political commentator * author * publisher * bookseller * radio presenter * blogger * Conservative candidate * former lobbyist * Jack Russell owner * West Ham United fanatic * Email iain AT iaindale DOT com
Monday, May 07, 2007
A Ministry For Men
I've been alerted to a new blog called THE RIGHTS OF MAN. In essence it seems to be a lobby group for men and provides a counterbalance to the feminist agenda. The graphic illustrates the issues they are campaigning on.
About time; for too long men have suffered from physical abuse at the hands of women (I know I have been there) and feel powerless.
Woman have complained that if they go to the police they are ignored or not treated like a prioty - but at least they got get either laughed at by the police or told "well what did you do"
Also men accused of rape (given the media interest in the subject) must be anonymous until proven guilty.
Huge amounts of NHS cash was poured uselessly into wellwomen centres and the like- total waste of cash - we don't need this for men (God Forbid!)-just equal treatment for serious illness.
Priority for women in employment has been a policy in large parts of the state sector for years. Result? Many local government departments and offices barely employ any men at all...
The major problems facing western society may be traced to two fatal defects of universal suffrage.
1. It gives votes to women.
2. It gives votes to chavs.
Women simply do not understand the public sphere and have no business influencing it.
Chavs dont understand anything at all, and always vote for left wing parties that promise to give them whatever they dont possess but are told are their's 'as of right'.
The result is the total feminisation of public policy and power to the malign forces of trotskyism. Thus we have a greater invasion of this country by aliens that has ever occured ever and the dire punishment of anyone who complains. The reduction of education to little more than the 'decontruction' of 'East Enders' and with all teachers who so much as annoy a child immediately classified as paedophiles; on the other hand, all child delinquents are 'understood' and their behavour blamed on 'deprivation' or fizzy drinks. The list is endless but the themes are all similar and equally damaging.
Hatfield Girl (4.25) is right that there is a lot of 'stop' and 'make'.
However, that's because men, in this age of political corretness which coincided with the election of a Labour government, have become of the most abused/ignored section of society.
Even to the point where Blair and Cameron felt it OK to disenfrachise individual men with their women-only shortlists.
Look at the problems raised about education, cancer and domestic violence. They are pretty serious.
Hear hear! As the law stands, some mothers deliberately defy the courts and effectively ignore contact orders. Judges refuse to enforce these orders in the only way that works, viz., by sending disobedient mothers to prison. The reason is, "the child's interests are paramount, and sending a mother to prison can only harm the child."
So children learn, at their mother's knee, that the law can be mocked. Hardly in the best interests of society, or the child.
However they have less then a hope in hell of any national politician doing anything about it.
Inspite of my reasoning that.
If things for young men in Britain dont improve quickly the future is more then grim for everyone.
My 16 year old son takes sexual discrimination in his school especially, for granted.
I obtained 13 0 and 3 A levels without doing hardly any course work and only homework in English to help correct my obvious learning difficulties.
In my South London Comp 1977, only 1 out 17 A level students where Girls. And she failed all of them.
Childcare and housework, whether socialists or feminists like it or not, is far far less apealing to young men then prison time. Thats even if their girlfriend trusted them to do it, which they are hardly ever stupid enough to do.
So we now have a 3rd world type sociaty where women do most of the work, and still look after the kidds and the home, or employ another woman to do it for them.
While paying ever increasing taxes to keep young men turning over our "give a lawyer a job" revolving door, system of "justice."
Brillient, just brillient, so brillient infact that only a socialist or a lawyer could think that this is in anyway a good thing.
As for young kidds now growing up....I think its best to not even go there right now, or we might all get really depressed.
I think it is tragic that Britain has a society so fragmented by the government - divide and conquer - that it has come to this.
What a shame we cannot have a just and civil society without special pleading garbage. But as that has been destroyed for its own purposes by tony blair and his toxic cohorts, then I suppose this is inevitable. And, indeed, it's perfect just - given that this government created the need for it.
No real mention of the fact that children, particularly boys, are less likely to end up in jail with a male parent - widowers actually statisticaly perform better than widows, though they have more difficulty stopping their daughters getting pregnant.
Society makes an automatic assumption that custody should go to the mother - the evidence is that this is not a good thing & indeed is more likely than any single yhing else we can identify to be the cause of our long term increase in crime.
Verity is right (5.38) and having special interest groups scrap over their 'rights' is soooo un-British.
