In September, the media reported research which allegedly showed that female perpetrators were three times as likely to be arrested than male perpetrators. This certainly seems odd as one of the many complaints is that the police arrest the man when there is a dispute over culpability as that is the easier option.
The research Who Does What To Whom from Professor Marianne Hester was certainly worth interrogating to see if this possibly could be true especially as it had received media attention and seemed to go against the grain. Of course, Bristol University's PR team wanted to create the most waves (press release).
Three things strike you as you read the report.
Firstly, that women are more likely to be used by a woman than a man (the Guardian spin this as self-defence). The figure is 24% to 11%.
Secondly, whilst the research is meant to compare 32 male and 32 female perpetrators, there is no discussion on the actual severity of the crimes. For an arrest the police would make an independent judgement and if an arrest needed to be made they would make it. However, there is no real indication on the severity of the crime to make a statement that women were more likely to be arrested for the same crime which would then prove some bias.
The last point and it is one made eloquently by Ally Fogg on The Guardian's Comment is Free site. Obviously he is well versed in police procedure as he makes the point that even when no arrests are made, the police still have to record a primary aggressor on their 'visit' sheet. There would be 'no questions asked' it is easier for the police officer to just put down the man. It means that Hester's figures may be distorted because of this as it would look like a man is less likely to be arrested than a woman, but that is based on the figures where the police will by default put the man down as a primary aggressor where no arrest has been made.
Again with all this and similarly with the gender pay gap issues, like for like issues have to be compared. Looking at the figures and not what lies beneath them leads to people with agendas being able to spin what they like. It is simply not credible to say that men are three time sless likely to be arrested for a DV crime than a woman.
No-one likes reading about the issues of child abuse but at least the figures from Childline, which is run by the NSPCC, might stop the sole demonisation of men when it comes to this subject.
Childline's figures released yesterday showed that the number of calls from children stating they had been sexually abused by a women had doubled since 2004/05 and that now 1 in 4 calls where the gender could be identified showed that the abuser was female, a figure the NSPCC states is still too low because of under-reporting. Boys are more likley to sexually abused by a woman than a man. The BBC and the Press Association do a good job of covering the subject here and here.
In many respects this report show results similarish aspects to the previous NSPCC research which talked about physical violence in that the figures between men and women are closer than you would think given the propaganda and the general perception that only men commit these crimes.
The issue about who commits sexual abuse and physical abuse against children is also like the issue of domestic violence against male adults. It has been underground for years and the stereotypes that only men are involved in such crimes has become ingrained in popular culture.
Perhaps, male teachers will no longer be treated with such suspicion, that only men are depicted in popular culture as abusers and perhaps we can now see such awful crimes in a gender-neutral fashion where both the victims and perpetrators can be seen as from different genders and not just portrayed as men. Maybe we can have equality?
In guidance published last month to public authorities about interpreting equalities legislation and local service provision, much of the guidance used the example of domestic violence.
This is clearly based on a decision made by Dorset Council on closing a female refuge so they can pay for a service for men and women. A decision that should not have happened because it isn't right to take services away from female victims but more funding for male victims should be found.
The guidance reiterates throughout that there is no problem in funding services based on gender groups if there is need. It states that far more women suffer from domestic abuse than men, defining the term 'far more' is difficult but the last split based on Home Office figures was 60%/65% female 40%/35% male. Not usure that constitutes far more.
However, the issue raised is that the document throughout talks about the need for services for female victims and that local authorities and public bodies should ensure they have such services but purposely does not utter the words "you must also ensure you provide domestic violence services for male victims."
There is a reference (page 3) that the legislation allows services for female victims "separate from services for male victims".
But what services are there for male victims within local council's - precious little, if any.
And when it says that there is a need for more services for female victims, why doesn't it simply also state "But you must ensure male victims within your community are catered for."
Why are the needs of male victims not mentioned by the Equalities Commission?
As things have been a bit hit and miss on the site for the last few months, please find below a selection of stories and issues that have not been covered in any detail but should have been.
Daily Mail: Paedophile Fears Driving Male Teachers From Primary Schools
Scottish Sun: Domestic Violence Against Men Rises At Time Of Old Firm Matches
Conservative Home: All Women Short-Lists Break All Notions Of Fairness
BBC: Asian Abused Men's Living Hell
BBC: Are Women Paying For Sexism Laws?
Daily Mail: Erin Pizzey - Why I Loathe Feminism
Independent: Prescott Tells Harman To Stop Going On About Women's Rights
Times: Men In Boardrooms Have been A Disaster
Daily Mail: Falsely Accused Victim Wins £25,000 Compensation
Lib Dems: Domestic Violence Convictions Against Women Trebles
Daily Mail: False Accusers Must Go To Jail
Wigan Today: Labour Party All Women Shortlists in Wigan
The new International Men's Day site is up and running and the site shows that last year the University of Kent supported the vent by running a charity event in aid of male cancer. No news is available on whether this happening again this year.
The Day is supported by the UN, UNESCO and received in principal support from men's groups in USA, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean. However, as pointed out before, there does not seem to be anything organised in the UK. Anyone have any views why not?
Surely the Coalition on Men & Boys would support it, wouldn't they?
The UK Parliament is currently holding what it calls a 'Speakers Conference' a very rarely used tool to debate key issues facing Parliament. The current Speakers Conference has been set up to "Consider, and make recommendations for rectifying, the disparity between the representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in the House of Commons and their representation in the UK population at large".
In laymen terms, Parliament is looking at how to boost the numbers of women in Parliament, which is not necessarily a bad thing, except when it means putting barriers up to stop men from having an equal chance of serving in Parliament and serving a constituency and our country.
