The Rights Of Man

IN LABOUR'S WORLD EQUALITY MEANS BANNING MEN FROM SPEAKING OR LISTENING

I had mentioned that I was to review what was going on at the party conferences and as you would expect Labour's is very revealing as they are continuing to want to be the vanguard of the anti-male political world we live in.

The Liberal Democrats had Featherstone ranting and its pro-women/anti-man groups but nothing compares to Labour. 

It was bad enough when they were in government where they introduced a Minister for Women (but no Minister for Men) and then government ministers took it in turns to bring in as much as anti-male policies as possible to poison the public sector, the state institutions and the state as a whole. They bankrolled much of the "women's movement" in the charitable sector.

Now at their conference they decided to devote a whole day to talking about women's issues and not allowing men to listen, speak or take part (only Ed MIliband was allowed). This from a party that puts equality at the centre of everything it does, yet bans people because of their gender. As one recent reader pointed out - no platforming people who may oppose them and not engaging them is a classic Marxist feminist ploy.

They also like the Liberal Democrats ran a whole pelthora of woemen-only courses etc.

On the "No Men Shall Speak or Listen" day the hypocrisy is breathtaking but unsurprising, and some agree (see media coverage below). Soon the whole of the Labour Party conference will be women-only.

Posted by Skimmington

 Media coverage: The Indepedent, Women On, The Sun.

 

LIB DEM CAMPAIGN FOR GENDER BALANCE IN PARLIAMENT - MEN NEED NOT APPLY

As we now enter party conference season it is always worth looking at what is happening on the promotion of women, anti-male propaganda and also the purposeful ignorance of male related issues (sexism by omission).

At the Lib Dem conference, we can see the Campaign for Gender Balance, which is trying to bring in sexism and special treatment in the selection of candidates - an issue that Labour have been using for years (all women-shortlists) as have the Conservatives (A Lists, quotas, hand picked candidates).

The Lib Dems don't go as far as those two parties but nonetheless they have women-only training, extra financial support and mentoring. They also had a whole raft of special sessions at the conference on political campaigning and training which were for women-only.

This of course from another party that talks about fairness and equality but actually practices sexism against half of the population.

The conundrum that must face any Lib Dem though is that in their minds a 'working class' boy with a poor education living on a run down council estate has more opportunities of becoming a Lib Dem candidate and Member of Parliament than a female barrister brought up in Fulham who went to Rodean public school. This proves how sexist this nonsense is and how it just means there is no equality in British democracy.

Posted by Skimmington

PS: Coming next week - Labour bans men from conference hall for women-only debate. 

AN EQUALITIES MINISTER WHO PROUDLY HATES HALF THE POPULATION

If ever anyone raises the question that men are not discriminated against and modern-day feminism is about the hatred of men, then all you have to do is to point to the extraordinary rant by the laughably named Equalities Minister, Lynne Featherstone.

At the Liberal Democrat Conference, her twisted hate for men was uncovered - and it sounded like she  wanted to out-Harman Harman as being the UK's manhater-in-chief. She has form remember.

The first thing that strikes you about her speech is the fact that despite being the Minister for Equalities, there is no mention of the challenges facing men - unemployment, education, health (especially cancer), suicide, family justice and the lack of recognition in areas such as domestic abuse.

The other issue is that her hate-filled venom was not kept for the main stage, it was kept for a fringe meeting away from the glare of the national media. So she thought. As reported widely (see end), and to paraphrase, she not only said men were to blame for everything she also said that women had to grab the levers of power to be superior to men.

Reverse the genders and you could hung drawn and quartered, but people like Featherstone feel comfortable saying it.

One outcome and maybe it continues to be wishful thinking is that there seems to be a gradual increase in the number of people (both men and women) who want to ridicule the anti-male Marxist men-hating stance of people like Featherstone, Harman, Flint, Cooper etc.

Four Conservatives MP's do so as does Anne McElvoy in the Standard.

The point though is surely how can you have a Minister for Equalities who so obviously hates 50% of the population and is proud to say so.

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage - The Sun (the headline should not be Lb Dem MP, but Government Minister!), Daily Mail and Evening Standard

TOM MARTIN ANSWERS BACK IN THE GUARDIAN

It is not often this site is charitable to The Guardian but fair's fair, they allowed Tom Martin to respond to Jonathan Dean's piece about Tom's case.

