The Rights Of Man

LABOUR'S SEXIST MANIFESTO FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION

Most major parties have now published their manifestos for the 2010 General Election. Over the next week we'll be reviewing the proposals of the various parties analysing any obvious misandry as well as pro gender equality content. Let's start by taking a look at Labour's plans for the next five years.

Given their track record since 1997, not to mention their sexist MPs, and the use of All Women Shortlists, the Labour Party is a almost certainly the most sexist party in Britain. However, for the purpose of this post, lets stick solely to the content of the manifesto as we are going to do with the other parties. The first sign of sexism is their boasts regarding the disastrous Equality Act. This legislation allows employers to discriminate on the basis of gender when recruiting staff instead of choosing the best person for the job. Legalising sex discrimination really isn't a valid method of promoting "fairness across our society" as they claim. The manifesto cites how the Equality Act will increase equality of opportunity when it's actually reducing equality and pushing unfair equal outcomes instead.

Further notable sexism in Labour's manifesto concerns the area of domestic violence. Section 5:3 concerning domestic violence states "we are committed to zero tolerance of violence against women". Whilst such a commitment is impressive, we mustn't forget that Home Office figures show that 40% of domestic violence vicitms are men. It's quite sickening that so many domestic violence vicitms dont' even get the slightest mention, nevermind any sort of commitment to their well-being or deal with their attackers. The party do at least note how domestic violence had fallen by 50%, though unsurprisingly, under New Labour the number of male vicitms bucked the trend and actually risen significantly! Clearly the number of male vicitms is likely to continue to rise under a Labour government given such a willingness to pretend that female perpetrators don't exist.

Perhaps the most offensive part of labour's plans for the next five years is the section titled "Punishment and Reform". On the one hand it talks about giving longer sentences to the most violent and serious offenders, yet the next sentence makes a commitment to  "work to reduce the number of women, young and mentally ill people in prison". Given that violence by females is on of the fastest growing crimes in society and that the number of male domestic violence vicitms is increasing, then surely the two statements are completely contradictory? Further still, given that the police have largely ignored female paedophiles until recently and caught a shamefully small proportion of them, is the party suggesting that raping children isn't a serious crime? A Labour candidate yesterday suggested the Liberal Democrats would be giving the vote to the likes of Vanessa George, yet given the content of the manifesto, presumably his own party is going to go further and release her altogether!

We should note that the policies proposed here aren't just misandric, the manifestos is also extremely offensive and damaging to women. Labour are also lumping in adult females with children and the mentally ill. There's a clear suggestion that women aren't at all equal to men, instead they're some sort of child like and mentally deficient beings, incapable of telling right from wrong and thus immune from punishment. Ending such infantalisation of women would do far more for equality in the workplace than any so called "positive" discrimination or pay audits.

Labour talk about a commitment to "always put the victim first" in criminal cases, yet there's no mention of how they' will protect men form false allegation allegations and put a stop to the deadly consequences of such incredibly serious offences.

In the interests of balance, we should examine any positive aspects of the manifesto in terms of commitments to gender equality. However, having read the documents I saw no mention of the gender education gap, the suicide rate, deaths at work, men's health and poor life expectancy, nor even any mention of equal parenting. It's all very well Labour proposing slightly more time off for fathers, but if they can't actually get to see their kids or if requires the mother's permission then they're basically just rubbing salt into the wound for so many dads. Further still, proposing four week's paternity leave for fathers, and 52 for mothers seems strange at best. The only positive aspects of the document are the recognition of the importance of marriage and that the Family Courts are in need of review. Yet even when talking about issues such as helping parents back to work, they bizarrely continue their misandry by stating the importance of "especially" helping mothers out of poverty.

Rather tellingly, Labour's manifesto doesn't' even restrict misandry to these shores, there's also a commitment to doubling funding to the new UN Women's Agency. I'm not exactly sure what the point of that is as most of the UN tend to be only concerned with the needs of women as it is, even going as far as denying food to male earthquake vicitms. If nothing else this certainly demonstrates quite clearly Labour's contempt for men, not only at home, but abroad too.

PICTURES SHOW THE HYPOCRISY OF ALL-WOMEN SHORTLISTS AND POSITIVE ACTION

Over the past fifteen years, there have been continual complaints from the political establishment about the lack of female MP's. The Labour Party brought in all-women shortlists for parliamentary seats in 1997 (which were ruled as being illegal until they changed the law) and as shown earlier this month, they have used them in 58 seats at this election.

