The Rights Of Man

OLD FIRM DERBY DOMESTIC ABUSE MYTHS EXPOSED - JUST LIKE THE SUPERBOWL MYTHS

A reader forwarded yesterday this post on a Rangers football club related website breaking down the levels of domestic abuse and domestic violence after an Old Firm (Rangers versus Celtic) football match. While there is an increase on Sunday when the match is played, there is a decrease on Saturday when the games are on. The research unfortunately does not look at the gender split but in 2009 it was revealed that men were more likely to be victim after an Old Firm Derby.

The post from Rangers was in response to the propaganda from the Strathclyde Police who said after a particularly fraught match in early March invlolving fights between players and the manager there was an upsurge in domestic violence (against women only of course). The police quoted a 100% percentage increase but as the Rangers research revealed there are no actual figures.

The Old Firm Derby, just like the Six-Nations Rugby (Welsh police always run a one-sided campaign stating that if Wales lose men go home and beat their wives up), the football World Cup (exposed as a lie) and also the biggest and most played out domestic abuse myth around the Superbowl.

Just like them all, the untruths are made and they are circulated around and around and it just takes someone to look at the facts to identify the truth. Why cannot journalists do this!

Posted by Skimmington 

MEN'S MENTAL HEALTH WEEK IN BRIGHTON

Just a quick link but the excellent Men's Network in Brighton are running workshops all week on this important subject.

Posted by Skimmington 

WILLETTS MUST TAKE ACTION ON SOCIAL MOBILITY FOR BOYS

Yesterday, I lambasted the government for failing men and giving them false hope even though there are MP's on the Conservative benches who wish to stand up for them. I mentioned Brian Binley and Charlie Elphicke on shared parenting, Dominic Raab on feminism (he has been quiet on it recently) and there were Conservative backbenchers who wanted anonymity for rape defendants.

Then last week Universities Minister David "Two Brain's" Willetts said that feminism had reduced social mobility for working class boys (Daily Mail and Telegraph).

The government seems to be split between those MP's who just want equality and fairness and then people like Theresa May and Lynne Featherstone who do not think it applies to men and boys.

The issue that Willetts should be looking to address though is that it is the aggressive female fundamentalism that is crushing boys. Equality for girls and ensuring there are opportunities for them is of course no problem. But the feminist fundamentalists have taken it a stage further. Not only do they want to give special treatment to women from all backgrounds (including the already 'privileged' middle class women that Willetts alludes to) such as the hideous Section 159 of the equalities act but they actively stop anything from being done to help social mobility.

Education results show that boys are around six years behind girls when it comes to exams results and that fewer boys go to university than men (51% women and 40% men) but there is no public policy response. Not anything even in the government's laughable 'equalities' strategy.

So there is no point Willetts pointing this out unless he is going to do anything about it. We wait to the social mobility report he alludes to and what it will say.

Posted by Skimmington 

Postcript - the usual backlash from the fundamentalists: Suzanne Moore (Daily Mail), Barbara Ellen (Guardian) laughably calling Willetts ludicrous!, Guardian news story and BBC,

Great article on feminism by Christine Odone (Telegraph)

BBC article

GOVERNMENT CRUSHES FATHER'S HOPES IN SHAM REVIEW

Sorry for the lack of posts recently, been a very busy time working long hours with the downside being that lack of time to work on the blog but even worse it means I will have been contributing to the extension of the 'mythical' gender pay gap.

This week saw the publication of the interim report of the Family Justice Review which partly is addressed at dealing with the escalating cost of the family law system (both public and private), the time delays/bureaucracy and also looking at how to improve things for fathers and grandparents.

We all know through years of bitter experience and years of campaigning how the family law system system is corrupt and unfair to both children and grandparents alike.

Corrupt because CAFCASS, social services and many judges are anti-male and anti-father with CAFCASS and social services corrupted by feminist fundamentalism with many in positions of power being 'educated' in the 70's and 80's. This has often been done in tandem with solicitors and judges who have played along - solicitors just want their money. The outcome being the undermining of the fundamental natural requirement of a child being allowed to have the presence of their father in their life and the father from having contact with his children.

Secondly, the legal corruption has been the lack of sanction of mothers who breach court orders often costing the father thousands upon thousands and made worse with the Child Support Agency hammering his door down for money when he cannot see them. A state-sanctioned system of hypocrisy leading to the creation of Fathers4Justice and other groups while the mainstream groups such as Families Need Fathers have been working to get the system changed by lobbying.

The one change everyone wanted was an explicit recognition in law of shared parenting, not one based on redisency and non-residency. Not too much to ask.

 This site has commented long and hard about how men had hoped that a new government would ensure there was equality for men and women. Initially there was light with the hope on issues such as anonymity on rape, the lack of anti-male rhetoric and on family law. The government though has danced to the feminist fundamentalist tune and backtracked on everything it promised, been involved in even more male bashing on pay, directorships, pensions and anything else it can lay its hands on.

