The Rights Of Man

THE STINKING HYPOCRISY OF THE FEMALE PENSION CAMPAIGNERS IN AGE UK AND SAGA

Perhaps it was quite prescient to publish this week the history of the Campaign for Equality of State Pension Age when news reaches Rights of Man Towers that Age UK backed by Saga are campaigning against the equalisation of the state pension age (and retirement age) for man and women at 66 from 2018. Why any man is a member of these two organisations is beyond me.

By 2018, men will have received their state pension and retirement at a later date than women for 70 years. That is, 70 years of sexual discirmination against men. On top, men live shorter lives than women so enjoy retirement for even less than women. This 70 years has been a double whammy (covered here and here)

So instead of Age UK and Saga welcoming the news and saying what a great day it is for equality, they march on Parliament (Guardian, Independent, Telegraph , Daily Mail) .

The worst article is from Ros Altmann the director general of Saga who claims it is discriminatory. Yes that's right. The equalisation of state pension ages after 70 years of blatant sexism and discrimination against men is actually sexist towards women. Orwellian doublespeak of the highest order.

Such hypocrisy from people like Ros Altmann, Saga and Age Uk who claim to champions of equality when they stayed silent for 70 years shows how insignificant they feel equality counts for men.

If any men is a member of either Age Uk or Saga, they need their head tested. Rip up your membership book and send it back to these anti-male 'equality' hypocrites.

Posted by Skimmington

MEN CONTINUE TO BE THE FORGOTTEN VICTIMS OF THE RECESSION

Today's unemployment figures show that sadly 2.46 million people are unemployed in the UK. To further quote the BBC website (I pay my licence!):

"The latest ONS figures show that the number of unemployed men fell by 31,000 to 1.43 million, while the number of unemployed women fell by 5,000 to 1.03 million. But of the 12,400 extra people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance, 9,300 were women, the highest figure since October 1996. The number of male claimants rose for the first time since January."

So there is a fall in unemployment and a rise in those claiming Jobseekers allowance from both genders. As the BBC highlighted, the female figure is the highest since 1996. So what is the significance considering there are 400,000 more unemployed men and that the number of men claiming job seekers allowance is 994,000 compared to 474,000 women. In addition, of the 670,000  young people who are unemployed, 61% are male.

So what you may say. Well the press' ever growing obsession of ignoring men and focusing on women meaNS the unemployment stories suddenly focus on the plight of women.

Here are a few - Telegraph , Daily Mail and of course The Guardian.

There is no comment that there are far more men who unemployed than woman. Unemployment is a tragedy for all concerned but to pick out women as a special cases shows that the men who have suffered during the recession are expendable. No comments are made about them.

Posted by Skimmington

WHY DOES CANCER RESEARCH UK NOT ALLOW MEN TO TAKE PART IN THE RACE FOR LIFE IF IT IS WORRIED ABOUT FALLING NUMBERS OF RUNNERS

Cancer Research UK's Race for Life, sponsored by Tesco, is concerned the number of women taking part this year is 10% down, a staggering 200,000.

The answer is very simple, allow men to take part (here and here).

Watch Cancer Research UK struggle to give a coherent answer. Pity the BBC did not ask the question why they don't allow men to take part.

It is such a shame that they won't give up on playing gender politics and end their discrimination against men. It means both men and women who have cancer or want to support loved ones lose out.

Incidentally the figures on their website show they spent £41 million on breast cancer (12,000 women sadly die per year) research and £19 million is spent on prostate cancer research (10,000 men sadly die per year). 

 Posted by Skimmington 

 

 

 

ARTICLES UPDATE

Please find below some recent articles that may be of interest and have not been covered on the site in the past month.

Bestbear.co.uk - Sexual discrimination against male nannies

Daily Mail - Paramedic was unfairly dismissed after false rape claim

Daily Mail - More girls join the Scouts than boys (Steve Doughty)

Daily Mail - Fire service relaxes tests to make it easier for women

Legal Week - Eversheds sex discrimination rejected by tribunal  -A disgraceful attempt by Eversheds to applea against their discrimination against a man. It shows the lengths some go to deny discrimination exists against men.