The Conservatives have used A-Lists deliberately full of female candidates at the exclusion of equally qualified male candidates and also used other gender quota tactics to make it harder for men to compete on equal terms as a women. Cameron even hinted at using all-women shortlists but as his tactics were working anyway he didn't need to bother

This has all been supported by the Government, the Fawcett Society, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and even resulted in a Speaker's Conference (a rarely used tool such is the supremacy of the anti-male movement) on the subject wanting to put even more barriers up against allowing men to stand for parliament for a main party thereby disenfranchising them from the political process.

But wait a minute, how we can take many female candidates seriously when they pose for these pictures(Conservative and all parties) - Cameron's Cuties, Brown's Babes, and Clegg's clothes horses.

These female candidates cannot have their cake and eat it. They cannot along with their sisters in the Fawcett Society, Women 2 Win, the Equalities Commission et al go around saying women are discriminated against, they are not treated seriously and do not receive the same credibility as male candidates when they pose for pictures like these. Many of these candidates have benefitted from all-women shortlists, A lIsts and gender quotas all demanding equality (except if you are a man) and then pose like Barbie doll's.

Such is the hypocrisy, one can only feel for those men who have been shut out of the political process by Labour and the Conservatives.

Posted by Skimmington

WHAT ABOUT MAKING GP'S AND THE NHS MORE MEN-FRIENDLY BEFORE BLAMING THEIR STIFF UPPER LIP

Research from Cancer Research UK (an organisation that bans men from its "Race for Life"!!!) and the National Cancer Intelligence Network proclaimed (Daily Mail) that their research showed that men are 70% more likely to die from cancer than women, the usual guff was trotted out that men better mend their ways and lose their stiff upper lip and see their doctor more often.

While accepting that men do smoke and drink more, and there is an issue about men 'just getting on with it' (BBC) so it's likely they will have a higher cancer rate unless that's changed, it is always too easy to just blame men and not look at ways the NHS and GP's should.

Is it that the producer interest (GP's/NHS) could do more to help their customers (men) who through their taxes pay their wages? 

The problem is (and it has been looked at before) is that GP's only tend to be open when men are at work.

More men are in full time work than women, more men work in jobs where there is no flexibility (manual work), more men spend time away from home working and men work longer hours than woman. It is easier for a woman to get to see a GP in the week during working hours than it is for a man.

Therefore, if the NHS/GP's and all those organisations that say men need to do more (except the excellent Men's Health Forum), well how about they do more. How about opening on Saturday's or later in the evening, how about meeting the needs of those who pay their wages and be more flexible.

If any of the parties are serious about men's health in this General Election then this should be a manifesto commitment.

Hattip - Groan

Posted by Skimmington

  

THE WOMEN IN PUBLIC LIFE AWARDS DESCEND INTO FARCE

Margaret Moran - MP of the year? How about Baroness Pola Uddin for Peer of the year?  No this isn't a satirical take on the Parliamentary expenses scandal, instead these were in fact genuine nominations for the 2009 Women in Public Life Awards. Launched in 2007, the event supposedly has the objective of "honouring the great women in public life" yet in reality it's the latest gender feminist inspired scheme to reward undeserving individuals based other gender rather than on actual merit.

There are numerous different categories, with gongs for politicians, civil servants, those in business and in the media. It really doesn't take too much examination of previous winners to see something might be amiss. For a start, there's not only the inclusion of the objectionable Polly Toynbee, but worse still, gender feminist Sandra Horley actually received two awards in one year! In case you aren't aware, Horley is a director of  domestic violence organisation Refuge (read this). She can supposedly spot male abusers just by looking at them, though naturally there's no mention off whether her magical abilities extend to identifying the 40% of abusers of the fairer sex.  Refuge of course refuses to help male domestic violence victims, though Horley is at least honest enough to admit the existence of financial incentives which motivate her organisation in constantly downplaying the number of male domestic violence victims. This ridiculous idea of male and female victims competing for funding goes to show the insanity of her view of domestic violence as a gender issue and anyone deliberately ignoring and belittling such a huge proportion of victims shouldn't be receiving awards for anything.

It wasn't until 2009 that the consequences of all this unfairness really came home to roost. Aside from the fact that another gender feminist won an award in the Fawcett Society's Katherine Rake, there were far more scandalous nominees too. Most significantly it emerged that one of only three allowable nominees for MP of the year was none other than Luton South MP Margaret Moran. Ms Moran, the product of a then illegal all women shortlist, was arguably THE face for the expenses scandal. Her ability to milk the system was incredibly impressive. Whilst other MPs were flipping properties and claiming for second homes, she was way ahead of the game and onto her third house!

