The Rights Of Man

CAMDEN COUNCIL'S HISTORY OF SUPPORTING EXTREMISM AND HATE

Last weekend saw disagraceful scenes in London whereby The Camden Centre, a taxpayer owned venue, hosted the misandrist and transphobibic RadFem 2013 conference.

Other venues saw sense and banned such extremists from their premises, but Camden decided that the hatred of men is perfectly fine although did at least claim to have forced the organisers to ammend their sexist entrance policies. One only has to glance as some of the Twitter comments of the attendees/organisers and see images of their "activism" to see just how extreme and hateful this event really is.

Having taxpayers legitimise such a vile group by allowing it to use their facilities it's clearly completely inappropriate and led me to think what a worry precedent it had set, therefore meaning all manner of a hate groups would be allowed to assemble in such facilities. Just as I was about to compose a complaint email highlighting such a point, a search on Google rather threw a spanner in the works. You see this isn't the first time Camden council has supported extremists in such a way, and just last year the very same council also allowed a Islamic group sympathetic to Osama Bin laden to hold lectures at a council funded venue.

The Jewish Chronicle reports that at one Ministry of Dawah event there was discussion on how Israel would be “wiped off the earth” by Allah, which of course sounds remarkably similar to the Radfem attitudes to men and transgender people. Still, if nothing else, we certainly can't accuse Camden council of lacking consistency, presumably they'll be welcoming the Stalin appreciation society next year, followed by the Klu Klux Klan in 2015.

by John Kimble

 

Update: Seems that even my sarcastic Stalin remarks were actaully rather closer to the truth than I'd hoped too.

THE SEXIST DOUBLE STANDARDS OF THE O2 / SYMANTEC FILTER

Since March this year I've been updating the ever expanding list of men's human rights sites wrongly blocked by Symantec and O2 and categorised as "hate". The list currently stands at some 108 domains and grows by the week as more sites are tested.

It's worth considering that human rights sites aren't the only ones that suffer from over blocking, for example the excellent Biassed BBC blog was blocked as a hate site last year, and I've discovered that feminist site The F-Word was at least blocked to audiences under 18 last year, therefore suggesting it was either classed as hate or perhaps pornography. It's not the most misandrist feminist blog going, but the editor, Jess McCabe, does express some extreme and very sexist views at times, such as how it is "horrendous that women are getting charged at all" for ruining mens lives with false rape allegations. She genuinely believes that women who commit such heinous crimes should go completely unpunished, so it's fair to say that, whilst not deserving of a "hate" classification, it would ceritnaly be easier to make a case for The F-Word Blog to recieve one than most of the men's equality sites on the list.

Such a block represents an interesting case study as it enables us compare the treatment of feminist sites with those campaigning for men's human rights. The block of The F-Word appears to have originally come to light on Twitter with O2 soon acknowledging the issue and The Index on Censorship also mentioning the case It's unclear as to exactly how long it took for the site to be reclassified, but the site was unblocked at some point and placed in the "Entertainment and music" category.

The above events took place at exactly the same time we started noticing the censorship of men's human rights sites and the Index on Censorship article mentioned above also highlighted how such sites were blocked. Seeing as my list of blocked men's sites has expanded significantly of late I decided to try raising the issue again and managed to finally find the direct contact detials for the Symantec Rulespace team responsible for classifying these sites. Their response to my reuqest for them to review the 108 site was that they stood by the "hate" classification in each and every single case bar one. Only one classification is a mistake so we now have it direct from those reponsible that sites such as http://www.dvmen.co.uk constitutes "hate".

After my preicous contact with O2, eight sites were reclassified by Symantec, so if you have an incorrectly blocked men's human rights site, even if you write article after article, and get the attention of the tech media and civil liberties group, and have multiple parties requesting a stop to the censorship, then at best there's a 7% chance of success. On the other hand, feminists have a 100% success rate in appealing their blocks and all they have to do is send a quick tweet to achieve such a level of success. This is yet more clear evidence of sexism, not just in terms of what sites are blocked but even in trying to overturn such blocks.

To see a fully up to date list of wrongly blocked site, see the following:
http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/the_rights_of_man/2013/02/the-48-mens-human-rights-sites-feminists-seek-to-censor.html

Many thanks to the increasing number of bloggers who have been helping publicise this issue, more to come shortly.

By John Kimble

MINISTER FOR WOMEN MILLER TO BRING IN MORE INSIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST BOYS - WILL BARWELL AND WILLETTS BE SILENT?

