The Rights Of Man

MY CANCER RESEARCH UK RACE FOR LIFE "SWANSONG" by JOHN TAYLOR

It will be eleven (11) years in August 2012, since my eldest daughter, aged 41, mother of two daughters and one son, sadly died from cancer. In the circumstances I am now in the winding down zone... But, before I wind down, to the back seat, I would like to state some important historical facts and wish all concerned "My Very Best Wishes" in striving for the justifiable victory over CRUK's blatantly discriminatory Race for Life :

(1) Photographic evidence is available (View this photo) re CRUK'S Chairman, Michael Pragnell, CEO Harpal Kumar: Executive Fund Raising & Marketing Support Director, Richard Taylor on 14th July; also the Chairman's PA and  Jo Stephens on 16th July - receiving my emails. In the same photo Richard Taylor is also shown as receiving emails on 8th and 13th June 12. I have had no response whatever...I
have attached a copy of the print screen photo.

(2) Likewise applies to my Recorded Delivery letters of 21 May 2012, to TESCO's CEO & R.C Taylor
Esq., Executive Director, Fund Raising and Supporter Marketing, Cancer Research UK. ( Download CRUK TESCO RECORDED DELIVERY LETTER)...

(3) The history goes back to my first letter published http://bit.ly/JR2tIb  on 23rd May 2002.

(4) Some of the other published articles can be read via the previous link http://bit.ly/JR2tIb by
searching for John Taylor Race for Life...(top right of the page)...

(5) That stated in Wikipedia  http://bit.ly/de82Ja Re  is mentioned, because I am referred to in  Reference 3. It was from Wikipedia ( before most of the important history was edited out)
that I saw the link  Cancer Chat and joined the campaign there... Alas, "Is race for life sexist" was recently closed but can be followed "offline"

(6) I saw a link to "Rights of Man" from Cancer Chat... 

(7) Credit must be given to www.parity-uk.org. I stress, had I not been among the ranks of the "Long term unemployed - early retired" - in  the 1980s and saw an advert: CESPA - "Campaign for equal state pension ages at 60" I would not have been a member of Parity's National Executive  and would not be commenting now. I would not have had the "equality experience".

(8) The Hon Secretary, David Yarwood, deserves my commendation and grateful thanks. See the History of CESPA PARITY - David has been Hon Secretary since The inaugural meeting of CESPA - now PARITY, was held on 29 August 1986 in Committee Room 1 of Manchester Town Hall. Have a read. Had that Inaugural Meeting not taken place Parity would not exist... 

(9) My first published article in York Press, was on 23rd May 2002  Way back then, a participating resident of York, who started the previous year's Race For Life in York after winning an Evening Press
competition, said she would support my battle. She said: "It was a fantastic day and the atmosphere was great, but I wouldn't object to men taking part. I don't really see why it is women only. "I wouldn't mind men taking part, the more the merrier and we could raise more money" http://bit.ly/hinwDg.

(10)  My next major success was reported in this article http://bit.ly/KFxtYm on 16th February 2006 re when CRUK launched the defunct 5k Run for Moore series. You will see reference to help from the Equal Opportunity Commission. In my opinion, Race for Life was in breach of Article 29 of the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act, which stated that it was illegal "to discriminate in the provision of goods, facilities and services".  CRUK were providing the goods, facilities and services, to female participants in Race for Life and still are!!! But Run for Moore is now defunct - because, CRUK state that men
requested longer more challenging events...

(11) Alas, then the Fund Raising Standards Board came down in favour of CRUK's Race for Life being females only. I lost http://bit.ly/9OKGNJ 

(12) The views of "little boys" make interesting reading - re "Little Legs for Life" in this video -
little boys are stating they wanted to participate in Race for Life http://bit.ly/LSJM6Z 

(13) Now  the rules have been changed changed so boys under 11 can participate. Claire Parker must be applauded  - but what happens when those young boys are turned 14? http://bit.ly/L5mpRG.

(14) I stress, there is a petition which,  I trust, everyone will sign and spread the message - to allow all the family to participate http://bit.ly/JhYG3F  "Race for Life - Say Yes to Males & Families racing together"...

(15)  In my opinion, I doubt very much that Race for Life would be considered  lawful under the Equality Act had I not sent an "open email to CRUK's  CEO Harpal Kumar, on 1st March 2010 and stated:

(16) The Law: Article 14 of the Human Rights Act - gives one the right not to
be discriminated against...

(17) Section 29 of The Sex Discrimination Act - states it is illegal to discriminate in the provision of 'goods and services'.