Moran's indiscretions are so numerous it's quite frankly hard to list them all. In 2005 there were controversies surrounding her using thousands of pounds of taxpayer funds to send unsolicited letters to constituents just before the election. As well as her second and third home expense claims, there's the issue of milage claims amounting to some 26,028 miles, even though she lives 32 miles form Parliament. Moran has supposedly been too ill to attend the Commons for the best part of a year now, yet Channel 4 caught her touting for lobbying work in a sting operation with Moran claiming to have access to a "girl's gang" of MPs who could help a fictions company. She's barred from standing for Labour at the next election, and as a result of the latest lobbying scandal she's even suspended form the Labour party itself! As of April 2nd Moran still hadn't repaid the monies she owes from the expenses scandal.

There are also various controversies surrounding the company "eQuality Networks" with Moran writing lobbing for work on behalf of the company without disclosing her interests in it. She allegedly made interns work for the company instead of doing Parliamentary work, and the organisation falsely claimed to be a registered charity. In fact it was an eQuality Network's employee who nominated Moran for the Women in Public Life Award, hilariously describing her as a "forward thinking, modern day suffragette".

The disgrace that is Moran's nomination has been noted elsewhere (though not in the mainstream media), but if one digs deeper it's clear that the candidates of such an incredibly low moral standing were equally welcome as nominees to Peer of the Year too. As a result, of the three nominations for the very best female Peer, one was reserved for Baroness Polla Uddin. Her alleged expense fraud make every single one of the 300+ accused MPs appear saintly by comparison. Uddin boasts about how long she's lived in East London (staying in tax payer subsidised accommodation) and is seen there daily, yet she's been claiming all the while that her main home in in Maidstone, benefiting to the tune of £180,000 as a result. Uddin even  claimed 179 days allowances for 2007/08 which was a greater number of days than the Lords had actually sat! Is someone who milks every last possibly penny from the taxpayer and refuses to cooperate with police investigations really one of the "the great women in public life"? Quite frankly I think you'd struggle to find anyone in the Lords more despicable, and there's certainly no shortage of competition.

Fortunately Moran and Uddin didn't quite manage to win the awards, but some of the actual winners are clearly undeserving of the award. MP of the year Award went to Brent South's Dawn Butler. While her expense claims aren't as impressive as Moran or Uddin, she's hardly the most transparent or competent MP out there. For example last year she famously published a letter of commendation on her website supposedly from Barrack Obama. Strangely the document was riddled with mistakes and written on House of Commons notepaper. It later emerged that it was a creation of one of Butler's members of staff, with Obama merely signing the document.  Any "MP of the Year" should at least be able to turn up to meetings, and if she's really as talented as "Obama" suggests then she'd be able to complete most basic aspects of her job requirements too. Worse still, Butler seems to enjoy playing  the race card regardless of the evidence and she's even linked to the expenses scandal now due a campaign to smear her main opponent through a fictions expense related complaint.

I don't doubt that some of the awards must at least have undoubtedly gone to reasonably worthy recipients, but segregating awards on gender and then also not actually bothering to award any to men is not only sexist but actually highly demeaning to the truly worthy recipients. It hugely diminishes a person's achievements in exactly the same way all women shortlists tarnish the few decent female MPs elected via such a method. Winners are stigmatised with being elected/nominated solely based their gender, when in reality some could have actually achieved selection on merit. Further still, it's actually incredibly dishonest to tittle an award "MP of the Year" or "Peer of the Year" when every single male politician is ineligible for such an award, especially as the title then gets quoted in the media as if they're somehow the best person in Parliament.

The fact is that the very best politicians and people in public life really aren't as interested in awards as your average above nominee. Truly outstanding politicians are so busy doing fantastic working and dealing with their constituents concerns during every spare moment. As a result they don't have time to go around lobbying for votes for such awards and anyone worthy of a decent award would never dream of doing such a shameful thing anyway.

One wonders what wonderful figures will be used this year in order to "highlight the achievements of outstanding women role models amongst us"? Given last year's farce, can I be so bold as to nominate Jacqui Smith for her services to pay per view porn, and Ann Keen (one half of "Mr and Mrs Expenses") for services to airport construction, Other contenders Should include Barbara Follett who managed more in wrongful expense claims than anyone else in Parliament and perhaps Patriccia Hewitt who's seems to be trying to single handily reduce the supposed gender pay gaps through her lobbying activities.

