The Rights Of Man

EQUALISATION OF STATE PENSION AGES AFTER 70 YEARS OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN IS STILL ATTACKED

Amongst the voluminous coverage, announcements and suchlike from yesterday's Comprehensive Spending Review  (CSR) was the announcement that the state pension age for men and women would be equalised at 66 from 2020, rather than 66 for men from 2016 (as previously suggested by the Coalition Government in Opposition and in power) and 66 for women in 2020 as had been suggested in June's Budget. Equalisation at 65 will take place in November 2018.

This was an increase from the last Government's plans to make the state pension age 66 in 2024 and 65 for both genders in 2020 (are you still following?).

It was due to the sterling work of Parity that we have equalisation at all otherwise the five year sexist gap would still be with us in the future rather than just today.

There are a number of important issues here.

Firstly, this site raised the issue that the move (as did Parity again) would be sexist against men and it looks as though the Government has also realised that if it went ahead it would be subject to legal challenge by increasing the gap between men and women's retirement age from five years to six. Sites like this help raise these issues because anyone researching it would have read the post.

Secondly, when a move like this which has greater implications for women than men, draws all the anti-male sexists out of the woodwork.

Anti-male in that they never complained about the blatant discrimination that has meant men have a retirement age five years shorter than women (even though men lives are shorter) for decades and they never publicly complained when it was mooted that male retirement age should be brought forward to 66 in 2016 without any commensurate change to a women's retirement age.

Step forward our friend Ceri Goddard at the Fawcett Society for a particularly frenzied rant about this and also other issues raised the CSR. The recession, of which the budget cuts are a symptom, decimated male employment in the private sector but not a peep from Goddard about that even though it would have affected wives, partners, daughters etc. A theme we have picked up before.  Honestly, if you were a man in Fawcett Towers when George Osborne was speaking yesterday you'd have to run to the hills!

Others came out of the woodwork as well, who glibly 'accepted' that previous plans were more harmful to men as this statement by the Saga Group shows. 

Dr Ros Altmann, the director general then astoundingly has the nerve to let fly by stating that "Women ar bearing the brunt of the changes. Pension policy always seems to be made by men for men. Women are being sent a simple message - keep on working. That's what the Government's announcement means."

Since 1948, state pension has been paid to women at 60 and men at 65, it is only in 2018 that this injustice against men will be rectified, some 70 years later. And Altmann says pension policy is always against women. Unbelievable. I wonder what the male members of Saga think of her 'balanced' statement.

A good look at this and other issues about the effect on the genders was produced by Mark Easton of the BBC.

Psoted by Skimmington

Update - Read this inexplicable and laughable rant in the Daily Mail and then read the comments section. Many men are pointing the that women wanted equality - now theyhave got!!

MORE RECOGNITION ON THE PLIGHT OF BOYS IN BRITISH SCHOOLS - BUT IS IT GROUNDHOG DAY?

The lack of male teachers has always been a strong theme here, an issue ignored for too long by policymakers who want to do nothing that could be seen as being helpful to men/boys.

This has left a dearth of male role models in school especially at a primary level, even more serious if after is not in the home (barred by the family courts/CSA as much as anything else) and has made some contribution to the continuing problem of boys falling way behind girls at school.

The lack of male teachers has not been helped by the "all men are potential paedophiles" atmosphere we live in. So much so that 25% of primary schools (4,700) do not have a male teacher.

The latest GSCE results show the damage done to two generations of boys education when exam-based O-levels (boy friendly because of their pressurised and competitive nature) were replaced with coursework and continuous assessment (girl friendly) and will still take decades to close (check out the amazingly warped last para in this Guardian article!). Boys are ahead/level at maths but way behind girls at English at 11 (Telegraph, Guardian, Daily Mail)

However, there is change on the horizon to ensure another generation of boys are not blighted by an education system that does not meet their needs thereby relegating them to second class status.

Firstly, there is a report by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission due to be published tomorrow which highlights the gender gap. It will be an interesting read especially in what it proposes in the support for boys because the Commission is notoriously anti-male and has done nothing in its three year existence to highlight or take action on discrimination against men and boys.

