The Rights Of Man

THE RELIGION THAT IS THE LONDON FEMINIST NETWORK

Monday night saw the broadcast of an hour long BBC Four documentary on the extreme feminist group the London Feminist Network.

Being a BBC programme the best method they could come up with to tackle such a topic in a fair, balanced and neutral way was to ask Vanessa Engle to make the programme (and the whole series for that matter). Engle is of course a feminist herself, the Daily Telegraph notes she "was involved in the women’s movement while at Oxford studying languages in the 1980s; she protested outside porn shops, joined the Reclaim the Night march against male violence". These exact same protests are featured in the programme so she's effectively making a programme about herself. Presumably this will be followed by an investigation into the BNP presented by Nick Griffin and an IRA expose by Martin McGuiness? When the BBC cover Men's issues we invariably get exactly the opposite situation, with the like of Women's Aid supporter Fiona Bruce interrogating Father 4 Justice in an an incredibly hostile manner in breach of BBC rules.

Although the programme may have been conceived as 60 minutes of free prime time advertising for the London Feminist network, if you can stomach the misandry, constant pro feminist bias not to mention abysmal songs then you'll actually find it was quite enlightening in places.

The first signs of dissent from the militant feminist dogma in the programme came from a male, one of the girl's fathers. Whilst his wife rambles on, equating child pornography with lads mags and pretty much anything sexual, he's brave enough to put forward the entirely reasonable argument that there's actually nothing wrong with prostitution so long as both parties are happy and consenting to the transaction. Strangely, such an argument seems hugely radical, controversial and out of place at that point of the broadcast due to the extreme anti-male atmosphere of the organisation being discussed. I suppose it's a bit like going to church and pointing out the lack of evidence of the existence of God.

The programme was full of the usual nonsensical feminist cliches, with the group so keen to "end violence against women" and to "take back the night". Some went further, their only concern being the rather narrow subject of "men's violence against women". Given the rates of recorded domestic violence by lesbian females, never mind the countless male domestic violence victims out here, this is clearly not only sexist but extremely stupid too.

It was particularly ironic to feature a feminist group located in London complaining about violence against women as apparently such a huge issue so much more important than any other. If we look at the epidemic of teen violence in the city, there were 27 teens killed in 2008, with just one of those unfortunate people being female - 96.3% of victims were male. The previous year again again saw 27 victims, and there were a slightly more significant three female victims ton his occasion. However one should remember that feminists only count violence against women if it's perpetrated by a man, therefore under LFN logic a third of such victims are to be ignored do the the killers being of the wrong sex.

It's certainly true that our streets are rather dangerous places, but it's women who are the safest out on them, and men need to reclaim them far, far more than any other group. Yet there's further hypocrisy from LFN. Not only do they ignore all the evidence and pretend that it's only women need to reclaim the night, men are even barred from marching . They are neither allowed to reclaim the night from themselves nor are they even welcome in helping to achieve fundamentally flawed and sexist goal of reclaiming it just for women.

The ridiculousness of such a situation was beautifully illustrated in a bizarre discussion of how the LFN members could identify those awful men in order to prevent them from taking part. It was noted that they do indeed allow men who "identify as women", to participate, though only certain men are allowed to benefit from this loophole and the feminists had to use their judgement as to who qualified for such a privilege. The problem of actual women who looked like men also arose (unsurprising given the androgynous appearance of so many of the participants) with "caution" and "sensitivity" urged. In reality there is of course a very simple and elegant solution to all these complicated "problems", that being to simply stop being so incredibly sexist and discriminatory and let make everyone in society welcome instead! Surely you can't get any more sensitive than that?

