The Rights Of Man

WOULD CANCER RESEARCH LAUNCH A "RACIST FOR LIFE" EVENT?

Well, it's that time of year again where the UK population is faced with the annual relentless onslaught of material promoting Cancer Research's "Race for Life".

For anyone who's been in a coma for the last five years, the Race for Life (RFL) is a feminised five mile run, where participants adorned in pink clothing raise money for research into cancer. CRUK describe it as "unique opportunity for women to come together". Presumably all the other opportunities such as all our female only colleges, female only swimming sessions, female only hotels, female only gyms, female only taxis and female only libraries?

Obviously, such unnecessary segregation of the population by gender, or race nor any other arbitrary means is rather divisive, stupid and somewhat Talibanesque in nature, but it's not particularly sexist in itself if there's equal alternative participatory opportunities for all of the population.

However, that's clearly not the case at all here. Cancer Research (CRUK) is the biggest UK Cancer Charity, yet when they launched Race for Life they neglected to launched any corresponding opportunity for men to get involved whatsoever. Pressure by equality campaigners has reaped small dividends, such as the Run for Moore event, but it has been severely neglected by CRUK and is a half hearted effort at best. The event doesn't receive any significant promotion nor support and as a result isn't enjoying much success.

On the other hand, the Race for Life goes from strength to strength. Vast resources are put into supporting it - be it full page adverts on the front of local newspapers, glitzy TV ads, a barrage of radio spots, signs hanging from every conceivable location in your local branch of Tesco and even logos plastered on cereal packets exclaiming how "You're Invited! (as long as you don't' posses a penis that is).

CRUK state that RFL's ban on men is "due to the wishes of our participants". In other words, some people in the event are somewhat hostile towards males, but what if their hostility was say racial or perhaps religious? Would some equally misguided BNP supporters be allowed to have their own Racist for Life event where ethnic minorities were totally excluded in order to create "an opportunity" for  Anglo Saxons "to come together…in a celebratory atmosphere?"

You may at this point be wondering why exactly Cancer Research's behaviour here is such a big deal and why this is such a key equality issue? Well, to answer such a question we need to consider the following key points:

1. There is a vast gulf in spending between male and female specific cancers. By far the biggest of any cancers in terms of victims are breast cancer and prostate cancer, yet the former gets more funding, around four times as much in all areas including research, and even support, both by the government and by cancer charities themselves.  In fact the traditionally approach to prostate concur has been to hope the men would die of something else first!

2. Cancer is very much seen as a women's issue and the race for Life merely reinforces this false message. The publicity given to cancer such as breast cancer dwarfs everything else out there - Pink this, pink that you really can't escape it. Don't get me wrong, in some ways it's great so much effort goes into dealing with breast Cancer, but it's hardly fair when it's at the expense of everyone else. Such inequality ultimately means less awareness of men's cancers and thus yet more dead men. Women already enjoy significant privileges when it comes to access to health care and life expectancy and such an intense and exclusive focus on breast cancer only furthers such inequality. One could argue pink really does stink, though not for the reasons feminists suggest.

3. Men suffering even from non gender specific cancers have vastly worse outcomes compared to their female counterparts. Cancer Research are at least honest enough to openly admit this themselves. Thus if anything, portraying Cancer as a female phenomenon is a subversion to reality on the part of CRUK and cancer is if anything more of a mens issue that a women's! Of course, as with domestic violence any sane person cares about all cancer victims rather than one a marginally more afflicted subgroup, but it's still useful to know the full facts.

4. Given that 49% of the UK population is male  (despite all the cancer deaths), wouldn't Cancer Research be better off involving the entire UK population in fundraising thus generating double the amount of revenue? Just think how many more lives could be saved and how much more research funded if CRUK suddenly doubled its income!

On top of the above there are smaller logistical issues to consider too. What exactly happens to young boys during the Race for Life? How exactly does one explain to a child that his mother and sister are going to raise money to help grandma, but he's barred from helping out because he's of the wrong gender. Presumably childcare has to be arranged for him too and paid for thus resulting in further lost revenue. Also participants in the event aren't just raising money and publicising CRUK. They're in an environment where they can talk about cancer, and learn and think about the issue. Again this means improved cancer awareness for such women, and ultimately better outcomes as a result. Why does CRUK insist on denying such an excellent opportunity to men also?

