The Rights Of Man

ANOTHER ANTI-MALE MYTH IS UNDERMINED - HOUSEWORK AND CHILDCARE

One of the stars who stands up for men (and women) and brings an injection of academic common sense and realism in the fight for equality and honest debate is Dr Catherine Hakim at the LSE. She really lays into the myth-making of the feminists.

She has been outspoken before on the Equality Act and speaks sense on the gender pay gap.

This week she published a report in Renewal (press release and report), a journal for social democracy, where she said that:

"Feminists are wrong to claim that men should do a larger share of the housework and childcare because on average, men and women already do the same number of hours of productive work. In fact, if we consider the hours spent doing both paid work and unpaid household, care and voluntary work together, men already do more than their fair share..."

and also as keen by this case, she says that:

"Furthermore, there is evidence that men are beginning to demand the same options and choices as women, with more claims of sex discrimination from men. Policy makers need to be aiming for gender-neutral policies that cater for all three main lifestyle choices..."

The importance of this report cannot be said enough.

Not just because it shatters another of the anti-male myths used by feminists to beat down men by suggesting they are slackers leaving women to work and then do all the housework while they skive off down the pub, it also highlights the choice that women make. This is the cause of the gender pay gap not discrimination which is what Flint, Harman and the Fawcett Society think.

Lastly, what is great about this report is that it is written by a women.

It shouldn't matter of course but if it had been written by a man, the report would have been ignored, condemned and patronised with the "he would say that would't he?" nonsense.

Posted by Skimmington

Media Coverage - Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph plus Neil Lyndon in the Telegraph

SWIMMING DISCRIMINATION IN SALE (UPDATE) - CAN YOU HELP?

One of the most popular recent posts was the issue of the discrimination against men at Sale Leisure Centre.

The author of the post (Carl) recently added an update and in case it gets lost as issues come up thick and fast please see his message below. Can you help (post below)?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Guys, thanks for your posts to date.

I'm currently in the very early stages of requesting information from Trafford Leisure Trust with a view to taking legal action against them.

I will continue to view the site and hopefully garner help and advice from you all. At some stage, I will be looking to involve the national press (Daily Mail or The Express) in this.

I am looking for a ballsy solicitor to take me on with this. Anyone know who might be up for a fight that could end up on the 6 o'clock news in about 6 months time outside the High Court?

Surely there has to be a Solicitor out there who feels the way I do about this, and wants to use their skill in taking this Leisure Trust apart, bit by bit?

This could be a very sweet victory for true equality with the right brief in my corner.

I just need some quality help guys, but I'm a man of limited means.

THERESA MAY'S LEAKED LETTER SHOWS MEN STILL SECOND CLASS

There is always the hope that when a new Government comes in, things may change, the site certainly hoped so. However, we have already had the bringing forward of the state retirement age for men, then the backtracking on the rape anonymity issue and now we have been shown the true colours of Theresa May, the Minister for Women and Equalities.

The Guardian revealed today that Theresa May had written to the Chancellor George Osborne before he gave his Emergency Budget to warn him that it could break equality laws. How so?

Well, under the Gender Equality Duty, when policies are formed they must take into account the impact they have on the differing groups in society. However, accriodng to Theresa May, one group which makes up 49% of the population does not count, can you guess who?

In her letter she contends that because of cuts in public spending, there were real risks that women, the disabled, the elderly and those from an ethnic background would be disproportionately affected. Also she said that women are employed in public services and also use them more, they could be disproportionately affected.

Once again, what this shows is that the Government, whether blue/yellow or red not only does not count men as equals (not withstanding that some men obviously fall into these groups but certainly not white men/boys) but also do not even given an iota of thought to the wrongful generalisations they make.

(1) There is the assumption that all men and women should be just lumped into their politically correct defined tick boxes and that all those in the boxes are the same and have more advantages/disadvantages than those in the other box.

If a part of the public sector is cut and job losses ensue then it depends on where those cuts are (it could be a male dominated area as much as a female one - the police service and armed forces are undergoing large cuts but the NHS which is female dominated is ring-fenced!), plus it is about individuals not gender.

If a man loses a job it is of equal tragedy as a woman losing her job. May suggests not, she suggests that a women losing her job is more of a tragedy than a man losing his job.

May also makes the common but fatal assumption that men and women live in isolation. If a woman loses her job in the public sector, it will also affect any husband/boyfriends/son/father she has.

(2)  May says that because women use public services more, then cuts will affect them more. Baloney.

Firstly, I come back to the false assumption. If a woman uses health care for herself or takes her children to the doctors, is May saying that the man is not affected if his children/wife/parneter/sister are suffering from health cuts.

The same applies to education, cuts on schools means cuts in services for children and the last time I checked children had fathers as well as mothers. Plus, as boys are so far behind girls now educationally, any cuts will affect boys!

Also there will be plenty more examples as well.