The Observer is running a story today that shows how anti-male the government is. The story is that the Minister of Women (still no Minister for Men - 16 years and waiting) is to launch an information pack that

"will offer advice on how to guide daughters through subject and career choices, amid concerns that many people feel they lack key parenting skills at such crucial times. It is feared that girls are not being brought up to be ambitious for themselves. The number of female chief executives in the FTSE 100 has fallen in the past year, with just three now heading large London-listed firms."

All at the taxpayers expense of course.

This is insidious for a number of reasons.

The last two generations of boys are the ones that need help

Just look at four key areas

• Just 30% of male school-leavers applied to university for autumn 2012, compared to 40% of female school-leavers.
• Boy's results at school continue to be way behind those of girls, especially English
• There are far fewer men than women entering the professions
• Unemployment is higher for men (1.4 million) than women (1.1 million) - despite the spin put out that women suffered more in the recession than men (as the CIPD showed)

Ignoring the generation gap

The average age of a FTSE-100 board member is 57 so if there is an issue with unambitious women, it is not the girls and young women of today (who are going to university and/or entering the professions - encouraged by their fathers and mothers) it with those entering or in their 40's. Many of whom do not want to be in the boardroom (anti-male feminists like Karen Brady and the 30% club always presume that every women wants to be a board member).

So therefore to provide information guides to parents with daughters to enable them to be more ambitious and successful is not only nonsense when they are more successful than boys already, it is discrimination and reinforcing disadvantage.

Not just because parents with sons won't get them (imagine a family with twins - one boy and one girl - she gets the pack he doesn't! ) but that it will make it even harder for boys to compete as they are not being encouraged and girls are. It will push them further behind.

Where is David Willetts MP who said that society and there were discriminatory barriers against boys going to university and working class men. Where is Gavin Barwell MP who sponnsored the report raising his concerns about feminism and boys education. Both of these are Conservatives, so why are they letting Maria Miller who is also a Conservative get away with this?

This initiative is driving a stake through the heart of equality and rubbing another generation of boys face in it. The Minister for Equalities is making it harder for equality to be achieved.

 Men are to blame for women not going into boardrooms

The underlying theme for all those who want quotas remember is that it is men are to blame and it is another male conspiracy driven by the some the tyranny of the patriarchy ideology. Quotas would discriminate against men.  

This is the real driver for Miller. She has bought into the anti-male ideology of her predecessors and wants to be loved by the anti-male feminists. She can get away with it because no one dare take her on - who speaks up for men and boys in this government?

This initiative is not about equality. It is about reinforcing inequality against boys, pulling the drawbridge up further from them.

Posted by Skimmington

 

 

MOTHERS ARE OVERSEAS CHILD ABDUCTORS IN THREE IN FOUR CASES - WHY IS IT A SECRET?

When Reunite International published its figures earlier this year that showed that 70% of parents who abduct their children and take them abroad are mothers, many of us in with an interest in this were not surprised. You only have to be aware of the problems faced by fathers who call organisations like Reunite or Families Need Fathers to know about this.

The Guardian covered the story with two examples  also this poor chap talks about it on BBC Men's Hour about his abducted daughter (and not the son - radical feminists are rejoicing) who is now living in Tunisia.

Back in December, the BBC published a story that  according to the FCO research, "74% of people thought fathers were most likely to abduct their children but statistics from Reunite International suggest 70% of their cases concern mothers taking the child."

The number of litigation and disputes is also on the increase.

What is staggering though is that firstly the lack of awareness that mothers are the main abductors in three of four cases where the children are taken abroad. Such is the anti-male society we live in and the way that society (pushed by radical feminists) have demonised men that anything negative to do with children and parents is automatically assumed to be down to fathers and men.

This is of course not helped when the litigation results came out this month and there was much discussion about them but no one wanted to make the connection to mothers - it was like some sort of dirty secret. Nothing on Mumsnet?

Why is it a secret? If the statistics showed it was three in four men - it would be front pages news.

Posted by Skimmington

 

 

THE BANK NOTE PETITION AND FEMINIST MCCARTHYISM - WHY DO THEY HATE MEN SO MUCH?

Feminist McCarthyism is poisonous strand of modern radical feminism that believes that every man is a secret women-hater and that every decision that is not pro-female is due to a cabal of men making decisions in smoke-field rooms to keep women in the kitchen.

It is a particularly noxious brand of feminist which is not pro-equality and is espoused by the Guardian, Fawcett Society, many in the government (Government Equalities Department especially) and a whole bunch of radical feminists who see conspiracies and women-haters everywhere.

The campaign and petition to ensure that a woman is on a British banknote has reached absurd levels of feminist McCarthyism. There must be some conspiracy behind the decision to replace Elizabeth Fry with Winston Churchill?

