A comprehensive summary:
Discrimination against Men
Men are discriminated against in the following areas:
Men die on average 7 years earlier than women. Before the age of 65 Men are three times as likely to suffer heart disease and twice as likely to die from lung cancer than women. Women visit their doctors around twice as often as men, and women form the majority of patients treated in hospital. It seems men can do more to help themselves as they leave serious medical conditions too late by not visiting the doctor. Men makeup the majority of accident and emergency cases. More men drive and for longer distances so they are involved in the majority of road traffic accidents. Since men work in dangerous occupations they suffer the majority of industrial accidents. Men drink three times more and smoke at a slightly greater rate than women. Men do seem to have a built-in self destruct mechanism, and although nearly all medical advances have been made by men, it seems the last person that men will help are themselves. Screening programs are provided for women related cancers such as breast and cervical cancer. However there is no screening of equivalent cancers affecting men such as prostate and testicular cancer. This is very unfair because deaths from prostate cancer are almost as high as deaths from breast cancer and 6.7 times higher than deaths from cervical cancer. The bias is further tilted because research spending overwhelming is in favour of women cancers. The most up to date health targets for the UK include: B1 - reduction of breast cancer by 25%, and B2 - reduction of cervical cancer by 20%. There is not even a mention of prostate, or testicular cancer targets. Men need to demand that more is spent on male health and prevention programs.
Health leaflets published by the NHS and other groups are available in doctors surgeries. Many of these leaflets target women only issues such as breast and cervical cancer. Visitors to doctors surgeries in the UK will be hard pressed to find even a single leaflet targeting men only conditions. Some of the leaflets are obviously persuing an 'agenda' . The leaflet 'Your Health: A guide to services for Women' published by the Department of Health has a whole page on Domestic Violence: "Domestic violence includes emotional, as well as sexual or physical abuse of women in their homes by partners" it then goes on to give the phone number of Women's aid and Rape crisis lines. This is classic 'male-bashing' in it's purest form. The leaflet makes no mention that serious studies into this area have shown that women are more likely to commit domestic violenceagainst their partners or children. The leaflet contains no phone numbers to help men who experience domestic violence, or to help women who are abusive or violent to their male partners.
Circumcision: Genital Mutilation
Circumcision of females has been against the law in the UK for many years however circumcision of males is still widely practiced. The principle organisation whose aim is to educate about the harmful effects of circumcision of either sex in the UK is called NORM. It is reported by NORM that 30,000 male circumcisions are being done each year in England costing the NHS around 10 Million pounds/year. NORM believes that only 1/40th of all these operations are necessary, they believe that an intact male is less likely to disease, injury, and psychological problems. A mother Marilyn Milos reported this:
"I didn't know what my sons had endured until, as a nursing student years later, I saw the surgery for the first time. Nothing could have prepared me for the experience of watching a new-born baby, strapped spread-eagle to a plastic board,scream helplessly as the doctor tore the baby's forskin from the head of his penis (an attachement that is normal in infancy), crush and then cut the foreskin lengthwise, insert the circumcision device, crush the foreskin around, and finally amputate it. The piercing screams were so devastating that I began to cry uncontrollably. The doctor looked into my face and said. 'There is no medical reason for doing this'!"
Male circumcision has as little benefit as removing someones eyelid. Few human rights organisations help, indeed the UN has been heavily criticised for campaigning against female mutilation but doing nothing to help males UN criticised for doing nothing against male mutilation
The suicide rate for men is 3.7 times that for women. The suicide rate for young males has shown an alarming increase in recent years. There has been a growth of 70 percent in suicides of young men below the age of 21 years.
BBC Here and Now MORI Poll All serious studies into domestic violence show a roughly equal balance between the genders. Some studies have shown that there is a higher rate of domestic violence amongst lesbian than heterosexual couples. A poll undertaken by MORI and commissioned by Here and Now had these main findings:
* One in five (18 percent) of men have been victims of domestic violence by a wife or female partner as opposed to 13 percent of women by a man.
* One in nine women admit to having used physical aggression against a husband or male partner (compared to one in ten men)
* 14 percent of men say that they have been slapped by a partner (compared to 9 percent of women)
* 11 percent of men have had a partner threaten to throw something heavy at them (compared to 8 percent of women)
* Only 4 percent of women explained that their behavior (either verbal or physical) was because of drink or drugs (compared to ten percent of men)
* Nearly half (47 percent) of women say that their behaviour (physical or verbal aggression or verbal reasoning) was because "it was the only way I could get through to him"
* Working class men (20 percent) are more likely to have been subjected to physical agression by a wife or female partner than upper or middle class men (15 percent)
* Here and Now's survey reveals that fifteen percent (6.3 million people) of the population say that they have been subjected to physical agression by a husband/wife or hetrosexual partner.
* MORI interviewed a representitive quota sample of 1,978 adults in Great Britain. 1,865 of whom had ever been in a personal relationship with the opposite sex.
* Field work was conducted from 17-21 November 1994 in 150 constituencies. All interviews were conducted face to face in home employing a self completion technique. Data have been weighted to the known profile of the British population.
