The Rights Of Man

PETITION ON STATE PENSION EQUALISATION

A regular reader has sent this petition over for those it interests.

Posted by Skimmington

WHY ARE BROADWAY'S FIGURES ABOUT LONDON'S HOMELESS MEN HIDDEN? SEXISM, THAT'S WHY

A common type of discrimination is not just the overt discrimination but covert discrimination, effectively discrimination by omisson - where figures relating to men are ignored or not given equal status as figures affecting females.

 Another way of seeing this in action is to reverse the genders (The Lyndon Concept, named after the concept Neil Lyndon first set out) and then see what the prominence would be with the media, politicians, opinion formers, pressure groups etc. What would be the outcry if it was a 'Neil' Lawson who was at the end of domestic abuse at the hands of a 'Charlotte' Saatchi for instance.

Today's homelessness report (summary and full report) called Street to Home by the Combined Homelessness and Information Network in London (led by Broadway) is a classic example.

The press release states that "6,437 people were seen sleeping  on the streets of the Capital between April 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013. This  compares to 5,678 the previous year". So what is the gender breakdown?

Er...well it mentions that 786 female (12%) were female, but does not mention that 88% were male - nine out of ten.

Now all homelessness is awful and no man or women should be homeless - it's what we pay our taxes for to make sure that doesn't happen to anyone. But how in the name of equality can a report's press release fail to mention that 88% of homeless people are men (the overwhelming majority) and even worse not mention men at all. It is why it is not mentioned in the Evening Standard report. This is why people do not realise the plight that so many men face on our streets because they are not told about it.

Using the Lyndon Concept can you imagine the headlines if the genders were reversed. It would not dominate the news it would be the main hook on the press release. But because it is men - it does not even get a mention.

Why did Broadway choose to highlight the female figure and not the male figure? Why did they think it was OK? Why did they feel that the number of female homeless was far more important to raise than the number of men even though men are more than seven times as likely to be sleeping rough on the streets of London than a woman.

The only rational and logical conclusion is sexism. Insidious, anti-male, anti-equality, institutional  cultural misandry.

The thought process was that men are not as important than women, that no one is interested in men and the plight of homeless men. Men according to Broadway are the disposable sex and only 12% of homeless people are worth mentioning, and that is because of they are not men.

Shame on Broadway for their sexism.

Posted by Skimmington

PS Glen Poole's excellent Telegraph article set out some aspects

O2 AND SYMANTEC - EQUALITY FOR MEN IS MORE HATEFUL THAN STORMFRONT

Most of my posts this year have concerned the O2 and Symantec censorship scandal, some readers may becoming bored of the issue by now but I make no apologies for them in fact they'll keep coming until the censorship stops. To be honest, I've probably been rather two soft on these companies in the past and things are going to step up a gear from now onwards.

I keep learning more about the Rulespace filter by the day and I made a quite astonishing discovery recently. O2 and Symantec have two possible ways of blocking a site, it can either be classed as a "hate site" or be placed in the "hate" category, either way it gets censored and access is restricted.

Take a racist site such as Stormfront, O2's url checker shows us that it is in the "hate" category. The same goes for a site such as the National Coalition for Men, one of the oldest men's organisations in existence. However, in addition to it's place in the "hate" category, it also receives a "hate site" classification, something not found for Stormfront.org. So Stormfront is blocked once, yet a perfectly legitimate organisation such as NCFM.org is blocked twice over just for good measure, just to make sure it never gets seen.

A quick glance at Stormfront's forums soon reveals racistand derogatroy comments about Africans and Jews, whereas the top article on NCFM.org concerned the need to defend the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Despite this, O2 and Symantec are clearly saying a respected non profit organisation advocating for men's human rights and gender equality is worse than Stormfront, and more deserving of censorship and a "hate" classification. The Rulespace filter system is so misandrist or so flawed that it favours proud racists over  men's human rights advocates.

The list of sites deemed worse than Stormfront by these companies even includes dvmen.org, a site for male victims of domesitc violence in Colerado run by the Equal Justice Foundation. Also apparantly worse than Stormfront is mensdefence.org, the site of author and pioneering men's equality advocate Richard F Doyle.