Yet in the backgorund the flame that still flickered was on family law. That flame has now been snuffed out.

As ever with these things, the government pre-briefed the media so the initial headlines that greeted everyone at the beginning of the week were that grandparents would have a legal right to see their grandchildren  (and Telegraph) and this review would be ground breaking. And then when it was published it was clear when you read it that it was a sham with the grandparents issues a carefully crafted smokescreen that shows no progress for fathers - it is straight out of the spin doctors manual and the dupes in the media fell for it because they are too lazy to do anything except regurgitate the press release.

Basically, there is no real mention of shared parenting at all it says "there should be regard given to the status of shared parental responsibility" - but no presumption! It rules it out (Page 23 - section 108).

The reforms win the backing of lawyers and judges (no surprise) but as the Daily Mail reported - others like Fathers4Justice and the Family Society say it is a sham. Families Need Fathers says it still has a long way to go and organisations such as FNF had made sensible, reaosnable and well thought out submissions. But they were ignored.

It was almost as if the review had been 'got at' by the fundamentalists - that by having shared parenting would mean the value of fathers would be enhanced and that was unacceptable. If the governement enacts these proposals in this 'interim' review then there it will be cleat that the government is as bad as the last.

It gives the hope of equality and justice for men, and then takes it away. That is worse than making clear there is no hope at all.

Posted by Skimmington

Postscript - There are a number of Conservative MP's such as Brian Binley and Charlie Elphicke who are campaigning for shared parenting so we hope they are vocal in their opposition to this. 

Postscript 2 - The sound Brian Hitchcock from the Family Law Society on BBC West Midlands

 

MEDIA FAILS TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE WHEN IT COMES TO SEXISM AGAINST MEN

As I pen this piece the top story on the BBC news website is about a Salford teenager who's been quoted £33,000 to insure his Vauxhall Corsa. This case came to light as a result of an earlier Daily Express article citing a different male teen, Daniel Grey, quoted £24,000 to insure his eleven year old Volvo.

Less wealthy young men faced with such an exorbitant cost of motoring either are priced off our roads or are forced to break the law, either by pretending the car belongs to their parents or by having no insurance whatsoever. And of course if they get caught uninsured or are found to have lied then any future premium rise once again creating a vicious circle of higher costs upon higher costs not to mention criminal convictions. Not only has ever media report on the matter failed to illustrate the above hardships endured by young men but they also fail to mention that such pricing is sexist and to become illegal. The media is so often keen to link even remotely related stories yet this golden rule doesn't' ever appear to apply stories about discrimination against men even when there is blatant sexism which has been proven illegal at the highest possible level. Just imagine if female or ethnic minorities had been the victims here, there'd be numerous piece int eh Guardian and articles full of over the top quotes from misandricc Labour Party MPs or Fawcett Society gender feminists. The only half decent coverage is from the Daily Mail who do at least note that young men are being "priced off the roads".

Talking of the Fawcett Societys it's incredibly blinkered of feminists to complain about women receiving a few percent less in wages compared to men (for entirely different work of course) without looking at other types of income/expenditure related sexism. For Jake Redshaw to drive to his part time job in a warehouse he's looking at spending £5,700 in insurance (the lowest price) even before he's thought about road tax, fuel or maintenance (or buying a vehicle). If Daniel is lucky enough to have a job then he fairs even worse facing a minimum payment of £12,00 for insurance.

Below are the remaining articles covering all the coverage of the story. Not one mentions sexism, the wider consequences of such pricing or even what the prices might have been for a female driver. In fact the only mention of gender is a quote for Jake's mother telling us what a risk young male drivers are as if they're all part of some homogenous group all equally incapable of driving safely.

Daily Express

Manchester Evening News

Daily Mirror

SCOUTS ASSOCIATION RIGHTLY ON THE WARPATH ABOUT CUTS

The Scouts Association  did a grand job last week of highlighting the impact the current Government;s cuts are having because of the increase in rents they are now facing from local councils. They have set up a website Don't Raise Our Rents and I would urge everyone to sign it. Another group not prepared to stand by and let boys/men be shut down.

This is not the place to discuss government cuts from a party political perspective but it seems clear from the campaign that local councils (as distinct from national government but connected nonetheless) have no feel for the importance of scouting, the impact it has in providing organised discipline for boys and the opportunity for gaining skills and learning the importance of teamwork and camaraderie.

When so mucc  being taken away from boys so they are left with a feminised education system that fails them, a family court system that shuts out their fathers and the constant bombardment of boys/men = bad, girls/women = good, the scouting movement gives them shelter and some hope.

Girls are also welcome to the scouting movement (it's not Cancer Research's Race for Life!) which of course is a good thing and something I am sure rankles with the feminist fundamentalists.