Erin Pitzey Following is a quote from Erin Pitzey (received in a personal email) who as the founder of the world's first women refuge should be qualified to comment. She said:
"...it saddens me that we even have to have a women's movement and a men's movement but really there was no choice. I couldn't stop the feminist movement from hi-jacking my work in London at my refuge in Chiswick. They wanted funding and my work, twenty-five years ago - as the first refuge in the world seemed heaven sent for them. No matter that I told them that out of the first hundred women that came into Chiswick sixty-two were as violent as the men they left. I couldn't get any coverage for the truth. 'All men are bastards and rapists' is the only truth that the women's movement were prepared to hear....Now, with the help of this evil movement father's role in family life seems to be irrelevant....."
These seem to be very wise words but Erin received death threats from women just for standing up and speaking out against anti-male hatred propaganda.
Social Work 1987 This work from:
The truth about Domestic Violence: A Falsely Framed Issue by R.L. McNeely and G. Robinson-Simpson
Social Work 32(6)485-490 1987
"Yet, while studies consistently show that men are victims of domestic violence as often as are women, both the lay public and many professionals regard a finding of no sex difference in rates of physical aggression among intimates as 'suprising, if not unreliable, the sterotype being that men are agressive and women are exclusively victims.'"
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology This work from:
Prevalence and stability of physical aggression between spouses: a longtitudinal analysis by K. O'Leary, J. Barling, Arias, Ilena, A. Rosenbaum, J. Malone and A. Tyree
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 57(2):263-268, 1989.
This report notes that 31% of men and 44% of women in a study reported that they aggressed against their partner in the year before marriage. Eighteen months after marriage, 27% of the men and 36% of the women reported being violent towards their partner.
Washington Post by Armin A. Brott 1994 This information is a precis taken from an article that appeared in the Washington Post July 1994 by Armin A. Brott. The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence estimates that more than half of US married women (over 27 million) will experience violence during their marriage. Asked where these figures came from Rita Smith the group's coordinator, told me the figures were only "estimates". From where? "Based on what we hear out there". Out where? Battered women's shelters and other advocacy groups. When there is a sensational story to run, common sense and intellectual honesty are rarely taken into consideration.
Even those who have a public responsibility to be accurate on these issues sometimes falter. According to Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, for example, 4 million women are 'battered' each year by their male partners. But where did she get her figure? From a 1993 Harris poll commissioned by the Commonwealth Fund. Two percent of the 2,500 women interviewed said they had been "kicked, bit, hit with a fist or some other object". Apply that to the approximately 55 million women married or living with a man and you get a total of 1.1 million. So where did the other 2.9 million come from? They were women who said they had been "pushed, grabbed, shoved, or slapped". That's a form of abuse, to be sure, but is it what most people would call battering?
By far the worst distortion of the numbers of battered women comes from Miami talk show host Pat Stevens, who appeared on a CNN show called "OJ on the Air" in June. She estimated the true number of battered women is 60 million. No one bothered to tell Stevens that 60 million is more than 100% of all the women in the entire country who are currently in relationships with a man.
Probably one off the best studies on domestic violence has been in the US. Murray A. Straus, head of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire and Richard A. Gelles, a sociologist at the University of Rhode Island, who have been tracking spousal abuse for over 20 years, have come up with what are widely believed to be the most accurate estimates available - the National Family Violence Survey (NFVS) sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health. This survey found that 84% of American families are not violent. In 16% of families that do experience violence, the vast majority takes the form of slapping, shoving, and grabbing. Only 3-4% of all families (a total of about 1.8 million) engage in severe violence: kicking, punching, or using a weapon. Straus and Gelles estimate that about 188,000 women are injured severely enough to require medical attention. That is a horrifying number of victims, but it's a far cry from 4 million, or 18 million, or 60 million.
Another common myth about domestic violence is that 95% of the time, women are the victims and men the perpetrators. Straus ad Gelles found that among couples reporting violence, the man struck the first blow in 27% of cases; the women in 24%. The rest of the time, the violence was mutual, with both partners brawling. Straus' latest findings , released earlier this month, that men's violence against women - even as reported by women- has dropped 43% between 1985 and 1992. Over this same period, in contrast, reported assaults by women against men increased by about 28%. The 95% figure comes from the US department of Justice, which collects data on the number of reports of domestic violence. Department studies have shown that men report all kinds of violent victimization 32% less frequently than women.
A Justice Department study released earlier this month showed that 41 percent of spousal murder victims were male. Battered women's advocates claim that those women who kill their husbands do so only out of self-defense. But in an extensive study of women imprisoned for murder, Coramae Richely Mann, a researcher at the Department of Criminal Justice, Indiana University/Bloomington found that only 59% claimed self-defense and that 30% had previously been arrested for violent crimes. A recent Los Angeles Times article quoted Justice Department sources, reported that women who kill their husbands were acquitted in 12.9% of the cases, while husbands who kill their wives were acquitted only 1.4% of the time. In addition women convicted of killing their husbands receive an average sentence of only six years, while male spousal killers got 17 years.