Alternatively we could just stop having sexist awards ceremonies and start to recognise the best people in society regards of how many X chromosomes they have.

by John Kimble

LABOUR'S ALL-WOMEN SHORTLISTS BANNING MEN FROM STANDING FOR THEIR 'FAIR' PARTY AT 2010 GENERAL ELECTION

For the 2010 General Election called on Tuesday, Labour have banned men from standing as their candidates in 59 58 seats (full list below) by using all-women shortlists. This site is apolitical but no man should vote Labour in any of these seats because they have been sexually discriminated against.

If you believe in equality of opportunity then you cannot support all women-shortlists and as argued extensively before (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) on this site, the use of these by Labour for their candidate selection has disenfranchised men from the political process.

It is against the British Constitution (albeit these shortlists are legal), stops people (Labour males) from being allowed to take part equally as women in the democratic political process and furthermore means those women selected in this way will only ever be seen as second class candidates (or MP's if they win) because they did not win their nomination fairly.

It is even worse if you are a Labour man who has served your local community (as a councillor etc) but cannot even be considered by them to represent your community in Parliament.

All women-shortlists fall foul of politically correct victim politics, where people do not have individual identities because their identity is solely governed by the 'group' category they fall in. So men are banned no matter how good or what talent or commitment they have in representing people in their community in Parliament.

How can Labour go into the election claiming they want a create a fair society when they ban half the population from being their candidates solely because of their gender?  

The seats where Labour have selected their candidates from all women-shortlists (please tell the site if there are any missed) and banned men from being a Labour candidate are:-

• Airdrie
• Ashfield
• Birmingham Ladywood
• Blackpool North & Cleveleys
• Brighton Pavilion
• Bolton West
• Burnley
• Burton
• Bury North
• Camborne & Redruth
• Cardiff Central
• Clywd South
• Colne Valley
• Dudley South
• Durham North West
• Ealing Southall
• East Dunbartonshire
• East Lothian
• Edinburgh East
• Erewash
• Erith & Thamesmead
• Glasgow East
• Gravesham
• Hackney South
• Halesowen & Rowley Regis
• Hemel Hempstead
• High Peak
• Hornsey & Wood Green
• Houghton & Sunderland South
• Ilford North
• Keighley
• Kenilworth & Southam
• KIlmarnock & Loudoun
• Leeds North West
• Leeds West
• Makerfield
• Manchester Withington
• Newcastle Central 
• Nottingham South
• North Tyneside
• Nuneaton
• Reading East
• Rochester & Strood
• Scarborough & Whitby
• Selby & Ainsty
• Stretford & Urmston
• Sunderland Central
• Vale of Glamorgan
• Walsall South
• Walthamstow
• Warrington South
• Washington & Sunderland West
• Wavertree
• Wellingborough
• West Ham
• Wigan
• Wirral West
• Wolverhampton South East
• The Wrekin

No man voting in any of these seats should vote Labour - you have been discriminated against because of your gender, you are a non-person to them.

CORRECTION - As pointed out correctly by the Wirral Herald (thank you Wirral Herald for correcting this) Wirral West has a male candidate. Apologies but the local Labour Party did want an all-women shortlist but were over-ruled!

THE RELIGION THAT IS THE LONDON FEMINIST NETWORK

Monday night saw the broadcast of an hour long BBC Four documentary on the extreme feminist group the London Feminist Network.

Being a BBC programme the best method they could come up with to tackle such a topic in a fair, balanced and neutral way was to ask Vanessa Engle to make the programme (and the whole series for that matter). Engle is of course a feminist herself, the Daily Telegraph notes she "was involved in the women’s movement while at Oxford studying languages in the 1980s; she protested outside porn shops, joined the Reclaim the Night march against male violence". These exact same protests are featured in the programme so she's effectively making a programme about herself. Presumably this will be followed by an investigation into the BNP presented by Nick Griffin and an IRA expose by Martin McGuiness? When the BBC cover Men's issues we invariably get exactly the opposite situation, with the like of Women's Aid supporter Fiona Bruce interrogating Father 4 Justice in an an incredibly hostile manner in breach of BBC rules.

Although the programme may have been conceived as 60 minutes of free prime time advertising for the London Feminist network, if you can stomach the misandry, constant pro feminist bias not to mention abysmal songs then you'll actually find it was quite enlightening in places.

The first signs of dissent from the militant feminist dogma in the programme came from a male, one of the girl's fathers. Whilst his wife rambles on, equating child pornography with lads mags and pretty much anything sexual, he's brave enough to put forward the entirely reasonable argument that there's actually nothing wrong with prostitution so long as both parties are happy and consenting to the transaction. Strangely, such an argument seems hugely radical, controversial and out of place at that point of the broadcast due to the extreme anti-male atmosphere of the organisation being discussed. I suppose it's a bit like going to church and pointing out the lack of evidence of the existence of God.