(3) This is the most concerning.

What May is effectively doing in a Harmanesque way, is to pressurise Osborne to skew his Budget towards cutting services and jobs in male dominated parts of the public sector to 'even things up' if you like.

Essentially if you cut services or jobs in a female dominated area, then you need to do the same in a male dominated area (of course she again makes the false assumption that if a man loses his job it does not affect any woman that he shares his life with).

This is pure tokenism and special pleading and once again men are at the bottom of the heap. They are not an equality group, they are to be treated as second class victims of the cuts in jobs and public services. Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.

Posted by Skimmington

WHAT PARENT WOULD SEND THEIR SON TO ACLE HIGH SCHOOL?

So many big issues to write about, so little time, but just in case anyone missed this I couldn't let this go.

Headteacher Tim Phillips, at Acle High School in Great Yarmouth decided that none of the boys were good enough to fill the Head Boy or Deputy Head Boy positions so put girls in those places. It means that the positions allocated to Head Boys/Girls and the Deputy Head positions are all filled by girls.

As can be seen by the comments in the Daily Mail and also in the piece itself, there is much disdain for this position.

Obviously Tim Phillips thinks it is OK to mock boys (all the boys at this school will be a laughing stock) based on his own "judgement" and thinks there is nothing wrong in doing so. No wonder boys lose confidence in their ability when they mocked and undermined in such a way. The man obviously thinks he is some sort of tough guy when really his decision just damages people. No boy at that school will have any respect for him, bet they can't wait to leave school.

The key issue is firstly, no parent with a son in their right mind would send him to that school if he remains headteacher. He thinks they are rubbish and is happy to publicly say so.

Secondly, would Phillips ever think of doing the same the other way 'round. That is, if no girls were good enough in his laughable mind, would he put four boys into these positions? Of course not and of course if he did, the Equalities Commission, the Fawcett Society and Guardian/BBC would be all over him.

So angry...

Posted by Skimmington

He has tried to backtrack but still does not accept his wrong (Eastern Daily Press) 

NSPCC ADVERT "EMILY'S CALL" BETRAYS FATHERS, GIRLS AND THEIR OWN CHILDLINE FACTS

Before reading further, please watch this new NSPCC advert (courtesy of You tube) called Emily's Call and produced by RAPP.

A common theme in the gender and sexual discrimination that men face in the UK is the stereotyping they face in the media and especially in marketing and advertising (Pink and MFI and explained in a cracking Daily Mail column).

Not just in the "men are stupid, throw rocks at them" type of way but in the way that myths are perpetuated and become the accepted truth (if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth) even if the facts are different.

So what is wrong with the NSPCC advert?

Simple.

Last year the NSPCC published research (covered on the site a year ago) that showed that girls who had rung its Childline had said they were more likely to be a victim of physical abuse from their mothers than their fathers. In fact, girls said that 37% of perpetrators were mothers and 25% fathers.

Or another way, for every five calls from girls about physical abuse, three said they had been physically abused by their mother and two by their father.

The report  said (page 10) "it can therefore be concluded that the children who call the Childline are most commonly phycially abused by a parent of the same gender."

To repeat, the NSPCC's own figures show that a girl is more likely to be physically abused by her mother than by her father.

But does the advert leave you with that impression? Of course not.

If the NSPCC advert was to more accurately portray a typical telephone call from a physically abused girl called Emily or portray the more likely scenario, the advert would be based on a call saying it was her mother that was hitting her.

But that wouldn't tug on the emotional heart strings as the NSPCC campaign wants to create maximum stress so it can raise more money. It would also go against the stereotypes and myths that society has about men and fathers and it is easier and less controversial (even if factually inaccurate) for the NSPCC to play along with that rather than worry about its own facts and experience (the NSPCC were probably worried about the Fawcett Society ranting to them as well).

The NSPCC is not concerned about wrongly portraying fathers, demonising men and reinforcing a stereotype/myth that its own figures have shown to be wrong. It is not interested in the truth.

In the war against men and the need to raise money, who cares about running hypocritical, misleading advertising campaigns. The NSPCC hypocrites certainly don't. It lets the poor girls who call down as well as it misleads people into thinking that fathers are more likely to commit physical abuse on them when its wrong.

Complaints about the advertisement should be made to the Advertising Standards Authority as the advert is misleading.

We look forward to them running a reciprocal though equally factually wrong advert called "Edward's call" about a boy being physically abused by his mother.Thought not.

Posted by Skimmington

CANCER RESEARCH UK IN SEXISM COVER UP

Previously this blog covered Cancer Research's sexist Race for Life fund-raising event exposing why such discrimination is so wrong. As esteemed author Brian Clegg stated so eloquently  when discussing the subjects: "just because it's for a good cause doesn't justify discrimination".

