The Rights Of Man

UPDATE: EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN

As things have been really busy the past four months or so, the next week few weeks will see interspersed with the usual commentary a list of articles on similar topics which then can be discussed.

Preferably it is better to have some commentary in the posts themselves but time is of the essence and it is better that the articles etc are shared rather than being overlooked because of time then not at all.

The first ones are on some employment related issues (not including the Equality Act which will be dealt with at a later date).

Useless Jobless Men by Camila Cavendish (The Times)

Debt - Men are emerging as the new underclass (Daily Telegraph)

Equality payout for female cleaners in Birminghamby Jamie Doward (The Observer)

The issue with the above is whether or not it also applies to male cleaners as well as female cleaners as well as other types of similar jobs wher ethe issue was apllied for females. If you remember this was an issue from last year where the sexist councils of Middlesbrough, Hartleppol and South Tyneside had to be taken to court so that men could be granted equal treatment.

South Tyneside were going to appeal. Love to find out if this decision also applied to male cleaners and whetehr South Tyneside appealed or not?

Sacked lawyer wins sex discrimination case (Yorkshire Evening Post)

Unemployment rate far higher for male graduates than female graduates (Higher Education Policy Institute) and Guardian article

Work experience at the Foreign Office? Not if you are a white middle class male by Brendan Carlin (Daily Mail)

Have we missed any employment related discrimination stories?

Posted by Skimmington

MEN'S HOUR GREATLY IMPROVES

When BBC Radio Five first broadcast Men's Hour I amongst others were disappointed. However, three episodes on I have to say things have vastly improved and it has now the right mix of serious issues and those with bit more irreverence. In many ways, quite typical of us men.

The show on the 8th of August which had DJ Gary Crowley on talking about his daughter being  taken away by her mother to live in Denmark was very moving.

There are two more episodes to go and if it continues to improve, this should be a permanent fixture on Radio 5. Hats off to presenter Tim Samuels I say.

Today's programmes will appear here.

Posted by Skimmington

MALE BOSSES COME OUT ON TOP SAY WOMEN

Last week on of our regular readers and contributors (called Groan) pointed out in the comments section on one of the posts about research from UKjobs.net which shows that men make the best bosses and that this is a view held by men and women. This was highlighted this time last year in other research when the site questioned how Harman and Co would react to these traitorous women.

Now as you know this site is not anti-women, but I have to say as another week of work beckons, it did make me smile and wanted to ensure it was shared more widely.

Read the coverage here: Daily Mail (read the comments), Daily Telegraph and Express plus of course the laughable Barbara Ellen in the Guardian.  

Posted by Skimmington

Hattip: Groan

HOME OFFICE: FEMALE PAEDOPHILES DO NOT EXIST

Our newest writer on this blog yesterday drew my attention to this article at the BBC. The document discusses "Sarah's Law"  a new piece of legislation permitting parents to check the background of those people who have unsupervised access to their children just in case they are paedophiles. The piece gives five scenarios the scheme could cover, and there's a rather disturbing common theme throughout. I've since discovered that the five scenarios given actually appear in various different articles on the issue on different sites, therefore it's uncertain as to who is to blame exactly.

One of the characters we get to hear about is a male sports coach offering informal football training. It tells us that parents can find information about him due to "rumours about the man doing the rounds". Obviously checks based on rumours aren't especially desirable but the piece is well balanced and does warn of the danger off vigilantism.

We also read about an "odd-looking" neighbour. Again this potential paedophile is male as well as "shifty, reclusive" and "always rude", though at least the piece informs us that no check are likely to be performed on this particular character due to the lack of evidence of risk.

A second neighbour "playing with children" is another possible paedophile discussed. We hear how neighbours are suspicious about the "individual" and their intentions towards local children and one is given the impression we're finally at least seeing a gender neutral scenario or perhaps even a female sex offender discussed. However this all change in the final paragraph where it's revealed that the character in question is an offender though perhaps not thought to be a risk because "he is co-operating with monitoring arrangements".

The two remaining characters supposedly representing likely scenarios are both "new boyfriends" . It' essentially the same scenario twice, the only difference being the source of the concern. One is where a mother wants to know more about someone she is dating, whereas in the second case the relationship is more developed and the concern instead comes from the grandparents.