The programme was full of the usual nonsensical feminist cliches, with the group so keen to "end violence against women" and to "take back the night". Some went further, their only concern being the rather narrow subject of "men's violence against women". Given the rates of recorded domestic violence by lesbian females, never mind the countless male domestic violence victims out here, this is clearly not only sexist but extremely stupid too.

It was particularly ironic to feature a feminist group located in London complaining about violence against women as apparently such a huge issue so much more important than any other. If we look at the epidemic of teen violence in the city, there were 27 teens killed in 2008, with just one of those unfortunate people being female - 96.3% of victims were male. The previous year again again saw 27 victims, and there were a slightly more significant three female victims ton his occasion. However one should remember that feminists only count violence against women if it's perpetrated by a man, therefore under LFN logic a third of such victims are to be ignored do the the killers being of the wrong sex.

It's certainly true that our streets are rather dangerous places, but it's women who are the safest out on them, and men need to reclaim them far, far more than any other group. Yet there's further hypocrisy from LFN. Not only do they ignore all the evidence and pretend that it's only women need to reclaim the night, men are even barred from marching . They are neither allowed to reclaim the night from themselves nor are they even welcome in helping to achieve fundamentally flawed and sexist goal of reclaiming it just for women.

The ridiculousness of such a situation was beautifully illustrated in a bizarre discussion of how the LFN members could identify those awful men in order to prevent them from taking part. It was noted that they do indeed allow men who "identify as women", to participate, though only certain men are allowed to benefit from this loophole and the feminists had to use their judgement as to who qualified for such a privilege. The problem of actual women who looked like men also arose (unsurprising given the androgynous appearance of so many of the participants) with "caution" and "sensitivity" urged. In reality there is of course a very simple and elegant solution to all these complicated "problems", that being to simply stop being so incredibly sexist and discriminatory and let make everyone in society welcome instead! Surely you can't get any more sensitive than that?

Another telling exchange came in an interview with a older member of the group, who discussed her reasons for being an activist. She stated that she had been motivated to join the group as a result of the police' repines to a friend of her daughter being "gang raped".  Watching the piece, alarm bells immediately start to ring as she stumbles through the facts rather uncertainly, eventually informing us the supposed "victim" actually received a caution for falsely alleging rape (albeit one she managed to later overturn using a lawyer). Obviously I don't know the facts of the case other than what this rather biased party tell us. However, given that the accused actually had video evidence of consent (not to mention the feminist's ramblings about a woman's supposed lack of choices when in such a situation), I'd say it sounds absolutely like a case of regretting sex after the event and thus a clear false rape allegation. The police are incredibly reluctant to charge someone with making a false rape claim and insist on massive amounts of proof in most cases. The main travesty that I can see here is that a mere caution is vastly insufficient punishment for such a serious crime. Those falsely alleging rape should either be let off if there isn't sufficient proof, or tried in a court of law and face a jail sentence where their guilt can be proven. A caution really isn't appropriate under any circumstances, and if the police were "vile" to anyone as she alleges, then it was surely to the victims of the false accusations. Further still, to use what appears to be a false rape case (and one with multiple victims at that) to be your sole reason for being an activist really is quite strange at best and certainly isn't going to make any useful contribution to ones "sanity" as she believes.

Such a lack of concern with the facts isn't unique to the older activists either. A younger feminist called Laurie, one of the "leading lights of the organisation", later discusses the despair she feels when reading items in the news, specifically citing the case of a man who branded his wife with an iron who only received a two month jail sentence for the offence. She then informs us that this could be "a made up story" and "even though she might have made it up it's probably true". Don't get me wrong - I'm sure that in a population of 60 million people such a story would almost certainly occur eventually, just as monkeys randomly hitting typewriter keys may eventually produce passages from Shakespeare. However it's rather bizarre to see someone so committed to such a cause have such a lack of concern for knowledge and the facts to such an extent they are reduced to fabricating imaginary abuses of women in order to make their point. I'm sure myself and other readers here could list at least 20 key MRA related injustices that have been in the news (or not in a few cases) which are important to the MRA movement. There wouldn't be any need for exaggeration let alone total fabrication of stories just because they might have happened somewhere or may well do so in the future. The exchange against shows us the unique culture of LFN, where facts really don't matter in the slightest - you just have to be a believer.