Another telling exchange came in an interview with a older member of the group, who discussed her reasons for being an activist. She stated that she had been motivated to join the group as a result of the police' repines to a friend of her daughter being "gang raped".  Watching the piece, alarm bells immediately start to ring as she stumbles through the facts rather uncertainly, eventually informing us the supposed "victim" actually received a caution for falsely alleging rape (albeit one she managed to later overturn using a lawyer). Obviously I don't know the facts of the case other than what this rather biased party tell us. However, given that the accused actually had video evidence of consent (not to mention the feminist's ramblings about a woman's supposed lack of choices when in such a situation), I'd say it sounds absolutely like a case of regretting sex after the event and thus a clear false rape allegation. The police are incredibly reluctant to charge someone with making a false rape claim and insist on massive amounts of proof in most cases. The main travesty that I can see here is that a mere caution is vastly insufficient punishment for such a serious crime. Those falsely alleging rape should either be let off if there isn't sufficient proof, or tried in a court of law and face a jail sentence where their guilt can be proven. A caution really isn't appropriate under any circumstances, and if the police were "vile" to anyone as she alleges, then it was surely to the victims of the false accusations. Further still, to use what appears to be a false rape case (and one with multiple victims at that) to be your sole reason for being an activist really is quite strange at best and certainly isn't going to make any useful contribution to ones "sanity" as she believes.

Such a lack of concern with the facts isn't unique to the older activists either. A younger feminist called Laurie, one of the "leading lights of the organisation", later discusses the despair she feels when reading items in the news, specifically citing the case of a man who branded his wife with an iron who only received a two month jail sentence for the offence. She then informs us that this could be "a made up story" and "even though she might have made it up it's probably true". Don't get me wrong - I'm sure that in a population of 60 million people such a story would almost certainly occur eventually, just as monkeys randomly hitting typewriter keys may eventually produce passages from Shakespeare. However it's rather bizarre to see someone so committed to such a cause have such a lack of concern for knowledge and the facts to such an extent they are reduced to fabricating imaginary abuses of women in order to make their point. I'm sure myself and other readers here could list at least 20 key MRA related injustices that have been in the news (or not in a few cases) which are important to the MRA movement. There wouldn't be any need for exaggeration let alone total fabrication of stories just because they might have happened somewhere or may well do so in the future. The exchange against shows us the unique culture of LFN, where facts really don't matter in the slightest - you just have to be a believer.

Anger and the hatred of men are recurring themes throughout the broadcast. Men are not only banned from the marches, not to mention the organisation itself, but the group even meets at a women only bar! In fact men were notably absent from vast swathes of the programme. Now I do realise that extreme gender feminist groups tend to feature vastly disproportionate numbers of lesbians compared to the population as a whole, but such a figure can't be more than 50%. Where were the male partners of the heterosexual feminists? It's clear that a display of such hatred and contempt for the opposite sex isn't the best technique to use in the search for a partner (unless perhaps one is seeking a self-loathing man). Presumably most of the woman were therefore single as a result of their activities, perhaps the feminist equivalent of a celibate catholic priest.

It wasn't just men who were invisible during the programme either. Almost all the feminists seem rather privileged, educated, middles class and white. I don't necessarily have any major issue with this usually, but remember we're talking about an organisation who subscribe absolutely to the exact sort of nonsense we hear coming out of the EHRC on a daily basis. Further still, given that London is about the most ethnically diverse city on the planet it seems incredible that not a single ethnic minority was to be seen anywhere in the organisation, particularly given that so many feminists issues have a vastly greater impact on such people (with many absolutely exclusive to immigrant communities). Presumably such ethnic minorities are fully aware of the stupidity and tremendous harm caused by excluding members based on their appearance and inherent characteristics and thus find a group practising such discrimination to be wholly unattractive as a result?

The most intersecting segment of the programme involved a discussion with two rather more level headed young feminists who had attended the LFN conference. They concluded the group wasn't for them as they didn't share the same extreme views on banning pornography and outlawing prostitution. One might of thought that such differences shouldn't really matter so much as they're still feminists, right? Well that's not the case at all - you see, as these two women point out, if you want to join the LFN you have to agree with everything they say hook, line and sinker, it's all or nothing as far as they're concerned. It's not just those horrible men that aren't welcome at LFN, other equally contemptible enemies  include actual concepts such as debate, opinion, and dissent.