So why are these statistics being battered? Not everyone who manipulates data does so for personal gain. Some are simple trying to get people to sit up and pay attention to the plight of battered women - a truely important goal. Is it OK to lie shamelessly if your cause is a noble one?
On the one hand Congress is about to pass the $1.8 billion Violence Against Women Act which, among other things, will fund toll-free hotlines, battered women's shelters, and education and training programs. It's certainly possible that none of this would be happening if advocacy groups stuck strictly to facts.
On the other hand Members of Congress, seeing a golden opportunity to appease a large block of voters, have chosen a quick solution rather that attempting to correct their constituents' misapprehensions. The violence Against Women Act, for example, doesn't devote a nickel to the same kind of special protection for men. Women too, are being hurt by the lies. Having fought so hard to be taken seriously and treated as equals, women are again finding themselves portrayed as weak and helpless. Worst of all, the inflation of domestic violence statistics produces a kind of ratchet effect. The same people complain that no one listens if they don't exaggerate only find it that much more difficult to get people's attention the next time around - which in turn seems to justify another round of exaggeration. Eventually, the public either stops listening altogether, or finds the statistics too absurd to believe.
Professor John Archer
A psychologist at University of Central Lancashire and president-elect of the International Society for Research on Aggression. As Archer has shown in a recent analysis of data from almost 100 American and British studies, women are more likely than men to initiate violence against their spouses or companions and are more likely to be aggressive more frequently. Most violence is tit-for-tat. Nor is it the case that women attack men only in self-defence. Among female college students, for example, 29% admitted initiating assaults on a male companion.
UK Public swimming pools run by the council have women-only swimming pool sessions. They are able to avoid the attention of the sexual discrimination act by claiming that this is to avoid embarrassment. In addition letters of complaint to the pool managers usually get a reply that there are pregnant women, or women from ethnic minorities, who may be embarrassed in a mixed swimming session. The first point is that during these sessions male life-guards are still employed. Secondly that there is little evidence at least in Cambridge pools of pregnant or Asian women especially using the pool during these sessions. The third point is that when in the pool the only thing that can be seen is someone's head so that the effort may be better spent in providing screens by the pool-side for women to enter and leave the pool and special women-only swimming lanes. The fourth point is that barring men is an apartheid measure. If women are able to make the case that they are the victims (victimhood) and that men are the abusers (male-bashing) then what follows is that women are disadvantaged and therefore need special support (entitlement). For example Cambridge City Community Welfare and Development Plan 1995 says:
"Disadvantaged groups include the unemployed and low paid, ethnic minorities, women, people with disabilities, lone parents and pensioners, those living in overcrowded conditions and lacking amenities".
We can therefore expect priority spending on women and lone parent groups, and this is indeed the case. In addition because women are 'victims' they are then entitled to women-only swimming pool sessions, women-only car parking, and women-only library sessions and these already exist is various cities in the UK. We can compare the spending on men-only and women-only groups in Cambridge UK using 1992 and 1996 annual grant figures:
[code]Women /Lone parents (read mothers) 1992 1996
Women's Resource Centre (training and other) 176K 0.25M/year(estxx)
Women's refuge centre (choices??xx) 60K (estxx) xx
Choices (Incest counselling) 26.9K 5040
Rape crisis centre 500 1146
Corona House (Women's hostel) xx xx
Women's aid 20.9K xx
Lesbian line 960 xx
Women and homelessness 14K xx
Gingerbread (lone parent i.e. mother) 1000 12.9K
Black women's support group - 19250
Women-only swimming pool sessions xx 575K(Parks)+498K(abbey)
Social services dept (xx women's groups) 1.0M
Social services/Health cmte (xx women's groups) 2.5M
Cambridge Friend (Gay men) xx xx
Libraries are beginning the apartheid practices of excluding men. Libraries do this by having women only library tables, or women only library days. However these services are paid for by revenues that we all pay for. In Leicester, the County Council is being legally challenged over this issue, and taken to court. The council will be contesting this issue in court so demonstrating a deliberate will to impose this discrimination. Libraries are staffed mainly by women and therefore there is an automatic tendency to stock information that favours women. As an example the Cambridge main library information service has computer searches giving details of local groups. Entering the key word 'women' gave about 50 references, typing in 'men' gave 0 references. The library acted swiftly to correct this obvious gender imbalance. A second example was that the library had a 'women's issues' shelf but no 'men's issues' shelf. Again the library acted swiftly to correct this imbalance and with the help of donated books a men's shelf was soon available. This suggests that there was no real intentional bias and that maybe libraries are 'demand-led'.
Radio-4 the main national serious radio station has a women's hour, but does not have a men's hour. Although the women's hour program has moved beyond the mantra of 'all men are rapists and abusers' the program regularly features guests who are of this ilk. Equality must cut both ways. Controversial feminist views and skewed statistics are allowed onto the airwaves unopposed. Radio-4 therefore needs to also have a program where men are equally able to complain about women. Here is an example of how men's issues are mistreated by radio-4 on the Today program.