Anger and the hatred of men are recurring themes throughout the broadcast. Men are not only banned from the marches, not to mention the organisation itself, but the group even meets at a women only bar! In fact men were notably absent from vast swathes of the programme. Now I do realise that extreme gender feminist groups tend to feature vastly disproportionate numbers of lesbians compared to the population as a whole, but such a figure can't be more than 50%. Where were the male partners of the heterosexual feminists? It's clear that a display of such hatred and contempt for the opposite sex isn't the best technique to use in the search for a partner (unless perhaps one is seeking a self-loathing man). Presumably most of the woman were therefore single as a result of their activities, perhaps the feminist equivalent of a celibate catholic priest.

It wasn't just men who were invisible during the programme either. Almost all the feminists seem rather privileged, educated, middles class and white. I don't necessarily have any major issue with this usually, but remember we're talking about an organisation who subscribe absolutely to the exact sort of nonsense we hear coming out of the EHRC on a daily basis. Further still, given that London is about the most ethnically diverse city on the planet it seems incredible that not a single ethnic minority was to be seen anywhere in the organisation, particularly given that so many feminists issues have a vastly greater impact on such people (with many absolutely exclusive to immigrant communities). Presumably such ethnic minorities are fully aware of the stupidity and tremendous harm caused by excluding members based on their appearance and inherent characteristics and thus find a group practising such discrimination to be wholly unattractive as a result?

The most intersecting segment of the programme involved a discussion with two rather more level headed young feminists who had attended the LFN conference. They concluded the group wasn't for them as they didn't share the same extreme views on banning pornography and outlawing prostitution. One might of thought that such differences shouldn't really matter so much as they're still feminists, right? Well that's not the case at all - you see, as these two women point out, if you want to join the LFN you have to agree with everything they say hook, line and sinker, it's all or nothing as far as they're concerned. It's not just those horrible men that aren't welcome at LFN, other equally contemptible enemies  include actual concepts such as debate, opinion, and dissent.

In conclusion, the programme shows exactly how not to conduct oneself as an activist. It revealed feminism at it's very worst, not as a movement concerned with equality, humanity or compassion, but instead showed us feminism the religion. The London Feminist Network were just as angry, bigoted, emotional, devoid of logic and reason as almost any religious institution or cult. We had women as the chosen ones, with men and sex as the devil. Unbelievers we not welcome whatsoever, with debate limited to how best to exclude men. Just as with so many religions they were keen to interfere with and control the lives of women happily going about their lives, whether it be fashion models happily raking in a fortunes for magazine shoots, or the many women happily reliving gullible men of handfuls of money at strip clubs. Fortunately the only real difference here compared to other religions was the size of the congregation, which I'm pleased to say was tiny in this case. Lets just hope it stays that way for many more years to come for the sake of both men and women and society as a whole.

By John Kimble

QUOTAS AND "POSITIVE" ACTION PROGRAMMES MARGINALISE MEN

The last post on quotas received much comment and as Thomas pointed out in a post Christine Odone quotas are being called for to increase the number of female scientists. It is not just boardrooms.

The issue runs much deeper because as pointed out before the Equalities Bill will do much damage to men and much has been in place for a long time but has never really been challenged. Even in a recession when more men have lost their jobs than women (see this section for previous posts on employment).

For example, one contributor has pointed out that Lloyds TSB bank, now merged with Halifax Bank of Scotland has its very own positive action programmes for women (positive action means negative action for someone else - basic maths) and a women's network. Often it is not direct, it is discrimination by omission where management courses and special training courses are made available to all but men. They do not say so directly but men are left off the list. 

A white boy from a rough council estate has hardly more advantages in life than a girl educated at public school, but according to Lloyds Banking Group he has.

The problem with this tokenism and discrimination is again down to the fact that in the age of political correctness we are not treated as individuals, only as members of groups. Some men will need help to get on the management ladder and some women will not need the help, but that does not matter at Lloyds Banking Group, it is your gender that matters. Excluded men also find their wives/girlfriends/daughters indirectly discriminated as well - second hand discrimination.

With so many more women now joining the professions than men partly due to better exam results and partly due to 'extra help', along with the recession and anti-male society we live in, men are becoming more and more marginalised. Quotas and positive action programmes ensure this will continue. 

Posted by Skimmington

FEMALE QUOTAS ARE ON THEIR WAY INTO BRITISH BOARDROOMS

Over the past year the issue of introducing female quotas into the boardroom of UK companies has been bubbling under the surface, and now it soon will be here as the Government has submitted evidence into the Financial Reporting Council (a body that sets the overall rules as to how boards of plc's should work) asking them to find a way to increase female representation.

This follows the lead of Norway who introduced a legally binding 40% quota for their boardrooms, with Spain following  in 2009, then France (1 and 2) this year plus German firm Deutsche Telekom. Italy and Holland may also follow. 