Secondly, the AQA exam board will offer only exam-based GCSE's, at last giving parents of boys the opportunity and choice on an exam system that suits their sons, rather than have to put up with an exam-system that only favours girls (girls and boys should be able to choose exam boards so they can sit courses that suit their relative strengths).

Thirdly, there are groups like this trying to attact more male teachers into primary schools and that there is more proactive studies (Standard, Independent, PA) and suggestions being put in place, rather than as previously seeing the problem and then not bothering to do anything about it (move along Harriet, there is nothing to see here).

Lastly, there was this cracking show (Gareth Malone's Extraordinary School for Boys) on the BBC about how to get boys re-engaged with education. What was the magic formula, er..., allow boys to act like boys.

Perhaps some progress will start to be made, maybe the change in Government has meant people are no longer scared to look at it without being hounded, but we cannot afford to see another generation of boys being left behind.

Posted by Skimmington

   

 

 

IN THE NAME OF EQUALITY - SCRAP THE GOVERNMENT EQUALITIES OFFICE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE SPENDING REVIEW

Last week the BBC obtained a Government leak highlighting what Government department and quangos were for the chop in the coming Comprehensive Spending Review. In itself it is a fascinating list but it is worthwhile as ever to look a bit closer.

Page 11 shows that the Women's National Commission is to be abolished and its functions brought into the perversely named, Government Equalities Office (a body that costs UK taxpayers a whopping £69 million per year). Perversely, in that, it has no interest in the equal rights of men who make up 49% of the British population.

Set up in 1969 it says it provides a unique and independent voice working on women's equality with a specvial role to fulfil and an important remit with the UK's equality framework. As a non-departmental public body it is funded by the taxpayer (£661,000 - see last answer) but can speak freely. The home of their site shows arch-feminist Baroness Gould  plead with the Government not to scrap it.

That would be equality of course because there is no Men's National Commission being funded by the taxpayer and supported by a Government Department. It will go underground, the work will continue but not in the open.

However, the body's functions will be transferred remember so do not get out the bunting quite yet.

Another interesting aside is that the infamous women's rights anti-male charity, the Fawcett Society, has not issued one  missive or press release crying about the proposal. Why so, when if anyone suggests anything that could potentially have a negative effect on a woman, this August organisation is 'manning' the barricades and issuing press releases and missives all over the airwaves. Could it be that of the Women's National Commission is scrapped they can lay their hands on the title of being the UK's leading organisation giving voice to women. Of course it is, they have seen a vacuum and want to take the Commission's place. That's why there is silence. They cannot fool us!

On the same list obtained by the BBC, the fate of the other perversely named Equalities and Human Rights Commission has yet to be decided. Costing £60 million per year (2008/09), this organisation which combines the former Disabled, Race and Equal Opportunities Commissionsdoes nothing to support men. All of its campaigns on gender are about women (even on the recent Budget when it complained it would hit women - but no mention of how the recession in the private sector hit men the hardest) and is another public body guilty of sexual discrimination against by omission.

 Every gender issue is always about men having power over women and making their lives a misery. There is never a study onto boys education, the lack of monies for male cancers, suicide rates, domestic violence (they told the ManKind Initiative to bugger off) or even the family courts (the Ministry of Justice admit men and grandparents think their is a problem yet the Equalities Commission you nothing, not even a squeak).

It forgets men (and boys) exist even though it believes we are equal. We have run so many stories about their inadequacy they have their own content list and were slammed by a Select Committee earlier this year. It could have been a useful organisation but it does not care about men.

While it is welcome news that the WNC is going and would be great if the Equalities Commission went for a Burton, there remains the concern that there would still remain a Government Equlaities Office.

It says that it employs 100 people and that it 'takes a lead on issues relating to women, sexual orientation and transgender equalities matters.' Read it again.

The Governments's Equalities Office does not believe that equality covers men as well. To make matters worse, this is not something that has been investigated it is there proud as punch on the home page of their website (only one of the six people featured on its home page is a male).