In total we've got five possible paedophiles (or even actual paedophiles in some cases), every single one of them is a man. The scenarios manage to be perfectly gender neutral in terms of the possible victims of these sex offenders so why demonise all men in this way?

Last year the BBC produced an article asking "are there women paedophiles?" . It comes to the conclusion that there are indeed plenty of female paedophiles though notes how they often go undetected. It states that "society's different attitude to women offenders is reflected in the language of the media reporting it" and the writer goes on to say that "that victims suffered a peculiar sense of isolation and stigma because this form of abuse was not so widely recognised."

To be honest I couldn't' have put it much better myself. By ignoring female paedophiles whoever came up with these five scenarios is not only unfairly stigmatising men, but it's making it easier for female child abusers and mean their victims feel less able to come forward. Despite the lack of effort in detecting such abusers and the reluctance in victims coming forward, research still puts the percentage of female paedophiles at up to 20%. Therefore we should certainly have seen one female abuser featured for the sake of accuracy yet we didn't even see a single gender neutral scenario thus thoroughly reinforcing the myth that only men sexually abuse children.

The misandry doesn't stop at pretending there aren't' any female paedophiles either. There is vast dishonesty in the identify of the parties concerned about potential paedophiles too.  Every single scenario in the piece either features a parent who's gender is undisclosed worried about a random neighbour/coach, or a mother/grandparent worried about a boyfriend. Nothing wrong with that you might think, but lets consider the reality of the situation and the options open to the parties involved.

If a mother is so worried about a potential new partner that he might be a paedophile then it's pretty obvious there isn't any level of trust in the relationship and she's surely going to find someone else rather than instigate a police investigation? On the other hand a father cannot put a stop to his ex wife's new relationship and he actually faces far more barriers in terms of contact with the child than almost any other male on the planet. Therefore fathers are the one's mostly likely to make use of Sarah's law, and they'd be quite right to do so given that one of the most dangerous environment for a child is with their mother and her latest boyfriend.

Some readers may well be sceptical of the above assertions, but they're not just random likely suggestions based on probabilities - the actual evidence from the four Sarah's Law trials  shows these fathers to be the main users of Sarah's Law, with mothers not even mentioned as one of the smaller groups making requests.

So the question is who exactly is responsible for such dishonest writing? The earliest trace of the article I can find is actually a BBC piece from 2008 by Dominic Casciani, I've contacted him and he informs me the piece was based upon Home Office publicity material and this really is very worrying indeed. It's not the BBC pretending that there are no female paedophiles, they're merely giving coverage to the sexist lies manufactured at the Home Office.

How can we possibly protect victims of female paedophiles if we refuse to acknowledge their existence? Lets hope the new coalition government put an end to such sexism and starts protecting all children rather than just those with the "correct" type of abuser.

by John Kimble

THE FEMINIST WORLDVIEW AT THE BBC

Well, it's my first real go at blogging and, as is probably usual in these situations, I kind of feel it has been thrust upon me by circumstances more than anything else.

The story started a few weeks ago, where on a long car journey home from work I happened upon the views of one Lynne Franks, as she was asked for her impression of "Men's Hour", an experimental show for men that pitched itself (no joke) as "Women's Hour's cheeky younger brother". Lynne was asked her opinion of whether the show was necessary and worthwhile, and proceeded to heap scorn on both the show, and the notion that men as a group might find more media attention helpful.

After spending the remainder of the drive quietly seething to myself, as soon as I got home I wrote an indignant email to the feedback section of the show - the full text of which you can find here.

I got what I would call a cursory response; more intrigued as to why I might possibly have anything to complain about than, well, appreciating and understanding the complaint and perhaps even (gasp) apologising for the broadcast.

After returning from my holidays last week there was something more promising: an email from the BBC's iPM programme, which deals with listener feedback. They were planning a "Men's Hour" version of iPM, including interviews with a man who survived breast cancer, and a man who ran a 'domestic violence unit', in their words "...a field so dominated by women that he has very interesting things to say about how his co-workers view him and the effect on his own masculinity." This is a very interesting choice of words, and one that I will return to before I finish the article.