(18) Cancer Research UK are, in my opinion, in breach of both. The Equality Bill, expected to take effect shortly will / should also embody Article 14 and Section 29 -  putting CRUK in breach of the law.

(19) Anyone can read my message sent to Harpal Kumar - in Cancer Chat: Is Race for Life Sexist... Comment 187.

(20) Now, have a look at The Equality Bill - note that stated in : http://bit.ly/Qu2MGc 

(21) Note the reference in 610: It also allows single-sex activities for the purpose of promoting or supporting a charity (such as women-only fun-runs) 

(22) Note the last statement to 611 : Race for Life, a women-only event which raises money for Cancer Research UK, is lawful.

(23) It appears to me that CRUK petitioned the former Labour Government Equality Minister very hard.

(24) There are thousands fewer participants now in Race for Life - despite the desperate efforts by CRUK with a Gloria Hunningford DVD on Facebook? http://bit.ly/iR6WsA

(25) Further, on BBC Breakfast news, CRUK's Natasha Hill was interviewed on 15th May 2011, stressing they were struggling to find participants and expected them to be down by 10% compared with 2010. Cancer Research UK struggles to find race participants http://bbc.in/iBCa1W

(26) In this link you will find that 64,000 fewer participated in Race for Life, as stated in CRUK's Annual Report, for year ending March 2011 http://bit.ly/vNHaFS;

(27) ????? How did CRUK invite boys under 11 to participate in Race for Life this year? Will they be allowed next year? When will "all the family" ???

(28) CRUK could / should follow the example of e.g The London Marathon, Great
North Run etc etc etc...

My very best wishes to one and all taking the campaign forward towards
the hoped for justifiable victory....

John Taylor...

 

PS: Can The Equality Bill be amended - by communications by one and all to their MPs?

PPS: Can a legal opinion be obtained to ascertain whether or not the Equality Bill reference to Race for Life is in breach of Article 14 of The Human Rights Act?

http://bit.ly/N6FZ2e

PPPS: This also serves as a comment John Kimble's article "Ten things everyone should know about Cancer Research UK's sexism"

 

 

NOW VIRGIN AUSTRALIA THINKS ALL MEN ARE PAEDOPHILES

Some readers may have missed the news this week of Virgin Australia being the latest airline exposed as believing all men are paedophiles who cannot be trusted to sit next to unaccompanied children. This type of misandry in airlines goes back at least 12 years now and we've covered it plenty of times before, for example when British Airways were forced to withdraw the policy by equality hero Mirko Fischer.

Virgin say they are going to "review" the policy, but to m even that's unacceptable. I know it's sexist, as do readers, as do they, and when discriminating like this in such a disgusting and harmful manner then the only logical and decent action is to stop immediately and apologise. Some of the news coverage has been particularly good this time around, and it's interesting how the story has spread to different countries, so rather than say any more I'll simply share some of the links with you:

Original blog post that exposed Virgin Australia's misandry

Sydney Morning Herald (recommended)

Virgin Australia's second response

NBC

Stuff.co.nz

Boing Boing

Huffington Post UK

by John Kimble

CANCER RESEARCH UK - NEGLECTING PROSTATE CANCER TODAY BECAUSE IT WAS NEGLECTED YESTERDAY

Despite the overwhelming evidence against them, CRUK still continue to deny their sexism against men. On the plus side it's certainly welcome to see the organisation finally engaging in dialogue, so lets examine their response to criticism.

Replying on behalf of CRUK chief executive Harpel Kumar, Carolan Davidge writes "let me reassure you that we are very much committed to helping men". Firstly lets analyse what she gets right in her email. For one thing she talks about CRUK's work on testicular cancer and I think this is one area where the charity's conduct isn't especially unreasonable. Testicular cancer has a very high survival rate and although far from rare, there is no epidemic of it. CRUK should be doing more, but there's nothing scandalous or vastly disproportionate about the resources they put into it it's hard to produce a compelling case for a "guilty" verdict of sexism by looking at that one issue.

Prostate cancer is the exact opposite, everyone hopelessly neglects it, and looking at CRUK's activities you'd never ever believe that it was almost as common as breast cancer (with the gap shrinking rapidly). Not only is awareness hopeless, but research and understanding it is at a primitive state due to decades of neglect. CRUK themselves admit that prostate cancer was neglected in the past, so what their response to this? Do they pump extra finding into the disease to make up for lost time or do they ignore the past and just give fair funding to prostate cancer today? The answer is neither. CRUK state "Although there has been a deficit in prostate cancer funding in the past, there’s been a substantial effort to remedy this..we’re now seeing some focused, concerted action on this front."  However, CRUK still spends twice as much on each breast cancer patients as it does for each prostate cancer patent, and more than three times as much per ovarian cancer patient. Their justification for doing so is "the simple fact is, we know much, much less about prostate cancer than we do about any other cancer in the ‘big four’" So we're stuck in a vicious circle, CRUK (and others) blatantly neglected so many men in the past, and because of the lack of understanding resulting from this neglect, they use this as an excuse to continue to do so in future!

