Search

Email

Newsfeeds and Must reads

Archives

Categories

Minister for Men Manifesto

  • Minister_for_men_14

Other Sites

Helplines

Support Groups

Charity

Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

Helpline Adverts

  • Poster__middle_age_man_bw
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Monday, 08 July 2013

BBC FOUND GUILTY OF SEXISM AGAINST MEN OVER RUSSELL JOSLIN CASE - NOONE DARE SAY IT

Let's make it clear - there was a big element of 'sexism' against women that allowed Saville and Hall to do what they did and everyone turn a blind eye.

But the pendulum has swung the other way at the BBC due to political correctness, the modern-day feminist view that women are more equal than men and therefore should be ignored, and the blindness that says that only men can be guilty of sexual harassment.

How can anyone describe anything different about the sad story of Russell Joslin (BBC).

Here was a man who was sexually harassed by a female radio presenter - he complained - and the BBC did nothing (See Daily Mail report). Sexism, simply because if the genders were reversed, Joslin would have been suspended and sacked. But because he was a man, he was ignored. The full report is here.

What also is scandalous is that the coroner (a woman - Louise Hunt) says the women cannot be named (named allegedly by the Daily Mail). Again, as soon as an allegation is made against a man, they are on the front page of every newspaper , but not here. Again, apply the Lyndon Concept ( The Lyndon Concept, named after the concept Neil Lyndon first set out where genders are reversed) and the man would be named.

Lastly, in none of the coverage does anyone actually state that if the genders were reversed, it would have been dealt with differently - is everyone to scared to admit that men face discrimination and that BBC acted in a sexist way. All very Orwellian.

Posted by Skimmington 

Posted at 08:58 in Current Affairs/Political, Sexual Offences | | Comments (1)

| | |

Wednesday, 26 June 2013

An email to the Symantec board

Almost two weeks ago i sent out an email to the Symantec board outlining my research into the Rulespace filter and requesting they either fix it or explain themselves. It's a significant document as it's the first time anyone has really got their attention, as a result of it they have now at least promised to "look to updating our policies and processes around the way we categorize web content". Whilst this is rather vague and hasn't yet led to any improvements, it is certainly a significant change on the previous three months of standing by the "hate" classifications.

Here's what I wrote:

 

Dear Sir

My apologies for troubling you with this email, let me assure you you would not be receiving it were it not for the outrageous failings of your staff in the Rulespace team.

I am writing to you to let you know of some uncomfortable truths about your Rulespace product. This internet filter contains a fundamental flaw which has resulted in some astonishingly sexist and inappropriate site blocks. As a result of this flaw, the product denies assistance to male victims of domestic violence simply because they are male. It denies support to fathers who have suffered miscarriages of justice. It silences political parties who campaign for nothing more than gender equality. Incredibly, it even blocks sites advocating on behalf of victims of sexual abuse.

If this wasn't all bad enough, there's worse to come. In addition to the blocking, the Rulespace filter's classifications smear each and every one of the sites mentioned above as a "hate site". So, right now, according to Symantec, to assist any male who is being beaten and abused by his wife is "hate". To help a father have a meaningful relationship with his own children is "hate". And should you dare to advocate on behalf of young male victims of sexual abuse, then yes that's hate too. Below are several example links:

http://dvmen.co.uk

http://toysoldier.wordpress.com
 

http://www.menaregood.com
 

http://j4mb.wordpress.com/
 



in total there are more than 100 inappropriatly censored men's human rights sites, all wrongly classed as "hate" spanning a number of different countries. Your staff have repeatedly told me and the owners of the sites that they stand by the "hate" definitions for all these resources. They've made it quite clear that the ridiculous definitions are no mistake and they appear to be perfectly happy with this gender discrimination, thus everything outlined above appears to be entirely deliberate. To compound matters further still, the filter actually fails to block all the most extreme anti-male sites, such as "The Society of Cutting Up Men manifesto" and those promoting the castration of all males, so whilst almost every voice supporting equality for males is silence by the filter, no amount of male hatred gets even the most extreme radical feminist blocked. If you are serious about reforming Symantec and turning it around then the misandric nature of the Rulespace product is something that really needs urgent attention.