A brief phone call followed who, to the production team’s credit, were very enthusiastic and eager to have my feedback and input into the show. I had a real hope that this show might be worth listening to, and really raise men's issues, from a men's perspective.

You can hear the full broadcast here, if you are in the UK and until Saturday I believe.

So what did I think?

A brave but severely misguided attempt.

The piece on male breast cancer was very interesting - John Nestor tells the story of his experiences being treated for the cancer, alongside his late wife. But why no mention of the disgusting 'Race for Life'? This would seem extremely relevant to the story, especially as it is yet another example of blatant apartheid against men. The "men's issue" here should have been Race for Life, as well as the lack of funding for male cancers, not just the occasional breast cancer case within men.

The piece on domestic violence was a vivid reminder of just why we need a men's rights movement. I guess I should have been forewarned by the intro piece at the beginning of the show: "..dedicated to the things men do, like domestic violence".

Then Simon Currs 'Domestic abuse partnership manager' from Cambridgeshire came on and was if anything as sad to listen to as Lynne Franks. This guy not only has significant mistrust towards the male gender as a gender, he has been so programmed during his 'training back in 2002' that he considers domestic violence to be a gender crime. This flies in the face of the a comprehensive study by California State University, which examined 275 'scholarly investigations', and concluded that "women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners". So why does Simon describe DA as a gender crime? You can get some hints from his comments about the 'King of the castle' character that he goes on to describe:

"I wasn't sure of the history and dynamics of domestic abuse, really and fully until I undertook some training back in 2002, based around an individual called the 'dominator', a male individual who exhibits certain abusive characteristics. The idea of this 'dominator' really made me look at myself, my use of language, the way I conduct myself, the beliefs I have, and certainly, at some level, the character of the 'dominator' is exhibited by all men.

"'The king of the castle'; I'm sure you'll recognise the stereotype.

"He has his own chair at home, sits with the remote control on the arm of the chair and a beer in the other and scratching... his balls, if you like. I know its a bit of a stretch to get from that type of individual to an abusive personality, but its indicative of the types of behaviours that all men exhibit - I certainly do it..

"That is me acting in my capacity as king of the castle."

Er... what!?

Having a favourite chair, drinking a beer, using a remote control, and scratching your balls are all signs of a potential abuser? A good editor could have cut this right down to the words 'x chromosome'. So wait a minute… if a woman has a favourite chair, drinks wine while watching TV and using a remote control (gasp), and occasionally adjusts her bra strap, should she be on the watch list? Or is this just another way for feminists to basically describe men as evil, by their very nature?

This is why I know that Simon Currs is a feminist. He views all males with distrust, including himself, and 'realises' that deep down inside, every man has domestic abuser traits just waiting to come out. I suspect that the 'training' he undertook in 2002 was in fact simply feminist brainwashing.

In short, Simon Currs is the last person we should be hearing from on a show broadcast to publicise 'men's issues'. A domestic violence feature from a 'men's perspective' should feature the severe under-reporting of domestic violence against men (briefly mentioned, admittedly), but then feature details of shelters for men, men's stories about abuse they have suffered, the reaction they got and the support, if any, when they reported it. It should also mention the fact that for every pound spent on DA shelters and support for men, three and a half grand is spent on women. Simon says that, in Cambridgeshire, the ratio of men to women reporting DA is 15% / 85%. Even if this is correct (which is doubtful), why, on average, do female DA victims get 99.97% of the funding?

The answer is simple. There is a gender crime being committed, and it isn't Domestic Abuse against women, it is the ignorance of the needs of male victims.

So, to summarise. To the BBC, thanks for the effort, but no thanks. All you have done here is to demonstrate what you think are 'men's issues', and to frame them through the feminist weltanschauung lens of the Beeb.

I see this time and time again from the BBC. Here is the most recent example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10826350

Can you see where you went wrong there? I sincerely hope so.

 

Posted by Jon Horridge

COALITION'S NEW PUBLIC BODY ASPIRATION HEAPS ON MORE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN

As each day goes by the Coalition Government is exhibiting more and more of the Marxist feminist anti-male traits of its predecessor. As set out here it is backtracking on equality issues all the time extinguishing any hope that men will no longer be treated as second class citizens.

