The Rights Of Man

FATHERS4JUSTICE CAMPAIGNS AGAINST MISANDRY AT MUMSNET

This week saw an interesting new campaign from Fathers4Justice. Matt O'Connor and co. launched a campaign against Mumsnet highlighting the way the company tolerates hate speech against men. In the bigger scheme of things this may seem a little petty at first, and the views on the site don't really seem much different to certain feminist politicians. However, Mumsnet is a significant corporation and surely the main reason the comments don't seem so bad is because we're so desensitised to people saying awful things about men as a group that even we barely notice it.

Mumsnet is classic gender feminist territory. Privileged, wealthy women with way too much time on their hands and often very little respect for the opposite sex. Readers of this blog will be particularly unsurprised to know the site's co-founder is married to the deputy editor of the Guardian, arguably the biggest publisher of misandric material and feminist propaganda country if not the world.

The site wouldn't really be of any significance if politicians didn't court it's readership in such a pathetic manner and attach such a exaggerated importance to a site which attracts a disproportionate amount of the worst women in society.

In addition to press adverts, Fathers4Justice have decided to "follow the money" and target Marks and Spencer, a sponsor of Mumsnet. They've already conducted a naked protest a the company's Flagship London store and burned their briefs. I feel the group should be commended for their courage and creativity and above all else their sense of humour, something surely even feminists cannot dispute is far more abundant in the men's movement. Seemingly never a day passes without us seeing pathetic, exaggerated and poorly thought out feminist campaigns, whether it be about "street harassment", underarm hair, or even men sitting on the train in a manner they disagree with! (yes really). It's therefore important to call out gender feminists and supposedly respected companies for fostering hate-speech and interesting how there appears to be such a marked double standard on the site with regards to sexism depending on the gender of the victim.

It appears F4J are already have some success with numerous sexist comments already removed from the site. Guardian writers have already started criticising the campaign so that's surely as good an indication that they must be getting something right. It's all very well changing our anti-male laws and legislation but ultimately we'll never have equality unless attitudes change and this is perhaps the first campaign with that as the primary focus.

 

By John Kimble

MAJOR UPDATES ON TOM MARTIN

It's been a busy week or two in the news for men's equality issues. Mr Martin has been debating at University College London, had coverage in The New Statesman and even got to appear on Women's Hour on Radio 4! He performed especially well on Radio 4, you can listen to the discussion on sexismbusters.org. It was great to see Tom making use of thsi blog's research into the activities at the NUS and let a wider audience know of their sexist policies.

The bad news is that the case against LSE was heard on Tuesday and rejected by the judge. I'm not aware of the judge's reasoning at present and all is not lost as he has the chance to appeal, but I find it a baffling decision given the weight of the evidence against the LS, not to mention the fact that Mr Martin studied there beofre Labour's sexist "Equality" laws were introduced.

The publicity Tom has received and the resulting debates are a already a victory in themselves but it's a shame he's missed out on the bigger prize for now.

For me, the most interesting and revealing outcome of the above has been the reaction by feminists to the debates. Some of the treatment men's equality campaigners have been subject too is nothing short of outrageous. Regrettably I was unable to attend the debate, but there was much discussion on Twitter with one of the first comments coming from a feminist suggesting that Mr Martin and his friends looked "a bit rapey". I've seen gender feminists stoop to pretty low levels numerous times, but making false rape smears to silence dissent surely down there with the lowest of the low? I suppose it was quite a pertinent statement given that Tom went on to discuss the issue of false rape allegations and actually proves a point about the problem of our culture tolerating the most horrific smears against men. Then, of course, there's the incredible double-standard of feminists judging people on their appearances too!

A further feminist tweeter by the name of Sarah Lesniewski later went further, likening Martin to the perpetrator of one of the worst massacres in Canadian history and questioning his mental state. So in summary, dare to quesiton the more sexist aspects of feminism then you're basically a mass murdering, mentally deragned idiot and probably a rapist too. It goes without saying than none of these critics actually addressed the issues at hand and if people have to resort to such staggering personal attacks then it suggest we're the ones"winning the arguments". Voters in Walthamstow may also be interested to see which side of the debate their sexist MP chose to support. If LSE gender studies department is 1% as hostile, sexist and narrow minded as the gender feminists on Twitter then there most certainly be any doubt as to the outcome of the appeal.

I look forward to the upcoming documentary by Mr Martin covering his experiences over the last few months, though he has a lot to live up to given the quality of his previous efforts.

By John Kimble (contributing this post to keep things ticking over here, hopefully normal service from Skimmington will resume shortly).

