The Rights Of Man

MUMSNET POLL SPELLS DISASTER FOR MEN AND BOYS

This week the news (Guardian, Telegraph, Daily Mail 1, Daily Mail 2) has been grim for men as Mumsnet, the website for metropolitan elite middle class 'yummy mummy' brigade, ran an opinion poll this week that showed how the party's were faring on the so-called "women's vote".

• The Conservatives trail by 13 points among female voters (three times higher than among men)
• Women nevertheless prefer Cameron (43%) to Miliband (34%)
• Six out of 10 women who backed the Lib Dems in 2010 are no longer supporters
• Fewer than half polled believe any of the three main party leaders are interested in women's concerns 

So what does this mean - well of course it means more discrimination against men.

The natural reaction for any politician will be to attract votes where they are weak so that means more female-friendly policies. In a true age of equality that should not matter per se as for example, family friendly policies are also of benefit to fathers and sons.

However, we are not in an era of equality and modern day feminists as we know are not interested in equality, they want supremacy. Modern day feminists are not modern day women - however, they pretend they are and they are the ones who are the metropolitan elite who dominate our public bodies, pressure groups and have the ear of the politicians.

So their reaction will not be family-friendly policies but more misandry. More women-only shortlists/quotas in politics, more quotas on boardrooms, more women-only leadership/training courses etc, more funding for female health problems (not a problem per se but where is the investment in men's health).

In addition, it means none of the areas where men suffer inequality (health, domestic abuse, depression, family law, education, employment) will be touched. This is despite the fact that women on the whole like men so want them to succeed and not face inequality either - especially women with sons etc. You can see how this translates when the Home Secretary cannot bring herself to say that men are victims of domestic abuse too.

The Munset poll therefore will lead to more special treatment for women and the failure of men's inequality issues to be focussed upon. Plus of course probably a dose of traditional men bashing "all men are bastards" schtick with male politicians flogging themselves like Opus Dei converts.

The Mumsnet poll is a disaster for men and boys. They will be punished because not enough women are supporting David Cameron.

Posted by Skimmington

 

ALL WOMEN SHORTLISTS UPDATE: ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, ANTI-EQUALITY, MISANDRIC AND LABOUR HYPOCRISY

One of the most invidious things about the discriminatory onslaught that men in the UK have to face is the introduction of all-women shortlists, quotas and special training sessions that female wannabe politicians receive, while their male equivalents do not.

In addition, it is an issue that still baffles me that apart from this site, no one else in the men’s equality movement seems remotely interested in, despite the fact that it means men are banned (in Labour's case) from standing for Parliament solely because they are men and also that all-women shortlists are at the vanguard of where our society is moving.

All-women shortlists have opened up the acceptability of gender quotas on boards and other institutions – it is inevitability of making one thing acceptable thereby allowing more similar things acceptable.

This site researched the issue a couple of years ago.

For the May 2015 elections, having changed the law over ten years ago to get round their employment tribunal defeat, Labour has continued to build on their previous support for all-women shortlists.  And as repeated before, no man should vote for Labour in these particular seats (see end).

Before March 2013, they had banned men from being candidates in 22 seats (see list one below) for the 2015 election and following consultations, they had decided to ban men from being candidates in a further 39 (see tranche 1 of those declared to pick from all women shortlists in the
future). This means men will be banned in 61 seats, compared to 58 in 2010.

Just a point for the Justice for Men and Boys party but an angle for choosing any new candidates may be to put them up in seats where Labour have chosen from an all-women shortlist as there is a clear hook to say that men were banned from being their candidate.

This theme of modern-day anti-male radical feminism can be seen in this article in the Guardian.
Of 18 open contests, 17 winners were men so the response is one that there must be some form of discrimination and that women must be given special treatment and more all –women shortlists introduced.

Of course, the results above do not take into account the fact that because men have been banned in so many of the seats before these selections, that the good quality women will have bagged an all women shortlist seat, so for the open seats, then men in the frame will be of very high
quality. Obviously that is too logical for Labour’s anti-male brigade to process.

As for the Conservatives, with their Women2 Win set up, they are still giving special treatment to women who want to be Conservative MP’s including special training sessions in September on how to become selected.

As for the Lib Dems, they are concerned about 66% of their members oppose all women shortlists. At least they are still sticking to equality and liberalism.

The key thing is that banning people (in this case men) from seeking public office because of a particular characteristic is a sign of a totalitarian state and not a democratic one. It is of the utmost hypocrisy of Labour to champion equal suffrage earlier this year while at the same time, 100 years later, they are banning people from standing for public office under their banner solely because of their gender. The Pankhurss must be trining in their graves.