In all fairness CRUK have made a few tiny concessions over the years as a result of a years of pressure and campaigning from the likes of equality Charity Parity. For example, women can now run in the memory of a male relative, but progress is painfully slow and if anything they're going backwards these days. For example see how many references you can spot to men or male cancer victims in this years Race for Life TV ad . (Here's a clue - the answer is less than one)

I think Race for Life really says a lot about the position of men in our society and particularly how we treat the issue of men's health. CRUK are at least decent enough to allow a debate about their sexism on the forums so it's not a totally lost cause, but for now I'd urge people to give their money to other Cancer Charities, or at least only sponsor those competing in alternative CRUK events unrelated to Race for Life. Similarly try not to patronise RFL partners, which this year include Tesco, Nivea  Go-Ahead (United Biscuits) and rather appropriately the equally sexist Diamond Car Insurance.

There appears to be an increasing amount of concern about RFL, some of the most eloquent is by the highly respected science author Brian Clegg. In his article "Just because it's for a good cause doesn't justify discrimination" he writes"

"I can't understand why, for example, anyone would want to be a member of a club or organization that excludes half the population...There is no justification for it, except to reinforce the old stereotypes that only women can be caring and supportive."

"The organizers of Race for Life should drop their appalling sexism, and if they don't voluntarily, they should be forced to do so."

Indeed, although I'd actually go slightly further than Mr Clegg and suggest that the fact that we're dealing with such an important and worthy cause here is even more of a reason why this discrimination is wrong. If some random company wants to be sexist or racist then that would be bad enough, but for the UK's biggest cancer charity to be doing such a thing is nothing short of a scandal.

RECOGNITION OF MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE IN SCOTLAND AND WALES IMPROVES

Back in December, the site commented on events in Scotland regarding the campaign and petition led by Alison Waugh and Jackie Walls for the Scottish Government to support male victims.

On the 26th of January, the issue was discussed in the Scottish Parliament and was also featured in the media (BBC, Scotsman and The Sun) and it is clear that the Petitions Committee gave those speaking a fair hearing but also treated them with good grace. They have asked the Scottish Government to respond.

Earlier this month, a Women's Aid organisation in Wales realised that equality means equality when male victims are also supported. De Gwynedd Women's Aidis changing its name to De Gwynedd Domestic Abuse Service from April to ensure it is clear that it helps male victims. Three cheers to that. The ManKind Initiative put a submission into the Welsh Assembly's consultation on this issue (updated ManKind web-site) and as there is no more information, there does not seem to be a response to the consultation yet from the Welsh Assembly.

So progress in Scotland and Wales, but silence in England, only a strategy aimed at women and girls. We need a General Election.

By The Original Editor who thanks John for his help in continuing the site while I had a few things to sort out.We have two direct contributors now which is great.

 

THIS WEEK'S DOSE OF HYPOCRISY FROM HARMAN

Harriet Harman is of course one of the foremost practitioners of the "do as I say, not as I do"  approach to politics, and this week has been no exception.

She is a highly vocal supporter of the disaster that has been All Women Shortlists, and as a result Labour's usual policy is to use such a scheme any time a safe seat is vacated. Thanks to the on going expenses scandal some of the most recently vacated seats have been in the Wanstead and Leyton constituency and more recently in Birmingham Erdington.

Strangely enough, neither of these seats are required to use to usual all women shortlists whilst at the very same time it has emerged Harman's husband Jack Dromey was rather keen on becoming the candidate. In fact, Harman even went as far as missing the Labour National Executive Committee meeting to ensure she didn't have to vote on policies for the Birmingham seat.

The good news is that the local Labour party in Wanstead and Leyton have decide that they don't much like the look of Mr Dromey and certainly don't like being told what to do, hence the decision in allowing men to stand for Parliament in Birmingham too. I suppose having constituency after constiuency repeatedly rejecting Mr Harman is one way of doing away with sexist shortlists (albeit very slowly), though it would surely be preferable to just restore democracy and have candidates selected on merit instead of the arrangement of their genitalia.

What we need in Parliament is more normal people there on merit who want to represent every single one of their constituents. The country doesn't need out of touch privileged gender feminists in government, nor do we want powerful Trade unionist getting into Parliament by virtue of their organisation possibly buying them the seat.

Anyway, perhaps I'm doing Harman a disservice and she merely missed the meeting because she's realsied the error of her ways when it comes to being sexist against men and she now no longer opposes democracy. Either way I'm sure we'll find out soon.

SICKENING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MURDER AND TORTURE CASE

Last month saw one of the most sickening domestic violence cases I've ever come across. You may well have missed the story given the relative lack of coverage it received in the media, undoubtedly it would certainly be be front page material if the victim were female. The case involved Clare Nicolls torturing her partner Andrew Gardner ove several week, eventually resulting in his murder.

