fees for employment tribunals. There was much anguish about the fact that this would be bad for low-paid women. It was if there were no low-paid men, yet 40% of low-paid workers are male! (Listen)

 The Evening Standard announced there was a summit on the lack of female engineers and a Parliamentary inquiry into whether science is institutionally sexist (I cannot find any news on this). But where is the campaign and the summit about the lack of male teachers, the lack of men in social services, healthcare, education etc. Er...there isn't one.

Mens Conference UK picked up on Marilyn Stowe's revelation that the Ministry of Justice's guidance on legal aid mentions husbands as perpetrators but not husbands and wives. The Ministry of Justice acting with pure unadulerated institutional discrimination against men. The rules are gender-neutral but the Ministry of Justice does not believe they apply in practice to men.

Continuing on the domestic abuse front, a Facebook message from Karen Woodall (Centre for Separated Families) stated "here's one for all of you interested in domestic violence.... Nick is training today for the DWP, he is not allowed to talk about violence against men or violence in separating couples in any way other than that which is ratified by the Coalition Government Policy on VAWAG by order of the HOME OFFICE - he also has two observers sitting in on the training to make sure he does not transgress this order (that's because they are nervous about my blog and my refusal to do as they ordered me to).   This is what your taxes pay for people...the state is most definitely controlling you and if you separate it will be Women's Aid and Refuge who rule your world."

Will the media point out in the Eddie Kidd story that men are victims too? (will Refuge's Sandra Horley spin this as self-defence?)

Will the media look at this story about this wicked mother and attack women, like they would attack men if it was the father who was at fault?

Plus of course the Co-Op bow to pressure and put men's mags in plastic covers because they have half-naked women in. When Hello etc have half naked or provocatively dressed women on their cover and sometimes men. Where are the feminists crying about this cover "The lost art of the handjob"!!!

There will be more and the site has already covered how feminism meant the media and the elites were more focussed on the membership of golf clubs than the number of men not going to university. The same has happened all week and what is so disappointing is that the media just do not question the facts or challenge the commentators so that modern-day radical feminism dominates the news agenda with no challenge, but they also do not challenge or even accept male related issues onto the agenda. Radio 4 had a section on feminism getting stronger, but when will they do the same on men's issues.

Glen Poole this week, set out his poll and it is more vital today than it ever has been to get some form of group up and running to put our case that men are discriminated against in every day society and that by shutting out men and boys  from the equality narrative and also acting with plain hypocrisy.

Modern-day radical misandrist feminism is a devastating barrier for men and boys. Their voice has been drowned out. 

Posted by Skimmington

 Ps I do like this article from Carol Sarler in case anyone has missed it.

 

LUNATIC TROLLS OPEN THE DOOR FOR MORE MEN BASHING AND MISANDRY

Today was depressing with one of the dominant stories today was 'all men are rapists' men-bashing narrative because some stupid dangerous male lunatics think it is OK to go onto Twitter and say they want to 'rape' feminists and female MP's.

It hands the ammunition to those modern-day men-hating feminists who want to paint all men as potential rapists and Neanderthals as part of the patriachal conspiracy. It just adds momentum after the banknote 'success', the golf club conspiracy and today's news on employment tribunals (more tomorrow on this).

We are back to the "when did you last beat your wife' territory - now it's "when did your last tweet you wanted to rape an MP" 

Of course, it is painted as a women against the patriarchy when it comes to trolling, but we know from this site that men can be victims of trolls and also, that women will troll other women on Facebook etc. And just remember that the Luluvise site is one big troll fest against men.

So it meant a great story such as the clear up rate for testicular cancer or the lack of men taking paternity leave  - thereby showing paradoxically how committed men are to the family unit as they will sacrifice paternity leave to protect their family's income (you won't hear the anti-male feminists talking about how men support their wives/partners/daughters).

So a few lunatics men mean pro-male stories are relegated and men again are lumped together by those who want to paint us all as bastards. Those trolls have damaged the women they trolled but also men campaigning for equality.

Posted by Skimmington 

CAMERON'S 2013 RESHUFFLE WILL BE THE MOST SEXIST ON RECORD

In the next few weeks there is likely to be a Ministerial Reshuffle (Conservative Home believe it won't be at cabinet level) and Cameron will start to deliver on his promise to have a third of all ministers, including those at a Cabinet level, as women. Women, will be the winners, not talent.