We need an increase in the scouting movement especially in inner cities but it seems that local councils are not interested about continuing to support them. How can the government on one hand say it believes in the Big Society and then see the Scouts Movement decimated in such a way.

A conspiracy theorist (which I am) would suggest that because the Scouting Movement is largely made up of boys, and as we all know they are the disposable sex, this is why it is happening. Councils would think twice if they aware undermining the Guides movement.

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage - PA, Guardian, BBC, Daily Mail

ARTICLES UPDATE

Sorry everyone...very hard to keep up at the moment. Here are a few must read articles for one or reason or other...

Daily Mirror - Saving the men who live in fear  (Louise Baty)

Evening Standard - I hate to say it but we need a quota to put girls on top (Chris Blackhurst)

Daily Mail - Judge launches stinging attack on Wren as fellow soldier she accused of rape is cleared (Tamara Cohen). Note everyone how the woman remains nameless but the two innocent men are named, forever having their names publicly available but she remains anonymous. That's equality in Britain today!

Daily Mail - Sexism is dead, say Most British Women (Steve Doughty). More analysis to come at a later date.

Daily Mail - Teacher who had sex with schoolboy is spared jail (no byline)

Straight Statistics - Standard recycles out of date figures on domestic homicides (Nigel Hawkes)

Daily Mail - How Facebook is turning women into stalkers (no byline)

Men's Network - Mens Mental Health Week

Dads on the Air (Oz) - Erin Pizzey interview

The Guardian - Where are the women directors? (Kerry Fox) - Spot John Kimble's comment

The Guardian - When Women are victims of growth (Jane Martinson)

The Telegraph - Another 'horrible' case for you Mr Loughton (Christopher Brooker) - child abduction by the state.

Posted by Skimmington

 

 

CANCER RESEARCH UK STOOPS EVER LOWER IN ITS SEXISM AGAINST MEN

A great many people concerned with equality (not to mention cancer) have been deeply disturbed by the conduct of Cancer Research UK and their sexist Race for Life. I'm sure I don't' have to tell you that the race is a female only event where men are banned from taking part. We're not talking about mere segregation here with separate events for the two genders at the same time, it's a completely blatant exclusion of 49% of the population.

Until recently CRUK also ran a half hearted attempt at involving men called "Run for Moore" but quite frankly it was doomed from the start given the institutionalised sexism which runs throughout the organisation and the fact the event was clearly an afterthought rather than anything CRUK ever had any commitment to. This year the inevitable has happened and CRUK have abandoned any pretence of trying to involve men by giving up on Run for Moore completely.

If we had a more enlightened attitude to gender equality in this country then Race For Life would have long ago been declared illegal. Events in other countries aimed at appealing to women or focusing on mostly female cancers generally do not bother being so petty as to ban men. Regrettably one of Harriet Harman's last acts before finally getting kicked out of office was to sneak in explicit legalisation of Race for Life misandry in the "Equality" Bill, though such legislation is at least an acknowledgement that CRUK were previously on extremely shaky ground indeed with regards to their treatment of men over the last 15 years.

Not only is CRUK's sexist in it's fundraising activities of course, it also fails to fund research into male cancer sufficiently, instead spending far more money on female only conditions. There is now increasingly widespread awareness that our society's obsession with breast cancer is having a hugely detrimental effect on all other cancer suffers and it's now fair to say that men and pretty much anyone suffering from any less fashionable form of the disease is now effectively a second class citizen.

So many other people are doing so much great work in taking CRUK to task over their sexism and this has previously meant I've not bothered writing anything new about the organisation as quite frankly I didn't have much to add to my previous piece. Regrettably they have now stooped to a new low and spurred me into writing once again.

Incredibly CRUK have begun a campaign of objectifying men on their website as a way of promoting their sexist Race for Life events. Visitors to the website (mostly women of course) are invited to meet CRUK's "Race for Life hotties"  in the organisation's "E-male" app where they get to choose who they wish to perform for them. Women then gets to personalise the sex object of their choice with CRUK kindly inviting them to take ownership of him and "make him yours".  Visitors then finally get to see a video of "their" "hottie" stripping off his shirt and going topless (note I won't be linking to the content as I do not wish to promote sexism nor the charity concerned).

Now I want to make it clear I'm not some some prudish, anti-sex "Object" style fanatic here. I don't have any problem with sex or nudity and we live in a free society where men are woman are quite rightly able to parade around half naked and do whatever they wish with their bodies for whatever reason.  Sex sells and I accept that.

The CRUK campaign is certainly at the very worst end of the scale in terms of bad taste and the double standards of a lack of female "hotties" arguably makes things even worse. However the real reason such content is so objectionable is because it's a part of the wider campaign of genuinely harmful sexism and exclusion by a genuinely discriminatory organisation who really should be helping everyone. We're not talking about some random inconsequential top shelf magazine printing questionable content. CRUK is a hugely influential and powerful organisation, it's the UK's biggest cancer charity supposed to be responsible for finding cures for diseases that kill millions and helping countless cancer sufferers.