The hypocrisy continues as it's board of ten only has three men, it employs 65% women and it has a gender pay gap of -7.7%. This is no typo, because women are paid on average 7.7% more than men in the department it is classed as a negative pay gap because to them all pay gaps are about men being paid more than women. Classic Orwell.

There is no point in closing the Women's National Commission and the Equailities and Human Rights Commission if the Government's Equalities Office is not scrapped either. It is as anti-male as the other two bodies and none have an interest in applying the concept of equality to men. 

Go on Osborne and the Coalition, if you truly believe in equality you will scarp all three. That would be equality in its truest sense. 

Posted by Skimmington

EQUAL TREATMENT BOOK - THE MOST ANTI-MALE ANTI-EQUALITY BOOK IN BRITISH JUDICIAL HISTORY?

The one thing those of us cling on to when fighting the battle against the war on men is that we are equal before the law.

Now we know that is not the case where all sorts of positive discrimination clauses kick in, the bias of CAFCASS and magistrates and judges of fathers in the family courts and how male victims of domestic abuse are still treated poorly. However, it is still something to cling on to.

Sometimes, the game is up and there is no escape from the unbridled anti-male society we live and this now goes right to the heart of the British Justice system.

As revealed by the Daily Mail (also read comments), the English and Welsh judiciary have produced guidance that discirmates against men. The guidance laughably called the Equal Treatment Bench Book sets out how judges should deal with those that come before them. It says:

 "Its aim is to inform, assist and guide, to generate thought and discussion and, ultimately, to enable all judges to deal confidently, sensitively and fairly with all those who appear before them."

It was published in April 2010 before the new Coalition Government took over. It has the fingerprints of Harman, Baird and Flint stamped all over it.

The section on gender equality is unbelievably biased, it is almost as though men do not exist and where they do, they are so superior to women that only women need support and men do not. In all my years beavering away in this area, there has never been a more nasty, one-sided, anti-male document produced by any part of the state than this.

There is no mention of the problems that boys have with education, suicide, unemployment, teh denial of equal/shared parenting etc. It is the most classic example of anti-male bias by omission.

It does not explicitly say that men should not be treated as second class citizens, but by hardly including men anywhere in the document and calling for special treatment for women, then by definition it is anti-male. Anti-male by omission.  

On the issue of sentencing (6-11 to 6-13)  it makes clear that women should be given special treatment and that judges should bear in mind the problems that female prisoners have. That's fine, but no mention of male prisoners. Women can be shown leniency because of the factors that affect them, but men cannot.

ON the issue of domestic abuse (6.1.7), men are relegated to a footnote - second class victims as the ManKind Initiative said in the Daily Mail. They laughable anti-male authors of this report even use one-sided statistics from End Violence Against Women when they do not even use the British Crime Survey figures produced from the Home Office (see ManKind document), another part of Government. They know no shame.

If men cannot now rely on equal justice, equal treatment and equal recognition from the judiciary then there is no hope for equality for men at all. This is the most anti-male biased document probably ever. 

Posted by Skimmington

AUGUST ARTICLE SUMMARY

Been away so sorry for the lack of posts, anyhow, here are a few issues that have come up lately which should be shared:

General

Men's Hour - BBC Radio 5

Men's Matters - Express FM (scroll down)

Daily Telegraph - Feminism, forget it, sisters (by Neil Lydon)

The Spectator - The death of the male working class (by Fraser Nelson)

Domestic Abuse

Northern Echo - Women jailed for stab attack on ex-boyfriend

Dorset Echo - Weymouth councillor on assault charge (oh the irony)

Irish Times - Hypocrisy over ability to be hypocrites (by Padriag O'Moran)

Medical News Today - Counsellors struggle to treat male victims

The Herald - Male abuse victims face extra barriers

Scotsman - Male victim tells of decade of abuse

Scotsman - Council accused of ignoring male victims

False accusations

Daily Telegraph - Britons trapped in false rape sting

Daily Record - Boxer's son released

BBC Dorset - Warning after Bournemouth woman jailed

Scotsman - Father wrongly accused in flawed abuse inquiry

BBC Norfolk - False rape mother is jailed

If Caroline Flint & Co say there isn't a problem, why is it that every week a woman is jailed for making false accusations!