CRUK's most recent defence against allegations of sexism highlights their cancer information pages and publications as supposed proof of their commitment to men, but just like someone who keeps digging when in a hole, all we get to see is more proof of their sexism. The CRUK page on cancer information prominently lists six cancer types for visitors to click on, other cancer require expansion of the list to find one's cancer type. Naturally the "big four" are included, but also in the six of these apparently key cancers is cervical cancer. Despite the attention given to it in society, cervical cancer isn't actually especially common and numerous other cancers are far more prevalent, such as bladder cancer, and skin cancer, both of which also have more male victims than female. In CRUK's list of the 20 most common cancers cervical cancer barely makes it in at all, being the 19th most common type so why is it given this undue prominence, particualrly given that the HPV vacine is likely to reduce incidence of it by the day? The female bias is even more blatant on the main CRUK home page. This list of six of supposedly key cancers is reduced to five, with pancreatic cancer (the ninth most common type) omitted but cervical cancer (number 19 remember) staying firmly in place. It's worth emphasising that this bizarre obsession with women's female body parts by CRUK is going to hamr women as well as men, as most of them will not get one of these specific cancers either.

Moving on, if a visitor expands the list of cancers they find a link to a page on "womens' cancers" but not one for men. This despite the fact there are actually more cases of cancers unique to men than to women each year (43050 compared to 19343). Similarly, as with their slogan, much of the breast cancer information seems unnecessarily gendered too, in fact I can't even see anything on the breast cancer information pages even acknowledging that men get the disease.

Finally we need to consider the publications and other information that CRUK provide. They boast about these in their denial of the allegations of sexism but it is perhaps their weakest area of all. Remember, CRUk has a dedicated breast cancer campaign, with its very own website, slogans and even merchandise. This same organisation cannot even be bothered to produce prostate cancer information in large print as it does with far less common cancers, in fact it can't even bring itslef to offer one measly prostate cancer poster anywhere on its site.

I'm not pretending that everything about CRUK is anti-male and they did at least kick up a bit of a fuss when the government tried to deny prostate cancer drugs to men. Lets be honest here though- if CRUK had given half as much attention to prostate cancer as it does to the likes of breast cancer then the government would never have dared to try such a thing in the first place. Personally I think its noteworthy that of all is that of all the people to contact CRUK regarding their sexism, the only one to receive a reply thus far was female, again proving that not only are many male cancer patients neglected, their voices are ignored too. CRUK are quite correct to say they are "committed to helping men", the question is why they are so much less committed to helping men than women?

by John Kimble

THE RADICALISATION OF SPORTSWOMEN WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN EQUALITY

The problem with modern feminism in its radical form is that it radicalises young women into believing everything that does not go their way is down to sexism, a sexist system and evil men. They want equality but when it does not 'work' for them - they don't want equality - though they would never say it. This McCarthyism can be seen in sport and the Olympics has given it a new platform.

Last month, the site pointed out the hypocrisy of those who wanted and got equality at Wimbledon when clearly there is a difference in the work needed to win a men's title compared to a women's title.

This week, we have had silver medalist Lizzie Armitstead raising the issue of sexism in cycling about the coverage and the money (Guardian1, Guardian 2 and BBC) . If women get paid less in the Velodrome competing in the same events (in terms of the races which are circa the same distances as the men's) that is unfair but is Ms Armitstead saying the men on the Tour De France should get paid the same as women in their Tour de France which is nowhere near as tough.

Following hot on the heels of this is Denise Lewis calling for a separate women's Sports Personality of the Year (thanks everyone for sending me the link). Again, on the one hand women like Denise want to be seen as equals to men but then when it does not work in their favour (as Bradley Wiggins is likely to win) they hypocritically call for inequality but dress it up as though they calling for equality. Ms Lewis is just indulging in man-bashing and witch hunting.

Gabby Logan though speaks up for equality in the coverage proving that many many women understand the meaning of equality (Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail). A short debate took place on the Daily Mail.

Lastly, there has been much about girl power in the papers about their achievements and there is nothing per se wrong with that if the tone is right (that is, it is not anti-male). Everyone in Britain should be pleased about the success of our female athletes, and of course, our male ones.