In conclusion, the programme shows exactly how not to conduct oneself as an activist. It revealed feminism at it's very worst, not as a movement concerned with equality, humanity or compassion, but instead showed us feminism the religion. The London Feminist Network were just as angry, bigoted, emotional, devoid of logic and reason as almost any religious institution or cult. We had women as the chosen ones, with men and sex as the devil. Unbelievers we not welcome whatsoever, with debate limited to how best to exclude men. Just as with so many religions they were keen to interfere with and control the lives of women happily going about their lives, whether it be fashion models happily raking in a fortunes for magazine shoots, or the many women happily reliving gullible men of handfuls of money at strip clubs. Fortunately the only real difference here compared to other religions was the size of the congregation, which I'm pleased to say was tiny in this case. Lets just hope it stays that way for many more years to come for the sake of both men and women and society as a whole.

By John Kimble

QUOTAS AND "POSITIVE" ACTION PROGRAMMES MARGINALISE MEN

The last post on quotas received much comment and as Thomas pointed out in a post Christine Odone quotas are being called for to increase the number of female scientists. It is not just boardrooms.

The issue runs much deeper because as pointed out before the Equalities Bill will do much damage to men and much has been in place for a long time but has never really been challenged. Even in a recession when more men have lost their jobs than women (see this section for previous posts on employment).

For example, one contributor has pointed out that Lloyds TSB bank, now merged with Halifax Bank of Scotland has its very own positive action programmes for women (positive action means negative action for someone else - basic maths) and a women's network. Often it is not direct, it is discrimination by omission where management courses and special training courses are made available to all but men. They do not say so directly but men are left off the list. 

A white boy from a rough council estate has hardly more advantages in life than a girl educated at public school, but according to Lloyds Banking Group he has.

The problem with this tokenism and discrimination is again down to the fact that in the age of political correctness we are not treated as individuals, only as members of groups. Some men will need help to get on the management ladder and some women will not need the help, but that does not matter at Lloyds Banking Group, it is your gender that matters. Excluded men also find their wives/girlfriends/daughters indirectly discriminated as well - second hand discrimination.

With so many more women now joining the professions than men partly due to better exam results and partly due to 'extra help', along with the recession and anti-male society we live in, men are becoming more and more marginalised. Quotas and positive action programmes ensure this will continue. 

Posted by Skimmington

FEMALE QUOTAS ARE ON THEIR WAY INTO BRITISH BOARDROOMS

Over the past year the issue of introducing female quotas into the boardroom of UK companies has been bubbling under the surface, and now it soon will be here as the Government has submitted evidence into the Financial Reporting Council (a body that sets the overall rules as to how boards of plc's should work) asking them to find a way to increase female representation.

This follows the lead of Norway who introduced a legally binding 40% quota for their boardrooms, with Spain following  in 2009, then France (1 and 2) this year plus German firm Deutsche Telekom. Italy and Holland may also follow. 

This issue was brought to life in the UK becausepeople like Harriet Harman and the institutional oxymoron ,the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, blamed the financial crisis on men, declaring it avoidable if there were less men running banks.

Quotas are wrong because they undermine the basic principles of a liberal democracy where everyone is equal and to be judged equally. Their gender, race etc is irrelevant. Bringing in quotas would mean that some people (men) would be denied a position on the Board solely because of their gender, not what they could offer. This is discrimination. As mentioned before, it affects their wives/girlfriends and daughters and sisters and mothers, as men do not live in isolation.

The way the UK Government is undertaking this is very subtle and pernicious. It has already built in discrimination against men at all levels of employment through the Equalities Act but rather than deal with the boardroom issue with a sledgehammer like other countries, it is trying to influence those who make business rules. These rules (known as the Combined Code) are based on what is known as a "Comply or Explain" whereby companies only have to explain why they do not adhere to the rules and it is up to shareholders to then vote them down.

The issue is that if these quotas are accepted by the Financial Reporting Council, they then become the normal way that companies have to behave. They would do so to avoid the risk of shareholder censure or simply having their reputation dragged through the mud by Harman and others. Once it is the norm then it makes easier for any quota rules to be passed through Parliament.

The Government's proposals like, all their anti-male proposals, are the thin end of the wedge. They seem 'harmless' to many at the time but once the inch has been taken, it will be soon be a mile.

