The Rights Of Man

VOLUNTEERS WANTED BUT NOT IF YOU WANT TO VOLUNTEER TO HELP A MEN'S CHARITY

There are a number of ways that men and boys are discriminated against  - ranging from direct discrimination (often dressed up as positive discrimination for women and girls) which is overt or the most covert form of sexism - discrimination by omission. This is where men and boys and/or the issues they face are 'left out'.

This can be on purpose such as where the Equalities and Human Rights Commission purposely forget inequality for men and boys also falls under their remit or where there is another form of institutional discrimination where men and boys are literally forgotten about. This is still discrimination of course and often it is difficult to figure out what form each case of 'discrimination by ommission' is.

Anyhow, here is another example.

When the coalition government was formed - one of their key overarching strategies was the Big Society. There has been much argument as to what that is but essentially it is about civil society and people volunteering.

Now if I was a man or woman wanting to volunteer for a charity that supports men and/or boys such as one of improving literacy, or a dad's group or one helping men with depression or cancer I might go to the national volunteering website which allows you to search for volunteering opportunities near to where you live.

I would therefore go to Do It, run by Youthnet, and describes itself as "the UK's premier website for volunteering and giving time, offering a searchable database of more than a million opportunities to volunteer."  Youthnet has also been awarded a big grant to use social media more. 

So there am I on the Do It website and I go to the subject drop-down menu and yes I can see 'women' but where is the drop down menu for 'men'?

Er, there isn't one.

So while you may look at youth for any boy's charities, and you may look under gay or BME which would feature some male or boys charities, 'men' itself is not included but 'women' is.

It is just another example of thr everyday discrimination that men and boys face. If you want to volunteer to help a men's group unless it is for a group for gay men, BME men or boys (by using 'youth') there is not a menu for you, but if you want to volunteer for a women's group there is a menu for you. That's equality for you in 2012.

Posted by Skimmington  

JOHN TAYLOR'S LETTER TO TESCO ABOUT THE RACE FOR LIFE

P. Clark Esq. CEO Tesco Ltd. Tesco House, Delamare Road, Chestnut, Hertfordshire EN8 8SL                  ………………………………..............................................

 R.C Taylor Esq., Executive Director, Fund Raising and Supporter Marketing, Cancer Research UK.,  Angel Buildings,407 St John Street, LONDON, EC1V 4AD

………………

Monday, 21 May 2012

 Recorded Delivery

 

OPEN IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Every little helps -Together we will beat cancer

 

Every inhabitant of the UK should be extremely proud and supportive of  Cancer Support UK’s objectives, also Tesco’s very generous support - particularly for the female only Race for Life - but what is the reality?

 Alas, it saddens me to state my experience since the death of my eldest daughter, to cancer, in 2001, is that many males & females are extremely dismayed Race for Life only allows (small boys) to participate until age 11...This causes me to ask: what transpires when those boys are aged over 12  - against the background of the rules being changed recently - following a statement by a small boy, also because of the demands of a mother - Claire Parker ?

 Please see appended details re LITTLE LEGS FOR LIFE. A young lad named Luke from Burhill School asked his mummy why he couldn’t run too - LITTLE LEGS FOR LIFE then became the reality.  

 Then, in Derbyshire Times, of 13^th April. The news is revealed re Claire Parker getting Cancer Research UK to change the rules to allow boys to participate  under 11 years of age. 

Further, in THIRD Sector, the report indicates that 64,000 fewer participated in Race for Life.  

Previously, Gloria Hunningford  in a video on You Tube was pleading for more participants http://bit.ly/KRmrjV

 Then, on BBC News : CRUK’s Natasha Hill was again stressing Race for Life participants were down… http://bbc.in/KpxlJ8          

Against that background I stress, I commend all the female participants in Race for Life, for the millions raised over the years but, alas, sadly, the reality is any of those females could be afflicted, or die, from cancer - I sincerely hope not…

 …But, in those terrible circumstances I must ask, surely, CRUK & TESCO should agree that all males : “the Grandfathers, Fathers, Uncles, Brothers, Sons, Nephews and male friends of the family should be allowed to participate in Race for Life, in every venue, to raise funds in memory of their deceased female relatives ”… I trust you agree?

 Race for Life could / should follow the example of e.g. The London Marathon and Great North Run etc - in which males and females participate together with tremendous success… Race for Life could / should be optional 5 or 10k and “non-competitive”. I sincerely hope you  agree???