"...During yesterday's broadcast she (Anna Ford) introduced an item on the treatment of men during divorce cases. There were two participants: Elizabeth Woodcraft a feminist barrister, and Neil Lyndon, author of the uncompromisingly anti-feminist No More Sex War. Lyndon felt that the interview was rather skewed in favour of his opponent, who was allowed to talk for more than two of the piece's three minutes. After the broadcast he received a call from Today's deputy editor, Rod Little, agreeing, apologising and saying Miss Ford had been reprimanded...." Sunday Telegraph 31-Sep-97
The BBC World service has traditionally had a reputation for excellence. The station features news and documentaries with reporters of world-standing such as Mark Tully and Misha Glenny. A recent drive is under way to feminise the world service (announcement: "calling all our women listeners" BBC 13-Aug-96) a new program called 'Everywoman' targets women listeners and copies the Radio-4 'Woman's Hour' practice of including a liberal sprinkling of male-bashing. New world service reporters such as Julliet Tindell now send back reports from Tokyo (BBC 26-Aug-96) where for example women are illegally imported into Japan to work in the 'entertainment' industry as prostitutes. According to the Japanese newspaper The Yomiuri Shimbun Mon Aug 12 1996 there are 160,836 male and 123,664 female immigrants staying illegally in Japan as estimated by the Ministry of Law (1-May-96). The men work in the so called KKK jobs. In Japanese KKK stands for dangerous, hard, and dirty, i.e. the jobs that no Japanese would want to do. The BBC program failed to mention anything about the fate of these illegal male immigrants. The program also failed to mention anything about men imported to work as male prostitutes. It is tempting to suggest that if immigrant women to Japan were being burnt to death in blast furnaces, or being trapped under agricultural machinery then we would soon hear about it from Tindell. This pattern of 'women-as-victim' reporting is increasingly repeated in many other countries by the BBC world service. The new correspondents have an obvious 'male-bashing' agenda and this is excluding the highly respected and experienced correspondents such as Tully and Glenny.
Newspapers regularly feature articles by such journalists as Polly Toynbee (Independent) that whine about men. The newspapers do have a press complaints body but these complaints will only be accepted if you are personally mentioned in the article or the complaint is perceived to be in the public interest. For example, one recent complaint the Press Complaints received was about two articles in the Yorkshire Evening Post: "Battle to free child snatcher-sentence on dad too harsh, says campaign" (8-Mar-96) and "Court ruling looms - Mum in fight for children" (4-Jan-96). The father and the mother both committed the same offence. They travelled with their children to another country against a court order. Same offence, different headline in the newspaper, and completely different tone in the body of the text The reply stated:
"....Only in exceptional circumstances a complaint from a third party may be investigated should the Commission consider that a significant issue involving the public interest is raised....the Commissioners do not find your complaint raises such an issue under the Code."
Obviously the fate of 45000 fathers who loose all contact with their children every year is not considered a significant issue. It is according to the press acceptable to present a mother as a heroine and a father as a child snatcher.
Advertisements regularly feature men as foolish. The main aim of the advertisers is to appeal to women who control and make the majority of purchases. There has been a recent disturbing trend of using images of violence against men to sell products to young women (Sunday Telegraph 14-Sep-97). The car company Nissan recently placed advertisements in women's magazines for a car called the Micra targeting younger women who make up 70 percent of the cars buyers. The heading was 'Hate Male'. The advertisement encouraged women readers to write in and get sent postcard pictures of a man who had been compromised by a women after he had borrowed her car without asking. The pictures are: A man bent in agony holding his crutch, a mans jacket in tatters with both the arms cut off, a male watch being fried in a pan, a man sleeping with half his hair and beard cut off, a women holding a can of opened dog food behind her back and in the background a man is sitting eating, a paper clipping lying on a table of the Bobbitt case entitled: a night to dismember, and a book with the last few pages cut out.
In an advertisement on television by Volkswagen a divorcing husband tries to claim that his VW car is worth a great deal more money than it really is. The wife discovers this overvaluation and gets her own back on the husband by "taking him to the cleaners". The wife is seen crowing over her victory and thanking VW for their cheapness. The husband is left standing at the kerb side and gets his clothes back from the cleaners torn to shreds (presumably by his wife).
A billboard advertisement for Lee jeans features a naked man lying on the floor. A woman wearing Lee jeans is shown with her stiletto above the man's buttocks. The caption reads "Put the boot in".
An advertisement for Wallis clothes featuring in women's magazines, shows men about to be killed because they are staring at women. In one, a man is about to have his throat cut because his barber is staring at a pretty girl.