Please remember to cancel your O2 contract if you haven't done so already and uninstall your Symantec software, in both cases there are quite a few cheaper and better alternatives out there anyway. Also don' forget to give the reason for your cancellation.

by John Kimble

CAMDEN COUNCIL'S HISTORY OF SUPPORTING EXTREMISM AND HATE

Last weekend saw disagraceful scenes in London whereby The Camden Centre, a taxpayer owned venue, hosted the misandrist and transphobibic RadFem 2013 conference.

Other venues saw sense and banned such extremists from their premises, but Camden decided that the hatred of men is perfectly fine although did at least claim to have forced the organisers to ammend their sexist entrance policies. One only has to glance as some of the Twitter comments of the attendees/organisers and see images of their "activism" to see just how extreme and hateful this event really is.

Having taxpayers legitimise such a vile group by allowing it to use their facilities it's clearly completely inappropriate and led me to think what a worry precedent it had set, therefore meaning all manner of a hate groups would be allowed to assemble in such facilities. Just as I was about to compose a complaint email highlighting such a point, a search on Google rather threw a spanner in the works. You see this isn't the first time Camden council has supported extremists in such a way, and just last year the very same council also allowed a Islamic group sympathetic to Osama Bin laden to hold lectures at a council funded venue.

The Jewish Chronicle reports that at one Ministry of Dawah event there was discussion on how Israel would be “wiped off the earth” by Allah, which of course sounds remarkably similar to the Radfem attitudes to men and transgender people. Still, if nothing else, we certainly can't accuse Camden council of lacking consistency, presumably they'll be welcoming the Stalin appreciation society next year, followed by the Klu Klux Klan in 2015.

by John Kimble

 

Update: Seems that even my sarcastic Stalin remarks were actaully rather closer to the truth than I'd hoped too.

HYSTERICAL ANTI-FATHER'S DAY RANTS SHOW MISANDRY IS REAL

Father's Day is not just a celebration of fathers at an individual level it is also a time to reflect about the place fathers have in British society - hence why the attention on fathers was so welcome this past week.

It can also be used by others to attack fathers to collect politically correct Brownie points with the Fawcett Society and metropolitan elite a la Cameron or by those who don't think fathers matter a la Hornby but also it can be used to desperately attack men and fathers in the the hope that someone notices the writer.

With modern-day feminism under reasoned attack for its mutation into misandry, and the fact that so many women have made a living out of it (or want to - they need to put to use their BA in gender studies that daddy has paid for) or are desperately seeking attention themselves (in some classic 'me too' behaviour)  that the type of attacks yesterday are actually useful.

This is because they are so ridiculous in their hatred of men and fathers that it shines a clear spotlight into this mutation into misandry. The comments in the comments sections of these pieces show how both women and men are waking up to it and this is especially important for women who like men and like their fathers.

They can see and read with their own eyes, how these people who purport to be their 'sisters' are using their positions to denigrate men.

Modern-day feminism will be killed off by women who wake up to the misandry rife in Britain today.

 These are the ones I saw over the weekend and judge for yourself

The Guardian - Whatever you do on Father's Day, don't buy into the fear of men deserts (Sarah Ditum)

Daily Mail - Men are as useless as Homer (Rachel Johnson)

Huffington Post - Father's day is a waste of time (Louise Pennington)

Posted by Skimmington

PS - Here are some other positive stories about fathers - Justin Rose, Daily Express (Dad's the Word) and Huffington Post 

FATHER'S DAY FOCUS SUPPORTS THE MAINSTREAMING OF MALE GENDER DISCRIMINATION

Last month saw the plight facing men and boys become more mainstream than ever before with more commentary earlier this month - though there has been precious little in the way of practical solutions.

This week was the turn of fathers.

At the start of the week, the Centre for Social Justice published their Fractured Families research on 1 million children growing up without a meaningful relationship with their fathers (covered by BBC and Daily Telegraph). key issues in the policy context (page 73) include:

• The legislation making it compulsory for fathers to be on birth certificates has been repealed/not enforced
• Government backtracking on the enforcement of contact orders
• A perception that the role of the father is not important and by some, a father's involvement is seen as a problem anyway.