Employment

Daily Mail - Work experience at Foreign Office: Not if you're a white middle class male

Daily Telegraph - Debt 'Men are new underclass'

Mixed-sex wards and health

Daily Telegraph - Government announced the end of mixed sex wards

An issue raised some timeago as the last Government promised it way back in 1997!

Pfizer - Man MOT

This is a brilliant initiative by Pfizer

Education

European Union - Study into gender inequality in education

Why is the EU having to do this when the UK Government should have done it years ago, but even Gove, the new Education Minister is not bothering. 

Politics

BBC - Harman wants half of Shadow Cabinet to be women

 

 

WHY CAN'T CANCER RESEARCH COPY IRELAND'S MEN'S HEALTH FORUM

 

In a variation on Cancer Research UK's discriminatory Run For Life event the Men’s Health Forum Ireland is drawing attention to the need for focus on men’s health needs through runs for men, and women willing to dress as men! A fun idea to highlight the issues and raise money. Happening in September the Forum seems, with these runs, to have combined the idea of raising the issues and money without a blanket exclusion policy.

Meanwhile last year Cancer Research UK published the results of the most comprehensive research into the risks and treatment of all major cancers. The results shocked the researchers themselves.

 

Men are 70% more likely to die of cancers that are not sex specific (and 40% more likely if all cancers are included). Though such research indicates that many lives would be saved if there is little in the way of  action. CRUK in their own research establish men are more likely to contract all forms of cancer (apart from those specific to sex) and very much more likely to die in all apart from Melanomas.

 

However they continue to wriggle and squirm to avoid an inclusive approach to their Runs for Life. They may be correct that many men would prefer to do more challenging fundraising events, but why exclude those who do want to participate? Even better how about picking up the idea from Ireland to highlight men’s need for earlier diagnosis and treatment?

 

Posted by Adrian Ashby

 

Coverage of CR UK reseaerch is here - Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Telegraph and BBC

 

Editor's Note - Please read this article about John Taylor's fight for equality in the Yorkshire Press

 

 

EQUALITY FOR MEN VICTORY AS BRITISH AIRWAYS CLIMB DOWNS ON ITS SEXIST POLICY

As covered comprehensively on the site (and here and here) and rightly a cause celebre for anyone who believes that equality should also apply to men, British Airways had a policy which stopped a man from sitting next to a child unless he was their father. 

After suffering from this sexual discrimination (the policy did not apply to women) Mirko Fischer won a court case at Swindon County Court after he has was told by British Airways to move from his seat. It also forced British Airways to review its policies.

The Sunday Telegraph reports that British Airways has now changed its policy and dropped this discrimination.

This is a clear victory for male equality campaigners and shows what can be done as many have written and called BA to keep the pressure on. The policy probably would not have changed though without Mirko Fischer winning his court case so as well as male equality campaigners keeping the pressure up, sites like and others disseminating information there is a need for men to challenge issues through the courts.

This is glib as men are not backed by or supported by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission or has a vociferous and well funded group (including by the public sector) organisation like the anti-male Fawcett Society (though they will have been screwed by their pathetic and ridiculous challenge to the Governement's Budget).

Putting that aside the equality legisiation is therefore of men and women.

On other issue is something that has been seen before (the MFI advert was a classic example) is the fact British Airways does not show any sign of remorse that it operated a sexist policy. It hides behind jargonese but does not say sorry, that is shameful and speaks volumes.

Now it is just Qantas that has such a sexist policy. 

Posted by Skimmington

UPDATE: EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN

As things have been really busy the past four months or so, the next week few weeks will see interspersed with the usual commentary a list of articles on similar topics which then can be discussed.

Preferably it is better to have some commentary in the posts themselves but time is of the essence and it is better that the articles etc are shared rather than being overlooked because of time then not at all.

The first ones are on some employment related issues (not including the Equality Act which will be dealt with at a later date).

