The Rights Of Man

NEWS UPDATE

A few from the past weeks

Daily Mail - Why I am suing my local gym of their sexist women-only sessions (Peter Lloyd)

Daily Telegraph - It is not cute to hit your man, it's abuse (Jennifer Mahony) and the Independent on Sunday (Emily Dugan) on As a man, it is difficult to admit I have been beaten up.

Day Nurseries - How a Man faced sexism as a nursery teacher (Sue Learner) 

The Guardian - Every women in the boardroom must pull other up behind her (Karren Brady) - Or in other words, every women in the boardroom must block men from going into the boardroom even if they are good enough.

BBC News - Prostate cancer: Case to test men over 40 (Michelle Roberts) - The NHS say "We are currently in the process of a scheduled review for a screening programme for prostate cancer and will make a recommendation towards the end of 2013.". If they do not, then sexism prevails again in the NHS.

Daily Telegraph - Aristocrat wins payout after being accused by council of beating his wife (Alice Philipson)

Good Men Project - Is it time for men to reclaim the campus

Women's Post - 50 most disgusting responses to a male rape

Wall Street Journal - A mother, a feminist, aghast (Judith Grossman)

Daily Mail - Women fabricated rape  based on Martina Cole's books (Mark Duell) - So why is this women not named. Feminists claim men accused men have to be named to encourage other women to come forward if they have been raped by the same person - so why is this different - men need to know who this false accuser is?

Helping Men - Time for a national equal death at work day for men (Glen Poole)

Helping Men - 70% of child abductors are women (Glen Poole)

Ally Fogg - On the misandry isn't a thing, thing

Fighting Feminism - Let's get political (Mike Buchanan)

New York Times - Merkel gives in over quotas

The Guardian - Holby City were right to take on female genital mutilation (Eva Wiseman) When will Holby City have an episode on male circumcision.

Posted by Skimmington

SITUATIONS VACANT AT THE FAWCETT SOCIETY

Can men Download Fawcett seeks a new Chair?

UPDATE

Sorry again for lack of posts - I know its spoiling the site

 

Can I suggest readers keep an eye on

Helping Men

MRA London

Fighting Feminism

Posted by Skimmington

 

CRANFIELD AND CABLE'S HYPOCRISY OVER EQUALITY

The hypocrisy of this anti-male government knows no bounds as can be seen on their silence on one issue and their campaigning on another - all on the same day. Sexism by omission in its purest form.

This week more evidence was shown about the lack of boys going into university and that the trebling of tuition fees was putting them off from going to university. This feeds through to even fewer men going into professions and the decline of men continues into a downward spiral.

David Willetts raised this in January but has done nothing practical about it. Raise an issue and then forget about it - all for a headline.

The Independent Commission for Fees'  report set out this week stated:

The gap between working class boys and girls going to university widened in the first year of the new tuition fees regime, a new analysis of UCAS data by the Independent Commission on Fees shows today.

And while the fall in acceptances did not have any disproportionate impact on less privileged areas of England overall, young male acceptances from these areas declined over two years while young female acceptances increased.

Women are now a third more likely to enter higher education than men and the gender gap seems to have widened since 2010.

Among UK residents, 134,097 women aged 19 and under were accepted to English universities in 2012 compared with 110,630 young men. This represents a decline since 2010 of 2.6% for girls and 4.0% for boys, and a 5.9% decline for girls and a 7.5% decline for boys since 2011.

There were a few mentions in the Guardian, Independenet and Daily Mirror

Yet on the same day, Business Secretary Vince Cable issues another edict to demand that equality goes out of the window and that companies must put more women on boards, no matter if they are not the best people for the job. Discrimination against men if they are the better candidates does not count - gender is everything. Aided and abetted by organisations such as the Cranfield School of Management, an organisation that is happy to do the government's bidding for some free publicity.

If Cable, Cranfield and the government really believed in equality, they would be raising the concerns about the lack of boys going to university as much as the board issue. But because the university issue is about boys they are not interested.