 Surely, CRUK will not be heartless and tell all those small boys aged under (11) eleven - they cannot participate when aged (12) twelve and older ?

 I look forward, hopefully, for your considered response confirming all males will be allowed to participate in Race for Life…Your failure to do so will, sadly, leave me no other alternative but to encourage others not to support Cancer Research UK. There are, as you will be aware, many other cancer charities to support… I cannot support a charity that discriminates against half the population - including male customers of Tesco…

Further, your failure  will make a mockery of the statement:

 Every little helps -Together we will beat cancer

 >>> When half the population is excluded from Race for Life <<<

 Yours sincerely,

John Taylor

NEWS UPDATE

A few recent ones and thank you to those who have sent them in.

The Guardian - The Second Sexism is just victim-envy (Suzanne Moore)

Daily Mail - Who cares if men are stuck in the glass cellar (Liz Jones)

Daily Telegraph - Number of men working part-time dopubles as they cannot find full-time work (TUC): Full TUC report. The TUC to me, is severely compromised and inconsistent in talking about this issue as it is constantly banging on about women's rights. Only the day before it issued this report, it said the Equalities Commission had to equality proof the government's policies on behalf of women - which what it really mean was women needed special treatment over men.

You Tube - James Williams' interview with Dr Peter Ball of Norm-UK

You Tube -  VW pro-father ad

New Statesmen - The Men's Rights Zeitgeist (Rhiannon and Holly)

Men;s Network - National conference early bird tickets on sale

Daily Mail - Tasered twice and stabbed husband 17 times (Paul Bentley): What are the odds that if the genders were revered, the husband would go to prison?

The Observer - Cannes 2012, Why no female directors (Vanessa Thorpe): This is a classic case of victimhood without evidence. Where is the evidence that a film directed by a women should be in the top 22 list but is not because of discrimination. There is no evidence so to claim discrimination is just another request for special treatment and the end of equality.

Posted by Skimmington

FRENCH SET THE PRECEDENT FOR A MINISTER FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS IN BRITAIN

It is bad enough in the UK to have a Minister for Women since 1997 (no Minister for Men) along with a Government Equalities Department and an Equality and Human Rights Commission all part of an institutional apparatus to demand for extra treatment and rights for women, while purposely ignoring issues that affect men and boys.

A double whammy of discrimination against men under the auspice of equality topped up with discrimination by omission.

In France, though the new government has gone one step further. President Hollande has appointed a Ministry for Women Right's and even then as the Guardian explains many do not think it is enough.

While this position is basically the same as the Minister for Women, there are two clear differences. Firstly, the Minister for Women (Theresa May) is also the Home Secretary so it is not an exclusive role unlike in France. Secondly, while a Minister for Women will by its nature be a Minister for Women's Rights it is not so explicit and proactive as in France.

In problem it is bad enough that men are ignored and there is a constant stream of pro-women and anti-men rules and publicity, this is a step further.

The problem though is that it sets the precedent and therefore as with all these issues once you take an inch, taking a mile becomes so much easier.

With the current and continuing campaign on issues such as boardroom quotas, the lie becoming the truth around the pay gap and stopping women from going to prison - all now becoming mainstreamed, it is no longer such a leap for the Minister for Women to become the Minister for Women's Rights - rights which are really rights for special treatment rather than rights for equality.

The men of France are doomed, we're next.

Posted by Skimmington

BBC'S NEWSNIGHT DOES NOT BELIEVE TEENAGE BOYS ARE ALSO VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE

Seeing the horrific experiences that Taylah went through on Newsnight (34 minutes in) was quite distressing as were the experiences of Armanie  - who was victim during a same-sex relationship (How do Women's Aid and Refuge deal with that ideologically?). No one for any minute wishes to belittle their stories but what strikes anyone looking at the report is that it fails to mention domestic/partner abuse against teenage boys - whether in a heterosexual or gay relationship.

Troubling is the issue that the facts the BBC use throughout the video and also where they cover the story online are all from Women's Aid and the Home Office and only highlight female figures.

Certainly, from the British Crime Survey every figure for a woman has a male equivalent (see ManKind Initiative 21 key facts) so saying that 1 million women were victims in 2011 is fine  as a statistic (it was 1.2 million) but then deliberately choosing not to state that 800,000 men also suffered that year is sexist.