Posted by Skimmington

(1) Parliamentary seats where Labour have already banned men from being their Parliamentary candidate:

Thurrock

Carlisle

Lincoln

Northampton North

Hastings & Rye

Worcester

Warwick & Leamington

South Swindon

Stevenage

Norwich North

Great Yarmouth

High Peak

Peterborough

Harlow

Redcar

Dover

Stafford

Redditch

Reading West

Tamworth

Cambridge

Bristol West

 (2) Seats where Labour intend to ban men from being their Parliamentary candidate:

Ealing Central & Acton

Enfield North

Harrow East

Hornsey & Wood Green

Lewisham Deptford

Stockton South

Weaver Vale

Wirral West

Brighton Kemptown

Brighton Pavilion

Kingswood

Aberconwy

Cardiff Central

Cardiff North

Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire

Birmingham Yardley

Dudley South

Halesowen & Rowley Regis

Nuneaton

 

Erewash

Croydon Central

Hampstead and Kilburn

Burnley

Lancaster & Fleetwood

Morecambe & Lunesdale

South Ribble

Argyll & Bute

Rugby

Brigg & Goole

Colne Valley

Dewsbury

UNIVERSITY GENDER GAP REVEALED TO BE 45,000 BOYS PER YEAR

A few stories back, the site looked at the issue that politicians, the elites and the commentariat were more concerned about male-only golf clubs than the fact far fewer boys went to university than women. A kindly reader sent over the detailed facts from UCAS and they show clearly the year on year gap between the number of boys and the number of girls going to university.

Covering, a six year period 2007 - 2012, 445,035 (average 74,173) fewer boys applied to go to university and 270,554 (average 45,092) fewer were successful. This means 45,000 fewer boys per year are going to our universities each and every year.

This shows the reality of the crisis in the education of boys at the top level as well as the crisis at the bottom level where so many boys leave school with no qualifications.

The misandry and spinelessness of today's politicians, commentariat and education establishment is that none of them are interested and none of them are prepared to do anything about it. They do not even speak about.

This crisis plays out in terms of men not being able to find work leading to depression, crime and a sense of rootlessness/identity and also the inability to use their talents and skills to the full (why is it that boys did better than girls 20 years and now the reverse has happened). No wonder younger women earn more than younger men and more women are the main breadwinner (not a problem per se) 

Who is speaking up for boys and the missing 45,000 who are not going to university? Or is it that golf club membership really is more important? Where is the Government's Equalities Department? Where is the Secretary of State for Education? Where are Barwell and Willetts?

Posted by Skimmington

WHTY ARE MEN NOT AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDED IN EQUAL PAY APPEALS AGAINST LOCAL AUTHORITIES?

There have been a number of equal pay cases over the past few years involving the unions fighting for equal pay, normally around bonuses or pensions, for women undertaking jobs such as care/classroom assistants, dinner ladies and the like. These roles were governed by one set of employment rules and more manual roles, such as dustmen for example, who were governed by another set of rules. However, the latter were able to get bonuses, overtime, pay rises etc and the former were not or recoved lower benefits.

The cases that have come out of the woodwork suggest that the same conditions should have applied and the litigants keep on winning.

Now, we can get into arguments on whether in reality they should be viewed as the same type of job but that can take us down a cul-de-sac. The real issue for me is whether men are being included in the litigation and also whether by default men who were also carrying out the same jobs as the women were also winning backpay etc. Not all care assistants, classroom assistants, dinner 'ladies' etc are women.

The "Equalities" and Human Rights Commission in Scotland won a case against Dumfries and Galloway council recently but they only mention women: "The Supreme Court has today ruled in favour of 251 female employees in their equal pay case against their employer, Dumfries and Galloway Council."

The court papers also state that they classroom assistants et al did not want to be compared to janitors who did not get bonuses etc - is this because they were men! Why were the janitors not included in the case? Plus would Alastair Pringle of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission support a case if the roles were reversed - I think we know the answer to that!

 (media coverage - here, here and here)

The site has covered other cases before:

Were men included in the Birmingham victory? Have any men claimed, does it apply to them, can they piggyback?

And we know that men in Tyneside, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough had to fight for their rights when they were excluded (full judgement here). It looks like the councils did shamefully appeal but I cannot find the outcome. It would be very interesting to see whether they did successfully appeal and also even if they then lost or withdrew - how much did that cost local male council taxpayers.

Overall though, why are men not automatically included in these appeals?

If it was about equality for all, then men would be but when has equality been an issue of interest to Unison or the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

Posted by Skimmington

 

Here is the solicitor responsible and helpfully at the botom you can click through to the court papers.

 

HOW THE FEMINIST NARRATIVE TEMPLATE DISCRIMINATES AGAINST MEN AND BOYS

This week, has been a landmark in showing how modern-day feminism (mutated from being an equality movement to one about gender supremacy and misandry) is actively denying both equality for men and boys through misandry but also even recognition that men and boys have problems to whether men and boys actually exist.