BBC News - Girls behaviour deteriorating in the classroom

Guardian - MPs warn against false allegations in family courts

Daily Mail - Sexism is dead say British women (Steve Doughty)

Guardian - Quotas and women-only shortlists aren't popular but they work (Suzanne Moore)

Guardian - Glencore Chairman says women prefer bringing up children than being in the boardroom

Posted by Skimmington

LABOUR STILL USING SEXIST ALL WOMEN SHORTLISTS AND NOW LIBERAL DEMOCRATS SIGN UP TO STOP MEN FROM BEING MP'S

A big theme of the site has been the political disenfranchisement of men through the political process by stopping them from being able to stand as MP's or other candidates. This is down to the invidious all-women shortlists used by the Labour Party (Labour used it 58 times at last year's General Election) and A-lists/quotas and other discriminatory tactics used by the Conservatives (Four of their MEPs are sitting in Brussels solely because they are women).

Only 22% (143 of 650, an improvement from 128 in 2005) MP's are women but that is down to Labour's defeat (few of those 58 got elected and many others who were previously MP's because of all-women shortlists also lost - ex Home Secretary Jacqui Smith being an obvious example). Of course, this is irrelevant to the big battalions from the Fawcett Society, who see anti-female discrimination everywhere - a form of Feminist McCarthyism.

However, it is apparent that Labour are continuing with the practice in:

Dover

Harlow 

Reading West

Worcester (Labour councillor resigns in protest)

Peterborough (plus this from the local elections Peterborough)

Stevenage

Swindon South

Hastings & Rye

Northampton North

Lincoln

Thurrock

Brighton Kemptown

Burton or Redditch

No man in those seats should vote Labour when men have banned from standing.

Now the Liberal Democrats are getting in on the act. They have announced specialist leadership programmes for women only and also want to fiddle the selection process so it is heavily skewed towards women (Guardian). Basically it is an A-List similar to the one adopted by the Conservatives for its 2010 selection round. This is where there were 100 people on the A-List and only they could apply for the best seats and explicitly over 50% on the A-Lists were women.

Rather than try to find out why do not want to stand and whether they are bothered about it, the parties bring in rules to stop men from seeking office on the sole criteria that they are men. This sexism is probably the most serious of all, because men are being prevented from getting into the legislature. That is what is called British democracy these days. 

 Posted by Skimmington

STRENGTHENING WOMEN'S VOICES SO MEN CAN BE SHUT OUT EVEN MORE

In February, the site commented on the fact the government were now producing newsletters for women's groups. This was a sop to those who complained about the closure of the Women's National Commission, a taxpayer funded organisation. The government said they would keep in touch with women's groups and the site complainedthat there was no reciprocal intention for men's groups

The intention is perfectly clear that the hat is tipped towards making cuts in the present climate so that even the sisters are showing they are making an effort. However, this is all illusory as the policy intention does not change and there is a continually move to not just ensure that women's issues remain absolutely central to the equalities policy making process but also that the voices of men (and groups that represent them) are shut out.

To make matters worse, the government has now produced a consultation document called Strengthening Women's Voices in Government. The government wants (see bottom)to know how it can be better effective at engaging with women and on hat particular issues.

It is clear that there is no intention of engaging with men. This is about lessening men's voices in government so that matters such as domestic abuse, health, family law, unemployment and boys education are never spoken about.

Posted by Skimmington

ARTICLES UPDATE

Sorry everyone...very hard to keep up at the moment. Here are a few must read articles for one or reason or other...

Daily Mirror - Saving the men who live in fear  (Louise Baty)

Evening Standard - I hate to say it but we need a quota to put girls on top (Chris Blackhurst)

Daily Mail - Judge launches stinging attack on Wren as fellow soldier she accused of rape is cleared (Tamara Cohen). Note everyone how the woman remains nameless but the two innocent men are named, forever having their names publicly available but she remains anonymous. That's equality in Britain today!

Daily Mail - Sexism is dead, say Most British Women (Steve Doughty). More analysis to come at a later date.