Although she was assisted by others, it's clear from the sentencing and evidence that she was the primary offender in the case and the dominant figure in the household. There's such a huge catalogue of abuses the victim suffered that I can't really include them all and you have to read several news articles to get something close to the full picture. In summary Mr Gardner:

• Had 100 injuries including 21 broken ribs, burns, cuts, abrasions, a massive head injury, bleeding on the brain and blood poisoning.
• Suffered whipping and cuts with a knife.
• Had karate practised on him by Nicholls.
• Was marked as a result of people playing horrific games of noughts on crosses on his body.
• Had abuse written on his body using nail varnish.
• Suffered starvation and further beatings any time he tried to "steal food".
• Was deprived of sleep, being beaten any time he should fall asleep.

Any time gender feminists seeks to belittle and refuse to help male domestic violence victims I strongly suggest referring to cases such as this. Of particular note is the fact Nichols actually got other members of the household to restrain the victim whilst she carried out the beatings. In fact, she even encouraged their children to attack the victim too!

The only good news from the case case is that Nicolls actually received a sizeable life sentence for her deeds as opposed to the usual female sentencing discount we see all to often in such cases. Of course not everything is equal though - there are no quotes from any domestic violence charities in any of the coverage as would occur with your typical female victim, and the term "domestic violence" is of course totally omitted from ant articles on the case.

It's little wonder we fail to help people such as Mr Gardner when the term "domestic violence" is strictly reserved for female vicitms.

Clare Nicholls has admitted killing 35-year-old

Court told of lover's words after final attack

Torture victim had 100 injuries, court told

Life sentences for Chilton torture murderers

WE'RE BACK, THOUGH WITH A FEW CHANGES

Apologies to regular readers for the lack of updates recently.

The founder of The Rights of Man is taking some time off from blogging, so I've agreed to keep things ticking over here until his return.

There shouldn't be too many differences in our style. I don't think I'll be able to dig up quite as many enlightening stories relating to the inequalties faced by men as occurred here on such a regular basis. However, I'll be looking to examine the most important issues and news items in even more depth where possible.

Thanks for all the support and comments.

John Kimble

RECESSION AFFECTS MEN MORE THAN WOMEN - EQUALITIES COMMISSION CANNOT BRING THEMSELVES TO SAY IT

Remember back in 2009, we had our Deputy Prime Minister Harriet Harman declaring that the biggest victims of the recession were women, which was debunked by all and sundry. The pity the media did not ask her to prove it exactly at the time she was saying it and it took a little while for the facts to emerge. Funny how she no longer persists with the line.

However, the Government's Equalities Office and Equalities and Human Rights Commission are never one to stop flogging a dead horse even when they know the facts don't stand up. Perish the thought that the Commission might one day say that x, y or z affected men more than women, that would be go against their Orwellian mantra '"Everyone is equal but some people are more equal than others."

Their latest report, even though clearly showing that male employment has fallen by 2.7% compared to 0.8% for women, does not say a jot about the plight of these men (and of course their wives or female partner), it just concentrates on the female angle even to the point of saying (page 26):

Over the longer-term, the rise in women’s employment is a clear triumph for women’s greater autonomy at the expense of both discrimination and disadvantage. But recessions reduce autonomy by reducing the options available to some women and by forcing others into choices that they might not otherwise make. And recessions also render many women more vulnerable to both discrimination and disadvantage.

Where is the evidence for this and a failure to say that "recessions reduce autonomy for men by reducing the options available" is an outstanding piece of wilful and conscious piece of purposely ignoring the impact on men.

One of the main reasons female employment has not fallen as swiftly as male employment is that many women work in the public sector which so far has not been impacted as much as the private sector. So what about the fact that there are fewer men (teachers, health, social services etc) in the public sector, is that not discrimination and disadvantage as well? I would suggest not particularly (except in teaching) as many men do not want to work in the public sector but if they make the point about women then on the same basis they should do about men.

They do not of course, the report just exposes their bias and proves they only look through female eyes and not one male eye and one female eye which they are meant do.

The Policy Exchange think-tank said the recession had meant that it was a Full-Monty recession affecting more men than women. No spin just facts. 

WILL 2010 BE THE YEAR OF EQUALITY FOR BRITISH MEN?

As a new year starts, it is worth reviewing the events of the past year and look forward to 2010 to see what hope there is for male equality in 2010.

2009 was a mixed bag. We had the awfulness of the Equalities Bill trundling through Parliament allowing men to be discriminated in the workplace and the recession taking its toll in increasing male unemployment (and the associated depression), particularly damaging for young men who cannot get on the job ladder and hampered by their lack of academic achievement at all levels compared to women. The Coalition on Men and Boys produced an awful paper that basically said that men are bad and are to blame for everything that affects them.