This issue was brought to life in the UK becausepeople like Harriet Harman and the institutional oxymoron ,the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, blamed the financial crisis on men, declaring it avoidable if there were less men running banks.

Quotas are wrong because they undermine the basic principles of a liberal democracy where everyone is equal and to be judged equally. Their gender, race etc is irrelevant. Bringing in quotas would mean that some people (men) would be denied a position on the Board solely because of their gender, not what they could offer. This is discrimination. As mentioned before, it affects their wives/girlfriends and daughters and sisters and mothers, as men do not live in isolation.

The way the UK Government is undertaking this is very subtle and pernicious. It has already built in discrimination against men at all levels of employment through the Equalities Act but rather than deal with the boardroom issue with a sledgehammer like other countries, it is trying to influence those who make business rules. These rules (known as the Combined Code) are based on what is known as a "Comply or Explain" whereby companies only have to explain why they do not adhere to the rules and it is up to shareholders to then vote them down.

The issue is that if these quotas are accepted by the Financial Reporting Council, they then become the normal way that companies have to behave. They would do so to avoid the risk of shareholder censure or simply having their reputation dragged through the mud by Harman and others. Once it is the norm then it makes easier for any quota rules to be passed through Parliament.

The Government's proposals like, all their anti-male proposals, are the thin end of the wedge. They seem 'harmless' to many at the time but once the inch has been taken, it will be soon be a mile.

Posted by Skimmington

BBC BANS MEN FROM PROGRAMME AUDIENCE

Yesterday evening the publicly funded BBC took the unprecedented step of banning men from the audience of BBC's Question Time programme as a way of "celebrating" International Women's Week (I always though it was Women's Day, but obviously there wasn't enough time to fit in all the misandry). The only men present were the host and two people on the panel, the Sun's Kelvin McKensie and the BBC's own Monty Don. Other panelists included the rather reasonable Jo Swinson of the Lib Dems, Conservative Justine Greening, and the Labour's quite hideous Carloine Flint.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the programme were not so much the topics discussed, but the unstated parallel that could be drawn throughout almost every single one of them. We had the Jamie Bulgar case discussed as well as the fact a man had been falsely accused of being his killer on Facebook (he has been forced into hiding and currently fears for his life). Later there was an intense discussion on the death of troops in Afghanistan due poor quality equipment being provided by the government, as well as the countless horrific injuries caused to survivors. We had mentions of the children horrifically tortured in Edlington there was an extensive discussion of the case of David Askew, a man with learning difficulties who died yesterday having being bullied over many years. 

So what's the parallel between every single noteworthy discussion of the week? Well rather ironically in this era of so much supposed "violence against women" and oppression and the resulting need for women only this and that, almost every single victim of every issue discussed throughout the entire hour was male. With just one exception every UK soldier killed in Afghanistan has been male. Similarly all the domestic vicitms of violence and murder discussed were male too, and we even had the key MRA issue of false allegations given a mention on top of all that!

Clearly it's hardly surprising that so many vicitms of violence were men given the vastly greater threat of violence they their daily lives compared to women and the resulting lower life expectancy. This was however a BBC programme we're taking about and it at least shows they perhaps can't control the questions the generally public want to ask to the same extent they censor so much other output. Also it was very refreshing to see that so many decent women in the audience aren't as misandric and self-obsessed as so many of their "elected" female sisters in Parliament, and so many clearly realise and are hugely concerned about the plight of men subconsciously at the very least.

The incredibly ironic theme of male victims continued right until the end of the programme, with a discussion of all women shortlists, and a quite magnificent older women in the audience (and others) condemning them as passionately and eloquently as anything you'll see on this blog.

One of the only two notable pieces of misandry we saw on the programme in fact came from a man in Monty Don, who suggested he'd be happy to see an all female parliament with no men in it at all as it couldn't' be any worse than the current lot (though it would seem he was playing to the crowd as much as giving a genuine opinion). This of course illustrates the idiocy of banning particular groups from an audience or any institution for that matter. It was clear the pressure of the all women audience not only influenced Don's answers, but also stifled McKensie at times too (albeit to a far lesser extent).

Thus there are useful lessons for us to take from the programme. Could Don have asked for a Parliament that excluded ethnic minorities and got such a round of applause? His conduct illustrates just how misandry works in practice with sexist comments about men encouraged and going unchallenged.  The make up of the event very much reflected the balance of genders one finds at the average primary school - where you have the odd token male teacher and token male parent against a sea of females. Further still, whatever anti male indiscretions occur in such an environment aren't subject to the scrutiny nor of millions watching at home on tv either and the resulting moderation of one's behaviour.