Daily Mail - Teacher who had sex with schoolboy is spared jail (no byline)

Straight Statistics - Standard recycles out of date figures on domestic homicides (Nigel Hawkes)

Daily Mail - How Facebook is turning women into stalkers (no byline)

Men's Network - Mens Mental Health Week

Dads on the Air (Oz) - Erin Pizzey interview

The Guardian - Where are the women directors? (Kerry Fox) - Spot John Kimble's comment

The Guardian - When Women are victims of growth (Jane Martinson)

The Telegraph - Another 'horrible' case for you Mr Loughton (Christopher Brooker) - child abduction by the state.

Posted by Skimmington

 

 

CANCER RESEARCH UK STOOPS EVER LOWER IN ITS SEXISM AGAINST MEN

A great many people concerned with equality (not to mention cancer) have been deeply disturbed by the conduct of Cancer Research UK and their sexist Race for Life. I'm sure I don't' have to tell you that the race is a female only event where men are banned from taking part. We're not talking about mere segregation here with separate events for the two genders at the same time, it's a completely blatant exclusion of 49% of the population.

Until recently CRUK also ran a half hearted attempt at involving men called "Run for Moore" but quite frankly it was doomed from the start given the institutionalised sexism which runs throughout the organisation and the fact the event was clearly an afterthought rather than anything CRUK ever had any commitment to. This year the inevitable has happened and CRUK have abandoned any pretence of trying to involve men by giving up on Run for Moore completely.

If we had a more enlightened attitude to gender equality in this country then Race For Life would have long ago been declared illegal. Events in other countries aimed at appealing to women or focusing on mostly female cancers generally do not bother being so petty as to ban men. Regrettably one of Harriet Harman's last acts before finally getting kicked out of office was to sneak in explicit legalisation of Race for Life misandry in the "Equality" Bill, though such legislation is at least an acknowledgement that CRUK were previously on extremely shaky ground indeed with regards to their treatment of men over the last 15 years.

Not only is CRUK's sexist in it's fundraising activities of course, it also fails to fund research into male cancer sufficiently, instead spending far more money on female only conditions. There is now increasingly widespread awareness that our society's obsession with breast cancer is having a hugely detrimental effect on all other cancer suffers and it's now fair to say that men and pretty much anyone suffering from any less fashionable form of the disease is now effectively a second class citizen.

So many other people are doing so much great work in taking CRUK to task over their sexism and this has previously meant I've not bothered writing anything new about the organisation as quite frankly I didn't have much to add to my previous piece. Regrettably they have now stooped to a new low and spurred me into writing once again.

Incredibly CRUK have begun a campaign of objectifying men on their website as a way of promoting their sexist Race for Life events. Visitors to the website (mostly women of course) are invited to meet CRUK's "Race for Life hotties"  in the organisation's "E-male" app where they get to choose who they wish to perform for them. Women then gets to personalise the sex object of their choice with CRUK kindly inviting them to take ownership of him and "make him yours".  Visitors then finally get to see a video of "their" "hottie" stripping off his shirt and going topless (note I won't be linking to the content as I do not wish to promote sexism nor the charity concerned).

Now I want to make it clear I'm not some some prudish, anti-sex "Object" style fanatic here. I don't have any problem with sex or nudity and we live in a free society where men are woman are quite rightly able to parade around half naked and do whatever they wish with their bodies for whatever reason.  Sex sells and I accept that.

The CRUK campaign is certainly at the very worst end of the scale in terms of bad taste and the double standards of a lack of female "hotties" arguably makes things even worse. However the real reason such content is so objectionable is because it's a part of the wider campaign of genuinely harmful sexism and exclusion by a genuinely discriminatory organisation who really should be helping everyone. We're not talking about some random inconsequential top shelf magazine printing questionable content. CRUK is a hugely influential and powerful organisation, it's the UK's biggest cancer charity supposed to be responsible for finding cures for diseases that kill millions and helping countless cancer sufferers.

As we noted above CRUK has deliberately excluded men from it's biggest events for well over a decade now. It's then refuses to give sufficient funding to male cancers and ultimately fails to engage with men and get the interested in the issue of cancer, despite themselves admitting men are the biggest suffers of the disease and have the worst outcomes by some distance. CRUK now adds to its sexism by parading topless men all over it's website in something akin to a Nevada brothel style line up.