But how do men get their voices heard when for 10 years there has been a Minister for Women?
On the Domestic Violence front for example, 24% of victims are men, yet the government give local authorities £59 million a year to help female victims and nothing for men.
Very good. I've posted here a few times that the poverty lobby bangs on about a 5 year longevity difference between the rich and poor, but that's the same as the difference between men and women's longevity.
Twice I have been physically threatened in my own home by women with knives, following arguments because I refused to shag them, because they were too drunk.
Both times I called the police, while hiding behind my bedroom door. Both times I was violently arrested and detained in the station for at least 5 hours.
Both times I made a complaint to the copps. Both times they were very very very sorry, but told me that this is what they have to do because of central government directives.
Welcome to Britain the most state SEXIST country in the WHOLE western world.
I am a middle aged man and so understand why the police take this attitude at least a bit, sometimes.
However trying to explain to my 16 year old son that he has to just put-up with this kind of violent state sponsored sexism, if this ever happens to him. Will be impossible.
Some might argue that I should have learn the first time around. But I would do the same, just to make a point, and I really dont enjoy shagging drunk women.
Apart from them waking up the next day, not remembering my wonderfull performance, its just far too dangerous these days.
Garypowell, if you talk of 'shagging' women (ie doing something to themm rather than with them) then I just wish the fuzz had left you to the tooled-up women.
(I bet you were 'refusing' them because your giraffe couldn't find its way through the bush either!)
I think equalising men and women's rights would be a votewinner. IE rather than have seperate minister advocates for women and men, have one minister for equality who can address all these issues.
I believe most women (I am female!) would support it. After all, most of us are married to men, have brothers, or have sons. Feminism is about advantaging women, often at the expense of men - this is not what equality is about.
Depression in men is a terrible scourge. I remember when I first came across this page and realising that all the information about depression seems to be aimed at women. But the solutions - pills or counselling - aren't much better.
The main problem is the loss of proper roles for men in society. It is difficult to suggest any solutions for this except that more should be done to reassert traditional values.
"Women simply do not understand the public sphere and have no business influencing it."
I think that is close to the mark, and I speak as a woman who loathes women, who tend to be bossy, in public life.
Patricia Hewitt, Harriet Harmon, Jowell (can't remember her Christian name), Cherie Blair, Margaret Beckett, that baroness something in charge of all of human reproduction, and all the other scarey Blaireys.
Fact of life: women are set up for bringing up children and they tend to be know-it-all and bossy - because that is what gives mothers authority over their children and wider groups of children.
This does not translate well to life in the the wider world, careerwise where they are dealing with adults who do not necessarily accept their "authority" and where they often fail to "know better" than other members of committees.
Margaret Thatcher was an exception because she has an analytical mind. That people of her calibre are so rare should tell us about women in politics.
And socialist women are the worst, because they are a double whammy of sheer incompetence and ghastliness.
This is yet one more area where Dave has failed to understand the score. Women do not seek to be bossed around by other women. I don't think men do either, but I can't speak for men.
Let outstanding women run by all means. But hammering them in to round pegs because they are a woman - when most people don't like women politicians in the first place - is an assault on democracy.
Dave: go away, dear. No one thinks you can run a country.
"Priority for women in employment has been a policy in large parts of the state sector for years. Result? Many local government departments and offices barely employ any men at all..."
Very true, and that's a large part of why those offices are so incompetent.
There is certainly a case to be made for men's issues - and even Antonia accepts that. I do think, however, that it would benefit from being put slightly more subtly than the Rights of Man blog does. I suspect that the work of people like Families need Fathers, through more positive, non-confrontational action is likely to be more effective in the long run.
I'm surprised the female bias in divorce laws and child maintenance aren't addressed. (England has the worse divorce laws for the wealthy spouse any where in the world. The wealthy spouse is normally male)
1.In England (NOT Scotland), if a wealthy man marries, his new wife is immediately entitled to pretty much half of his wealth, no matter how badly the wife then behaves - shagging the local football team, AND the reserves etc etc does not count against her claim to the dosh. 2. Responsible, intelligent, wealthy men are pursued for child maintenance. Irresponsible stupid, poor men nether are.
The result? Wealthy men avoid marriage like the plague. Intelligent men are not passing on their intelligence, and many parts of the population of the UK are soon to be the descendants of less intelligent, less economically active men only.