Except though, it is then taken up by the radical gender feminists and turned into a 'it proves women are superior to men debate'. This article in The Guardian sums it up , and sums up why they are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to equality. Who cares if women win more medals than men - it is not relevant in an equal society.

Posted by Skimmington

 

CANCER RESEARCH UK FINALLY ADMITS RACE FOR LIFE IS OFFENSIVE (BUT CENSORS ANYONE POINTING IT OUT)

It's now over three weeks since I published my Cancer Research UK sexism investigation and, despite the record interest it generated, as far as I'm aware the organisation has failed to respond to a single point made. Therefore I'm now forced to reveal the next instalment of my investigation into the activities of CRUK. In the following article we examine the goings on over at their "cancer chat" forums and examine the problems in having an almost exclusively feminist female staff handling what is principally a male condition. A number of interesting developments have occurred, with the organisation and its staff repeatedly misleading users of the site and practicing their usual sexist double standards.

1. Criticism of CRUK is banned
While CRUK staff were previously quite tolerant of discussion and debate on their forums, anyone now criticising CRUK's sexism on their forums is immediately banned form the site without so much as a warning. This is a real shame as a useful debate on their sexist Race for Life event took place in the past and it was interesting to see how those touched by cancer largely detested the event and how former supporters came round to our point of view. Of particular note is that CRUK banned users for posting about a hypothetical version of Race for Life where instead of banning males, the charity instead barred ethnic minorities. Despite this point clearly being made as a vehicle for condemning CRUK's activities, with entirely decent language and tone and clearly not a serious suggestion, the posts was deleted for being "offensive". CRUK representatives thus admit this concept of a discriminatory and divisive type of fundraising event is wrong, therefore putting them in the rather precarious position of admitting the very concept of it's Race for Life event is offensive too, so many congratulations and thanks to them and particularly moderator Renata Sims for finally coming clean. (note - for balance I should state that once alerted to the fact that they effectively condemned their own event CRUK sought to "clarify" their position claiming that it was the tone of the language they were opposed to. Given their track record of misleading users of the site I'll let people draw their own conclusions about this issue).

2. Discussion of Race for Life is banned  (except it isn't if you say nice things)
When closing down discussions on Race for Life, CRUK's attempted justification was "they cause offence to members of this community". The issue is a clearly a hot potato and it would be understandable were CRUK to close down every conversation on the topic of Race for Life. However, this isn't what has occurred and people, including the management of the site, still openly show support for the sexist event, only dissenting voices are silenced. Most significantly of all, the clear consensus of the long discussion regarding Race for Life was that the event was sexist. So above all else, it is clearly those supporting the event who are the ones causing by far the most offence to users of the site. Site moderators also suggest people make contact with other staff/departments to discuss their concerns and that the forums are not an appropriate place for such material. However, all our questions go unanswered and our emails ignored, so once again their comments are incorrect and people have no other method of communicating their concerns to CRUK than the forums.

3. Critics of Race for Life openly subject to abuse
Contrary to CRUK's pretence of being concerned about the community and the site being "a safe and welcoming place", the fact is that genuinely offensive personal attacks are left in place, just as long as they are directed at critics of CRUK. Examples of this include one poster suggesting a man critical of the sexism should go back to his own country, while another labels the discussion as "hilarious" and boring and also makes personal attacks calling people "cry babies" also telling them to "man up". It is clear that those on the end of these sexist and xenophobic abuses, not to mention other site users, found these episodes distressing  and the last personal attack is of immense significance in the context of cancer, the "man up" attitude is at the heart of the problem which stops people taking men's health seriously. The posts have sicne been reported to the site's management but they are still left in place, presumably due to the fact they were written by Race for Life supporters. The fact that innocent criticism of Race for Life is censored, whilst at the same time as this content being left alone says it all. CRUK have no concern for its own site rules and would much rather censor a healthy and civil discussion than deal with any real personal attacks and abuses. The very same sub forum where Race for Life comments are censored also contains numerous offensive jokes aimed at men, the very first in the thread concerning a man trapped in a relationship with a violent wife, with "jokes" concerning fatal domestic violence against men a recurring theme.

4. Obsession with female cancers
On a site where every single past and present staff member is females is unsurprising to find a highly feminised environment, but they don't' even attempt balance. I've examined the posts of all CRUK staff on the forums and the site has a handy "tags" feature for the most common terms they use. Of the four current staff members every single one had repeatedly used terms for a least one form of cancer associated with females whilst not one was tagged with any form of male specific cancer whatsoever despite there being a similar number of sufferers. Even relatively rare female cancers get far more mentions than prostate cancer, one of the most common cancers there is.