In case you aren't aware, the issues that concern the men's human rights community include equal access to healthcare, equality in the justice system and family courts, the genital mutilation of children and and sexism in the education system. I'm not any sort of renowned businessman, though I do know it's poor business practice to attack and demonise an entire civil rights community based upon their gender, particularly one which is experiencing such rapid growth and media recognition. Given the demographic profile of your typical Symantec user, then In your case it would appear to be corporate suicide to be targeting this particular human rights group. Symantec have blocked and defamed over 100 legitimate organisations, all of whom have blogs and websites and are thus able to expose what's going on. I've contacted every single site owner on the list so your customers are almost certain to hear about this. Right now a video on the issue is receiving a very impressive amount of traffic on Youtube and it has already had coverage in a number of IT news publications and by civil liberties groups. O2/Telefonica are already losing significant numbers of customers due to Symantec's misandry, so I expect they'll be forced to switch to one of your competitors before too long if you don't fix this problem, as will other corporations using Rulespace. Quite simply, this issue is only going to get bigger and is not going to go away.

I therefore urge you to please either unblock these 100+ wrongly classified sites and give a sincerely apology for smearing the owners of the sites in such an horrific fashion for so long. Some sort of donation to a few of the victims may also be in order to help begin the process of restoring your company's reputation amongst egalitarian minded groups. please note that the unblocking of these sites will not be sufficient in the long term, and the discriminatory nature of the filter algorithms needs fixing to prevent future problems as new men's equality sites are established.

I think the core problem with the product is some confusion over basic gender equality issues amongst your staff. Communications I've had from Symantec and O2 suggest that the filter bars any criticism of feminism, with the implication being that to criticise feminism is somehow sexist and discriminatory and analogous to criticising females. Whilst criticism of a particular gender is inappropriate, the complete converse applies with feminism which is an ideology no less deserving of critique than Marxism, Communism or Capitalism. Any such political movements should be subject to unlimited critique and scrutiny in any free and fair society, and should be held accountable for their actions. The majority of men's human rights sites actually seek to expose hateful radical feminist ideas (e.g those of Valerie Solanas), yet under the Rulespace system, reality gets turned on its head, the hate groups become the good guys, and those exposing such gender-based hatred are silenced for daring to do so.



If you are not able to unblock the sites and insist on continuing to describe them as "hateful" then please answer the following questions:

1. What exactly is hateful about helping male victims of domestic violence? Does Symantec subscribe to the extreme radical feminist theories domestic violence in which the millions of abused men somehow cannot be victims and therefore do not deserve help? Where is there one single word on sites such as dvmen.co.uk

 
that is the slightest bit "hateful"?

2. Is it also Symantec corporate policy to deny assistance and support to any male employees who are domestic violence? (1 in 6 male employees) or do you only do this to your customers?

3. Does Symantec oppose the right of children to have a loving relationship with both parents following a divorce? If not why are you so vehemently opposed to so many of the leading egalitarian organisations campaigning for such things?

4. The Rulespace team regards as "hate" a site dedicated to advocating on behalf of abused boys, won't people come to the conclusion that Symantec protects child rapists?

5. Is it Symantec's corporate policy to interfere in the democratic process by silencing the voice of opposition political parties?

6. Give the almost blanket ban on sites advocating equality for males, would it be fair to say that Symantec opposes human rights for half the population of the planet including a majority of its own customers/users?



I do appreciate that Symantec took over Rulesapce in 2010 and therefore this is an inherited problem rather than one created directly by Symantec employees. However, there has been ample time to address this scandal and the reaction thus far to people's concerns has been completely unacceptable and appearing to condone misandry.

Many thanks for taking the time to read this email, I enclose the complete list of wrongly blocked/classified sites below.