NEWS UPDATE

Sorry everyone, likely to be away working this week so here are a few articles:

Girl Writes What - How feminism conned society

BBC News - Women only bus stop

Politics home - Women in Parliament (Nadine Dorries MP)

The Guardian - Male rape charity's hard-hitting campaign (Tracey McVeigh)

Irish Independent - Boy facing sex trial as court holds' Romeo and Juliet' law (Tim Healy)

Daily Mail - Male anorexia (Victoria Wellman)

BBC News - Male Y Chromosone extinction challenged

ManKind Initiative - Authorities must do more to help men come forward

Men do complain - Vigil at BMA

Posted by Skimmington

TOM MARTIN TO DEBATE NUS WOMEN'S OFFICER

The significance of Tuesday's debate on "Is Feminism is sexist?" gathers apace now that it has been revealed that he is debating Estelle Hart,the National Union of Student's Women's Officer. She has a NUS blog and had one before she became an NUS officer.

It is significant that the NUS Women's Officer is prepared to take part in the debate, especially when seen against their attitude towards Men's Officers and want them all to be scrapped.On the blogroll of the NUS blog (see link to Estelle Hart's link to NUS blog above) you will see there is an officer for every single type of person except for a heterosexual man.

It means the NUS see it as significant and that they can see the tide is turning against their unreasonable and unequal attitude towards, men's officers and equality in general. They have much to defend.

Good luck to Tom

Posted by Skimmington

 Hattip to John Kimble

SEXISM AGAINST MEN IN BRITAIN'S BOARDROOMS - FOR THE FIRST TIME A PROVEN FACT

Some kind reader sent over a scan of an article in the London Evening Standard (it is not online frustratingly) of an interview with leading fund manager Helena Morrissey and supporter of the 30% club, a group wanting to end meritocracy on British boards - that is, stopping men from being able to compete on an equal basis as women for places on company boards (see here).

There is a telling piece in the article:

"One of our members [of the 30 per cent club] said to us yesterday that they'd just instructed their first vote against a director because the board isn't diverse enough"

This means that a man was not voted against because he lacked the talent, skill, experience and ability to be on the board of whatever the company was - he was voted against solely because he was a man. The first clear example of the sexism against men stalking Britain's boardrooms.

And of course, it was not just him who was sexually discriminated against, it also meant that his (if he has them) wife, girlfriend/partner, daughter, sister and mother were as they would have all benefited from his success in being placed on the board. But this is being done in their name.

This has struck the first blow against mertiocracy in Britain's boardroom - it is proof that the effect of the 30% rule and those who advocate it is not really about equality it is about the end of meritocracy,  for special treatment for women and for sexism against men.

Helena Morriseey is proud of the fact that she has nine children and so she should be, but what would be her view if one of her sons was blocked from being on a board simply because he was her son and not her daughter.

Posted by Skimmington 

EQUALITY IN THE UK 2012 - A SPECIAL ADVISER FOR WOMEN BUT NO SPECIAL ADVISER FOR MEN

Earlier this month Laura Trott was announced as being David Cameron's special adviser on women  - to make him more women-friendly and see all policies through the prism of a woman. It is no surprise that Ms Trott is part of the Hampstead metropolitan elite.

Considering that the Conservative Party and its coalition party already have a Minister for Women (Theresa May), a slavishly anti-male Equalities Minister (Lynne Featherstone), a Government Equalities Department  who do not believe men exist ("We lead on issues relating to women, sexual orientation and transgender equality matters; we have responsibility across government for equality strategy and legislation") and an Equalities and Human Rights Department who remain philosophically wedded to everything pro-women and anti-male, you do wonder what more does he need.

And to be honest, having such an appointment continues the anti-male special treatment for women schtick running through the present government (Blue Feminism!) - all run by metropolitan elite upper middle class women who only want more special treatment to give them and their daughters even more of a leg up. It is not aimed at the average women, who not only wants to make a success of her and her daughters life but also wants to see their husband, brothers and sons succeed as well.

What makes it worse is that it is so gratuitously offensive to those women and also to men, because the government not refuses to have a Minister for Men and also to support men and boys on the inequalities they face but that is refuses to actually even want to engage on men's issues.

SPEThe issue pointed clearly out by the letter that was signed by nearly 100 organisations supporting men and boys across a wide spectrum shows how trivial the government sees men and boys. They do nothing on the savage problems in educational attainment for boys, the unemployment rate especially amongst young and older men, the problems associated with depression, suicide, domestic abuse and of course men's health amongst other things. The only area of progress is shared parenting.

If government truly believed in equality, if it really has to have a special adviser on women's issues it would have the same on men's issues. But of course, we know this government does not believe in equality.