"There is certainly a case to be made for men's issues - and even Antonia accepts that."
No she doesn't (or only to the extent that she thinks that men have 'issues' which need to be resolved to the satisfaction of women). She is a misandristic bigot: check out her previous postings (and comment responses) tagged 'fathers' rights'.
"I do think, however, that it would benefit from being put slightly more subtly than the Rights of Man blog does."
Which of the twelve Key Priorities outlined here do you think would 'benefit from being put slightly more subtly', and how would you rephrase these?
"I suspect that the work of people like Families need Fathers, through more positive, non-confrontational action is likely to be more effective in the long run."
Well, Families Need Fathers has been in existence for over thirty years now, and has achieved - by its own admission - practically nothing in terms of effective reform. How much longer do you think it should run before something changes?
And, finally, what would you define as 'more positive, non-confrontational action' in this sphere, given that this issue was largely ignored until parents (quite a few women included) began climbing on public structures and generally making a nuisance of themselves without lobbing bricks?
38 comments:
It's Chad Noble's latest project, isn't it?
About time; for too long men have suffered from physical abuse at the hands of women (I know I have been there) and feel powerless.
Woman have complained that if they go to the police they are ignored or not treated like a prioty - but at least they got get either laughed at by the police or told "well what did you do"
Also men accused of rape (given the media interest in the subject) must be anonymous until proven guilty.
The health issues are certainly overdue.
Huge amounts of NHS cash was poured uselessly into wellwomen centres and the like- total waste of cash - we don't need this for men (God Forbid!)-just equal treatment for serious illness.
Priority for women in employment has been a policy in large parts of the state sector for years. Result? Many local government departments and offices barely employ any men at all...
This is long overdue.
Checkout
http://www.rulymob.com/
http://www.rulymob.com/scrorpap.htm
If we're doing victimhood properly, we need an Apology.
Dunno, for anything really, just so long as there's an apology. Oh and some money as compensation obviously...
Oh yes, and more money to combat male pattern baldness (not for myself, you understand...)
Yes, sounds good.
The major problems facing western society may be traced to two fatal defects of universal suffrage.
1. It gives votes to women.
2. It gives votes to chavs.
Women simply do not understand the public sphere and have no business influencing it.
Chavs dont understand anything at all, and always vote for left wing parties that promise to give them whatever they dont possess but are told are their's 'as of right'.
The result is the total feminisation of public policy and power to the malign forces of trotskyism. Thus we have a greater invasion of this country by aliens that has ever occured ever and the dire punishment of anyone who complains. The reduction of education to little more than the 'decontruction' of 'East Enders' and with all teachers who so much as annoy a child immediately classified as paedophiles; on the other hand, all child delinquents are 'understood' and their behavour blamed on 'deprivation' or fizzy drinks.
The list is endless but the themes are all similar and equally damaging.
Awful lot of 'make' and 'stop' in that manifesto. Not much 'shall we' and 'how can we improve on'.
No-one could deny the problems but the attitude isn't very constructive (or attractive).
Hatfield Girl (4.25) is right that there is a lot of 'stop' and 'make'.
However, that's because men, in this age of political corretness which coincided with the election of a Labour government, have become of the most abused/ignored section of society.
Even to the point where Blair and Cameron felt it OK to disenfrachise individual men with their women-only shortlists.
Look at the problems raised about education, cancer and domestic violence. They are pretty serious.
Item 4: Make judges enforce contact orders.
Hear hear! As the law stands, some mothers deliberately defy the courts and effectively ignore contact orders. Judges refuse to enforce these orders in the only way that works, viz., by sending disobedient mothers to prison. The reason is, "the child's interests are paramount, and sending a mother to prison can only harm the child."
So children learn, at their mother's knee, that the law can be mocked. Hardly in the best interests of society, or the child.
Forthurst
Couldnt agree more
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vfu0aV1dkHw
There's one missing from that list of demands:
13) Provide someone to wipe our @rses when we've been for a dump.
Big Jessies!
Grow up for f@cks sake.
Sounds very reasonable to me.
However they have less then a hope in hell of any national politician doing anything about it.
Inspite of my reasoning that.
If things for young men in Britain dont improve quickly the future is more then grim for everyone.
My 16 year old son takes sexual discrimination in his school especially, for granted.