Posted by Skimmington

MINETTE MARRIN SPEAKS UP FOR MEN

The site has mentioned before that all the media commentary on the war on men is being written by female journalists. It is as if male journalists are too scared to talk about the subject.

Minette Marrin of the Sunday Times has been extremely impressive of late and here are a selection of her recent articles:-

What women want is an end to hectoring feminists

Unwanted men, we need to curb the welfare Amazonians

Women aren't equal to men, especially the feminists

Hymn to him, men are good for women

 

Posted by Skimmington

BBC'S BIG QUESTIONS TO FINALLY DISCUSS FALSE RAPE AND FATHERS RIGHTS

The BBC's discussion programme "The Big Questions" on Sunday 14th March will be covering both the issues of anonymity of those accused of rape and also "whether children needs fathers".

Obviously the wording of that second question is hugely disturbing and ridiculous, very much along the lines of their "should homosexuals face execution" debate from a while back. I hope they're just being provocative again rather than showing their true views. Still it's hugely encouraging to see such important topics getting a look in for once. The quite brilliant Ray Barry of Father 4 Justice will be one of the guests, so I'm sure it will be well worth watching.

If you're reading this after Sunday remember you'll still be able to watch the show on iPlayer up to a week after broadcast.

BBC BANS MEN FROM PROGRAMME AUDIENCE

Yesterday evening the publicly funded BBC took the unprecedented step of banning men from the audience of BBC's Question Time programme as a way of "celebrating" International Women's Week (I always though it was Women's Day, but obviously there wasn't enough time to fit in all the misandry). The only men present were the host and two people on the panel, the Sun's Kelvin McKensie and the BBC's own Monty Don. Other panelists included the rather reasonable Jo Swinson of the Lib Dems, Conservative Justine Greening, and the Labour's quite hideous Carloine Flint.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the programme were not so much the topics discussed, but the unstated parallel that could be drawn throughout almost every single one of them. We had the Jamie Bulgar case discussed as well as the fact a man had been falsely accused of being his killer on Facebook (he has been forced into hiding and currently fears for his life). Later there was an intense discussion on the death of troops in Afghanistan due poor quality equipment being provided by the government, as well as the countless horrific injuries caused to survivors. We had mentions of the children horrifically tortured in Edlington there was an extensive discussion of the case of David Askew, a man with learning difficulties who died yesterday having being bullied over many years. 

So what's the parallel between every single noteworthy discussion of the week? Well rather ironically in this era of so much supposed "violence against women" and oppression and the resulting need for women only this and that, almost every single victim of every issue discussed throughout the entire hour was male. With just one exception every UK soldier killed in Afghanistan has been male. Similarly all the domestic vicitms of violence and murder discussed were male too, and we even had the key MRA issue of false allegations given a mention on top of all that!

Clearly it's hardly surprising that so many vicitms of violence were men given the vastly greater threat of violence they their daily lives compared to women and the resulting lower life expectancy. This was however a BBC programme we're taking about and it at least shows they perhaps can't control the questions the generally public want to ask to the same extent they censor so much other output. Also it was very refreshing to see that so many decent women in the audience aren't as misandric and self-obsessed as so many of their "elected" female sisters in Parliament, and so many clearly realise and are hugely concerned about the plight of men subconsciously at the very least.

The incredibly ironic theme of male victims continued right until the end of the programme, with a discussion of all women shortlists, and a quite magnificent older women in the audience (and others) condemning them as passionately and eloquently as anything you'll see on this blog.

One of the only two notable pieces of misandry we saw on the programme in fact came from a man in Monty Don, who suggested he'd be happy to see an all female parliament with no men in it at all as it couldn't' be any worse than the current lot (though it would seem he was playing to the crowd as much as giving a genuine opinion). This of course illustrates the idiocy of banning particular groups from an audience or any institution for that matter. It was clear the pressure of the all women audience not only influenced Don's answers, but also stifled McKensie at times too (albeit to a far lesser extent).

Thus there are useful lessons for us to take from the programme. Could Don have asked for a Parliament that excluded ethnic minorities and got such a round of applause? His conduct illustrates just how misandry works in practice with sexist comments about men encouraged and going unchallenged.  The make up of the event very much reflected the balance of genders one finds at the average primary school - where you have the odd token male teacher and token male parent against a sea of females. Further still, whatever anti male indiscretions occur in such an environment aren't subject to the scrutiny nor of millions watching at home on tv either and the resulting moderation of one's behaviour.