Regards

John Kimble

 

Posted at 07:00 in Current Affairs/Political, Domestic Violence, Sexual Offences | | Comments (4)

| | |

Friday, 14 June 2013

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

Posted at 08:52 in Current Affairs/Political, False Accusations, Justice System, Sexual Offences, Women-only | | Comments (18)

| | |

Thursday, 14 March 2013

NOW OFFICIAL - O2 AND SYMANTEC BELIEVE HELPING MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEX ABUSE IS HATEFUL

By now most people are aware of the issue of men's rights website being wrongly blocked by Symantec and various mobile phone companies due to them somehow being flagged as "hate sites". I've done further investigations and can exclusively reveal the official response from these companies on this matter. There tends to be a bit of confusion about this issue and so firstly I'll attempt to explain what's going on and tackle some misconceptions.

Which sites are blocked?
I initially identified 48 sites blocked by Symantec/O2 and flagged as "hate sites". The list then grew to 58 as even more were identified. It's fair to say that a majority of key sites critical of feminism and supportive of men's rights are blocked. You can see the full list here.

What exactly does this mean for the sites concerned?
The "hate site" classification means a number of users are denied any access, particularly people accessing the internet in some restaurants, workplaces and via mobile phone networks such as Telefonica/O2. In total Symantec claims 250 million users of the filter worldwide, so it could easily mean a 10% reduction in traffic for mens' rights sites.

How long has this being going on?
It is uncertain as to exactly how long this has been an issue. I became aware of the problem in May 2012 though it appears to have been going on in some cases for at least two years. It must have been happening for a considerable length of time as some of the blocked sites no longer exist.

Hold on, I thought avoiceformen.com had been unblocked and Symantec had backed down?
Sadly this is not the case and such a suggestion is based on a false report in the media. Avoiceformen.com was never unblocked at any stage.

I find this all a bit hard to believe, how can I check a site's classification for myself?
There are currently two ways to check whether or not a site has been branded as a "hate site". Users have previously checked a site's status by enabling Norton's DNS service, but a much easier method is O2's url checker.


Other mens' rights activists and even member of the media have had difficulty getting any sort of meaningful response from Symantec so I've taken a different approach and been in touch with O2/Telefonica management. I asked them to classify the blocked websites more appropriately and to stop censoring such content.  Eventually I was put in contact with O2's head of complaints, Antony Gibson, and he confirmed that O2 use the same filter service from Symantec, called Rulespace, thus explaining why the two block lists of the two companies are identical.

Mr Gibson liaised with Symantec and informed me they had reviewed the list and decided to reclassify just 2 out of the 47 sites I presented them with. This therefore means the "hate" classification/block officially stands for the bulk of this content (including avoiceformen.com) and is no accident. Mr Gibson explained that O2/Symantec regarded the sites to be at the "low end" of the spectrum in terms of hate and further explained that they were blocked and classed as "hate sites" due to reasons such as showing "aggression" and/or use of the term "anti-feminism"!

Mr Gibson did express some concern about people seeing men's rights sites listed as hate sites and smeared in this way, but O2's solution to our concerns is that they will disable their url checker so no one can see the reason why a site has been blocked. In other words O2 is fairly happy for the issue of human rights for men to be classed as hateful, their only concern is people finding out that they're taking this stance. So, now we have no just a case of censorship and defamation, but a cover up too!

To compound matters yet further, many of these sites classified as hateful really are incredibly innocuous and deal with very important issues, many don't even use the term "anti-feminist" either nor contain "aggression". Such a term is so vague and ambiguous as to be completely meaningless, and proves absolutely how the filter is arbitrary and a nonsense and completely open to abuse. More importantly, if O2/Symantec have an issue with the term "anti-feminist", then they are quite blatantly taking an extreme political stance in favour of an ideology. Afterall, there's barely any more "aggressive" way of supporting feminist doctrine than to censor and defame anyone who dares critique or correct it.

I think this issue really sums up how important the men's' movement is today, not to mention the scale of the challenge facing us. We see countless feminist activists all over the media campaigning against free speech and equality and seeking privileges for women such as subsidised  insurance premiums. Feminists make endless sexist comments telling men not to rape and even the host of the world's leading feminist radio programme openly laughs at male victims of domestic abuse. Whilst all this has been going on, and despite spending countless hours on the matter,  I've failed with a simple request for companies to stop denying help to male victims of rape and domestic violence. In fact I can't even get these sick companies to remove their "hate site" smear from their classification of these vitally important resources. Perhaps I haven't yet been "aggressive" enough?