It is sexism by omission because the producers and researchers of the piece must have consciously chosen not to include male teenagers and male equivalent figures when the figures for women are from the same source and the same table (ManKind's source list indicate page 101 here). The BBC also say 30% of women have suffered from domestic abuse since 16 but so have 17% of men - again in the same British Crime Survey reports.

The statistics on the Newsnight report also refer to refuge and funding cuts. No one wants to see refuge cuts and women being turned away but there are hardly any refuges for men to be turned away from or services to be cut. That is never tackled.

Keeping on the statistics front - it was good that BBC raised the issue of teenage abuse but again as the British Crime Survey shows for 2009/10 - 12.7% of 16-19 year old women are victims of domestic abuse (7.3% partner abuse) but 6.2% (3.6%) of men are too in that age group - one in every three.

Why does the BBC not mention that?

The whole commentary on the piece was about support for female teenage victims. If Newsnight had not produced a sexist report it would have been about teenage women and male victims.

Male teenagers do not even get a look in (the Home Office's £2 million pound campaign about teenage partner abuse did not implore girls not to hit boyfriends, or girlfriends for that matter).

This is a continuation of a trend where the BBC and other parts of the media one minute ensure male victims are mentioned  - BBC Breakfast makes great play about it  (even the Guardian do here but the the Telegraph do not - even for the same story on legal aid), but then they take one massive retrograde step backwards.

Newsnight story was another classic piece of sexual and gender discrimination against men - this time male teenagers who are victims of domestic abuse.

You can tell the frustration from teenage boys or those men who were victims of domestic abuse when they were a teenager about not being included through the comments on the Radio 1 Extra piece. Those frustrations show sexual discrimination against male victims of domestic abuse is alive and kicking.

Posted by Skimmington

WHY DID SEXIST CANCER RESEARCH IGNORE PROTESTS FROM MEN BUT ACCEPTS PROTESTS FROM WOMEN

The wonderful news that Cancer Research UK has changed its rules to allow boys 11 and under take part in its Race for Life is a real victory for Claire Parker and a big thank you for her campaigning in making it happen (Derbyshire Times, Civil Society , Look North and previous coverage - Derbyshire Times).

There are a number of points to make.

The most significant issue is that John Taylor has been campaigning to allow men take part in the Race for Life for a decade. This was in response to his daughter who sadly died from cancer. Complaints to the organisation, complaint to Advertising Standards Authority and others such as the Fundraising Standards Board have gone unheeded. Even the sexist Equalities and Human Rights Commission ensured the Equality Act was modified allow it.

So nothing changes and then Claire launches her complaint and succeeds. Great. But what it does say is that Cancer Research and others were comfortable about dismissing the protests of a man but when it comes to a woman complaining about men (and boys) being banned they give in. What it shows is that not only that Cancer Research have been found to be guilty of sexism in terms of banning men (and still are sexist for banning men and boys aged over 11) they have also been found guilty of sexism because they ignored John Taylor's protests based solely on the fact that he is a man. If Claire Parker was Clive Parker, Cancer Research would not have crumbled.

Other points are of course is there is still the ban on men (and boys over 11) from taking part and Claire has already said she wants that overturned.

The advertising of course, which is everywhere and helped by Tesco's sponsorship, does not mention that men are banned. No mention on the home page of the website. If Cancer Research are comfortable that men are banned why not say it openly - why try and hide it - is it because they do not want to be so obvious about their sexism?

The comments made by Cancer Research UK about why they originally said to Claire that her son could not run was because women felt uncomfortable with young boys running with them is beyond laughable - it is like women do not have sons, brothers, husbands/boyfriends and fathers. Race organisers had told Claire that Connor couldn’t take part in the female-only event as some women felt “uncomfortable” when boys were allowed to join in the race last year. At the time, Claire blasted the “disgusting and discriminatory” move. The fact that Cancer Research UK felt OK to say women found it uncomfortable shows how easy it is to make such misandric lies up and think you can get away with it.

The last point is really that you would expect lots of media coverage on this considering it is a national event. Where is the coverage in the Guardian - or even on Mumsnet?

All in all, well done to Claire and also to John Taylor for a partial victory but we need complete victory because all we want is equality.