Dissatisfaction with the antics of Cancer Research UK is becoming increasing widespread, a quick search on Google shows just how many people are concerned about their sex discrimination against men. Protest videos are even to be found on Youtube and it appears that all this pressure is finally starting to have an effect.

Firstly it has emerged that CRUK are now attempting to hide the inherently sexist nature of Race for Life. For example their recent press adverts now neglect to mention that men are barred from participating in the event. Luckily there are laws against misleading adverting such as this, and I can exclusively reveal that veteran men's rights campaigner John Taylor (with a little help from this blog) successfully forced the organisation to stop producing misleading adverts via the Adverting Standards Authority. If readers of the blog could keep an eye on future Race for Life publicity for any misleading information I'm sure John would appreciate it.

A second change in the strategy of Cancer Research UK seems to be their attempt to censor information about Race for Life sexism from the internet. The Wikipedia article on the subject previously gave an excellent and balanced summary of the issue and the history of Race for Life. However, recent unnamed edits removed information such as how the event was initially only concerned with female cancers and how CRUK responded to criticisms of sexism. It has now become apparent that these edits were made from CRUK's own offices and rather ironically, they even removed links to their own press release about how men have a "significantly greater" risk of cancer and higher mortality rates!

It's often claimed the organisation neglects men, but to go so far as deleting such mentions of men's suffering is almost beyond belief and such edits are a clear breach of Wikipedia rules on Conflicts of Interest. CRUK's misleading adverting could possibly have been considered to be an oversight, but the Wikipedia censorship places the issue in a whole new light.

We place a great deal of importance on fairness and honesty on this blog so it should be noted that CRUK is far from the only UK cancer or health organisation giving vastly disproportionate attention to women. The Macmillian cancer charity has been equally guilty in neglecting prostate cancer though I'm not aware of any obvious or systematic discrimination in terms of banning men from most fund-raising activities.

As a charity relying on people's generous donations and goodwill, CRUK has a duty to be open and honest about what it does. These donations fund the misleading adverts and the salaries of the CRUK employee's censoring Wikipedia. Surely it would be much cheaper and easier (not to mention fairer) to have fund-raising events open to everyone instead of banning every single male in the country from most event? There would certainly be less of a need for a cover up. Either way, it's becoming apparent that pressure on the charity is barring fruit and one has to wonder for how much longer their position can remain tenable.

by John Kimble

COALITION GOVERNMENT LOOK LIKE CHICKENING OUT OVER RAPE ANONYMITY

Just as many on this site worried about, the Sunday Telegraph reports that there will be no legislation on anonymity up and until charge (which is worthless anyway) let alone until conviction. They are looking at some sort of fudge involving a "Gentlemen's agreement" for newspapers and bloggers not to report names until charge. Pathetic.

Looks like they have chosen to cower in the corner against the onslaught of the Marxist feminists who want men to be secondbest and not equal. Instead of standing up for equal justice, they have run away. This was the first skirmish between the Government and the Marxist feminists and the Marxist feminists have won.

Their victorymeans there is little hope for male equality in the UK, not just because of the decision but because the Coalition Government bottled it. They are chicken.

Posted by Skimmington

MEN'S HOUR REVIEW

Having flagged up and now listened to Men's Hour, I would give it 4/10.

The show was self deprecating which can be OK if done properly but kept using Women's Hour and women as a reference point (even having the presenter of Women's Hour) which it should not have done. It just did not take it itself serious enough.

Also the presenter did not have enough energy. It also didn't really tackle enough topic and issues that men face. It had former Home Secretary Alan Johnson on and his life story was interesting but he needed to be asked about men's issues and how men's issue were not taken seriously by Government.

It is a missed opportunity but maybe it will improve.

Comments please.

Posted by Skimmington

Other reviews - BBC, Independent, Telegraph, The Guardian

A moan from Jan Moir (Daily Mail) before

UPDATE ON DEFEATING THE BAN ON MEN SWIMMING

One of the most popular posts recently was prompted by Mr C who had been barred from going to Sale Liesure Centre becuase he was a man.

John Wallace also faced the same situation and he has kindly sent in how he tackled the problem, which is available here Download Women Only Swimming Sessions.

Posted by Skimmington

JOEL EDWARD'S PATHETIC RANT AGAINST MEN ON "THOUGHT FOR THE DAY"

On going to work on Thursday, I always tune into Radio 4's Today programme and always listen to the Thought of the Day.

But after hearing a pathetic and abject anti-male rant from Joel Edwards from the Evangelical Alliance, people wondered why I was so miserable all day. Did he actually read the article by Hanna Rosin (this is well worth reading) and think about what is happening to men in this country or did he just read miserable response from Christina Patterson in the Independent.

Why does the BBC continue to allow this anti-male propaganda to be broadcast unchallenged, just as we say on the issue of Men's Hour? If it was a rant about a women, they'd be banned but rants against men are OK according to the BBC.

Posted by Skimmington

Hattip - Alan