The most ill informed and sexist comment of the night came at the very end of the programme, with an audience member praising the fact men had been barred from taking part and suggesting that men could never organise their own International Men's Day as women have done. In reality there has in fact been an International Men's day for a number of years now, it's just that all the politicians we see week in week out on Question Time refuse to acknowledge and celebrate the event and the BBC are just as ignorant or dismissive of the event. If only we'd had some way for one of the many men behind International Men's Day to inform such ignorant parties of the existence of the event and it's importance? Maybe some sort of weekly nationally broadcast discussion forum, watched by millions where broadcasters, politicians and the members of the public of both sexes all come together and pool their knowledge and ideas in order to to be able to have an informed discussion of such issues?

I suppose given that gender segregation is so much on the increase these days this won't be the last time we see such misandry on the BBC. Kelvin McKensie at least stated he hoped not to see the sexist format return for anther 30 years. At the current rate the women on such a 2040 edition of Question Time will unfortunately be just as ignorant about International Men's Day as those taking part this evening.

WANT TO RUIN A MAN'S LIFE? THAT'LL BE £80 PLEASE

You often hear about false rape allegations in the news these days (unless you only read the Guardian of course). The police are now, quite rightly, starting to take action in the more extreme cases, though perhaps an even more heinous crime is that of making false paedophilia allegations.

Just as with false rape allegations, many in our society unfortunately take the stance that there's "no smoke without fire" and ultimately the false allegations tend to stick, regardless of how ridiculous, unfounded or malicious they happen to be. Therefore, as with false rape allegations, the victims of these crimes at at serious risk of attack, can lose their jobs, and ultimately face financial and psychological ruin. Further still, as we're talking about the awful crime of alleged sexual abuse of children here, the stigma and potential dangers for victims are about as severe as you can get.

Te latest victim of such a crime is Luck Chatfield, who was falsely labelled a paedophile by his neighbour, Sally Pepper, after committing the heinous offence of complaining about her loud music (she has numerous complaints about anti-social behaviour against here so it's unlikely that his action was unjustified). As a result of the false and malicious allegations he's been abused in the street, had items thrown at his house, installed a panic alarm and been forced out of his job! In total Chatfield has lost £1,500 in earnings, yet has two disabled children and a disabled wife to provide for. The stress of the situation must be intolerable.

So what's appropriate punishment for putting this man's life in real danger and causing him and his family so much hardship and distress? Maybe four years in jail? (actually make that two seeing as she gets female sentencing discount). Surely he's at least entitled to reimbursement of the lost monies too? Thirdly, wouldn't it be reasonable to place the perpetrator almost certainly needs to be on a false accusers register or maybe the sex offenders register as this is effectively a sexual offence? People need to be warned about such incredibly dangerous people so they can avoid them as much as possible.

Unfortunately none of the above occurred. Not even a token jail sentence, not a penny reimbursed, and no system to warn others of the dangers. The only consequence for the perpetrator was an £80 fixed penalty notice. That's right, we value this man's career, safety and general well-being as the same price of a train ticket. False paedophilia allegations are no more serious than dropping a cigarette butt, writing a graffiti tag, dog fouling, failing to pay your road tax on time, or fly posting. Further still, the Home Office rather ironically cite "playing loud music" as their example of a crime likely to result in the £80 fixed penalty notice.

In other words, her alleged offence of playing loud music is no different to that of attempting to ruin a man's life by spreading false allegations that he enjoys raping young children. Neither offence is any different to the other!

So, what's the perpetrator's view on all this? Is Ms Pepper at least full of remorse and regret? Does she realise just how much damage she's caused to this man life and that of his vulnerable family? Has the punishment acted at least as a deterrent? Well, perhaps not according to the BBC who state "she say she did not regret what she did".

I wonder why?

NEW MISANDRIC GOVERNMENT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CAMPAIGN AIMED AT TEENS

Yesterday saw the launch of one the most incredibly sexist government domestic abuse campaigns to date.