At present 75% of all divorces are called for by wives. The Emperor's New Clothes survey of divorce men found that a man pays £29,306 to his lawyers and transfers £57,966 to his wife of which she then pays £20,000 to her lawyers. Thus lawyers benefit by £49,306 on average per divorce. If a man takes the step of marrying and has children:
* He has a 50/50 chance of: divorcing, losing custody of his children and paying £87,272 (avg)
* He will have a 1 in 3 chance of losing his home
* He will have a 1 in 10 chance of loosing contact with his children for ever
If a women takes the step of marrying and has children:
* It is almost certain she will keep her children
* She will also have a 1 in 3 chance of losing her home
* Have a 50/50 chance she will benefit by £37,966 (avg)
Women have multiple lifestyle opportunities versus men's single opportunity i.e. work. At present women have the option to:
* Stay at home as a housewife
* Stay home with children
* Work part time and care for children part time
Family courts have a powerful default of awarding custody to the mothers in 91% of the cases. This is regardless of the mothers conduct, or of her ability to support and care for the children. A great deal of research has established high correlation's between fatherless families and child poverty, family violence, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, school failure, and juvenile crime. The ideal of maternal-preference originates from the period when two parent families were the norm. Marriage and children are great civilisers and motivaters for men. Women benefit from the man's pay check and from the male qualities he instills in the children. In two parent families the children are mostly cared for by the mother, but this is becomming less common. By contrast a mother-headed family is often far from ideal. For example, one of the best predictors of child abuse is the presence in the home of a boyfriend or step-father. Some studies have put the rate of abuse as 77 times greater in lone-mother households with a boyfriend / stepfather compared to families where both biological parents are present.
Family court judges are advised by Court Welfare officers who are supposed to make recommendations 'in the best interest of the child'. These officers often operate without a complaints procedure. Since a welfare report cannot be acknowledged as wrong it can only be right. A report that is by definition right can only be endorsed by the court, which as it happens sit in secret. It is almost impossible for fathers to appeal against bad decisions. Even appeals where there is outrageous justice against fathers are very rarely granted.
There is a widespread misconception that children get over the effects of divorce. This is not the case. There is much evidence that children from broken families are severely disadvantaged [Telegraph 01-Dec-96]. In some children these wounds never heal.
If a child resides only with one parent and the other parent only has limited visiting rights then a process called parental alienation is possible. This is basically where the children are turned against the other parent. Since children are awarded custody to the mothers in 91% of the cases then the alienation is mostly against fathers. A mother inducing alienation may say that the father is always harassing us with phone calls, always trying to bribe us with gifts and toys, or getting solicitors onto us. Inducing parents may often cut off the extended family as well. A common form of critism is how little maintainance money is given. Inducing parents often use baby sitters, with excuses like the non-resident parent can't see the children at these times because it is outside routine. The inducing parent would rather the child be with friends or neighbours or playing outside unsupervised than with the non-resident parent. An inducing parent will not forward school reports, school photographs or want the non-resident parent to go to school concerts etc. Inducing parents often wont cooperate in joint interviews or mediation and they are often blinded by rage and don't appreciate the emotional damage they are doing to their children. They are often convincing and are master manipulators.
Lone mother households tend to be concentrated in inner city areas. The first male role model that a young boy growing up in such a household may encounter are the street gangs roaming the neighbourhood. By associating with such individuals and without adequate controls at home, a young man can gradually be drawn into a life of crime. Mother headed households tend to produce the majority of our criminals, and of our drug users. This is one of the principle reasons for the surge in crime rate both here and in the US. The rising crime rate has tracked the increase in the number of fatherless families. Many studies have found that that the presence of the biological father is a powerful protector against delinquency. Children who grow up without their biological father do less well at school. The issue here is one of status and total control since the children are the automatic passport to benefits. Mother-custody is often a misnomer since the children are very often left with a childminder or with relatives. This is often the case even when the biological father is available and willing to care for the children.
- 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census
- 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
- 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
- 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
- 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
- 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all Gods Children.)
- 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
- 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)
Our education system and especially our primary education system is betraying a whole generation of boy pupils [Mail 13-Sep-95]. A leading American educationalist Spencer Holland blamed in particular a lack of male teachers in primary schools. His quick fix solution was to send men into the schools to act as mentors and role models to male pupils. A recent International literacy survey found that more than a fifth of adults in the UK i.e. some 8 million people could not perform simple comprehension tests. This places the UK second to last, i.e. above Poland but below Germany, Holland, Sweden, Switzerland, US, and Canada (Mail 12-Sep-97). There are 4.7 times as many female teachers in primary (aged 5-13 years) schools compared to male teachers. In secondary schools (aged 13-18 years) the teacher ratio is about even. It is often stated that there are no male teachers at the primary level because the pay is so bad. This is only half the story, there are now many unemployed male teachers. It is still an accepted predudice by men and women that the raising of young children is 'womens work'.
UK Schools have many barriers to involvement by fathers. Some fathers report that they are excluded by other mothers when they collect their children. The school timetable is not helpful to fathers who work, there are frequent holidays that may not coincide with the fathers own holidays. The school may often be sited an inconvenient distance away from where men traditionally work.
Access courses are 'back to work' initiatives for mainly mothers paid for by government. So while funding is being withdrawn from our brightest university students who now have to 'pay as they go'. Mothers receive free entitlement to be educated not once but twice.
Women 'resource centres' receive generous local and EEC funding. For example the Cambridge Women's Resource centre currently receives 250K a year grant to offer training courses to women that exclude men. Many of these women-only courses are provided in areas of record male unemployment which is often three times the unemployment rate of women. Such apartheid practices in South Africa provoked an international boycott.