Posted by Skimmington

I couldn't bring myself to listen to it but others might  - you have been warned ;@)

TOM MARTIN UPDATE - DEBATE NEXT WEEK

Press release

Tom Martin, the man suing Europe's largest gender studies department, at LSE, for sex discrimination in its taught Masters degrees (court date on March 13^th) , will be discussing the problem of sexist elements within feminism at a public debate, at one of London's other elite universities, UCL, at 7pm on Tuesday 28^th February, 2012. The debate will take place in Room 309 of the Roberts Building, on UCL's campus. If you would like to attend, then you must email [email protected] to book your place in advance.

 Media practitioners interested in doing a news story or documentary, including filming events at the debate, and around the court case with Tom, should also email [email protected] .

 Tom's legal fighting fund has received 129 donations from 10 countries totalling £4300 so far. Tom thanks all those who have donated, and asks everyone else considering it, to donate now, so he can afford further expert legal advise as he prepares further evidence which must be submitted by March 6^th, a week before the all-important court hearing date.

 Please keep spreading the word to your networks in any other way you can, as well as follow on facebook, twitter, and youtube

Update - Remember to donate to Tom's case

 

NEWS UPDATE

A few articles and news from the past couple of weeks:

Guido Fawkes: Some women are more equal than others - those able to pay for a place at this dinner are the very same wanting boardroom quotas and special treatment!

Daily Telegraph: Victory for divorced dads is a victory for children (Cristina Odone)

The Guardian: Question Time, QI and Mock the Week criticised (John Plunkett) - The BBC, part of the men-hating metropolitan elite, decide that because there are not enough female faces on certain comedy programmes it must be down to discrimination. No mention as to whether there is not enough good women to appear. It is no different to the calls for gender quotas.

BBC: Domestic violence charity wins grant to help men

The Independent: Female teachers accused of discrimation against boys (Richard Garner)

Men's Network: Government commits to tackle male inequality

Men's Network: February round-up

False Rape Society: Blackburn Rovers player to sue false accuser

Update - I missed one (thanks to John Kimble for pointing it out)

The Guardian: We need gender studies to battle inequality across the board (Triona Kennedy) As John says, the comments are worth reading. Our friend Triona has form she believes the education system is failing girls!!!!!!!!

Posted by Skimmington

FEMINISM: THE UGLY TRUTH (Extract) by MIKE BUCHANAN

Mike Buchanan's new book Feminism:The Ugly Truth has just been published and is available to buy via Amazon. It is only available via a Kindle or a downloadable Kindle reader. Not yet on paperback but that is coming soon.

He has kindly provided a sample:

Download FEMINISM - THE UGLY TRUTH sample

As ever, highly recommended and vital that writers like Mike are supported.

Posted by Skimmington

MORE PEOPLE START TO QUESTION THE ANTI-MALE RHETORIC AND SPECIAL PLEADING

Last week David Cameron went to Sweden to learn more (and here and here) about to discriminate against men and end meritocracy in British business by ensuring there were quotas in British boardrooms – a subject raised many times on the site.

 As ever, we were in the land of fantasy where he asserted that "case is overwhelming that companies and countries run better if you have men and women working together at the top".

 This is classic Orwellian doublespeak -  tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth. There is no proof that more women in the boardroom leads to a better performing business. If that was the case, shareholders would be making sure there were plenty of women in the boardroom because it means higher dividends. They don't insist on it because they do not care what the gender is of the boardroom they only worry about having the best people there – no matter their gender.

 On a different but albeit more importnat subject, the latest unemployment figures were published. By the end of december 2011, there were 1.548m men unemployed, a rate of 9% - 89,000 more than a year ago. There are 1.123m women unemployed, a rate of 7.7% - 91,000 more than a year ago. All we ever hear is how the recession and the cuts are affecting women more than men.

The reason for raising these two issues is the fact that more and more people are starting to challenge the anti-male feminists and special pleaders who want women to have rights than men. Most are actually women.

Take Cameron's stance on boardroom quotas. Helena Morrissey a top banker said "In the UK it would be difficult for women to feel very much as an equal member of a board or as a senior manager if there was a quota.” Janice Atkinson-Small makes the point that no one is interested. The Institute of  Economic Affairs said "Proposals to force companies to increase the number of women on boards are extremely ill-advised. Imposing a mandatory quota would be yet another irritant to UK firms. Burdensome overregulation of this kind is not a driver of economic growth."

Dominic Raab MP was as sound as ever.

On the question of unemployment, the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development came out and said women had not suffered anymore than men in the recession.

Both groups of people have suddenly found their voice and started to ask the questions that only readers of this site and a hardy bunch of other people have done for the past number of years in Britain.

Every time these assertions come up - the mantra has to be "prove it". Only then will we start to get the truth about the special pleading by special interest men-hating groups for more rights of women over men and also get to the truth that it is men who face the most disadvantage in 21st century Britain.

Posted by Skimmington