This was followed up by the Netmums Survey (interesting that only NetMums carry out surveys complaining about the negativity on men, boys and father but Mumsnet is not interested in it - says a lot about the people running the sites). Their findings stated:

"Almost half of parents polled  (46%) slammed books, adverts and children's TV shows like Peppa Pig, The Simpsons and even the Flintstones which show dads as lazy or stupid.  Almost a third of parents (28%) claim it is a very subtle form of discrimination against dads while a further 18% were more strident, saying it makes children believe dads are useless from an early age and there would be an outcry if it was done against mums." Coverage was featured in in the Evening Standard, Daily Mail and Independent

David Lammy ran an article in The Guardian stating that everyday should be Father's Day (and urges the Left not to ignore fathers) and even the Guardian/Observer itself ran an editorial saying that men are not dud and their role should be celebrated. This also included a follow-up on open comment piece as did the Huffington Post.

And of course Louis De Bernieres in The Telegraph spells out succinctly with regard to how society is against men and fathers, and how many women today will be suffering not being able to see their children because their mother won't let them. Peter Hitchens was also on top form.

The point of pulling this all together (as well as making for a serious read) is that society, the media, opinion formers and (a few) politicians are actually waking to up to damage that the decades of negative stereotyping, discrimination and lack of appreciation that fathers (and men and boys) have  have to endure and the effects it not only has on them but also on society as a whole.

The discrimination, whether intended, whether due to unintended consequences or whether the needs of women have come first (driven by legions of publicly funded anti-male feminists) has started to be discussed. The frustration will be the reluctance that nothing may change and we have the same discussion next year. But at least it is out there now.

It is up to men and women who care about these issues to keep the pressure on - whether it is setting up or joining organisations, donating to men's charities, writing/lobbying/complaining to newspapers and the authorities, but there is a chink of light here.

2013 is not yet six months old - we need to keep the pressure on to make it a year to remember for male equality.

Posted by Skimmington

Ps Tomorrow I hope to review the articles that have attacked fathers and Father's Day

 

 

COMMENT MODERATION

Hi everyone

Sadly, I have had to put comment moderation on the site and will aim to clear comments every evening. I think everyone understands why this has been done.

Thank you for your patience

Skimmington

THE SEXIST DOUBLE STANDARDS OF THE O2 / SYMANTEC FILTER

Since March this year I've been updating the ever expanding list of men's human rights sites wrongly blocked by Symantec and O2 and categorised as "hate". The list currently stands at some 108 domains and grows by the week as more sites are tested.

It's worth considering that human rights sites aren't the only ones that suffer from over blocking, for example the excellent Biassed BBC blog was blocked as a hate site last year, and I've discovered that feminist site The F-Word was at least blocked to audiences under 18 last year, therefore suggesting it was either classed as hate or perhaps pornography. It's not the most misandrist feminist blog going, but the editor, Jess McCabe, does express some extreme and very sexist views at times, such as how it is "horrendous that women are getting charged at all" for ruining mens lives with false rape allegations. She genuinely believes that women who commit such heinous crimes should go completely unpunished, so it's fair to say that, whilst not deserving of a "hate" classification, it would ceritnaly be easier to make a case for The F-Word Blog to recieve one than most of the men's equality sites on the list.

Such a block represents an interesting case study as it enables us compare the treatment of feminist sites with those campaigning for men's human rights. The block of The F-Word appears to have originally come to light on Twitter with O2 soon acknowledging the issue and The Index on Censorship also mentioning the case It's unclear as to exactly how long it took for the site to be reclassified, but the site was unblocked at some point and placed in the "Entertainment and music" category.

The above events took place at exactly the same time we started noticing the censorship of men's human rights sites and the Index on Censorship article mentioned above also highlighted how such sites were blocked. Seeing as my list of blocked men's sites has expanded significantly of late I decided to try raising the issue again and managed to finally find the direct contact detials for the Symantec Rulespace team responsible for classifying these sites. Their response to my reuqest for them to review the 108 site was that they stood by the "hate" classification in each and every single case bar one. Only one classification is a mistake so we now have it direct from those reponsible that sites such as http://www.dvmen.co.uk constitutes "hate".

After my preicous contact with O2, eight sites were reclassified by Symantec, so if you have an incorrectly blocked men's human rights site, even if you write article after article, and get the attention of the tech media and civil liberties group, and have multiple parties requesting a stop to the censorship, then at best there's a 7% chance of success. On the other hand, feminists have a 100% success rate in appealing their blocks and all they have to do is send a quick tweet to achieve such a level of success. This is yet more clear evidence of sexism, not just in terms of what sites are blocked but even in trying to overturn such blocks.