Surely the Cranfield School of Management should be concerned about the lack of numbers of boys going to into management and the professions at a a graduate age. They are not - again - because they dance to the government's tune but are also blinkered by political correctness not to be bothered.

Posted by Skimmignton

Ps - here is a great post from Groan earlier on this week:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/apr/10/tuition-fee-rise-poorer-boys

This is an interesting report. Once again showing males losing out in education. I can’t find the reference but there was some research done early in the life of student loans here in the UK . One basic point was that young men took more seriously the weight of the debt. Because they expected to be solely responsible for repayment in future.

Whereas females expected more help from family and future partners in paying for the loans. In
other words the females generally expected to be able to share their responsibilities either presently or in the future. This is of course a likely scenario and a realistic expectation generally in a society still organised generally on a “one and a half” pay contribution to couple’s finances.

This reminded me then of the much more extensive debates and research in the USA. There it is quite clear a number of gendered issues assist female access to HE and FE.

1.    Greater financial support for females from families.

2.    More likely to have financial support and gifts from partners (cars being common).

3.    Deliberate behaviour to partner with “successful” males able to support them. There is extensive
research on US universities as a site for females seeking good prospects for
partnership and marriage.

4.    Expectations of future earnings of husbands and their responsibility for funding their
wive’s debts.

I suspect the more extensive research in the US reflects their more open discussion of money.   

BOWEL CANCER BETRAYAL MADE EASIER AS MEN ARE AFFECTED MORE

The BBC ran a story this week from Cancer Research UK that bowel cancer is on the increase and its worse for men than women:

Bowel cancer rates among men have increased by more than a quarter in the last 35 ears, contrasting with a rise of just 6% in the rate for women over the same time. A disease that kills 16,000 people per year.

Literally two days later the Beating Bowel Cancer charity stated that "new figures which highlighted that as many as 6,500 bowel cancer patient a year could have access to vital drugs cut off in January 2014 when the CDF comes to an end.  We have written to Jeremy Hunt, the Secretary of State for Health, raising our concerns and asking for assurances that bowel cancer patients will continue to get the drugs which their doctors say will help them." The detail is here.

So the rates are increasing and the government is considering taking away support in terms of drugs for extending people's lives. It happens to men more, so this in their eyes makes the decison far easier - we are after all the disposable sex.

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage - BBC and Daily Mail

PSPS - some great research on Glen Poole's Helping Men website

STARMER AND CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE MISLEAD OVER FALSE ALLEGATIONS

When Kier Starmer, the woeful Director of Public Prosecutions dropped his bombshell two weeks ago that false allegations were very rare so are not worth the attention they get - it was deliberately misleading and showed that the establishment continues to be got at and is too scared to tackle the issue. The Crown Prosecution Service are all too happy to roll over because it involves men who are falsely accused.

 The report and research is deliberately misleading (it is not the first research as it claims - The Stern Review is clear that false allegations exist and could be 8-10% - see notes to editors about what the report says) because as the excellent False Allegations Support Organisation point out - hardly any cases ever get referred by the police to the CPS and the CPS themselves then block most of those from going to court.

By trying to downplay the effect that false allegations has, the CPS are of course both deliberately choosing to ignore the harm and hurt that it does to those men falsely accused but also to those who have been raped. When do you hear the CPS, the Guardian or anti-rape groups turning on those who make false accusations - they never do.

There is nothing wrong with the CPS wanted to put things into context but its messaging means it is harder for any man who has been falsely accused because the police and CPS will say "our own research says it is very rare so you must be guilty." This is made worse by the coalition government's backtracking on its pledge to give rape defendents anonymity unless found guilty.

On another note, those who have been following the Coronation Street story, will have been concerned on how the story was going to turn out as Tyrone's fiance who was beating him, then made a false accusation. Thankfully, as it want to court she admitted it was all false . This is a storyline that would have made Starmer cringe. Good.

Posted by Skimmington

Notes to editors

The Stern review says "We do know that the effect on those who are falsely accused can be severe. The public holds very strong views about sex offenders. Those who have been under suspicion, maybe for months, perhaps remanded in custody awaiting trial, are likely to suffer considerably from the allegation having been made. Even when they have been cleared and the allegation has been established as false, they may still face suspicion from those they know."