Last week, the Coalition Government announced that it had aspirations on the following:

1. By the end of the Parliament at least half of all new appointees being made to the boards of public bodies will be women

2.Business Minister Edward Davey and Lynne Featherstone, Minister for Equalities, have today announced that Lord Davies of Abersoch will develop a business strategy to increase the number of women on the boards of listed companies in the UK (covered here and here).

As this site and any one who believes in equality knows, positive action means negative action for someone else and that someone else is always men. This is what makes the Equality Act anything but about equality, when employers can discriminate against people because of their gender (the powers not yet taken by the Governement - interesting)

This of course is no difference to what Harman, Flint, the Fawcett Society and the Equalities Commission wanted before the election. Plus Ca Change.

The Government has tried to couch the policy on public bodies by stating that it will be based on merit. But we all know what happens in the real world of politics behind closed doors.

Good men will be weeded out at the selection process, subtle pressure put on public bodies to meet their target, even non-subtle targets (you'll lose funding if you don't appoint a woman), retiring men being replaced automatically by a women and of course there will be the full blown pressure put on public bodies to toe the line. Now this aspiration has been made, Harman will not let them forget it.

This is not an aspiration, in the real body politic world this is a hard and fast policy and woe betide any public body not meeting it. Because in reality if you have an aspiration you will do all you can to achieve it and if it looks like it is not working you will move heaven and earth to do so, and blow the issues of meritocracy or legality. Has any Government not wanted to meet an aspiration and gear policy both overtly and covertly towards meeting it? Never.

This aspiration is a policy and it is the end of meritocracy. All that matters is your gender, your ability is irrelevant.

Posted by Skimmington

Media Coverage - Telegraph, Independent, Independent

ANOTHER ANTI-MALE MYTH IS UNDERMINED - HOUSEWORK AND CHILDCARE

One of the stars who stands up for men (and women) and brings an injection of academic common sense and realism in the fight for equality and honest debate is Dr Catherine Hakim at the LSE. She really lays into the myth-making of the feminists.

She has been outspoken before on the Equality Act and speaks sense on the gender pay gap.

This week she published a report in Renewal (press release and report), a journal for social democracy, where she said that:

"Feminists are wrong to claim that men should do a larger share of the housework and childcare because on average, men and women already do the same number of hours of productive work. In fact, if we consider the hours spent doing both paid work and unpaid household, care and voluntary work together, men already do more than their fair share..."

and also as keen by this case, she says that:

"Furthermore, there is evidence that men are beginning to demand the same options and choices as women, with more claims of sex discrimination from men. Policy makers need to be aiming for gender-neutral policies that cater for all three main lifestyle choices..."

The importance of this report cannot be said enough.

Not just because it shatters another of the anti-male myths used by feminists to beat down men by suggesting they are slackers leaving women to work and then do all the housework while they skive off down the pub, it also highlights the choice that women make. This is the cause of the gender pay gap not discrimination which is what Flint, Harman and the Fawcett Society think.

Lastly, what is great about this report is that it is written by a women.

It shouldn't matter of course but if it had been written by a man, the report would have been ignored, condemned and patronised with the "he would say that would't he?" nonsense.

Posted by Skimmington

Media Coverage - Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph plus Neil Lyndon in the Telegraph

SWIMMING DISCRIMINATION IN SALE (UPDATE) - CAN YOU HELP?

One of the most popular recent posts was the issue of the discrimination against men at Sale Leisure Centre.

The author of the post (Carl) recently added an update and in case it gets lost as issues come up thick and fast please see his message below. Can you help (post below)?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Guys, thanks for your posts to date.

I'm currently in the very early stages of requesting information from Trafford Leisure Trust with a view to taking legal action against them.

I will continue to view the site and hopefully garner help and advice from you all. At some stage, I will be looking to involve the national press (Daily Mail or The Express) in this.

I am looking for a ballsy solicitor to take me on with this. Anyone know who might be up for a fight that could end up on the 6 o'clock news in about 6 months time outside the High Court?

Surely there has to be a Solicitor out there who feels the way I do about this, and wants to use their skill in taking this Leisure Trust apart, bit by bit?

This could be a very sweet victory for true equality with the right brief in my corner.

I just need some quality help guys, but I'm a man of limited means.