I obtained 13 0 and 3 A levels without doing hardly any course work and only homework in English to help correct my obvious learning difficulties.
In my South London Comp 1977, only 1 out 17 A level students where Girls. And she failed all of them.
Childcare and housework, whether socialists or feminists like it or not, is far far less apealing to young men then prison time. Thats even if their girlfriend trusted them to do it, which they are hardly ever stupid enough to do.
So we now have a 3rd world type sociaty where women do most of the work, and still look after the kidds and the home, or employ another woman to do it for them.
While paying ever increasing taxes to keep young men turning over our "give a lawyer a job" revolving door, system of "justice."
Brillient, just brillient, so brillient infact that only a socialist or a lawyer could think that this is in anyway a good thing.
As for young kidds now growing up....I think its best to not even go there right now, or we might all get really depressed.
I think it is tragic that Britain has a society so fragmented by the government - divide and conquer - that it has come to this.
What a shame we cannot have a just and civil society without special pleading garbage. But as that has been destroyed for its own purposes by tony blair and his toxic cohorts, then I suppose this is inevitable. And, indeed, it's perfect just - given that this government created the need for it.
My detailed comments, for what they're worth are on my blog. You are sourced Iain!
No real mention of the fact that children, particularly boys, are less likely to end up in jail with a male parent - widowers actually statisticaly perform better than widows, though they have more difficulty stopping their daughters getting pregnant.
Society makes an automatic assumption that custody should go to the mother - the evidence is that this is not a good thing & indeed is more likely than any single yhing else we can identify to be the cause of our long term increase in crime.
Verity is right (5.38) and having special interest groups scrap over their 'rights' is soooo un-British.
But how do men get their voices heard when for 10 years there has been a Minister for Women?
On the Domestic Violence front for example, 24% of victims are men, yet the government give local authorities £59 million a year to help female victims and nothing for men.
I would like to see a minister for white people , we are a persecuted group and need help.
Very good. I've posted here a few times that the poverty lobby bangs on about a 5 year longevity difference between the rich and poor, but that's the same as the difference between men and women's longevity.
Twice I have been physically threatened in my own home by women with knives, following arguments because I refused to shag them, because they were too drunk.
Both times I called the police, while hiding behind my bedroom door. Both times I was violently arrested and detained in the station for at least 5 hours.
Both times I made a complaint to the copps. Both times they were very very very sorry, but told me that this is what they have to do because of central government directives.
Welcome to Britain the most state SEXIST country in the WHOLE western world.
I am a middle aged man and so understand why the police take this attitude at least a bit, sometimes.
However trying to explain to my 16 year old son that he has to just put-up with this kind of violent state sponsored sexism, if this ever happens to him. Will be impossible.
Some might argue that I should have learn the first time around. But I would do the same, just to make a point, and I really dont enjoy shagging drunk women.
Apart from them waking up the next day, not remembering my wonderfull performance, its just far too dangerous these days.
I thought there already was a Ministry for men.
The trouble is that those among it often seem to concentrate on little boys.
Garypowell, if you talk of 'shagging' women (ie doing something to themm rather than with them) then I just wish the fuzz had left you to the tooled-up women.
(I bet you were 'refusing' them because your giraffe couldn't find its way through the bush either!)
I think equalising men and women's rights would be a votewinner. IE rather than have seperate minister advocates for women and men, have one minister for equality who can address all these issues.
I believe most women (I am female!) would support it. After all, most of us are married to men, have brothers, or have sons. Feminism is about advantaging women, often at the expense of men - this is not what equality is about.
Oh what bollocks!
"Women simply do not understand the public sphere and have no business influencing it." - I rest my case; men simply do not understand women at all.
Anom 17:45
Thank you for expressing how all pervading SEXISM is. Why should I have to think like a drunk woman to not expect to get stabbed by one?
Men Shag thats what we do. Women do as well they just call it something else or lie about it.
If men and WOMEN only had sex with people for love we would have died out as a species before we left the pond.
If anon, you are a man, I am sorry for your ego that this type of thing could never happen to you.
If you are a women, you make my case for me.
Depression in men is a terrible scourge. I remember when I first came across this page and realising that all the information about depression seems to be aimed at women. But the solutions - pills or counselling - aren't much better.
The main problem is the loss of proper roles for men in society. It is difficult to suggest any solutions for this except that more should be done to reassert traditional values.