I've also examined other online activities of the these staff members on sites such as Twitter and the theme of ignoring men continues there too. For example, Sarah Broughton, the manager of the site follows various female associated cancer causes on Twitter and female patients yet no males other than one child. She also has interest in other events which discriminate against men, such as the Orange prize for fiction and not only raises money for breast cancer but for ovarian cancer too (the later event taking place in the CRUK office). Her Facebook accout includes "likes" for numerous cancer casues and charities, with appproximately 20 pertaining to female associated cancers or patients and a fair few gender netural casues also "liked". About the closest she comes to supporting a male cancer charity is the "real men wear pink" breast cancer campign. Just to really rub it in she also lists on of her favourite TV shows as the hideously sexist "Loose Women" programme! Other site staff Tweeted comments warning people against saying "I'm not a feminist" and mocking the sexual prowess of young male pop stars. Predictably, most staff appear to use the misandrist Guardian newspaper as their sole news source with one even providing an interview for the paper.

5. CRUK are misleading users of the site
If we again examine CRUK's statement attempting to justify comments on their forums they claim "the moderators and nurses are not directly involved with Race for Life or any other fundraising activity". This statement is a complete fabrication. Having uncovered the identities of the moderators I've found a number of them have participated in the event, usually on multiple occasions and they even have Race for Life pictures plastered all over their Facebook profiles. Further investigation shows some of these pictures to be highly prominent publicity photos, used to publicise the event and to advertise Race for Life merchandise. Quite incredibly, one person modelling said clothing is the manager of the cancer chat site!. Thus far from being uninvolved in the event, the manager of the forums is actually arguably the face of Race for Life.

Having pointed out these facts to CRUK management, there appears to have been quite a cover up, with the organisation hastily attempting to remove all the images in question from their website. However, they've missed one so you can still see the proof for yourselves (for now).  No apology has been forthcoming from CRUK for lying to users of the site, something which would have been particularly appropriate given that the forum rules state users should not post "any material or links to any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate"

6. Race for Life breaches' CRUK's forum rules
One problem with engaging in borderline illegal and discriminatory activities is that even if you mange to get away with it, you're still breaching fundamental principles and basic sound practices. We've previously proved CRUK management break their own site rules, but in a wider sense the very concept of Race for Life is against the rules too. The section of the rules on "respect for others" states: "Do not post nor privately message any material which may be discriminatory or cause offence on the grounds of an individual's sex, race, religion or belief, ethnic or national origin, sexual orientation, age, marital status, disability or working status." Even if you don't find the event offensive (something which is a matter of opinion), Race for Life is quite clearly both a sexist and certainly a discriminatory event and therefore posts promoting or endorsing it are in breach of the forum rules. As mentioned previously, the majority of site users find the event to be offensive anyway, thus giving yet further cause to remove all such material.

CRUK have again turned reality on its head. As well as there being no good justification for barring Race for Life criticism from CRUK's forums, the opposite is required because anyone endorsing and supporting the event is clearly in breach of CRUK's own terms and conditions (including the manager of the site!). To get themsleves out of this mess CRUK either need to ban/censor all discussion supportive of Race for Life, or they can manipulate their site rules so that material that is sexist against men is no longer banned. A far more sensible solution would be to open up Race for Life to all participants, therefore avoiding all these stupid problems all of CRUK's own creation. Whichever option they chose, it's clear the only truly unacceptable position is the present one.

by John Kimble

THE ANTI-MALE DISCRIMINATION OF ALL-WOMEN SHORTLISTS CONTINUES

Proving the old adage of "once you give an inch they take a mile" right can be clearly seen by the campaign for quotas for places for women on the boards of companies and the witch-hunt (the feminist witchocracy) on those who do not comply. The effect of the quotas is to end meritocracy and the blocking of individuals (men) from being on boards because of the gender.  

The precursor, and one that has never received as much attention as it should do is the anti-male all-women shortlist phenomena. Covered extensively on this site including a full research report outlining their history and how men are being disenfranchised in the political system.

This is the system where the Labour Party bans men from putting their names forward to be Parliamentary candidates for that party at General Elections. It is such a deliberate and mendacious piece of men-hating legislation. 

In April last year the site highlighted the fact that Labour were still intent on using them in a number of seats and now some of those seats have selected their candidates. No men and no women who believe in equality should vote Labour in any of these seats:

Dover - Clair Hawkins

Harlow - Suzy Stride

Worcester -   Joy Squires

Stevenage - Sharon Taylor

Swindon South - Anne Snelgrove

Hastings & Rye - Sarah Owen

Northampton North - Sally Keeble

Lincoln - Lucy Rigby

Thurrock - Polly Billington

 

Previously I had listed seats such as Peterbrough, Reading West, Brighton Kemptown, Burton and Redditch as using this procedure but could not find any reference to a candidate having eventually been chosen.