You are left though with a sneaky suspicion they thought he would shoot himself in his foot when he of course is to on his mettle to fall into that trap.

 As ever, the article is illuminating and so are the comments.

One thing I noticed in the comments was the lack of anti-male feminists coming to the fore to take Tom on. Maybe it is because they know he is right and also because that is not the sort of tactics they employ. They prefer to fight on their own territory rather than have a discussion with those who disagree with them (when do you see the feminists argue against Dr Catherine Hakim on her gender pay gap critiques).

Lastly, it is great Tom is taking this on and also in his article he linked through to this site (resulting in 365 individuals hitting the site) - hopefully many will stick around.

Posted by Skimmington

SCOTLAND'S WOMEN'S AID DOES NOT BELIEVE MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE SHOULD GET THE SAME RECOGNITION AS FEMALE VICTIMS

One of the key things about the debate going in the domestic abuse sector is how the dinosaurs continue to cling onto the gendered view which treats this hideous crime as a crime against a gender (women), thereby relegating men (heterosexual or gay) to second class victims.

Partly this is ideological, driven by the anti-male feminist hatred of men, and partly it is down to funding because the emergence of organisations that either only help men, or want to help victims of both genders puts the fear of God into organisations (Refuge, Women's Aid and Respect) who are spoon-fed millions of pounds to support female victims.

With the current cuts and the closure of services for women, which is something this site would not want, it means it is vital to them to cling onto the gendered analysis. They don't want money transferred from them to organisations that support men or both genders - they want to protect their empires.

The public sector equality duty cannot have helped their cause because it means statutory agencies need to prove they look after both male and female victims. Though many many do not and only pay lip service at best to male victims, there continues to be more recognition, as this storyon BBC Wales shows. Safer Wales and the Dyn Project mention men but the Welsh Minister (Carl Sargeant) clings on to the dinosaur view. The story encapsulates it in one go.

In addition to this, as shown recently, statutory agencies are seeing with their own eyes, the rise in the number of violent women who commit domestic abuse crimes.

The reason for setting this out is below is a key example of where the dinosaurs cannot let go of their sexist notion of domestic abuse.

Scotland's Women's Aid responded in the Herald to Professor Dempseys' plea for the Scottish Government to change its definition of domestic abuse to include men and those in same-sex relationships. Instead of coherence in return, Women's Aid cling on with all sorts of spurious facts and issues - the worse being the claim the CPS have a gendered definition when they do not - it is illegal and in breach of the public sector equality duty.

Read it below for yourself and make up your own mind on whether Women's Aid in Scotland believes in equality for all victims of domestic abuse.

Posted by Skimmington

Letter in The Herald (12 September 2011)

(c) The Herald

 It is essential to take a gendered approach to domestic abuse

Brian Dempsey, in his article for the Edinburgh Law Review reported in The Herald, claims that the Scottish Government’s gendered definition of domestic abuse is firstly unique, and secondly detrimental to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community (“Gay people’s violence risk”, Herald Society, September 6) .

A gendered approach is not a Scottish “peculiarity” – as well as the recognition of the importance of a gendered approach by the UN and the World Health Organisation, the Crown Prosecution Service for England and Wales identifies in its definition of domestic abuse that the majority of domestic abuse incidents are perpetrated by men against women, while acknowledging that domestic abuse can and does happen to men and in same-sex relationships.

 More than 80% of domestic abuse involves a male perpetrator and a female victim, an overwhelming majority by anyone’s standards, however, the argument for a gendered analysis of domestic abuse goes far deeper than the statistics.

A gender-based analysis of domestic abuse is not just about defining “who does what to whom” and it does not assume that abusers are always men and victims always women, nor does it assume that domestic abuse exists only in the context of a heterosexual relationship. It seeks to understand the context, meaning and impact of the abuse and how the abuse of individual men and women impacts differently on women, as a group, and men, as a group. We know that domestic abuse happens to far greater numbers of women. We also know that women experience domestic abuse differently on the whole and are more likely to live in extreme fear and be seriously physically assaulted. Women are more vulnerable to poverty and homelessness as a result of being abused.