We have seen these issues as showing how the feminist man-hating narrative has become the mainstream view, the new normal, the standard view for Britain and its elites. Every issue that a woman faces is the fault of a man and/or only happens to a woman - so men get excluded from the story even through they also form part of the story.

We had at the start of the week the trolling story. As stated earlier this week, the lunatics trolling the MP's and campaigners do a great disservice to our cause, but the assumption of the feminist discourse readily picked up and accepted as Gospel by the media and the "elites" is that only women are trolled. Er, what about this then, on GQ (Telegraph, Independent). The professor in this story who says it is not a gender issue gets little traction all week.

Then there was a story on the introduction of application fees for employment tribunals. There was much anguish about the fact that this would be bad for low-paid women. It was if there were no low-paid men, yet 40% of low-paid workers are male! (Listen)

 The Evening Standard announced there was a summit on the lack of female engineers and a Parliamentary inquiry into whether science is institutionally sexist (I cannot find any news on this). But where is the campaign and the summit about the lack of male teachers, the lack of men in social services, healthcare, education etc. Er...there isn't one.

Mens Conference UK picked up on Marilyn Stowe's revelation that the Ministry of Justice's guidance on legal aid mentions husbands as perpetrators but not husbands and wives. The Ministry of Justice acting with pure unadulerated institutional discrimination against men. The rules are gender-neutral but the Ministry of Justice does not believe they apply in practice to men.

Continuing on the domestic abuse front, a Facebook message from Karen Woodall (Centre for Separated Families) stated "here's one for all of you interested in domestic violence.... Nick is training today for the DWP, he is not allowed to talk about violence against men or violence in separating couples in any way other than that which is ratified by the Coalition Government Policy on VAWAG by order of the HOME OFFICE - he also has two observers sitting in on the training to make sure he does not transgress this order (that's because they are nervous about my blog and my refusal to do as they ordered me to).   This is what your taxes pay for people...the state is most definitely controlling you and if you separate it will be Women's Aid and Refuge who rule your world."

Will the media point out in the Eddie Kidd story that men are victims too? (will Refuge's Sandra Horley spin this as self-defence?)

Will the media look at this story about this wicked mother and attack women, like they would attack men if it was the father who was at fault?

Plus of course the Co-Op bow to pressure and put men's mags in plastic covers because they have half-naked women in. When Hello etc have half naked or provocatively dressed women on their cover and sometimes men. Where are the feminists crying about this cover "The lost art of the handjob"!!!

There will be more and the site has already covered how feminism meant the media and the elites were more focussed on the membership of golf clubs than the number of men not going to university. The same has happened all week and what is so disappointing is that the media just do not question the facts or challenge the commentators so that modern-day radical feminism dominates the news agenda with no challenge, but they also do not challenge or even accept male related issues onto the agenda. Radio 4 had a section on feminism getting stronger, but when will they do the same on men's issues.

Glen Poole this week, set out his poll and it is more vital today than it ever has been to get some form of group up and running to put our case that men are discriminated against in every day society and that by shutting out men and boys  from the equality narrative and also acting with plain hypocrisy.

Modern-day radical misandrist feminism is a devastating barrier for men and boys. Their voice has been drowned out. 

Posted by Skimmington

 Ps I do like this article from Carol Sarler in case anyone has missed it.

 

CAMERON'S 2013 RESHUFFLE WILL BE THE MOST SEXIST ON RECORD

In the next few weeks there is likely to be a Ministerial Reshuffle (Conservative Home believe it won't be at cabinet level) and Cameron will start to deliver on his promise to have a third of all ministers, including those at a Cabinet level, as women. Women, will be the winners, not talent.

This is in keeping with the European trend of quotas (formal/legal or informal/public declarations) including in France and Spain. Currently, there are 48 (165) MP's out of 304 MP's in total.

The issue has been talked about for weeks in the media and the issues are three fold.

Firstly, just like the issue on boardroom quota's - meritocracy is the biggest loser which goes against the whole principle of 'the best person for the job' - irrelevant of gender.

• Some talented men will be denied a position a Minister solely because they are a man (this was the same as revealed in this report about the Conservative Party's gender quota A-list).
• Some women will remain as ministers or in the cabinet (as revealed by Daily Mirror) even if they are not good enough because to lose female ministers means Cameron will fear a backlash (and he will get one as he did last year).  
• Some women will be promoted into being a Minister when they are not good enough. 

Any decision based on a quota or gender target is sexist - if a talented man does not get into the cabinet or becomes a Minister because he has to be overlooked to ensure enough women are in place, then he is a victim of sexism. And like so many supine politicians, he will sit there and be quiet. 