A series of TV, and radio ads, poster and a website were launched aimed at those aged 13-18 and urging boys "not to use violence against their girlfriends". That's right, they're not even trying to hide their sexism anymore. Every single poster in the campaign and every single video contains a male abusing a female. There isn't even the usual token male victim, not much mention of homosexual relationships (where abuse tends to be even more common than with heterosexuals). In the past it was more common for the government to outsource broadcast of such propaganda to anti-male charities such as Women's Aid, but they're now brazen enough to put their own name to the material now.

The sexist theme continues throughout the site. For example the FAQ section does contain some gender neutral questions, but five types of abuse listed are written in an exclusively male on female context. Even the one question referring to help for males victim still doesn't' dare suggest said abuse came form a female, presumably it's only gay males who get abused and all girls are sweet, pretty and innocent?

The hypocrisy of the campaign when it comes to discrimination is quite bizarre. Clearly every attempt has been made to be neutral in terms of race. For example two inter-racial couples are shown in the videos, one has a black male abusing a white female, whereas the other shows white male abusing a black female. Such balance is hugely commendable, but why does such equality only apply when dealing with race and never, ever with gender?

The site appears to attempt to justify it's gender based approach by stating "Research shows that suffering from abuse in relationships is more common for young women but young men can experience it too." In a away this is true, at least in terms of the 13-18 year target age group. But the same research also shows that as soon as these children grow grow up and reach adulthood the roles are reversed, and it's mostly males who are the victims. Therefore, given the government's (admittedly ridiculous) premise of only targeting the gender with the most victims, are we also to see a further £2 million spent telling 20-24 year old women to stop threatening, hitting and controlling their male partners?

One of the worst things about these campaigns is that even in the event of a  male victim seeing past the dishonesty and realising they need to get help, not charities that actually care about male victims are listed as a resource. Rather than being referred to the quite brilliant Mankind Initiative or a similarly gender neutral organisation, the feminist leaning organisation Respect have a monopoly. Such an organisation worships at the alter of gender based approaches to abuse rather than living in the real world. Is a boy really going to gain anything from talking to such obtuse people who only basically only really see males as the guilty party? In fact I imagine it could be quite a damaging experience for them. Why does the government happily provide lines to the gender feminists, at Respect, the Men's Advice Line, Refuge, Women Aid etc, but doesn't have the decency to give equal access to an organisation genuinely interested in helping men?

Finally, lets not forget who the the victims of this misandry are. Yes it you and I who have to pay the taxes funding this hatred of males, but the campaign itself is of course aimed at children. Therefore we're talking about gender feminists trying to impose their "violence against women and girls" nonsense on vulnerable, young developing minds and brainwashing them into feeling guilty perhaps even before they've started a proper relationship. Further still, the campaign is simultaneously campaign sending out the subconscious message that these boys can't really be victims either, thus further compounding the existing barriers which stop male vicitms from coming forward.

To do these awful things to adults is bad enough, but what we've got here is quite simply child abuse in my book. Domestic violence is a psychological issue and really has little or nothing to do with gender whatsoever. It really is time to put a stop to this nonsense and for the government to stop playing gender politics with people's lives.

BTW, I don't wish to promote this sick campaign by posting a link to the site. If you want to see it for yourself just search for "thisisabuse".

DOES THE MOON REALLY EXIST?

"Does the moon really exist?" That's the question the quite brilliant Ali G put to Buzz Aldrin during this comedy interview. Now I'm all for challenging conventions and asking unfashionable questions, but clearly questioning the existence of the moon is ridiculous. People holding such a view would either be stupid, or immature and would not be taken at all seriously.

However, questioning such obvious and demonstrably true phenomena is actually a far from alien concept to many gender feminists too. For example, when discussing the possibility of setting up a false rape claim register in 1999, our female namesake group "Rights of Women" told the BBC: "given that the law is already so weighted against women, we should be looking at protecting them rather than targeting the few, if any, women who make false allegations". In other words, false rape claims are incredibly rare and there's a very good chance that they quite simply do not exist at all!