"before we left the pond."
I am still waiting for evidence that Gary Powell has ever done so.
Tadpoles with keyboards. Extraordinary! Cue David Attenborough.
""Women simply do not understand the public sphere and have no business influencing it."
Hey, Khomeni!
Long time no see!
"Women simply do not understand the public sphere and have no business influencing it."
I think that is close to the mark, and I speak as a woman who loathes women, who tend to be bossy, in public life.
Patricia Hewitt, Harriet Harmon, Jowell (can't remember her Christian name), Cherie Blair, Margaret Beckett, that baroness something in charge of all of human reproduction, and all the other scarey Blaireys.
Fact of life: women are set up for bringing up children and they tend to be know-it-all and bossy - because that is what gives mothers authority over their children and wider groups of children.
This does not translate well to life in the the wider world, careerwise where they are dealing with adults who do not necessarily accept their "authority" and where they often fail to "know better" than other members of committees.
Margaret Thatcher was an exception because she has an analytical mind. That people of her calibre are so rare should tell us about women in politics.
And socialist women are the worst, because they are a double whammy of sheer incompetence and ghastliness.
This is yet one more area where Dave has failed to understand the score. Women do not seek to be bossed around by other women. I don't think men do either, but I can't speak for men.
Let outstanding women run by all means. But hammering them in to round pegs because they are a woman - when most people don't like women politicians in the first place - is an assault on democracy.
Dave: go away, dear. No one thinks you can run a country.
The pink border is a bit "metrosexual".
I came to this via Antonia, who is enough to turn anybody into a rabid MRA (Men's Rights Activist)...
@hatfield girl: "Awful lot of 'make' and 'stop' in that manifesto. Not much 'shall we' and 'how can we improve on'."
A highly selective reading on your part: there is plenty of 'improve', 'support' etc in there.
Anyway, what's wrong with a bit of stridency? The Suffragettes - quite rightly - didn't mince their words (they lobbed bricks instead).
@The Hitch: Fab vid link. Another gem here.
On the subject of false allegations and men in education, check out this recent post by Heretic (and the accompanying comments).
mutleythedog said...
"Priority for women in employment has been a policy in large parts of the state sector for years. Result? Many local government departments and offices barely employ any men at all..."
Very true, and that's a large part of why those offices are so incompetent.
There is certainly a case to be made for men's issues - and even Antonia accepts that. I do think, however, that it would benefit from being put slightly more subtly than the Rights of Man blog does. I suspect that the work of people like Families need Fathers, through more positive, non-confrontational action is likely to be more effective in the long run.
I'm surprised the female bias in divorce laws and child maintenance aren't addressed. (England has the worse divorce laws for the wealthy spouse any where in the world. The wealthy spouse is normally male)
1.In England (NOT Scotland), if a wealthy man marries, his new wife is immediately entitled to pretty much half of his wealth, no matter how badly the wife then behaves - shagging the local football team, AND the reserves etc etc does not count against her claim to the dosh.
2. Responsible, intelligent, wealthy men are pursued for child maintenance. Irresponsible stupid, poor men nether are.
The result?
Wealthy men avoid marriage like the plague.
Intelligent men are not passing on their intelligence, and many parts of the population of the UK are soon to be the descendants of less intelligent, less economically active men only.
@Prentiz:
"There is certainly a case to be made for men's issues - and even Antonia accepts that."
No she doesn't (or only to the extent that she thinks that men have 'issues' which need to be resolved to the satisfaction of women). She is a misandristic bigot: check out her previous postings (and comment responses) tagged 'fathers' rights'.
"I do think, however, that it would benefit from being put slightly more subtly than the Rights of Man blog does."
Which of the twelve Key Priorities outlined here do you think would 'benefit from being put slightly more subtly', and how would you rephrase these?
"I suspect that the work of people like Families need Fathers, through more positive, non-confrontational action is likely to be more effective in the long run."
Well, Families Need Fathers has been in existence for over thirty years now, and has achieved - by its own admission - practically nothing in terms of effective reform. How much longer do you think it should run before something changes?
And, finally, what would you define as 'more positive, non-confrontational action' in this sphere, given that this issue was largely ignored until parents (quite a few women included) began climbing on public structures and generally making a nuisance of themselves without lobbing bricks?
(7) Because obviously who left who makes a real difference to how much it costs to maintain a child...
Post a Comment