There continues to be much rancour within the Labour Party about the policy but none ever looks at the blatant discrimination against men. Articles include these:

Ben Cobley (against) versus Luke Akehurst (for) and then Atul Hatwal (against AWS but wants quotas)

Charlotte De Vere (a Conservative against them) versus Harman (for!!!!)

Scarlet Standard (unsmilingly for!)

As was seen by the use of quotas by the Conservative Party and the comments on the last News Update showing how the Conservatives have elected a cadre of anti-male women who enjoyed the benefits of quotas (A-List and special treatment). It means male related issues such as depression, family law, domestic abuse, men's health, health and safety and unemployment are not even being discussed.

There are hold-ups in more selections because of Parliamentary boundary changes (as a result of reducing the number of MP's from 650 to 600) so there seems to be a lack of selections for the next General Election (May 2015) at the moment. When the boundaries are sorted there will be a tidal wave, and that will lead to be a fresh tidal wave of male discrimination.

Posted by Skimmington 

TEN THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT CANCER RESEARCH UK'S SEXISM

Over recent months and years this blog has published a number of articles highlighting sexism by Cancer Research UK, with a particular focus on its disgraceful Race for Life event. As the backslash against Race for Life grows ever stronger and as so many new readers become interested in this issue I felt it was time we took a wider look at CRUK's activities as a whole. Race for Life is simply a symptom of wider problems at the organisation and in my view the entire charity is institutionally sexist, particualr given the fact that, even according to CRUK's own reports "In general men are at significantly greater risk than women from nearly all of the common cancers that occur in both sexes".

I therefore present a summary of the ten of the prevailing sexist attitudes at CRUK. I strongly sugget readers support other cancer charites until some of the issues below are addressed.

1. Male fundraisers are not wanted
It's pretty obvious that the organisation who set up Race for Life and deliberately excludes men from "the biggest fight against cancer" doesn't want their money (unless it's arrives via a female intermediary who then takes the credit for raising it). Lets examine exactly what happened to get us into this situation of CRUK barring most fund-raising by men. In the mid 1990s CRUK (then under a different name) purposely went out and set up large numbers of female-only fundraising events. Contrary to the spin they put on things, at no point have they engaged with men in a comparable fashion, nor really attempted to do so. Unlike with some other fun-runs we don't merely have a case of gender segregation here, there simply is no parallel event for men and never was. The few attempts made to solve the problem occurred years after the launch of Race for Life and were all half-hearted afterthoughts, destined to fail due to their narrow scope. For the most part, male fundraisers simply are not wanted. CRUK describes a man's role as a "supporter", which in reality means a second class citizen who's purpose it to clean up after women at events.

2. Men do not buy things
The merchandising work at CRUK again follows an overwhelmingly sexist and non-inclusive pattern. Other than clothing, items for sale on their website mostly consist of flowers, a selection of cake-related items, aprons, wedding planners, baby journals and pink diaries. An "Essential" section of the site includes a whole series of hideous Race for Life clothing and accessories for women and girls. Finally, just for even more gender balance, we then have a series of breast cancer awareness related goods on sale, including pink ribbons and bra key rings. Not one single item can be found anywhere highlighting a male specific cancer or a male focused event or where the funds solely go to combating a predominantly male specific cancer. I did find a number of rubber ducks which looked like nice gifts for children, but a closer look show even those to be plastered with breast cancer awareness ribbons.

3. Men do not get breast cancer
Race for Life began as a women-only event aimed at raising money for breast cancer, yet this is not a single sex cancer. Yes far fewer men get breast cancer than women, but those unfortunate enough to do so are more likely to die than female patients, mainly due to a lack of awareness. The way Race for Life portrays breast cancer as simply a women's issue therefore causes real harm but they don't stop there. CRUK's slogan for their breast cancer campaign is "join the fight for womens' survival", so once again, men are out of the picture right from the start.

4. Men are sex objects
A recurring theme in CRUK's work is their portrayal of men as sex objects. Previously we've seen breast cancer awareness videos featuring a woman groping a half naked male model and CRUK's notorious e-male app of male celebrities begging to perform a strip-tease to get women to participate in Race for Life. Newer developments in this area include teams of specially selected  "hunky" corporate male cheerleaders at Race for Life events. I've I've stated before, I'm not anti-sex, and such objectification doesn't necessarily present a problem in itself, particularly were it to work both ways. However I'm yet to see any evidence of CRUK presenting women in this way, and when considered in conjunction with CRUK's other activities it becomes clear they have an issue with their attitudes to men.