There is even now a petition and the metropolitan elites and other outlets (Guardian, Huffington
Post) have got behind it. The Chancellor's Aide Amber Rudd MP as well...as reported in the Independent and Daily Mail.

The petition states "An all-male line-up on our banknotes sends out the damaging message that no woman has done anything important enough to appear." No proof anywhere of that at all!

The petition even tries to say the Queen does not count because she is hereditary.

But surely only a few can say that the Queen does not do a good job and also that means women as well. What McCarthyist feminists like those mentioned and  especially Caroline Criado-Perez of the Women's Room are really saying is that the Queen was not chosen by them so that doesn't count.

What the petition does is show is the absurdity of McCarthyite Feminism, how anti-male it is by seeking to place every decision that they do not agree with as being part of some patriachal conspiracy effectively portraying us all as women-haters. 

And it also shows how out of touch they are with normal women (and normal men). How many of the UK's 30 million women are going to sign this - hardly any - and the reason is simple - they do not see the sexism that the Mccarthyite's see because it is not there. The Empresses have no clothes

 Posted by Skimmington 

VICKIE PRYCE SUCEEDS IN PROMOTING MALE EQUALITY BY ENDING SEXIST MARITAL COERCION ACT

Does Justice Secretary Chris Grayling read this blog? He may do as he announced in The Sunday Times (behind a paywall but the Guardian cover it) that he will end the Marital Coercion Act on the basis of being 'out of tune with gender equality' and 'not in keeping with the modern world.' A point made in February.

It was always of the greatest hypocrisy that such a liberal and 'progressive' such as Vickie Pryce was to try and use a sexist law to try and get her off from going to jail. Inadvertently, by bringing this to everyone's attention and if Grayling pushes this through, she will have succeeed in progressing the cause of equality for men and boys.

As Groan pointed out in his comments on a previous piece (his and MaleMids32 have been added in the comments section so not to be lost - and thanks MaleMids for highlighting) what will the feminists say about this. More so, who will speak out against the change in Parliament or elsewhere when it goes through. Who will show themselves to be hypocrites and anti-equality?

Posted by Skimmington

 

From MaleMids32

Ha! Looks like pressure from J4mb might be having an effect already!

 Just today it was announced in the Sunday Times that Chris Grayling is planning all of a sudden to scrap the law of marital coercion, because it is 'out of tune with gender equality' and 'not in keeping
with the modern world.'

 Wow, since when have Tory politicians been concerned with striking off anti-male laws?

Is it not the case they know that if J4MB gets it act together, they will harness the 'UKIP' effect and knock out all those weak, Tory marginals up and down the country?

  Well they're gonna have to do more than that if they want to win back voters' trust before election time! :-D

 

From Groan

 Now here is a test. How will the radical feminists respond to an obviously discriminatory and paternalistic law being scrapped. Support for Chris Grayling?

As with the few other discriminatory laws that were mainly swept away in the seventies this is another example not of "patriarchy" but the now outdated impulse to protect the "weaker sex"

 My own mother widowed young and with two sons to support fell foul of two such laws in the 1960s ;one with regard to mortgages and the other bank loans. Both had been put on the statute books to spare women the genuine horrors of Debtors Gaols by making husbands responsible for debts. This was in the mid sixties and these Victorian statutes were swept away in the seventies. Clearly these old statutes created problems for my mother( and indeed for husbands with profligate wives) but they were emphatically not some plan to subjugate women and actual barely lasted a century. What is more many such laws had their genesis and support from women's organisations of the time!!!

So good luck Mr. Grayling.

 

I wonder if this implies will spread to changing the legal definition of Rape. As in the USA where it is a crime men and women can commit. A bridge too far for this Parliament

KEEP CALM AND KEEP ON THROWING ROCKS AT BOYS? by TOM MARTIN

Action Alert

Two weeks ago, mainstream news and social media sites joined forces, convincing Amazon
to remove adverts for T-shirts with wording such as 'Keep calm and rape a lot' and  'Keep calm and hit her'.

The sexist slogans were a result of a computer programme generating thousands of random phrases,
the manufacturer claims. What cannot be written off as an accident, are the eight ads
still on Amazon for “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” gear, 13 ads for a man-shaped knife block, two ads for an “ex-boyfriend punch bag”, and dozens more ads for T-shirts calling men “pigs”, “dogs”, “idiots”, and “animals”.

You may think comedy items targeting males or females are just a bit of harmless fun, but according to 2008 research by Professor Thomas Ford et al, of Western Carolina University, sexism is
spread by the use of sexist humour in particular.