Numerous research reports demonstrate that domestic abuse is a cause and effect of women’s inequality; therefore a different approach is needed – one which is based on an accurate analysis of the issue and which addresses both prevention and response. Our understanding of and response to domestic abuse has a great bearing on how we should target scarce resources.

A non-gendered service would fail on several levels, not least because it would deter vulnerable women from seeking the help that they need. It is important that anyone experiencing domestic abuse gets the support and help they need – when they need it – however last year nearly two thirds of our members (61%) reported a reduction in funding from their local authority and a quarter have had to reduce the level of service they provide.

Tanya Rhodes, Scotland Women's Aid

PLEASE DONATE TO TOM MARTIN'S CAMPAIGN - IT IS VITAL

In April this year the site reported that Tom Martin was trying to get funds together to sue the London School of Economics because their gender studies course was sexist against men.

Tom has made a plea to all those interested in male equality to help him fund his legal case - no matter how small a donation you can give - please do so via this site. He needs another £1,100.

Please also forward to others you know - to encourage them to donate.

This case is more than just a personal issue affecting Tom, it is a vital cause that if successful and will have long lasting postive effects for male equaility in the whole of the UK. If it fails, then there will continue to be no check on the unrelenting anti-male culture we have in the UK fuelled by gender studies courses arming armies of anti-male feminists up and down the country.

It is always worth remembering that the anti-male feminists of today will be the power brokers of tomorrow. This is what happened from the late 70's onwards where thousands of women were radicalised into the men=bad, women=good worldview that has meant men have been second class citizens in Britain. Those women who were radicalised now hold senior positions throughout the public sectors, the media, the arts and in politics.

As more and more 'positive' discrimination takes place in the UK further relegating men in the future, those radicalised now will be able to do even more damage to equality because they will be given even more a leg up into top positions.

This is why Tom's campaign is vital.

The second issue worth commenting on is analysing of the commentary the case has received and the response of the LSE. There has been coverage in The Standard, The Guardian (1,130 comments!), Camden New Journal, Forbes and Spearhead.

Tom has told this site that "all the excuses used in the Guardian article, and by the defence, are known ruses, which I have the experience to debunk entirely in court. I researched gender issues and rhetoric for 5 years before entering LSE's Gender Institute, so will get the job done, funds permitting."

Firstly, with any campaigns that threaten the anti-male orthodxoy is that they try and portray the campaigners as being women-haters. You get this from the tone of the Guardian article and in feminist circles right now (The F Word), this will be how Tom will be portrayed. This will also come through official bodies and there will be whisperings against him now. We all know who these organisiation are - some of them taxpayer funded.

Secondly, it is worth studying the LSE's comments in their response in the Standard article -

The university's legal team has asked for the case to be struck out, claiming the core texts were not compulsory, merely recommended readings, and that the texts were equally available for both men and women to read, so therefore did not directly discriminate against men. The team also argues that "any discriminatory effect [against men] was plainly justifiable".

Now obviously this may or may not be the whole statement but the LSE's legal team actually agree that any discriminatory effect is OK. Can you dare imagine what would be the case if the genders were reversed - they would never publish such a statement. It also proves once and for all how discrimination against men is seen as normal, that there is nothing wrong in it and that it should be encouraged.

This is why Tom's campaign is vital - victory will support every man, every boy and every woman who likes men.

If there is one thing or cause you support this year, please make it this one.

Posted by Skimmington 

NEWS UPDATE

Just a few articles, including one following up from yesterday:

Daily Mail - Father falsely acused of being a paedophile by ex-wife tells his story (Jenny Johnson) - Proof of the power of the false accusation.

Daily Mail - Wicked women jailed for crying rape

ManKind Initiative - Sponsor Emily Spink at the Great North Run

Evening Standard - Feminist group plans cuts backlash (Anna Davis) - Did they see the GCSE results this week?

Financial Times - Why women are losing the battle for jobs (Liz Bolshaw) - Does the author of this actually look at the unemployment figures which show far more men are unemployed!

Daily Telegraph - Legal case stops expats moving children abroad (Henry Brookman)

BBC - Tubecrush site taking pictures of men on the Underground (Matt Cooke): Women are allowed to post pictures of men without their permission but not the other way - an everyday example of sexism against men in the UK.