5. Men's views don't count
A key component of the CRUK world-view is that men's views on matters simply don't count. Time and again we've been informed that Race for Life remains a sexist event due to the wishes of a minority of the participants, but why don't CRUK survey non-participants interested in cancer and see what their impression of the event is? The theme of CRUK ignoring men's voices again came to the fore earlier this year when the option of boys running in the event was reinstated. This came about directly because of the actions of Claire Parker, even though the likes of John Taylor have argued exactly the same thing for over a decade. Of course I congratulate and thank Claire for her work, but it's unfair that, in the eyes of CRUK, her views should carry so much more weight than that of any man. The organisation is so blinkered that I understand they have now gone as far as even refusing to open emails from John Taylor, thus showing a huge amount of disrespect for such a successful and longstanding equality campaigner.

6. Men aren't important
CRUK produces many excellent posters and they can also be downloaded from their website. Mouth, breast and ovarian cancer posters are available but nothing for prostate cancer. This is despite the likes of ovarian cancer being  rarer by a factor of more than five. CRUK's complete disregard and failure to understand prostate cancer is also illustrated in more subtle ways. For example it's breast cancer and even gullet cancer publications are available in a special large print but not those for prostate cancer. We know that besides gender, the other reason prostate cancer gets neglected it due to agism, yet here we have a group of older cancer suffers, clearly with the greatest need of the larger text, but yet again they are ignored. Sexism is found elsewhere too, the most obvious example being CRUK's dedicated awareness sub-sites. Their breast cancer site in particular is highly comprehensive and has had a lot of effort put into it, but the corresponding site for prostate cancer (or any male specific/associated cancer) just doesn't exist! Their disregard for men couldn't be much more blatant. CRUK's report on "The excess burden of cancer in men in the UK" acknowledges that "a lack of knowledge of cancer" is one factor which results in the development of cancer in men, so why are they making this situation worse?

7. Violence against men is great
In addition to its sexist slogan, CRUK's breast cancer campaign even appears to encourage violence against men. Posters inviting people to join "the fight for women's survival" featured two female figures wearing boxing gloves attacking a male figure. So, not satisfied with neglecting men and male cancers therefore consigning men to an early death, CRUK's advertising effectively endorses a quickening of this process thorough physical assault.

8. Men don't make good employees
Although I haven't been able to uncover any figures, one striking aspect of CRUK's activities appears to be the sheer volume of women employed there. In my experience, if you send them an email, phone them up or post a message on their forums the odds are that you'll almost never come into contact with a single male employee. For example, a quick glance at CRUK's cancer chat forums shows the entire moderation staff to be female, as were all those moderator's predecessors. It would appear that this female dominated workplace has resulted in a clear prioritisation of female-associated cancers and patients despite the fact that most cancer patients are male AND those male patients are more likely to die from cancer. I don't' believe in sexist quotas or anything of that nature but it's ridiculous that females dominate an area of most relevance to men and at the very least CRUK might provide a few token men for say prostate cancer suffers to talk about sensitive issues. Compounding this matter further is the particular type of female recruited to the organisation, with many I've come across fitting the Guardian-reading gender feminist stereotype, and therefore having the bizarre attitude that CRUK's sexism is acceptable or somehow even a good thing.

9. Men are worse than dogs
Strangely, CRUK allows dogs to participate in Race for Life. It's not just female dogs either, even male dogs are welcome to participate. This therefore means dogs actually have more opportunities for involvement in fundraising activities with CRUK than men, and suggests the organisation has a higher regard for these animals than actual human males.  If your dog is so crazed and likely to bite others that it needs to wear a muzzle it can still "Race for Life", yet even a Hannibal Lecter style mask, various restraints and being wheelchair-bound would not facilitate entry for a man. Obnoxious misandrist feminists regularly write hateful comments and signs about men being chaperoned so they don't rape anyone, but CRUK's position is in some ways even more extreme, and even a chaperone or two isn't sufficient supervision.