Jokes about women's violence towards men get easy laughs even though violence by women is on the increase. In one survey, 60% of female university students thought it acceptable for wives to hit their
husbands. The marketing and media authorities should be setting a better example by cracking down on depictions of violent humour against men, as with women – but it is up to men's rights activists to put pressure on the relevant authorities to make them change.

 I contacted Amazon over a week ago ago by phone, and the call centre worker said she had escalated the complaint to management who will investigate the anti-male products on sale. Men's rights activist Glenn Sacks launched a high profile partially successful campaign 10 years ago to get the “Boys are stupid” range banned, so it is time to finish the job. It has taken a few days to get some violently misogynistic T-shirt ads removed, but 10 years and counting to get some well known violently misandric merchandise banned. You can contact Amazon here.

Tom Martin is a men's rights activist and film maker. Email, [email protected] -
twitter: @sexismbusters - youtube: sexismbusters

 

NEWS UPDATES

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

Some new UK sites:

   Justice for Men and Boys (political party)

    Helping Men (Glen Poole)

   Cornwall Community News (some strong articles on here)

 

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

South Wales Argus: Man found not guilty

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

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

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

BBC: Project highlights everday sexism against women

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

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

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

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

The Ignored Gender: Misandry and the Superbowl

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

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

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

MRA London: Site banned by Norton

The Guardian: On male privilege (Richard Seymour)

Posted by Skimmington 

NEW GOVERNMENT EQUALITIES OFFICE DIRECTOR TO CONTINUE TO IGNORE MEN

The Government Equalities Office (now transferred to the Culture Department), the taxpayer-funded civil service run organisation that believes that equality does not apply to men.

News reached TROM towers that they now have a new CEO, Rachel Clark. As you can see from the welcome message sent on, a new broom may be there but nothing will be changing - more sexism by ommission from the laughably named Government Equalities Office

Posted by Skimmington

Sent on behalf of Rachel Clark, Director

 Dear friends,

I am writing to officially introduce myself as the new Director of the Government Equalities Office. I took up the post from Jonathan Rees on Monday 4th February and would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Jonathan for the significant contribution he made to the Government's equalities agenda since starting at GEO five years ago and wish him the very best for the future. It is a tremendous honour to step into his shoes. Not only is this an area I am deeply passionate about, but I believe equality to be the cornerstone of society and central to the Government's efforts to rebuild and grow the economy.

I am delighted to be taking up this post at this exciting time for GEO as we drive forward the Government's new equality agenda, exemplified by introducing legislation to equalise the rights to marriage and to maximise the contributions of women to economic growth, through the Women's
Business Council and Think Act Report  initiative.

I look forward to hearing from you firsthand about the challenges and issues you face and progressing this important agenda.

Warmest wishes,

Rachel Clark

 

NETMUMS SURVEY SHOW THE EMPRESS HAS NO CLOTHES

Returning to a Netmums survey I highlighted in October (half way down), there was a number of areas that showed how young women were rejecting the term feminism and women of all ages now saw that radical feminism was divisive and anti-male.

This was why in October the survey was met with such hatred from anti-male radical feminists because it shows the "empress has no clothes" and does not speak for mainstream women (this is my favourite response). They feel vulnerable because it undermines their ability to garner cheques for writing in The Guardian, running organisations such as the Fawcett Society and Equality and Human Rights Commission and a myriad of other public sector jobs. No more lecture fees on 'gender studies' courses.

The four key statistics in the survey were:

• Younger women are least likely to embrace the term. 25% of women aged 45 to 50 described themselves as a 'Feminist'. But just 9% of those aged 25 to 29 identified with it and only 8% of women aged 20 to 24.

• 39% criticised old-fashion Feminism for being too divisive, claiming they 'don't want to be equal - women are different to men and we should celebrate the differences.'

• Almost a third (28%) think traditional radical Feminism is 'too aggressive' towards men while a quarter (24%) no longer view it as a positive label for women. One in five describe Feminism as 'old fashioned' and simply 'not relevant' to their generation.

• In subsequent questions, 17% even claim Feminism has gone too far, oppressing men and 'losing sight of the natural roles of men and women

This can be seen by the female-led backlash to the infamous Daily Mail article from Esther Walker.

It shows the rejection by mainstream women of radical feminists because they are starting to see that it is driven by a hatred of men and also the conseqneces of it in their own lives. Female graduates see their boyfriend counterparts are still unemployed, mothers see their sons falling behind at school and wives see their husbands blocked from senior positions in companies because of activities of quota campaigners such as the 30% Club. 

The anti-male radical feminists whose existience depends on capturing the media, infesting the universities and public sector, and haranguing politicians do not speak for women. Modern women have said "not in my name".

 Posted by Skimmington