This isn't first such objectification of men by CRUK either, the organisation has history here as you can see from this breast cancer "awareness" video (warning it's even more tasteless than the Race for Life "hotties" videos ). Once again there is no corresponding video where a male figure of authority molests a semi nude female in the name of prostate cancer awareness.

These videos sum up the philosophy of CRUK and its Race for Life and shows just how sexist the charity has now become. Divisive environments only concerned with one gender or openly hostile the other no only alienate the other half the population, but can makes issues such as objectification more acceptable and therefore more likely. How on earth can men become concerned with cancer when all the messages about the subject in our society are delivered in bold pink writing accompanied blatantly sexist women-only rules and topless men presented as sex objects? Respected author Brian Clegg tells us that just because Race for Life is for a good cause, it doesn't' justify discrimination. Similarly, it doesn't justify tasteless objectification of those CRUK is already discriminating against in all their work either.

On a more positive note these videos do at least further prove all along what we've all suspected about CRUK. If it were in any doubt before, it's safe to say we're now clearly at a stage where the organisation is a lost cause. Please do not donate to such sexist organsiaitons instead support one of the many far better, charities and unfashionable causes out there who survive on tiny budgets without demeaning or discriminating against anyone.

by John Kimble

WHY NO CALL FOR GENDER QUOTAS TO FIGHT THE RADIATION AT FUKUSHIMA?

Watching the story unfold of those brave 180 men (Fukushima 50) fighting the leaks at the nuclear power station in Japan, I suddenly realised that I have no seen calls from the UN Women's Committee, the UK Government's Minister for Women or Harman, the Fawcett Society, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, The Guardian etc about the lack of women involved.

Where is the call to impose a gender quota or an 'A' List or positive action? 

Where is the PR campaign about this awful discrimination at the nuclear plant because there are no women amongst the '50' (all reports say they are only men, so please do not complain if a few are female)?

Many of us would not want women there but we are not allowed to say that. However the silence of the feminist fundamentalists shows not only do they not want women there either but it also highlights their hypocrisy because according to their orthodoxy they should be calling for equality and quotas. 

Society as a whole recognises that men do these types of job and that is the way of nature. Society also recognises that those who do these types of job get paid more. Normal men and women call that fair, feminist fundamentalists call it discrimination. 

The silence of the feminist fundamentalists shows they want gender quotas when it suits them, when it doesn't, they say nothing.

Let's all ensure our thoughts are with those brave men and their families.

Posted by Skimmington  

FEMINIST FUNDAMENTALISM AT THE NATIONAL UNION OF STUDENTS

Yesterday we ran a story about the problems some students had at the University of East Anglia because they fully understood what equality means but the vested interests of the Feminist Fundamentalist movement did not.

The story reminded me of a previous story about Olivia Bailey the then National Union of Student's Women's Officer who had produced a document called "I will win the arguments"  which had a section specifically designed to not just to stop anymore men's officers from being appointed on campuses but also to abolish those few in place. This document has moved from its last address and is now here (page 7).

However, digging around, I found a resolution that was passed at the 2010 National Union of Student's Women's National Campaign Conference. It is in the minutes of this year's conference that occurred at the weekend (there was no similar motion in 2011). The motion is on page 15 and is available via this pdf Download Motion no 803_Men's Officer.

The motion was crystal clear - it wants all existing men's officers to be scrapped, men's officers reinforce the advantages they have on campus (there are now of course less men than women on campuses because of Britain's failure to educate boys so who knows what fantasy advantages these are) and that men's liberation groups be banned but women's liberation groups be kept.

The hatred of men comes through loud and clear and the concern is, and as reviewed yesterday, that those who passed this motion and spoke up for it will soon be embedded into the political framework of this country at a national, local, pressure group (taxpayer funded of course) or quango level. Those feminist fundamentalists will take their student views and infest them into the body politic as they have done since the 1970's.

The power of the internet has meant here it has been exposed for the world to see. In times of yore, these motions would have been passed and no one outside those who went to the conference would know it.

The war against men is being started on campuses up and down the UK and the radicalisation of some women turns them into fundamentalists who despise and hate men and believe men are not equals,they are subservient.

Posted by Skimmington