Posted by Skimmington 

SEXISM AGAINST MEN IN BRITAIN'S BOARDROOMS - FOR THE FIRST TIME A PROVEN FACT

Some kind reader sent over a scan of an article in the London Evening Standard (it is not online frustratingly) of an interview with leading fund manager Helena Morrissey and supporter of the 30% club, a group wanting to end meritocracy on British boards - that is, stopping men from being able to compete on an equal basis as women for places on company boards (see here).

There is a telling piece in the article:

"One of our members [of the 30 per cent club] said to us yesterday that they'd just instructed their first vote against a director because the board isn't diverse enough"

This means that a man was not voted against because he lacked the talent, skill, experience and ability to be on the board of whatever the company was - he was voted against solely because he was a man. The first clear example of the sexism against men stalking Britain's boardrooms.

And of course, it was not just him who was sexually discriminated against, it also meant that his (if he has them) wife, girlfriend/partner, daughter, sister and mother were as they would have all benefited from his success in being placed on the board. But this is being done in their name.

This has struck the first blow against mertiocracy in Britain's boardroom - it is proof that the effect of the 30% rule and those who advocate it is not really about equality it is about the end of meritocracy,  for special treatment for women and for sexism against men.

Helena Morriseey is proud of the fact that she has nine children and so she should be, but what would be her view if one of her sons was blocked from being on a board simply because he was her son and not her daughter.

Posted by Skimmington 

EQUALITY IN THE UK 2012 - A SPECIAL ADVISER FOR WOMEN BUT NO SPECIAL ADVISER FOR MEN

Earlier this month Laura Trott was announced as being David Cameron's special adviser on women  - to make him more women-friendly and see all policies through the prism of a woman. It is no surprise that Ms Trott is part of the Hampstead metropolitan elite.

Considering that the Conservative Party and its coalition party already have a Minister for Women (Theresa May), a slavishly anti-male Equalities Minister (Lynne Featherstone), a Government Equalities Department  who do not believe men exist ("We lead on issues relating to women, sexual orientation and transgender equality matters; we have responsibility across government for equality strategy and legislation") and an Equalities and Human Rights Department who remain philosophically wedded to everything pro-women and anti-male, you do wonder what more does he need.

And to be honest, having such an appointment continues the anti-male special treatment for women schtick running through the present government (Blue Feminism!) - all run by metropolitan elite upper middle class women who only want more special treatment to give them and their daughters even more of a leg up. It is not aimed at the average women, who not only wants to make a success of her and her daughters life but also wants to see their husband, brothers and sons succeed as well.

What makes it worse is that it is so gratuitously offensive to those women and also to men, because the government not refuses to have a Minister for Men and also to support men and boys on the inequalities they face but that is refuses to actually even want to engage on men's issues.

SPEThe issue pointed clearly out by the letter that was signed by nearly 100 organisations supporting men and boys across a wide spectrum shows how trivial the government sees men and boys. They do nothing on the savage problems in educational attainment for boys, the unemployment rate especially amongst young and older men, the problems associated with depression, suicide, domestic abuse and of course men's health amongst other things. The only area of progress is shared parenting.

If government truly believed in equality, if it really has to have a special adviser on women's issues it would have the same on men's issues. But of course, we know this government does not believe in equality.

Posted by Skimmington

I couldn't bring myself to listen to it but others might  - you have been warned ;@)

GENDER FEMINISM: AN ASSAULT ON WOMEN? by MIKE BUCHANAN

As you know the site welcomes articles and thought pieces from its readers and commentators.

Mike Buchanan, writer of The Glass Ceiling Delusion, David and Goliatha and the forthcoming Feminism: Crones' Disease has penned an exclusive article on feminism.

I hope everyone enjoys the article and it is great to have a writer like Mike penning a thought piece like this for the site.

Download Gender Feminism - an assault on women

Posted by Skimmington

THE POLITICAL DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF MEN IN BRITAIN: A CHRONOLOGY

One of the key issues Britain's political class never want to talk about is how all-women shortlists, gender quotas, A-lists and special women-only courses discriminate against men wanting to stand for office and also the voting public who want to be sure they are voting for the best person.It is a theme well covered on this site.

In response, the following paper has been produced setting out what has happened, the key dates and the key people.

Download Political discrimination against men in Britain

Lastly, I would want to say that all those in the men's equality movement should pay tribute to Peter Law, Peter Jepson and Roger Dyas-Elliott - three men who fought against the injustice of all-women shortlists and have never recieved the credit and plaudits they deserve.

Posted by Skimmington