To see a fully up to date list of wrongly blocked site, see the following:
http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/the_rights_of_man/2013/02/the-48-mens-human-rights-sites-feminists-seek-to-censor.html

Many thanks to the increasing number of bloggers who have been helping publicise this issue, more to come shortly.

By John Kimble

MALE EQUALITY, LIFE OF BRIAN AND THE PROBLEM OF INTERNET TROLLS

When I set up this site way back in 2007, it was to act as a conduit to speak out against male discrimination in Britain in a moderate and 'educated' style encouraging articles, news and comments from like minded men and women.

Plus by allowing people to choose to be anonymous if they chose allowed free commentary without fear bearing in mind the repressive country we live in when fighting for male equality. Some may use pseudonyms but be publicly active elsewhere. It's all fine.

Two issues that I have seen over the years.

Firstly, and this is not a new phenomenon as explained by many in the men's equality movement is that too many men want to be King of the Castle and rather than team up with other men and women, want to set up their campaigns or organisation. There is nothing wrong with that per se, when there are gaps to be filled and that there is a collaborative spirit.

Plurality is a good thing but is unhealthy when it becomes a pastiche of the classic Life of Brian sketch - The People's Front of Judea versus the Judea People's Front. So instead of fighting against male discrimination, or railing against those anti-male feminists that dominate the country - time, energy and intellect is wasted on attacking those who are on the same 'side' - much to the delight of our enemies.

The second issue, is that some men who join male equality campaigns or sites either have grudges or negative experiences that they cannot overcome (often understandably) or just hate women.

Much  of this leads  to anti female outpourings, the need to join organisations but then try and then change, usurp or dominate them so their particular cause is the only game in town. 

A symptom of this can be found by some of the internet Trolls this site has had to put up with over the last 18 months. They were never there pre-2012.

A recent Troll has started to appear on this site. Rather than  set up his own website, set up his own campaign, his own charity or vehicle, he comes here to abuse those who contribute reasonably to the site and to abuse women. It is bizarre behaviour because it is not serving any purpose but to support those who do not believe in equality for men and boys and to stop those that do so from wanting to take part.

It is almost Agent Provocateur/'White Knight'/'Mangina' behaviour as if the purpose is to actually try and frighten off people from coming here or wanting to support other people who are doing their thing - like Mike Buchanan.

There are options such as tryng to ban IP addresses, moderate comments and suchlike, but that defeats all those here who are responsible and moderate.

If the Troll persists then there will be little choice to do so, and those who dislike the existence of this site be pleased. So if the Troll wants to play into the hands of those who believe in male discrimination, he will continue. If he does not support them, he will politely go elsewhere and make comments or set his own site up.

Posted by Skimmington

 

PS I have taken some of the comments down because they are just offensive and abusive, and have no place on this site. 

 

 

 

MEDIA OPENING UP TO THE PLIGHT OF MEN AND THE ATTACKS ON THEM BY ANTI-MALE FEMINISTS

The last month or so has been significant in at least raising a myriad of issues that:

• discriminate against men and boys,
• the hypocrisy of those feminists who claim to be about equality but actually do not want equality if it means equality for men and boys  - they want supremacy and special treatment, plus,
• the mainstream media either covering these issues and/or letting commentators write about them.

On the latter, many people have been banging on the door but all of a sudden they have been let in - almost as though some editors are starting to see it?

As well as those articles and issues mentioned here, below are a few more from the past week:

Daily Mail - Women need to get angry with rape liars (Peter Lloyd) A clear consequence of unequal justice and an issue first covered here.

Daily Mail - Why it sexist to say part-time female doctors are a problem (Melanie Phillips) and the desperate atempt to backtrack

BBC - A million children growing up without a father - and Emlyn Jones on about 7:10. This report marks  a victory for CAFCSS, anti-male feminists, judges et al. So boys do not have fathers and there are no male teachers - so who in government is going to do anything - er...nothing...Minister for Equalities anyone?

BBC Three Counties - Mike Buchanan Discussion

The Independent - TOWIE attacked by domestic abuse charity (Daisy Wright)

News Statesman - Memo to Jo Swinson (Glen Poole)

Good Men Project - Can a man be a feminist? (Glen Poole)

Posted by Skimmington