Here's a selection of sites O2/Symantec's insist on keeping in their "hate site" category:

http://dvmen.org  - A site in Colorado helping male victims of domestic violence.
http://toysoldier.wordpress.com - A blog highlighting the plight of male victims of rape and abuse.
http://www.ncfm.org  -Website of the longest running men's human rights organisation in the US (founded in 1977).
http://www.fathersforlife.org  - A site seeking for fathers to have a greater role in their children's lives.
http://www.debunker.com/patriarchy.html  - A webpage scientifically debunking the most common feminist myths.
http://disenfranchisedfather.blogspot.co.uk - blog by a fahter who doesnt' get to see his son.


For those who are curious, apparently the only two non-"hateful" men's sites out of the 47 are:
Hisside.com and dadi.org and both are now unblocked.

Update:

O2 have been in touch and would like me to point out that O2 customers who are over 18 can remove the restriction and view any web site they want to by going through their age verificaiton process which can be found here. Customers without a credit card can visit an O2 store with photo ID such as a passport or driving licence.

by John Kimble

The following may or may not be the email addresses of the O2 board members:

[email protected], Pilar.Ló[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Kate [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], René[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Posted at 09:11 in Current Affairs/Political, Domestic Violence, False Accusations, Sexual Offences | | Comments (22)

| | |

Tuesday, 26 February 2013

NEWS UPDATES

There has been a few recently and a few sent over:

Some new UK sites:

   Justice for Men and Boys (political party)

    Helping Men (Glen Poole)

   Cornwall Community News (some strong articles on here)

 

A Voice for Men: Interview with London MRA (25 minutes 45 seconds in)

South Wales Argus: Man found not guilty

Cambridgeshire Police: Domestic abuse against men podcast (a first perhaps)

Daily Mail: Men should be afforded anonymity in rape appeals says High County Judge and I agree (Peter Lloyd) and the original news item. John Cooper QC is happy for innocent men to be named though as is Lisa Longstaff of course. Men are collateral damage.

Miss Alisa Place: We can't fix domestic violence if we pretend 40% of victims are not there (Alisa Valdes)

BBC: Project highlights everday sexism against women

Daily Telegraph: Divorced fathers have a hard time (Jonathan Agnew)

Daily Telegraph: Council makes toilets gender neutral (Victoria Ward)

Daily Mail: Judge says conspiracy of silence in place about the value of fathers (Steve Doughty)

BBC Women's Hour: Jenni Murray laughs as wife admits cleaning toilet with ex-husband and toothbrush before he used it (19 min 30 secs in)

The Ignored Gender: Misandry and the Superbowl

Marie Claire: No Men allowed,the rise of the women-only club

Daily Mail: I should not have lied (Janine Yaqoob)

Evening Standard: Labour women-only shortlist (Joe Murphy)

MRA London: Site banned by Norton

The Guardian: On male privilege (Richard Seymour)

Posted by Skimmington 

Posted at 06:47 in Current Affairs/Political, False Accusations, News Update, Sexual Offences, Women-only | | Comments (43)

| | |

Tuesday, 27 November 2012

STALKING LAW CHANGE - MEN RELEGATED TO SIDELINES

This week is always depressing as the UN International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women (with 16 days of campaigning) swings into action. Not that anyone would want to not end violence against women, it is both the demonisation of men and also the blind eye taken to the domestic and sexual violence that men suffer that sticks in the gullet.

Quite prescient considering I saw Coronation Street resurrect the Tyrone domestic abuse storyline tonight.

There are always announcements and a good example is the one on two new stalking laws yesterday. It was great that men were included in the Home Office release. It also showed that as with domestic abuse - one in three victims are male.

Then you look to the coverage - commentary from the Home Secretary only mentions women. The home page of the Home office website only mentions women. So  does the Daily Mail with the Minister Jeremy Browne doing all he can to avoid mentioning men. The  Telegraph does not mention men either.

As for Wales, they are pretty unreconstructed and this new White Paper and campaign on teenage relationships does not mention men or boys. Only girls suffer in Wales according to this.