Useless Jobless Men by Camila Cavendish (The Times)

Debt - Men are emerging as the new underclass (Daily Telegraph)

Equality payout for female cleaners in Birminghamby Jamie Doward (The Observer)

The issue with the above is whether or not it also applies to male cleaners as well as female cleaners as well as other types of similar jobs wher ethe issue was apllied for females. If you remember this was an issue from last year where the sexist councils of Middlesbrough, Hartleppol and South Tyneside had to be taken to court so that men could be granted equal treatment.

South Tyneside were going to appeal. Love to find out if this decision also applied to male cleaners and whetehr South Tyneside appealed or not?

Sacked lawyer wins sex discrimination case (Yorkshire Evening Post)

Unemployment rate far higher for male graduates than female graduates (Higher Education Policy Institute) and Guardian article

Work experience at the Foreign Office? Not if you are a white middle class male by Brendan Carlin (Daily Mail)

Have we missed any employment related discrimination stories?

Posted by Skimmington

THE FEMINIST WORLDVIEW AT THE BBC

Well, it's my first real go at blogging and, as is probably usual in these situations, I kind of feel it has been thrust upon me by circumstances more than anything else.

The story started a few weeks ago, where on a long car journey home from work I happened upon the views of one Lynne Franks, as she was asked for her impression of "Men's Hour", an experimental show for men that pitched itself (no joke) as "Women's Hour's cheeky younger brother". Lynne was asked her opinion of whether the show was necessary and worthwhile, and proceeded to heap scorn on both the show, and the notion that men as a group might find more media attention helpful.

After spending the remainder of the drive quietly seething to myself, as soon as I got home I wrote an indignant email to the feedback section of the show - the full text of which you can find here.

I got what I would call a cursory response; more intrigued as to why I might possibly have anything to complain about than, well, appreciating and understanding the complaint and perhaps even (gasp) apologising for the broadcast.

After returning from my holidays last week there was something more promising: an email from the BBC's iPM programme, which deals with listener feedback. They were planning a "Men's Hour" version of iPM, including interviews with a man who survived breast cancer, and a man who ran a 'domestic violence unit', in their words "...a field so dominated by women that he has very interesting things to say about how his co-workers view him and the effect on his own masculinity." This is a very interesting choice of words, and one that I will return to before I finish the article.

A brief phone call followed who, to the production team’s credit, were very enthusiastic and eager to have my feedback and input into the show. I had a real hope that this show might be worth listening to, and really raise men's issues, from a men's perspective.

You can hear the full broadcast here, if you are in the UK and until Saturday I believe.

So what did I think?

A brave but severely misguided attempt.

The piece on male breast cancer was very interesting - John Nestor tells the story of his experiences being treated for the cancer, alongside his late wife. But why no mention of the disgusting 'Race for Life'? This would seem extremely relevant to the story, especially as it is yet another example of blatant apartheid against men. The "men's issue" here should have been Race for Life, as well as the lack of funding for male cancers, not just the occasional breast cancer case within men.

The piece on domestic violence was a vivid reminder of just why we need a men's rights movement. I guess I should have been forewarned by the intro piece at the beginning of the show: "..dedicated to the things men do, like domestic violence".

Then Simon Currs 'Domestic abuse partnership manager' from Cambridgeshire came on and was if anything as sad to listen to as Lynne Franks. This guy not only has significant mistrust towards the male gender as a gender, he has been so programmed during his 'training back in 2002' that he considers domestic violence to be a gender crime. This flies in the face of the a comprehensive study by California State University, which examined 275 'scholarly investigations', and concluded that "women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners". So why does Simon describe DA as a gender crime? You can get some hints from his comments about the 'King of the castle' character that he goes on to describe:

"I wasn't sure of the history and dynamics of domestic abuse, really and fully until I undertook some training back in 2002, based around an individual called the 'dominator', a male individual who exhibits certain abusive characteristics. The idea of this 'dominator' really made me look at myself, my use of language, the way I conduct myself, the beliefs I have, and certainly, at some level, the character of the 'dominator' is exhibited by all men.

"'The king of the castle'; I'm sure you'll recognise the stereotype.