As we noted above CRUK has deliberately excluded men from it's biggest events for well over a decade now. It's then refuses to give sufficient funding to male cancers and ultimately fails to engage with men and get the interested in the issue of cancer, despite themselves admitting men are the biggest suffers of the disease and have the worst outcomes by some distance. CRUK now adds to its sexism by parading topless men all over it's website in something akin to a Nevada brothel style line up.

This isn't first such objectification of men by CRUK either, the organisation has history here as you can see from this breast cancer "awareness" video (warning it's even more tasteless than the Race for Life "hotties" videos ). Once again there is no corresponding video where a male figure of authority molests a semi nude female in the name of prostate cancer awareness.

These videos sum up the philosophy of CRUK and its Race for Life and shows just how sexist the charity has now become. Divisive environments only concerned with one gender or openly hostile the other no only alienate the other half the population, but can makes issues such as objectification more acceptable and therefore more likely. How on earth can men become concerned with cancer when all the messages about the subject in our society are delivered in bold pink writing accompanied blatantly sexist women-only rules and topless men presented as sex objects? Respected author Brian Clegg tells us that just because Race for Life is for a good cause, it doesn't' justify discrimination. Similarly, it doesn't justify tasteless objectification of those CRUK is already discriminating against in all their work either.

On a more positive note these videos do at least further prove all along what we've all suspected about CRUK. If it were in any doubt before, it's safe to say we're now clearly at a stage where the organisation is a lost cause. Please do not donate to such sexist organsiaitons instead support one of the many far better, charities and unfashionable causes out there who survive on tiny budgets without demeaning or discriminating against anyone.

by John Kimble

WHY NO CALL FOR GENDER QUOTAS TO FIGHT THE RADIATION AT FUKUSHIMA?

Watching the story unfold of those brave 180 men (Fukushima 50) fighting the leaks at the nuclear power station in Japan, I suddenly realised that I have no seen calls from the UN Women's Committee, the UK Government's Minister for Women or Harman, the Fawcett Society, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, The Guardian etc about the lack of women involved.

Where is the call to impose a gender quota or an 'A' List or positive action? 

Where is the PR campaign about this awful discrimination at the nuclear plant because there are no women amongst the '50' (all reports say they are only men, so please do not complain if a few are female)?

Many of us would not want women there but we are not allowed to say that. However the silence of the feminist fundamentalists shows not only do they not want women there either but it also highlights their hypocrisy because according to their orthodoxy they should be calling for equality and quotas. 

Society as a whole recognises that men do these types of job and that is the way of nature. Society also recognises that those who do these types of job get paid more. Normal men and women call that fair, feminist fundamentalists call it discrimination. 

The silence of the feminist fundamentalists shows they want gender quotas when it suits them, when it doesn't, they say nothing.

Let's all ensure our thoughts are with those brave men and their families.

Posted by Skimmington  

FEMINIST FUNDAMENTALISM AT THE NATIONAL UNION OF STUDENTS

Yesterday we ran a story about the problems some students had at the University of East Anglia because they fully understood what equality means but the vested interests of the Feminist Fundamentalist movement did not.

The story reminded me of a previous story about Olivia Bailey the then National Union of Student's Women's Officer who had produced a document called "I will win the arguments"  which had a section specifically designed to not just to stop anymore men's officers from being appointed on campuses but also to abolish those few in place. This document has moved from its last address and is now here (page 7).

However, digging around, I found a resolution that was passed at the 2010 National Union of Student's Women's National Campaign Conference. It is in the minutes of this year's conference that occurred at the weekend (there was no similar motion in 2011). The motion is on page 15 and is available via this pdf Download Motion no 803_Men's Officer.

The motion was crystal clear - it wants all existing men's officers to be scrapped, men's officers reinforce the advantages they have on campus (there are now of course less men than women on campuses because of Britain's failure to educate boys so who knows what fantasy advantages these are) and that men's liberation groups be banned but women's liberation groups be kept.

The hatred of men comes through loud and clear and the concern is, and as reviewed yesterday, that those who passed this motion and spoke up for it will soon be embedded into the political framework of this country at a national, local, pressure group (taxpayer funded of course) or quango level. Those feminist fundamentalists will take their student views and infest them into the body politic as they have done since the 1970's.

The power of the internet has meant here it has been exposed for the world to see. In times of yore, these motions would have been passed and no one outside those who went to the conference would know it.

The war against men is being started on campuses up and down the UK and the radicalisation of some women turns them into fundamentalists who despise and hate men and believe men are not equals,they are subservient.

Posted by Skimmington