Think about that for a second. False rape claims are the perfect weapon for any women looking to gain revenge on a male and ruin his life. Yet despite this weapon being in every single woman's hands, somehow they're all so saintly that not a single one would ever be tempted to use it. Women are good, men are bad, and no exceptions either! False allegations happily exist for other crimes, how can any sane person possibly suggest they don't exist for rape, a crime which is a classic case of one person's word against another. As so many cases have shown, no evidence is even required, and we've got a government so friendly towards false rape accusers they want to make their activities even easier by lowering the burden of proof.

Spreading such falsehoods is bad enough given all of the above, but the flip-side of her statement regarding the saintliness of woman is to deny the existence of any victims of false rape accusations too. False rape claims are such a disgusting and serious crime in term of the impact they have. They ruin the victims' careers, relationships, self-esteem and reputations, even resulting in fleeing the country or committing suicide. In other words they're just as heinous an offence as rape itself. What then, if someone had instead being sick enough deny the existence of victims of rape instead of those of false rape? Such views wouldn't be tolerated if they came form a random individual, yet here we have a government funded charity happily belittling all these false rape victims with any consequences or comment whatsoever.

There is of course an alternative possibility; perhaps Rights of Women do indeed accept that these victims exist, they just don't believe their side of the story. I.e. all supposed victims of false rape accusations are in fact liars and they are guilty as hell of rape regardless of what the evidence shows. Whichever is the position, it's equally abhorrent.

These tactics of denying the most basic of facts are very popular with gender feminists, perhaps even an intrinsic part of their movement. In order to stifle debate and draw attention away from their agenda and the damage they've caused, they attempt to refute the most fundamental of truths and attempt to turn reality on its head. For example, those such as Catherine Comins willing to admit that false rapes do in indeed occur, instead take the position that the falsely accused somehow gain from the experience. She helpfully lists describes how they can go through "a process of self-exploration" and lists hypothetical questions they might end up asking themselves about their relationships with women and whether they could have committed the crime had the circumstance been different. No matter the realities of the situation of course - I suppose it's something to pass the time whilst rotting in prison if nothing else.

For the benefit of those at Rights of Women, false rape accusers do indeed exist (and the moon does too for that matter). Further still, they're not just used in stereotypical high-stakes situations such as gaining revenge over an slightly unpleasant ex-partner or getting the upper hand in a custody dispute or divorce, they're actually used for increasingly trivial reasons these days.

Just this week a man was falsely accused of rape for to despicable act of bumping into a woman's car. Another was similarly accused as a result of being stabbed in the leg! Financial gain is often a motive too - some women see them as a method of gaining taxpayer payouts via the victims compensation scheme. Alternatively, some many false accuser are rather less ambitious, willing to use the weapon in lieu of paying a taxi fare.

it's worth remembering that these are only the cases we know about - they just the ones that actually made it all the way to court. Is your average taxi driver honestly going to stand up to a false accuser and risk a lengthy court case, possible violence and even their career? Surely in the vast majority of cases where women threaten them with false rape they simply take in on the chin and move onto the next fare?

It's pretty obvious that from being absolutely non existent, the problem false rape claims is more akin to an epidemic not incomparable to the problem of rape itself. Luckily public opinion is slowly changing and today's news show even many women now recognise the extent of the problem of false rape claims despite the government and police constantly sweeping them under the carpet. Lets hope hope more judges are brave enough to speak out so we can finally establish a register of false accusers so men can be afforded the same protection offered to women against sex offences.

NOW SWIFTCOVER INSURANCE THINK IT IS OK TO MOCK MEN

Last year this site revealedhow the Co-op's bank SMILE used PR research to mock men because they felt they needed more money than women to be happier.

Now Swift Cover (they with the bizarre Iggy Pop adverts) issued some PR survey research (link 1 and link 2)which says that "New research has shown that men are causing women to become stressed, and one website has recommended ways for females to battle their frustrations."

Without wanting to being too po-faced and lacking in humour but this lazy anti-male playing up to stereotypes is just part of the mainstream now. Why does no one at Swift Cover challenge this or do they just think it is OK to mock men?

Editor 1