This is in keeping with the European trend of quotas (formal/legal or informal/public declarations) including in France and Spain. Currently, there are 48 (165) MP's out of 304 MP's in total.

The issue has been talked about for weeks in the media and the issues are three fold.

Firstly, just like the issue on boardroom quota's - meritocracy is the biggest loser which goes against the whole principle of 'the best person for the job' - irrelevant of gender.

• Some talented men will be denied a position a Minister solely because they are a man (this was the same as revealed in this report about the Conservative Party's gender quota A-list).
• Some women will remain as ministers or in the cabinet (as revealed by Daily Mirror) even if they are not good enough because to lose female ministers means Cameron will fear a backlash (and he will get one as he did last year).  
• Some women will be promoted into being a Minister when they are not good enough. 

Any decision based on a quota or gender target is sexist - if a talented man does not get into the cabinet or becomes a Minister because he has to be overlooked to ensure enough women are in place, then he is a victim of sexism. And like so many supine politicians, he will sit there and be quiet. 

Why would be Conservative men moan about gender quotas when they say nothing about boardroom quotas or men and boys issues in general.

Further to all of this, if there are not enough women being promoted then modern-day radical feminists will be whining and shouting all over the airwaves with their hatred for men and disdain for equality and meritocracy.

Will anyone in the media have the balls to confront them and ask them why politicians should not be chosen on merit, whether they agree that an inferior women should be promoted over a better man and whether they can actually pinpoint any examples of a talented women who is not a Minister and an untalented man who is. Don't them talk about numbers, they must talk about individuals - as that is the important point.

Lastly, the British public as part of the democratic process should be governed by the best people for the job. If that meant all women - so be it - but they want the best people, that is what they vote for. Why should the people that govern us be chosen because of the gender not their ability? We need the best people that is what we vote for.

This summer's reshuffle will be the most sexist on record. The most sexist against men.

Posted by Skimmington

PS Conservative women wnat special treatment because like most politicians they are only in it for themselves.

GOLF CLUB EQUALITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE FAILURE OF THE EDUCATION SYSTEM TOWARDS BOYS

On Monday, UCAS published its figures on university admissions and the main story was that white teenagers (especially boys) were less likely to go to university than black teenagers especially boys.

Buried away was the fact that "Gender remains one of the biggest factors in application rates, with females remaining substantially more likely to apply. In 2012 in England, 49% (40% in 2007) of women
applied compared with 38% (31% in 2006) of men." 

Roughly for every seven applications, four are from girls and three are for boys - an actual gap in 2012 of 29%. 

This is an issue this site keep turning to (here and here) and still the silence from politicians, the government equalities office, department for education etc is deafening. Not a word from the Minister for Equalities - she thinks men-only golf clubs are more of an equalities issue.

It is why there are now more and more women earning more than men in their household, or when they are in their 20's and why more men are unemployed than women.

Reverse the genders (The Lyndon Concept) and there would be hell to pay - more attention is on the number of women in the boardroom or the cabinet or golf clubs.

 If ever there was a need for a responsible men's equality organisation this is the reason.

Posted by Skimmington

 

THANK GOD IT'S A BOY

I am not normally bothered about such things but boy did I smile and thank the
heavens when it was announced that Kate and William's child was a boy.

In a normal and equal society, where the elites respected men and women as equals it should not be an issue. But if the baby was a girl than the gender supremacists (Fawcett Society etc) who masquerade as being in favour of equality would have been crowing for every single year that the daughter was not the queen. They'd want Charles and then William to be passed over or to
stand down quickly etc.

Plus they would use it as leverage and a pawn for another round of man bashing - decrying the Act of Succession (only a male can be heir to the throne unless the only heir is a women like the Queen) and demanding it be changed. I'd see no problem with it, but it’s the fact it would be used to demonise the men of today who had nothing to do with the Act or the tradition behind it when it was drawn up.

Happy for the Act of Succession to be revoked but no word on this being revoked. Fair's fair.

Thanks God the baby is a boy - away from the clutches of the misandrists, gender supremacists and anti-male modern day feminists.

Posted by Skimmington