Just to recap, the Labour Party has used the blunt instrument of All-women short-lists since the 1997 General Election. They were temporarily stopped because a number of male Labour members who wanted to stand for Parliament took the Labour Party to an industrial tribunal and won. The response by Labour was to introduce the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act in 2002 which meant they could start using All-Women short-lists again because political parties were exempted from the original Sex Discrimination Act.
This site has long highlighted how it continues to be used by Labour, effectively banning man from standing for the Labour Party which means that Labour supporting men who want to be a candidate at the next General Election are politically disenfranchised right across the UK.
The Conservatives under David Cameron have been going down a similar-ish route. Firstly they had an A-List of preferred candidates (that is, chosen by the Party centrally) which had more than 50% women. Only if you were on this list could you apply for a winnable seat. Then they abandoned this after 18 months when most of the winnable seats had selected their candidates from this list and moved to a system where each local Conservative Party had to ensure they interviewed equal numbers of men and women in each selection round. That is, if they wanted to interview 20 people there had to be 10:10 then narrow that down to 2:2 for the final selection round. It was irrelevant how many women or men had applied (there are 7 men for every 3 women on their 'candidates list'.). At the European Elections they also introduced a system for choosing candidates which made it far harder for a man to be elected.
The reason for raising all of this is that this week, the Conservatives have declared that from January 2010, if a MP decided that he/she is standing down from their seat, the seat will only be available to female candidates. That is, they are also introducing all-women short-lists and this was announced by David Cameron this week when he spoke at the aforementioned Speakers Conference.
This announcement has been met with a real backlash from within the Conservative Party (the party of meritocracy supposedly) and has engendered a massive amount of column inches and print ( a list of key articles are below). Part of the reasoning is that they are still not getting enough women in good seats (30% of their candidates are women, thereby matching the make up of their Candidates List so what's wrong?). In addition, they have recently been selecting candidates in winnable seats and all have been men but that has been becuase they are the best candidate at the interview.
John Maples MP, who heads up candidate selection, said this week "All 8 selections have produced male candidates. The only woman selected has been Sarah Wollaston, in the all postal primary in Totnes. This trend is not acceptable." Of course, all of the selections were independent of each other and the local parties pick their candidate based on who they think is the best person for the job.
What this all shows though is that the two major parties in the UK have been active in politically disenfranchising men. They have been doing all they can to stop men form being selected to stand for them atn the next General Election to boost the numbers of women. This is anti-democratic and undermine the liberal democrat 'unwritten constitution' which is the founding principle of modern Britain.
While there are more men standing at the next General election for the Conservatives at the next General election than women, this forgets that the issue that each person wanting to stand for Parliament or public office is an individual first and foremost. Their gender or anything else is irrelevant under the liberal democratic constitution.
Instead of trying to get more good women into Parliament by making it more attractive for high calibre women to become candidates (high calibre in terms of meaning they can beat/compete against high calibre male candidates), instead the two main parties have chosen to boost female numbers by sexually discriminating against men.
A travesty and the ultimate act of discrimination, and if the UK political system is meant to be the 'Mother of al Parliament's' then men across the world who want to stand for Parliament in their own country had better watch out.
Key Articles
Conservative Home 1, CH 2, CH 3, CH 4, CH 5, CH 6, CH 7, Iain Martin, Simon Heffer, Amanda Platell, Virginia Blackburn, Daily Mail, Ann Widdecombe MP and Google News
Just a quick post but there is a new Men's Rights Magazine published online.
The magazine can be found here.
Picture the scenario, some young lads from a mixture of ethnic backgrounds and all in single parent households living on a council estate in Camberwell and Peckham in South London. They work hard at school, excel in Maths, go onto university and after graduating get back together and set up a hedge fund or work their way up through an investment bank and eventually all sit to together on the Board.
Picture another scenario, some young girls from well off backgrounds go to the all-girl public school, St Paul's, in Fulham. Again, all do well, go to university, set up their own finance company in The City or work their way up an investment bank and eventually all sit together on the Board.
According to Harriet Harman and her views on men and the City, the former scenario is a "nightmare", yet, the latter is not.
On Tuesday, as part of Parliament's and Equalities Commission's witch-hunt on the City and men in general, Harman declared to the Treasury Select Committee that men-only boards were a nightmare.
This of course is all part of the current Government's anti-male agenda where anything can be said against men and where there are more men in a position than women that this is due to sexism and there is no need to prove this, because if the politically correct say its true, it has to be true. So few of course, stand up to it (of course, if you do, then according to the Coalition on Men & Boys, you are anti-equality and are ignorant).
In addition, she said that the Government would withhold Government contracts for City or financial organisations if they did not have enough women on the Board and she also did rule out quotas (a scenario in Norway where all Boards must have 40% women - so much for meritocracy in Scandinavia)
This witch-hunt is on top of the Equalities Bill which should finish going through Parliament in the next month which is the most anti-male piece of legislation probably ever entered into Statute.
The issue is simply that no longer will be people be judged on their merits or talents but on their gender. The latter is all that counts. It is sexist by its very nature as gender becomes the dominant factor rather than the individual. It is the end of liberalism in the UK.
Furthermore, there will be sexism at the individual level because if one single man who is more talented, adds more value and has more to offer than a woman both in competition for a place on the Board and she is chosen. That man, and his wife/girlfriend/male partner/sister/daughter and mother have been sexually discriminated against.
Harman and her acolytes forget, men and women do not live in isolation. If you discriminate against a man then you discriminate against the female members of his family.
Google News Coverage plus excellent Daily Mail article