Happy to list any other examples of the 16 days of Action being used to demonise men.

Posted by Skimmington

Posted at 10:29 in Current Affairs/Political, Domestic Violence, Sexual Offences | | Comments (7)

| | |

Sunday, 11 November 2012

HEAD OF BBC RESIGNS FOR ROLE IN SPREADING FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS

I'm sure i don't have to inform our UK readers of today's huge news story, but for the benefit of our readers elsewhere and the wider men's rights community it's worth repeating and putting into a men's rights context. To summarise the situation, last week the BBC's Newsnight programme smeared an honourable and elderly former Conservative politician with a false allegation of rape. Not just any rape, but that of the most vulnerable boys in a care home. Although the BBC didn't name the gentleman in question, they gave plenty of hints and effectively directed the audience to investigate online. Thanks to several high profile left-wing Twitter users, the name of the entirely innocent party soon quickly became identified as Lord MacAlpine with the "information" reaching a wide audience.

In the last couple of days it became clear that the BBC's story was false and based on mistaken identity. The shoddiness in the BBC's journalism has become plain for all to see, culminating tin the resignation of George Entwistle, the BBC's Director General, who whilst somehow unaware of the content of the programme, bears ultimate responsibility as Editor in chief. Furthermore, given the fact the other parities were far more involved in what occurred, more resignations or sackings appear certain to follow.

I can't recall a major news story in the UK having such a major men's rights angle in some considerable time and I certainly don't remember such a resignation before over a men's rights issue. In fact, the wider story is saturated with content that is key to our movement and everything we stand for. Not only have we seen a witch hunt of innocent men on multiple channels on the television, there's also the issue of a failure in investigate the abuse of vulnerable young boys, many of them almost certainly in such a position due to family breakdown and poor parenting. If anyone doubted the seriousness of false rape allegations and society's appetite for them, not to mention the need for anonymity for the accused then this case surely proves them wrong once a for all.

Although what has transpired here may at first appear depressing, the plus side is that major heads have rolled for once and false rape accusations taken seriously. Furthermore, there's the delightful prospect of Lord MacAlpine rendering those involved in the saga much less wealthy and hopefully unemployable too. Perhaps the only regret here is that your average man on the street suffering such horrific smears will never receive any sort of justice, let alone the most welcome outcome starting to transpire on this particular occasion.

by John Kimble

Posted at 01:26 in Current Affairs/Political, False Accusations, Justice System, Sexual Offences | | Comments (6)

| | |

Wednesday, 22 August 2012

THE BAD BOYFRIEND CLUB by ANTHONY HUMPHREYS

An interesting development  has come to my attention regarding a new television programme fronted by Peter Andre entitled ‘The Bad Boyfriend Club’. It may seem a trivial thing to some people as it is presented as a lighthearted show but if you probe deeper into the message it portrays it is most disturbing to men.

As I understand the premise is that Peter Andre takes men that have been identified as bad boyfriends by their female partners and changes them, supposedly for the better, so they
return as new men ready to cater to their girlfriends every whim and command.

I find the underlying message this sends out to the audience deeply worrying as the basic implication
is that all boyfriends (or indeed men in any relationship regardless of if they’re engaged, married etc..) are useless until they are trained in how to behave by women. It is also interesting to note that the methods used to modify the men's behaviour are mostly painful and humiliating (such as waxing).

Yet again no chance is wasted by the modern female dominated media to subject men to unacceptable behaviour they are not comfortable with but are forced to endure.  It also implies that men should not have their own independent mind and should instead live their life on standby ready for them to be given a command or job to complete, entirely at the woman’s discretion.  

I think that the programme also has an equally powerful message for any women who watch in that it informs them they are a superior gender to men (otherwise why would men need teaching how to behave and why would they be the ones to do it?). It also reinforces the prevalent negative image of men in modern society that we are stupid, knuckle dragging Neanderthals who are nothing without a woman to improve us.      