 

VICKIE PRYCE SUCEEDS IN PROMOTING MALE EQUALITY BY ENDING SEXIST MARITAL COERCION ACT

Does Justice Secretary Chris Grayling read this blog? He may do as he announced in The Sunday Times (behind a paywall but the Guardian cover it) that he will end the Marital Coercion Act on the basis of being 'out of tune with gender equality' and 'not in keeping with the modern world.' A point made in February.

It was always of the greatest hypocrisy that such a liberal and 'progressive' such as Vickie Pryce was to try and use a sexist law to try and get her off from going to jail. Inadvertently, by bringing this to everyone's attention and if Grayling pushes this through, she will have succeeed in progressing the cause of equality for men and boys.

As Groan pointed out in his comments on a previous piece (his and MaleMids32 have been added in the comments section so not to be lost - and thanks MaleMids for highlighting) what will the feminists say about this. More so, who will speak out against the change in Parliament or elsewhere when it goes through. Who will show themselves to be hypocrites and anti-equality?

Posted by Skimmington

 

From MaleMids32

Ha! Looks like pressure from J4mb might be having an effect already!

 Just today it was announced in the Sunday Times that Chris Grayling is planning all of a sudden to scrap the law of marital coercion, because it is 'out of tune with gender equality' and 'not in keeping
with the modern world.'

 Wow, since when have Tory politicians been concerned with striking off anti-male laws?

Is it not the case they know that if J4MB gets it act together, they will harness the 'UKIP' effect and knock out all those weak, Tory marginals up and down the country?

  Well they're gonna have to do more than that if they want to win back voters' trust before election time! :-D

 

From Groan

 Now here is a test. How will the radical feminists respond to an obviously discriminatory and paternalistic law being scrapped. Support for Chris Grayling?

As with the few other discriminatory laws that were mainly swept away in the seventies this is another example not of "patriarchy" but the now outdated impulse to protect the "weaker sex"

 My own mother widowed young and with two sons to support fell foul of two such laws in the 1960s ;one with regard to mortgages and the other bank loans. Both had been put on the statute books to spare women the genuine horrors of Debtors Gaols by making husbands responsible for debts. This was in the mid sixties and these Victorian statutes were swept away in the seventies. Clearly these old statutes created problems for my mother( and indeed for husbands with profligate wives) but they were emphatically not some plan to subjugate women and actual barely lasted a century. What is more many such laws had their genesis and support from women's organisations of the time!!!

So good luck Mr. Grayling.

 

I wonder if this implies will spread to changing the legal definition of Rape. As in the USA where it is a crime men and women can commit. A bridge too far for this Parliament

MALE CIRCUMCISION BAN GATHERS PUBLIC SUPPORT BUT WHY WILL NO POLITICIAN SPEAK UP FOR EQUALITY?

When news emerged this week through the Jewish Chronicle that the majority of the public believe that banning circumcision is supported by the majority of Britons, it is clear there is now momentum on this issue - but a voice in Parliament is now needed. The poll showed:

• 38 per cent supported a ban,
• 35 per cent were against a ban, and,
• 25 per cent were undecided

I would expect that the 27 per cent was largely made up of people who had not thought about the issue or were unaware that it was an issue. According to the Jewish Chronicle Dayan Yisroel Lichtenstein, head of the Federation Beth Din, said: “It’s worrying and it shows we need to do a lot more public relations to put our case." A public relations campaign would be fantastic because the figure in favour of a ban would increase greatly so we look forward to Dayan Yisroel's campaign.

An issue (covered here, here and here) led by the excellent Norm UK and sister campaign.

As a further post by Glen Poole's Helping men website revealed that this issue is more popular than any political party.

One of the key themes now, is whether any politician will speak out against it. We know Ed Miliband will not as he agrees with it.

We know no leader of a party will, but considering there are 650 MP's, we can hope one will. Looking at the political landscape it is an issue that the secular Liberal Democrats are more likely to speak out as they are not beholden to the religious or politically correct lobby that Labour are (Female Genital Mutilation is awful but for men it is OK) plus Labour has always had support from the Muslim and Jewish communities and they will not want to lose that.