The labour party has a shadow-minister for women but not a shadow-minister for men. Tessa Jowell the labour MP is quoted as saying "discrimination is wrong wherever it occurs". Fine words which are never backed up by action when discrimination occurs against men. Examples of double standards or bias from MPs are: John Major (Con) the prime minister has a son who was reported to be involved in the breakup of a marriage of Mr Jordache (Standard 10-Oct-96). Before even the divorce was finalised the reports were of Mrs Jordache being welcomed into the household of John Major. Major has in the past campaigned on back-to-basics and family values. However there are no reports of him publicly speaking out and condemning the behaviour of his son in breaking up a marriage.
When Glenda Jackson (Lab) herself a single mother, was provided in 1994 with a briefing paper describing the discrimination against fathers in family law, she replied that she found the paper "an attack on women".
During a presentation of a 1000 signature petition to Anne Campbell (Lab) asking for release from prison of a jailed father and or equal rights for fathers to care for their children. She refused to sign the petition because the father had broken the law. The father had taken his daughter to the US. This was after the mother had abducted the daughter away from school and the family home, which was later sanctioned by the British courts. It was pointed out to Campbell three times that she could exclude the jailed father clause and still sign for the other father equal treatment clauses. Again she refused. She in fact sent a letter to about 120 of her constituents stating her reasons for not supporting the petition as because the father "had deliberately broken the law". However Anne Campbell did support Nicky Ingrams a drug taker who during the burglary of an elderly couples home in the US had taken them outside at gun point, had tied them to a tree and tortured them for about an hour before finally shooting them both in the head [Times 1-Apr-95]. The US sentenced Ingrams to the electric chair. Campbell wrote a letter to the Prime Minister [Times 4-Apr-95] and was reported to be seeking a parliamentary debate to help Ingrams [Times 31-Mar-95]. Now Campbell possibly believes that a drug crazed neighbour killer is a more deserving cause than a loving father who wants to stay in the life of his children. However 45 fathers and children have died so far as a result of suicide attributed directly to pressure from the Child Support Agency. Why is there only talk about 'responsibilities' and never any talk about the 'equal rights' of fathers to stay in the lives of their children. It is time to see that a father ordered out of his family and onto a lifetime of slavery can in some cases actually be a death penalty.
Judith Church (Lab) is the mother of two children who makes capital out of being a single parent. However her ex-partner of 12 years brought those children up while she was trying to get into politics. Now Church hardly lets him see them. The newspaper report quotes the father Peter Mitchell as saying "it's hypocritical" [Express 6-Oct-9]). Church has even hired a live in full-time au pair and is now refusing to allow Mr Mitchell to spend more than one night a week with their sons. It is amazing that Church brings in a hired stranger to care for the children when the father who wants to care for his children is denied by Church.
Rod Richards (Con) has a duty to help his constituents. However one father Dennis Williams has been shut out from the life of his daughter because of claims by his ex-wife [Express 20-Oct-9]). Richards has done nothing to assist this father despite a personal visit to his surgery and a worldwide fax campaign. However Richards does approve of helping persistent truants at Welsh schools by sending them on free holidays in Scotland. "It reflects our commitment to doing everything within our power to help authorities raise standards in our schools" (Telegraph xx find ref). These persistent truants are often the product of fatherless families whose father-expulsion Richards refuses to help. An effective way to improve behaviour in schools is to reduce the number of fatherless families. Richards also has been reported to be involved in an affair (xx) despite belonging to a party that has promoted back-to-basics and family values.
An unmarried man cannot apply for a passport for a child unless he has the permission of the mother. This means that an unmarried father is unable to take his own children on any foreign holidays. A mother does not need the fathers permission to apply for a passport since nationality for children of unmarried parents is via the mother.
Despite repeated applications to the Equal Opportunities Commission, a body that has been specifically setup to redress descrimination, they have refused to assist in this matter.
Men have to pay the majority of the taxes (men: 77B£/year women: 39B£/year) but benefit the least from these taxes especially since they die 7 years earlier than women. Married men are especially discriminated against compared to lone parents. For every level of earnings a lone-parent with children has more left in her pocket than a married man with the same number of children who has to support one extra adult (P. Morgan: Farewell to the Family). This is because lone parents have earnings disregards and extra benefits.
Personal allowances can be transferred from the husband to the wife, but they can not be transferred from the wife to the husband.
Pensions and benefits
The retiring pension ages for men and women are unequal i.e. women retire at 60 and men have to retire at 65. This will not be corrected until the year 2020. Since women live 7 years longer than men it can be said that men receive 12 years less benefits for 5 years more work. Widows are able to claim bereavement benefit, but there is no equivalent benefit for widowers.
Lone parents (i.e. mothers) have a number of benefits especially since many i.e. 60% do not work, they may be entitle to the following: housing benefit, income support, family credit
In this era of feminist's demands for equality they should get it. If men for example pay 75% of the taxes then they must get 75% of the benefits. Even more useful would be divide funds into two social pots. Then men pay into one social pot and women pay into another. This would then correct the unfairness that men die 7 years earlier than women.
Material published by women's groups and by the state use 'victim-speak' which present women as victims and men as abusers. As a result resources are diverted away from more needy areas to satiate the feminist demands. For example statistics show us that on the streets young men are the highest probable group to suffer attack, but we are always told that young women are the most vulnerable.