Posted by Skimmington

SMOGS ARE NEW ANTI-MALE STANDARD BEARERS FOR BRITAIN'S ANTI-MALE SOCIETY

A consequence of the strident anti-male feminism of the last three decades, fuelled by an the political platform given to them to it by anti-male Labour government and then an anti-male coalition government, is the seeping into the wider British consciousness that it is OK to say men/boys=bad, women/girls=good.

The elites have created an atmosphere where it is OK to say men are rubbish with impunity.

The rise of Smug Mothers of Girls (SMOGs) can be seen as a direct consequence (Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Independent, Telegraph 2) where basically a group of women/mothers do not want boys and just want girls and when they have them they swagger with superiority.

This is exactly what the Fawcett Society, Harriett Harman, Theresa May, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the legions of anti-male feminists want. The distaste and dislike for men and boys is starting to go mainstream and some stupid mothers are grasping it with both hands. No longer is it confined to the political metropolitan public sector elite

What do their husbands/partners think? Probably too busy working and contributing to the gender pay gap, which they then get attacked for, no doubt. 

SMOGs are a new breed of anti-male standard bearers giving new energy to the vilification of men and boys. What is the difference between this chauvinism to that the feminists complain about?

Posted by Skimmington

HIGH COURT JUDGE THINKS £4 BILLION DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NHS WIDOWERS IS RIGHT

Last month we reported that Iain Cockburn was taking the government to court over the fact that he received less pension because he was a widower than if he had been a widow.

While the government admitted it was discriminatory it still challenged his claim and it has won!

Yes you are right to read it. The judges said the discrimination is fair as it was "objectively and reasonably justified".

Mr Justice Supperstone,said : ‘in my view the absence of the non-dependant widower’s pension prior to the 1989 regulations was objectively justified.  

‘There is no evidence that overall female members in the scheme were in any different position to that of women in society and in the workforce as a whole.’

That is such sexism.

Such is the disdain the judiciary and establishment has for ensuring that equality applies to men too. Silence from the Minister for Equalities, as ever.

The Department of Health has said it would cost £4 billion to rectify. That shows the cost of the discrimination against men and also the discrimination against those poor women in the NHS who had died as they would not want their widowers to lose out because they were men.

When there were campaigns against women being unfarily paid less than men on the same grade at councils, if the same logic applied, then this would have been acceptable before 1988, and therefore they would not be entitled to have back their 'missing' pay before that year. Rightly nonsense, but the judges think it is OK if you are a man. 

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage: Result covered in Professional Pensions (original story on Professional Pensions) and GP online plus background coverage in Daily Mail, Birmingham Post, Daily Telegraph

WHAT IF TRACEY WAS TREVOR? WHAT WOULD BE THE JAIL SENTENCE THEN?

About 25 men per year (21 in 09/10) are killed at the hands of their partners and while a different year Tracey van Dungey’s ex-partner was one of those poor souls (BBC, Independent). Six years later, another man lost his life after she stabbed him at a party.

Only six years later - how could this be?

Well, its because the good old British Justice system applies different standards to men and women convicted of the same crime- the result of long running campaigns by Marxist feminists who do not believe women should go to prison. Their campaign nevers lets up and Tracey is one of their 'success' stories.

Tracey had served 42 months for kicking and punching her then partner Kevin Qui to death in 2004. Under four years and then later kills another man.

Two issues:

If Tracey was called Trevor and victims were women not men can you imagine the backlash in the papers, the lobbying, the endless use of the story as a way to campaign for tougher sentences for men who kill women by the Equalities Commission, the Fawcett Society, the Guardian and other campaigners. "42 months and then allowed to kill again" they'd say.

And to be honest they would be right. However, as Tracey is a Tracey the tragedy of her original pitiful  sentence goes unnoticed.

Secondly it shows how institutionally bankrupt and infested with differing standards the judiciary and probation service has become.

How can anyone who kills someone in this way be let out after less than four years unless there was something else at play. That something else has to be, whether explicit or implicit, whether front or back of mind - she is a woman therefore she does not need to stay behind bars as long as a man committing the same crime would.

This shows how how sexism and double standards has infested the institutions of Britain and some campaigners want more of it.

Posted by Skimmington