10. Men are stupid
Above all else, CRUK believes men are so stupid that they can lie to them over and over again without anyone noticing. Perhaps the most visible aspect of this is CRUK's laughably dishonest slogans for events such as Race for Life, whereby the organisation loudly proclaims  "it's all of us vs cancer". Other CRUK gems include repeatedly telling us "Together we will beat cancer", whilst simultaneously creating pointless gender divisions therefore and reducing "togetherness" at almost every possible opportunity. Further dishonesty and hypocrisy is in evidence in the organisation's strategy document, under the heading  "Tackling cancer inequalities".  CRUK states "a number of different groups in society experience unacceptable inequalities in cancer. The nature of these inequalities in cancer is complex, and we have only limited evidence in some areas. But we will push Government to do more to tackle cancer inequality where it can." As we showed earlier CRUK have already admittedly that men are significantly more likely to get cancer than women and those getting it also more likely to die, yet their spending patterns bear no relation to this evidence nor do they have any polices in place to solve the problem, instead only identifying LGBT, people, ethnic minorites and rural dwellers as legitimate groups needing help. Many of the previous nine points demonstrate clear inequalities in spending with regards to education/awareness etc and the trend continues for actual research. Using the statistics on CRUK's own website I calculated CRUK's 2010/11 spend on gender specific/associated cancers as:
£453 for anyone with prostate cancer
£902 for anyone with breast cancer
£1,615 for anyone with ovarian cancer.

Despite there already being clear cancer inequalities in society, and in particular a sickening neglect of prostate cancer, CRUK is actively making the gender gap worse in almost everything it does and it a major contributor to the phenomena. What on earth gives them the right to lecture and lobby the government on such an issue where they are so clearly such a major part of the problem?

CRUK really needs to decide if they care about men or simply want to be a women-only organisation. Right now it appears that they are the later, masquerading as an organisation that pretends to care about everyone.

 

by John Kimble

NEWS UPDATE

Here are a selection from the last two weeks (in no particular order) and thanks to those that sent them through:

The Guardian: Neither breadwinners nor losers - what role do young men play next? (Ally Fogg) Ally's article makes a number of key cornerstone points - first about men being ignored by social policymakers and also the example on ESF funding. The only issue I take with Ally is he is reluctant to really name the guilty parties who are deliberately ignoring men and carrying out these discriminatory policies. I may well be unfair here as he does mention ESF, but who are the politicians responsible for this policy - list the guilty men and women. He has a new blog.

HR Magazine: Businesses hold dads back when it comes to family (David Woods)

The Guardian: These Tory women are narcissists, not feminists (Tanya Gold) If you read the comments sections, it shows these men-haters are bing challenged.

Equalities and Human Rights Commission: Reading Lists published - The EHRC is now making it even easier to find the texts they love - I have seen the JR Schackleton pamphlet on gender pay is on it though!

Equalities and Human Rights Commission: Staff reduction announced

London Evening Standard: London can seriously harm men's health (Sophie Goodchild and Emma Slater). The full reports from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can be found here and here.  

Various: French tennis-player Gilles Simon says men should receive more prize money than women at Wimbledon (Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian)

A Men and Women's MRA request for London

Daily Telegraph: Girls outperforming boys in masuline subjects (Graeme Paton)

Men's Network - Funding for male cancer

Please let me if I have missed any?

Posted by Skimmington

PMS - PUNISH MEN SEVERELY

I saw a girl (circa 21) today with a badge on her hat with the words "PMS - Punish Men Severely".

Looking on the web, there seems lots of these products available. They have obviously replaced the 'men are stupid, throw rocks at them' tshirts/mugs.

I wonder what the militant feminists who laugh at this would think if the genders were reversed and also it is just another way of demeaning men - some of whom who will actually be punished as victims of domestic abuse. It shows the hypocrisy of the militant girl power advocates.

You can buy merchandise on ebay, zazzle and a car sign on Amazon!

Here is a selection.

Posted by Skimmington

NEWS UPDATE

A list of recent articles and thanks again to those who have emailed them in:

Abused to the Accused website

Daily Mail - Women are happier and less stressed than overworked men (Graham Smith)

Daily Mail - Britain's generations of mummies' boys and daddies' girls (Martin Robinson) - The article says "Not wanting to settle down or marry is the other main cause, especially among men"- you can thank men-hating Cafcass and the biased family courts for that.

Daily Mail - NHS remove 'Dad' from pregnancy handbook (Sophie Borland)

The Independent - The future's not Orange (Robert Dex) - The future should look bleak for this 'celebrated'  women-only award but we all know there will be queues of organisations wanting to pick this up.

BBC Radio 5 - Men's Hour is back on

Spotify - Violence, Terror, Coercion, LOL - Idiots not taking the Coronation Street story seriously and well done to ManKind Initiative for having their phone number on at the end of the programme.

New Statesman - Don't jusge a book by its press: Second Sexism (Ally Fogg) - Ally Fogg is always worth reading and the comments are a 'delight' to read!

New Statesman - Why is male unemployment not an issue? (Alex Hern)

Irish Health - Male circumsicion is an assault: The campaign is growing

Posted by Skimmington