When it comes to the defence of the country, men are expected to sacrifice their lives for 'Queen and country'. During World War I xx men died, during World War II xx men died. In the interests of equality should we send only women into future battles until the same number of women have been killed as the men during the two world wars? It is interesting to compare the financial treatment of a war veteran injured in the Falklands war by horrific burns, with the fact that laws have been changed to give women large compensations, from the Ministry of Defence, for the loss of earnings as a result of pregnancy when they have voluntarily entered into contracts of employment which regulate this.
The soldier, Simon Weston, was paid nothing in compensation except for his normal pension. The mother was paid £150,000 (typically) for unfair dismissal. In fact the total service personnel employer liability claim for 1994/5 was £14.3M with 298 settled claims where e.g. injury and damages could be proved to be the fault of MOD negligence. However the total refund given to the approximately 300 women who were pregnant totalled £50M.
Men and women have to comply with unequal physical training standards. The MOD reports the following for the Army:
Heaves Sit-ups Run
Men 2 1 min 1.5 miles in 12.5 mins
Women 2 1 min 1.5 miles in 15 mins
Physical Training Standard [army] must be achieved on leaving
Heaves Sit-ups Run
Men 6 3 mins 1.5 miles in 10.5 mins
Women 12 modified 2mins 40secs 1.5 miles in 12.5 mins
[/code] This story ran on page A21 of the Boston Globe on 08/27/97.
Eight good reasons to oppose women in the military, By Mona Charen, 08/27/97
Most of the opinion-shaping press has presented the spectacle of the Virginia Military Institute's first female cadets as a simple story of feminism triumphant. All people of good will are presumed to be rooting for the plucky little gals as they conquer one of the last bastions of male supremacy - the military. Here are eight reasons that the national consensus on this is wrong.
1.) The male-only tradition at military academies, as in the military services themselves until recently, is not a manifestation of male dominance or an attempt to keep women in second-class status (any more than all-women's colleges are expressions of female chauvinism). It is based on fundamental differences between the sexes that no amount of political pressure can erase.
2.) Men are physically stronger than women. If women object to that reality, their complaint is with God, not VMI. And while war has become more technological in recent years, physical strength is not yet irrelevant. Men are also more aggressive (though not necessarily meaner). Feminists deny this now, but remember back in the '70s, when they were arguing that the world would be so much less warlike if women ran things?
War is horrible, and it is devoutly to be hoped that mankind will someday transcend it, as we have outgrown child sacrifice and (nearly everywhere) slavery. But, until that day comes, do we not want the toughest, hardest, strongest, and most aggressive members of society to fight our wars?
3.) Men do not get pregnant or nurse babies. When a woman becomes an insurance adjuster or a CEO, a pregnancy does not represent a catastrophe. But a woman warrior cannot be pregnant. (That's why the abortion rate is so high on military bases.) Will feminists next argue that keeping babies out of combat constitutes discrimination?
4.) Introducing women into the military complicates morale and discipline problems. A military unit relies on camaraderie and loyalty. The rules against fraternization - widely misunderstood during the recent Kelly Flinn imbroglio - are intended to maintain morale by ensuring that no enlisted man has a close personal friendship with his commanding officer. Friendships can complicate the line of command. If your commanding officer orders you to ''take that hill,'' you must believe he is doing it for militarily sound reasons, not because he dislikes you or prefers to save your tent-mate.
How much more forcefully, then, can romantic love, sexual competition and jealousy affect unit cohesion?
5.) And then there is sexual harassment. In our ideological zeal to see women in the military, we have handed the sexual predators of this world a big, beautiful present. Putting young, vulnerable women into the hands of drill sergeants - who exert practically life-and-death control over their lives for a period of time - is asking for what we've got: An epidemic of abuse.
6.) Feminists are now attacking military life, claiming on the one hand that there are no relevant differences between the sexes that should exclude women and on the other that the trouble with the military is that it is too ''phallocentric.'' Which is it? The feminists do not want strict equality. If they did, they would be protesting the fact that at service academies, women are not required to meet the same training standards as men.
7.) The Israelis tried using women in combat but rejected the policy for several reasons. They found that men were trying to protect the women at the expense of fighting well and that the enemy was fighting harder to avoid the shame of surrendering to women. The culture of one's potential adversary is a relevant consideration. The United States is not likely to fight Canada.
8.) This is not the first time feminists have claimed - in a sensitive realm - that differences between the sexes are illusory. A generation ago, they argued that differences in sexual attitudes and behavior were merely artifacts of cultural conditioning. Women were as randy as men, they argued, and deserved the chance to prove it.
Twenty-five years later, feminists are refining that view. In fact, some have become so sexually phobic that they've defined any unwelcome approach by a man to be ''sexual harassment.'' Women are tough enough to fight wars but not able to handle a dirty joke? Hmmm.
Mona Charen is a syndicated columnist.
c Copyright 1997 Globe Newspaper Company.
We receive messages from individuals in the military like this one for example...
"I thought you might want to include a few facts that people might not realise about the forces:
* Women are allowed to wear earrings. Men are not.