If you add all this together then it is a toxic cocktail of a programme that very cleverly and subtly
continues the war on men.  If anyone doubts this I would recommend you watch ‘The Bad Girlfriend Club’ that comes on prime time television this week – oh hang on that programme doesn’t actually
exist as you would never be allowed to make or air it would you?!!   

Posted by Anthony Humphreys

Posted at 21:22 in News Update, Sexual Offences, Women-only | | Comments (9)

| | |

Monday, 13 August 2012

LISBETH SALANDER - A ROLE MODEL? by ANTHONY HUMPHREYS

I’m sure that most readers are familiar with, or have at least heard of, the above heroine of the Steig Larsson Millennium trilogy. She seems to have risen to prominence after the recent Hollywood remake of ‘The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo’ film and is now claimed by a lot of women to be a role
model for the modern woman.  The purpose of this article is to question this and highlight how this view further deepens inequality against men in modern society.

Let us be clear about what characteristics the character has – she is an anti social, mentally unstable, a-sexual misfit with a deep distrust / dislike of most men. And let us not forget that she is also, most
sickeningly, a rapist.

I am fully aware critics of this view will point to the fact she has reasons for why she has turned out as above but that is the whole point. When a woman performs any heinous crime (such as rape, abuse, murder etc….) she is always able to successfully absolve all blame and responsibility
by claiming a valid reason.

However, a man in the same situation is not allowed this 'luxury' and this is what leads to the inequality this character embodies. As an example imagine, if you will,  the roles  were reversed in this film and it was the male character taking revenge on her – would people find this acceptable still? Would men be able to claim the male character as a role model as women do with the Lisbeth character now? I think not – he would still be (rightly so) denigrated for taking revenge and it would
be said there is never any reason to perform any such action (which is true).

LET ME BE CLEAR: LIKE ALL RIGHT MINDED PEOPLE I BELIEVE ANY
CRIME SUCH AS RAPE IS DISGUSTING AND SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN TO ANYONE.

But that is what I am trying to get across: whatever her reasons the female character in the film should not have done it and the fact that she did and it is celebrated shows that violence against men in the media and films is becoming acceptable.

As an example of this attitude (and this is 100% true) I discussed the film with a female colleague. She originally said that it was hard to watch due to the scene where the Lisbeth character is assaulted which made her feel sick and was disgusting.

However, when the subject of Lisbeths revenge came up minutes later she suddenly found this shockingly violent act acceptable and amusing. This in my view perfectly highlights the inequality in attitude between men and women on this subject – either this sort of act is disgusting and sickening or it is not, you can’t start picking and choosing based on subjective individual reasons.

 In effect what my colleague was saying was violence of this sort is acceptable as long as it’s by women against men.

I find it most worrying that, despite the above defects, the character is always referenced in positive overall terms in the media and the majority of women find her someone to aspire too because she is “badass”. Mark my words, if a generation of Lisbeth Salanders are allowed to grow up things
will grow steadily worse for men.

Posted by Anthony Humphreys

Posted at 17:57 in Sexual Offences | | Comments (6)

| | |

Sunday, 12 August 2012

NOW VIRGIN AUSTRALIA THINKS ALL MEN ARE PAEDOPHILES

Some readers may have missed the news this week of Virgin Australia being the latest airline exposed as believing all men are paedophiles who cannot be trusted to sit next to unaccompanied children. This type of misandry in airlines goes back at least 12 years now and we've covered it plenty of times before, for example when British Airways were forced to withdraw the policy by equality hero Mirko Fischer.

Virgin say they are going to "review" the policy, but to m even that's unacceptable. I know it's sexist, as do readers, as do they, and when discriminating like this in such a disgusting and harmful manner then the only logical and decent action is to stop immediately and apologise. Some of the news coverage has been particularly good this time around, and it's interesting how the story has spread to different countries, so rather than say any more I'll simply share some of the links with you:

Original blog post that exposed Virgin Australia's misandry

Sydney Morning Herald (recommended)

Virgin Australia's second response

NBC

Stuff.co.nz

Boing Boing

Huffington Post UK

by John Kimble

Posted at 03:16 in Current Affairs/Political, False Accusations, Justice System, Sexual Offences, Women-only | | Comments (2)

| | |

»