The most ill informed and sexist comment of the night came at the very end of the programme, with an audience member praising the fact men had been barred from taking part and suggesting that men could never organise their own International Men's Day as women have done. In reality there has in fact been an International Men's day for a number of years now, it's just that all the politicians we see week in week out on Question Time refuse to acknowledge and celebrate the event and the BBC are just as ignorant or dismissive of the event. If only we'd had some way for one of the many men behind International Men's Day to inform such ignorant parties of the existence of the event and it's importance? Maybe some sort of weekly nationally broadcast discussion forum, watched by millions where broadcasters, politicians and the members of the public of both sexes all come together and pool their knowledge and ideas in order to to be able to have an informed discussion of such issues?

I suppose given that gender segregation is so much on the increase these days this won't be the last time we see such misandry on the BBC. Kelvin McKensie at least stated he hoped not to see the sexist format return for anther 30 years. At the current rate the women on such a 2040 edition of Question Time will unfortunately be just as ignorant about International Men's Day as those taking part this evening.

NEW MISANDRIC GOVERNMENT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CAMPAIGN AIMED AT TEENS

Yesterday saw the launch of one the most incredibly sexist government domestic abuse campaigns to date.

A series of TV, and radio ads, poster and a website were launched aimed at those aged 13-18 and urging boys "not to use violence against their girlfriends". That's right, they're not even trying to hide their sexism anymore. Every single poster in the campaign and every single video contains a male abusing a female. There isn't even the usual token male victim, not much mention of homosexual relationships (where abuse tends to be even more common than with heterosexuals). In the past it was more common for the government to outsource broadcast of such propaganda to anti-male charities such as Women's Aid, but they're now brazen enough to put their own name to the material now.

The sexist theme continues throughout the site. For example the FAQ section does contain some gender neutral questions, but five types of abuse listed are written in an exclusively male on female context. Even the one question referring to help for males victim still doesn't' dare suggest said abuse came form a female, presumably it's only gay males who get abused and all girls are sweet, pretty and innocent?

The hypocrisy of the campaign when it comes to discrimination is quite bizarre. Clearly every attempt has been made to be neutral in terms of race. For example two inter-racial couples are shown in the videos, one has a black male abusing a white female, whereas the other shows white male abusing a black female. Such balance is hugely commendable, but why does such equality only apply when dealing with race and never, ever with gender?

The site appears to attempt to justify it's gender based approach by stating "Research shows that suffering from abuse in relationships is more common for young women but young men can experience it too." In a away this is true, at least in terms of the 13-18 year target age group. But the same research also shows that as soon as these children grow grow up and reach adulthood the roles are reversed, and it's mostly males who are the victims. Therefore, given the government's (admittedly ridiculous) premise of only targeting the gender with the most victims, are we also to see a further £2 million spent telling 20-24 year old women to stop threatening, hitting and controlling their male partners?

One of the worst things about these campaigns is that even in the event of a  male victim seeing past the dishonesty and realising they need to get help, not charities that actually care about male victims are listed as a resource. Rather than being referred to the quite brilliant Mankind Initiative or a similarly gender neutral organisation, the feminist leaning organisation Respect have a monopoly. Such an organisation worships at the alter of gender based approaches to abuse rather than living in the real world. Is a boy really going to gain anything from talking to such obtuse people who only basically only really see males as the guilty party? In fact I imagine it could be quite a damaging experience for them. Why does the government happily provide lines to the gender feminists, at Respect, the Men's Advice Line, Refuge, Women Aid etc, but doesn't have the decency to give equal access to an organisation genuinely interested in helping men?

Finally, lets not forget who the the victims of this misandry are. Yes it you and I who have to pay the taxes funding this hatred of males, but the campaign itself is of course aimed at children. Therefore we're talking about gender feminists trying to impose their "violence against women and girls" nonsense on vulnerable, young developing minds and brainwashing them into feeling guilty perhaps even before they've started a proper relationship. Further still, the campaign is simultaneously campaign sending out the subconscious message that these boys can't really be victims either, thus further compounding the existing barriers which stop male vicitms from coming forward.

To do these awful things to adults is bad enough, but what we've got here is quite simply child abuse in my book. Domestic violence is a psychological issue and really has little or nothing to do with gender whatsoever. It really is time to put a stop to this nonsense and for the government to stop playing gender politics with people's lives.

BTW, I don't wish to promote this sick campaign by posting a link to the site. If you want to see it for yourself just search for "thisisabuse".