THERESA MAY'S LEAKED LETTER SHOWS MEN STILL SECOND CLASS

There is always the hope that when a new Government comes in, things may change, the site certainly hoped so. However, we have already had the bringing forward of the state retirement age for men, then the backtracking on the rape anonymity issue and now we have been shown the true colours of Theresa May, the Minister for Women and Equalities.

The Guardian revealed today that Theresa May had written to the Chancellor George Osborne before he gave his Emergency Budget to warn him that it could break equality laws. How so?

Well, under the Gender Equality Duty, when policies are formed they must take into account the impact they have on the differing groups in society. However, accriodng to Theresa May, one group which makes up 49% of the population does not count, can you guess who?

In her letter she contends that because of cuts in public spending, there were real risks that women, the disabled, the elderly and those from an ethnic background would be disproportionately affected. Also she said that women are employed in public services and also use them more, they could be disproportionately affected.

Once again, what this shows is that the Government, whether blue/yellow or red not only does not count men as equals (not withstanding that some men obviously fall into these groups but certainly not white men/boys) but also do not even given an iota of thought to the wrongful generalisations they make.

(1) There is the assumption that all men and women should be just lumped into their politically correct defined tick boxes and that all those in the boxes are the same and have more advantages/disadvantages than those in the other box.

If a part of the public sector is cut and job losses ensue then it depends on where those cuts are (it could be a male dominated area as much as a female one - the police service and armed forces are undergoing large cuts but the NHS which is female dominated is ring-fenced!), plus it is about individuals not gender.

If a man loses a job it is of equal tragedy as a woman losing her job. May suggests not, she suggests that a women losing her job is more of a tragedy than a man losing his job.

May also makes the common but fatal assumption that men and women live in isolation. If a woman loses her job in the public sector, it will also affect any husband/boyfriends/son/father she has.

(2)  May says that because women use public services more, then cuts will affect them more. Baloney.

Firstly, I come back to the false assumption. If a woman uses health care for herself or takes her children to the doctors, is May saying that the man is not affected if his children/wife/parneter/sister are suffering from health cuts.

The same applies to education, cuts on schools means cuts in services for children and the last time I checked children had fathers as well as mothers. Plus, as boys are so far behind girls now educationally, any cuts will affect boys!

Also there will be plenty more examples as well.

(3) This is the most concerning.

What May is effectively doing in a Harmanesque way, is to pressurise Osborne to skew his Budget towards cutting services and jobs in male dominated parts of the public sector to 'even things up' if you like.

Essentially if you cut services or jobs in a female dominated area, then you need to do the same in a male dominated area (of course she again makes the false assumption that if a man loses his job it does not affect any woman that he shares his life with).

This is pure tokenism and special pleading and once again men are at the bottom of the heap. They are not an equality group, they are to be treated as second class victims of the cuts in jobs and public services. Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.

Posted by Skimmington

WHAT PARENT WOULD SEND THEIR SON TO ACLE HIGH SCHOOL?

So many big issues to write about, so little time, but just in case anyone missed this I couldn't let this go.

Headteacher Tim Phillips, at Acle High School in Great Yarmouth decided that none of the boys were good enough to fill the Head Boy or Deputy Head Boy positions so put girls in those places. It means that the positions allocated to Head Boys/Girls and the Deputy Head positions are all filled by girls.

As can be seen by the comments in the Daily Mail and also in the piece itself, there is much disdain for this position.

Obviously Tim Phillips thinks it is OK to mock boys (all the boys at this school will be a laughing stock) based on his own "judgement" and thinks there is nothing wrong in doing so. No wonder boys lose confidence in their ability when they mocked and undermined in such a way. The man obviously thinks he is some sort of tough guy when really his decision just damages people. No boy at that school will have any respect for him, bet they can't wait to leave school.

The key issue is firstly, no parent with a son in their right mind would send him to that school if he remains headteacher. He thinks they are rubbish and is happy to publicly say so.

Secondly, would Phillips ever think of doing the same the other way 'round. That is, if no girls were good enough in his laughable mind, would he put four boys into these positions? Of course not and of course if he did, the Equalities Commission, the Fawcett Society and Guardian/BBC would be all over him.

So angry...

Posted by Skimmington

He has tried to backtrack but still does not accept his wrong (Eastern Daily Press)