Why would be Conservative men moan about gender quotas when they say nothing about boardroom quotas or men and boys issues in general.

Further to all of this, if there are not enough women being promoted then modern-day radical feminists will be whining and shouting all over the airwaves with their hatred for men and disdain for equality and meritocracy.

Will anyone in the media have the balls to confront them and ask them why politicians should not be chosen on merit, whether they agree that an inferior women should be promoted over a better man and whether they can actually pinpoint any examples of a talented women who is not a Minister and an untalented man who is. Don't them talk about numbers, they must talk about individuals - as that is the important point.

Lastly, the British public as part of the democratic process should be governed by the best people for the job. If that meant all women - so be it - but they want the best people, that is what they vote for. Why should the people that govern us be chosen because of the gender not their ability? We need the best people that is what we vote for.

This summer's reshuffle will be the most sexist on record. The most sexist against men.

Posted by Skimmington

PS Conservative women wnat special treatment because like most politicians they are only in it for themselves.

GOLF CLUB EQUALITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE FAILURE OF THE EDUCATION SYSTEM TOWARDS BOYS

On Monday, UCAS published its figures on university admissions and the main story was that white teenagers (especially boys) were less likely to go to university than black teenagers especially boys.

Buried away was the fact that "Gender remains one of the biggest factors in application rates, with females remaining substantially more likely to apply. In 2012 in England, 49% (40% in 2007) of women
applied compared with 38% (31% in 2006) of men." 

Roughly for every seven applications, four are from girls and three are for boys - an actual gap in 2012 of 29%. 

This is an issue this site keep turning to (here and here) and still the silence from politicians, the government equalities office, department for education etc is deafening. Not a word from the Minister for Equalities - she thinks men-only golf clubs are more of an equalities issue.

It is why there are now more and more women earning more than men in their household, or when they are in their 20's and why more men are unemployed than women.

Reverse the genders (The Lyndon Concept) and there would be hell to pay - more attention is on the number of women in the boardroom or the cabinet or golf clubs.

 If ever there was a need for a responsible men's equality organisation this is the reason.

Posted by Skimmington

 

STINKING HYPOCRISY OVER MUIRFIELD AND THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

It was very tiring and very frustrating listening and watching the coverage on Muirfield and seeing the
hideous Maria Miller bandwagon jumping of every politician under the sun (except for Mike Buchanan and Nigel Farage) over the men-only rules. Cameron, Lansley, Robertson, Clegg, Salmond and Harman to name but a few (even Judy Murray waded in - does she disprove of this then)

Not one dared mention women-only golf clubs, gyms, swimming lessons, Women's Institute, sexist Race for Life. The media who are so facile did not challenge Miller or any politician on this.

If men-only golf clubs are banned and must open their doors up, then all of the above will as the law will have to be applied equally. A real victory for the law of unintended consequences (just like equality in terms of car insurance).

I do have a sneaky feeling though that a number of those bandwagon jumpers realised this and have no intention of changing the law - they just saw it as an excuse to slag off men.

So that's Ok - end men only clubs but let's wait to hear the squeals when women-only clubs suffer the same fate. And half of the single-sex golf clubs in the UK are women-only.

Posted by Skimmington

PS Janice Atkinson in the Express is very sound

 

WILL HYPOCRITE MARIA MILLER MP, MINISTER FOR EQUALITIES, BAN WOMEN-ONLY CLUBS, SWIMMING AND RACE FOR LIFE?

Maria Miller MP, the Minister for Equalities (as long as you are not a man), will not be turning up to the British Open Muirfield where the Open will be held is a men-only Members Club. She signalled her intent earlier on.

She has been in the papers again about it after he opening salvo a little while ago, backed by Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond (and here). According to the Express there are more women-only clubs than men's as one proves.

Obviously, over the past three months this has stirred up a hornets nest of hypocrisy. The Guardian leads the way as you would expect (Ewan Murray, Marina Hyde, Editorial, Kevin McKenna) along with The Independent (Kevin Garside).

The hypocrisy of these commentators, Salmond and MIller is that nowhere do they call for the ending of women-only golf clubs, gymnasiums, swimming lessons (will Miller publicly support Peter Lloyd and tell these to stop).

Will Miller and Co, tell Cancer Research that their sexist ban on Race for Life must end - sexism that occurs 230 times a year according to their website?

And what about the Girl Guides, the Women's Institute or any of these clubs?

The real issue here, in addition to the hypocrisy, is that it another excuse to demonise men. One minute its banknotes (despite the fact that every banknote has a women on it - The Queen), now its golf, then it'll be female presenters (oops done that) etc. It is the Feminist Mccarthyism that sees discrimination lurking everywhere - except when it happens to men.

Posted by Skimmington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shame on Broadway for their sexism.

Posted by Skimmington

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