It is also interesting that the Conservatives dare not speak about it. While not getting into the debate about gay marriage, but the Conservatives are happy to take on Church of England/Catholic Christianity on the issue of gay marriage but are scared of the Muslim/Jewish communities when it comes to butchering young boys in the name of religion. Why are the Conservatives so scared or are they as politically correct as Labour?

The National Secular Socity is clear on the hypocrisy of British politicians and the General Medical Council on this issue

"In an article released last week by Frisch et al in the American journal Pediatrics stated that 'circumcision fails to meet the commonly accepted criteria for the justification of preventive medical procedures in children', that it 'constitutes a violation of the UN convention on the rights of the child' and can have 'serious long-term consequences'. The 38 authors from 18 countries included senior representatives of the German Pediatric Association, the Royal Dutch Medical Association and the British Association of Paediatric surgeons amongst others.

"It is unlawful under the Equalities Act 2010 to discriminate unfairly on the grounds of gender. The SMF calls on the GMC to amend this new policy on forced infant and child genital cutting which adversely discriminates against male children. The main body of GMC guidance places the healthcare needs, dignity and integrity of the patient as of primary concern. The tenets of a religious belief held by somebody other than the patient can never be sufficient reason to justify the forced removal of intimate parts of a patient's body."

It is untenable on the basis of equality that there is rightly an act against female genital mutilation and pressure groups and the Guardian campaign against it but there is no problem with male genital mutilation in the eyes of the politicians, government and media. Their tacit acceptance (doing nothing) and explicit acceptance (Ed Miliband) is a real sign of the anti-male and anti-equality culture we live in when it comes to men and boys.

So, when will a politicians in the UK - a Member of Parliament- speak up for equality - and call for a ban on male circumcision. As the polls show the public wold support them or are they too scared of the religious lobby (Jews and Muslims) and are not interested in equality if it means equality for men and boys.

Posted by Skimmington

AUDIO AND VIDEO ROUND UP

Here are a few audio and video clips from this week

Mike Buchanan on Women's Hour with the ghastly misandric John Farrell and Jenni Murray - both sniggering from behind their hands (you can hear it)

Tom Martin and Ally Fogg in a video produced by students.

 

 

KEEP CALM AND KEEP ON THROWING ROCKS AT BOYS? by TOM MARTIN

Action Alert

Two weeks ago, mainstream news and social media sites joined forces, convincing Amazon
to remove adverts for T-shirts with wording such as 'Keep calm and rape a lot' and  'Keep calm and hit her'.

The sexist slogans were a result of a computer programme generating thousands of random phrases,
the manufacturer claims. What cannot be written off as an accident, are the eight ads
still on Amazon for “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” gear, 13 ads for a man-shaped knife block, two ads for an “ex-boyfriend punch bag”, and dozens more ads for T-shirts calling men “pigs”, “dogs”, “idiots”, and “animals”.

You may think comedy items targeting males or females are just a bit of harmless fun, but according to 2008 research by Professor Thomas Ford et al, of Western Carolina University, sexism is
spread by the use of sexist humour in particular.

Jokes about women's violence towards men get easy laughs even though violence by women is on the increase. In one survey, 60% of female university students thought it acceptable for wives to hit their
husbands. The marketing and media authorities should be setting a better example by cracking down on depictions of violent humour against men, as with women – but it is up to men's rights activists to put pressure on the relevant authorities to make them change.

 I contacted Amazon over a week ago ago by phone, and the call centre worker said she had escalated the complaint to management who will investigate the anti-male products on sale. Men's rights activist Glenn Sacks launched a high profile partially successful campaign 10 years ago to get the “Boys are stupid” range banned, so it is time to finish the job. It has taken a few days to get some violently misogynistic T-shirt ads removed, but 10 years and counting to get some well known violently misandric merchandise banned. You can contact Amazon here.

Tom Martin is a men's rights activist and film maker. Email, [email protected] -
twitter: @sexismbusters - youtube: sexismbusters