"He has his own chair at home, sits with the remote control on the arm of the chair and a beer in the other and scratching... his balls, if you like. I know its a bit of a stretch to get from that type of individual to an abusive personality, but its indicative of the types of behaviours that all men exhibit - I certainly do it..

"That is me acting in my capacity as king of the castle."

Er... what!?

Having a favourite chair, drinking a beer, using a remote control, and scratching your balls are all signs of a potential abuser? A good editor could have cut this right down to the words 'x chromosome'. So wait a minute… if a woman has a favourite chair, drinks wine while watching TV and using a remote control (gasp), and occasionally adjusts her bra strap, should she be on the watch list? Or is this just another way for feminists to basically describe men as evil, by their very nature?

This is why I know that Simon Currs is a feminist. He views all males with distrust, including himself, and 'realises' that deep down inside, every man has domestic abuser traits just waiting to come out. I suspect that the 'training' he undertook in 2002 was in fact simply feminist brainwashing.

In short, Simon Currs is the last person we should be hearing from on a show broadcast to publicise 'men's issues'. A domestic violence feature from a 'men's perspective' should feature the severe under-reporting of domestic violence against men (briefly mentioned, admittedly), but then feature details of shelters for men, men's stories about abuse they have suffered, the reaction they got and the support, if any, when they reported it. It should also mention the fact that for every pound spent on DA shelters and support for men, three and a half grand is spent on women. Simon says that, in Cambridgeshire, the ratio of men to women reporting DA is 15% / 85%. Even if this is correct (which is doubtful), why, on average, do female DA victims get 99.97% of the funding?

The answer is simple. There is a gender crime being committed, and it isn't Domestic Abuse against women, it is the ignorance of the needs of male victims.

So, to summarise. To the BBC, thanks for the effort, but no thanks. All you have done here is to demonstrate what you think are 'men's issues', and to frame them through the feminist weltanschauung lens of the Beeb.

I see this time and time again from the BBC. Here is the most recent example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10826350

Can you see where you went wrong there? I sincerely hope so.

 

Posted by Jon Horridge

COALITION'S NEW PUBLIC BODY ASPIRATION HEAPS ON MORE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN

As each day goes by the Coalition Government is exhibiting more and more of the Marxist feminist anti-male traits of its predecessor. As set out here it is backtracking on equality issues all the time extinguishing any hope that men will no longer be treated as second class citizens.

Last week, the Coalition Government announced that it had aspirations on the following:

1. By the end of the Parliament at least half of all new appointees being made to the boards of public bodies will be women

2.Business Minister Edward Davey and Lynne Featherstone, Minister for Equalities, have today announced that Lord Davies of Abersoch will develop a business strategy to increase the number of women on the boards of listed companies in the UK (covered here and here).

As this site and any one who believes in equality knows, positive action means negative action for someone else and that someone else is always men. This is what makes the Equality Act anything but about equality, when employers can discriminate against people because of their gender (the powers not yet taken by the Governement - interesting)

This of course is no difference to what Harman, Flint, the Fawcett Society and the Equalities Commission wanted before the election. Plus Ca Change.

The Government has tried to couch the policy on public bodies by stating that it will be based on merit. But we all know what happens in the real world of politics behind closed doors.

Good men will be weeded out at the selection process, subtle pressure put on public bodies to meet their target, even non-subtle targets (you'll lose funding if you don't appoint a woman), retiring men being replaced automatically by a women and of course there will be the full blown pressure put on public bodies to toe the line. Now this aspiration has been made, Harman will not let them forget it.

This is not an aspiration, in the real body politic world this is a hard and fast policy and woe betide any public body not meeting it. Because in reality if you have an aspiration you will do all you can to achieve it and if it looks like it is not working you will move heaven and earth to do so, and blow the issues of meritocracy or legality. Has any Government not wanted to meet an aspiration and gear policy both overtly and covertly towards meeting it? Never.

This aspiration is a policy and it is the end of meritocracy. All that matters is your gender, your ability is irrelevant.

Posted by Skimmington

Media Coverage - Telegraph, Independent, Independent