We had the continuing and wilful ignorance of male issues from the Labour Government and its acolytes at the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. In fact, both organisations did all they could spin the myths that women were more affected by the recession, that the Gender Pay Gap was leading to more discrimination against women and the refusal to accept that men are also affected by domestic violence.

On the other hand, there has been a greater awareness of the issues affecting men. The Men's Health Forum continue their good work (with others in the prostate cancer field), Families Need Fathers have opened up new centres with a growing recognition of the bias of the family courts and the ManKind Initiative speaking with more authority on the plight of male victims of domestic violence. The NPSCC also produced some authoritative work showing that abuse at home affected boys as well as girls highlighting that mothers were as involved in this than just fathers.

We also have seen what I would call an epidemic in the numbers of women falsely accusing men of rape, a concern for the men accused as well as those poor women who are attacked.  

But does 2010 bring any hope?

The only answer that can be offered is that it may do and this is dependent in large measure to the result of the General Election.

The odds are that it looks like a hung Parliament or a small Conservative majority. Whatever happens, as long as Labour, the most anti-male Government in the history of the United Kingdom, are turfed out then that has to be something positive. In addition, this will tend to allow a change in the mindset of the civil service and other public servants to one based on genuine equality not on Labour's and the Equalities Commission's Animal Farm meaning of Equality ("everyone is equal but some are more equal than otehrs") .

We can hope that the recession ends and that men (and women) can find themselves back in work. We can hope that family law reforms such as a presumption fo share parenting come to fruition and that the needs of men in education, health and domestic violence find themselves higher up the political agenda. The need for a Minister for Men (if there is to be the continuation of a Minister for Women) should be at the very least the first step (this site will be updating its manifesto this month).

We really do need some politicians especially female politicians (they are mothers, sisters and wives to men) taking the lead on this. With so many new politicians coming into Parliament whoever wins, let us hope so.

There is a risk of course that David Cameron as part of his touchy feely positioning continues to only concentrate on the needs of women and not on men. He has not made a good start with the threat of using All-Women short lists.

Whatever happens, groups wanting genuine equality for men will continue to fight and express their views, we hope that in 2010, politicians and public servants actually make the changes necessary. We just have to keep going and hope that the plight of British Men starts to receive the recognition needed. Now that would be EQUALITY.

FACELESS BUREAUCRATS AT CSA TAKEN ON BY DAUGHTER

Just to start the New Year in good style, enter the Byzantine mindset of the CSA/CMEC as outlined in this story in the Daily Mail.

FAMILY COURTS - NOTHING CHANGED IN 2009

The issue of the continuing injustice and anti-father bias of the family courts will have been on the minds of many this Christmas as hundreds of thousands of men will have had limited or no access to their children over the period.

The story continues to play out in some parts of the media and Sir Bob Geldof has continued to play his heroic role during 2009.

The Custody Minefield organisation's Relocation campaign (with Sir Bob's foreword) highlights the problem clearly where the courts do not have the interests of the children at heart (they need both parents involved in their lives) and are more interested in ensuring that men are banished and refuse to enforce contact orders.

The issue is covered in two articles where Sir Bob accuses the family courts as 'state sponsored kidnappers' (Telegraph, Daily Mail). Some further sage comments in The Telegraph and certainly in the comments section on the Telegraph debate. An example of what happens can be found here and here.

An Early Day Motion by David McClean MP sets out the issue and Sir Mark Potter 'El Presidente' of the Family Courts Division sets out his "you're all wrong" response here. John Hemming MP has also laid down an Early Day Motion over further secrecy concerns in the proposed Children, Schools and Families Bill.

With the much trumpeted and failed attempt to open up the courts, 2009 has meant a further tragic year of misery for many fathers and the children who want to see and be with their children. We can only hope that in 2010 it will change though it will need a change in Government to make it happen.

SIGN THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT DOMESTIC ABUSE PETITION CALLING FOR EQUAL TREATMENT FOR SCOTTISH MEN

Two Scottish women, Alison Waugh and Jackie Walls, have put down a petition in the Scottish Parliament calling for:-

 "Scottish Government to ensure that all publicly funded action (campaigns, publications, action plans, projects, training programmes, etc.) on domestic abuse/violence are overhauled to fully acknowledge the extent to which men are at the receiving end and to address the needs of male victims and their children."

Please sign and please send to anyone you know from Scotland to sign.

This is crucial given the fact that the Scottish Government's latest figures show a clear need for support for male victims of domestic abuse and domestic violence in Scotland

In addition, there is also a new web-site called Men in Scotland on the issue.