* Men have to have the hair above the collar, and are not to have hair below the "middle of the ear", this rule does not apply to the hairstyle of women.
* Men have to continually cover the posts of women while they are on maternity leave.
* Men get no extra leave when their wives have babies.
To be fair there a some women who pull their weight but generally the forces are turning into a loony left organisation where you cant say boo to a goose. Sooner or later we are going to get a rude awakening and probably a great kick up the arse"!
Men in full-time employment work an average of 41.9 hours per week compared to women's 37.6 hours per week. More men than women work. However the unemployment rate for men at 14% is currently about three times the female rate. Traditional industries that have employed men are being closed such as mining and ship building. Nothing is being done to restore the wealth creating manufacturing industry, which would employ men. Men also take on jobs that are hard, dangerous, and dirty. Industrial injuries at work are overwhelmingly of men. It is very rare to see women working as street cleaners or refuse collectors. These are the so called glass cellar jobs i.e. jobs that women seem not to want.
Time after time we see women who commit crimes get off scott free. This is especially true for mothers who have children. What is completely wrong is that a mother who kills her young baby in the UK is not held responsible for murder but the lesser crime of infanticide. This helps mothers but does nothing to protect the vulnerable children. By contrast there is never any mercy for fathers with children who have equal care responsibilities and the judges show no concern for the feelings of the children who need their fathers. Here are just some examples: Suzane Oatley 37 a depressed mother who killed her 11 day old baby by hitting his head against a stair walked free from court yesterday after a judge ruled that she should be helped not punished. [Times 1-Sep-95]
A father was jailed for taking his daughter and starting a new life with her in America...the 18-month sentence imposed on Martin Hallam at Leeds Crown Court was hailed by his former wife and her lawyer as a powerful deterrent to would-be parental abductors [Telegraph 14-Nov-95]
A mother who tried to throw her five-year-old son off a bridge above a fast flowing river was placed on probation [Telegraph 28-Oct-9])
A cruel mother who deliberately caused agonising injuries to her baby son walked free, because the judge said, her son 'needed' her [Telegraph 18-Mar-95].
A mother who killed her 11-month-old baby daughter to stop her crying was jailed for 18 months, but her drug-addict boyfriend was jailed for 30 months [Telegraph 29-Apr-95].
Women who snatch babies from parents are usually treated leniently and placed on probation (Telegraph 16-Oct-94).
In 1994 a research finding published by the home office concluded that women offenders are treated more leniently than men by the police and courts (Research Findings No 10 Home Office Research and Stats May 1994). Of all women convicted of indictable offences 7% were given custodial sentences. The figure for men was 20% [Telegraph 16-Oct-95].
Date-rape allegations cases have surged. Very often these allegations have turned out to be completely false. A study conducted by the FBI with subjects already in jail for rape used DNA findings to show that 30% of the convicted men were innocent according to the DNA evidence [Newsweek 11-Jan-93]. A study by Eugene Kanin in a small community over a nine year period indicated that over 40% were officially declared completely and wilfully false [Archives of Sexual Behavior]. In 1985 US Air Force Criminal Investigator Charles McDowell [Chicago Lawyer June 1985] studied 1218 cases initially investigated as rapes; 460 were proven rapes, 212 were disproved allegations, and 546 cases remained unsolved.
Sarah Thornton stabbed and murdered her husband in cold blood as he lay sleeping and then claimed that he had provoked her because of domestic violence [Guardian 29-Jul-95].
The definition of rape itself is still outdated and anti-male in western countries such as the United Kingdom. For example: unlike other countries, rape in the UK requires the use of a penis, thus women can only ever be convicted of the offense of rape when they assist a male in committing a sex attack. Such a definition fuels the myth that women don't commit sex attacks.
Certain restaurants still use the discriminatory policy to serve ladies first (note that not all female customers are by default ladies, because lady is actually a title that is earned).
The outdated policy of "ladies first" is deliberate sexism against men, because consequently men are treated as second class customers in restaurants, though they frequently do pay for the food!
If you replace gender with race there would be a public outcry; for example "White people first!".
The implications of "Ladies first" sexism is perhaps even worse, because it discriminates against an entire gender. We don't live in the middle ages anymore.
Good alternative: Customers should be served clockwise. It should not be based on gender.
Women need to stop accepting preferential treatment if they want to be considered "equals".
Although men earn most of the wealth, it is women who control and spend the majority of wealth. Fortune magazine reports that 65% of US wealth is owned by women [Fortune Magazine]. Spending on men and women can be demonstrated by comparing the shop area dedicated to male and female products, alternatively the number of advertisements targeted at each group can be compared.
A number of Airlines such as British Airways, Qantas and Air New Zealand ban men from sitting next to children they are not related to. This reinforces the message that men are not to be trusted and
sends out a signal that all men are pedophiles. It is also extremely humiliating for the men who are asked to change seats.
Men are often their own worst enemies. Men will often not seek help when they need it. Men comprise the majority of judges who are so unfair to fathers in family courts. Most of the politicians who make the laws are men. At a time when self interest is the watchword, qualities such as chivalry now seem outdated.
Discrimination against Men