A discussion: key priorities for a minister for men
The Rights of Man blog has published its key priorities for a minister for men (hat tip to Iain Dale, who really should exercise greater critical faculty about what he appears to endorse if he’s serious about becoming an elected pol):
Make improving the educational attainment of boys a political priority
Make the state recognise/support male domestic violence victims
Improve care and funding for prostate/testicular cancer sufferers
Make judges enforce child contact orders
Support equal parenting laws
Provide better help and retraining for unemployed men
Force a review of maintenance criteria where the mother has left her husband for another man, remarried or simply walked out with the children
Support anonymity for men accused of rape, unless found guilty
Improve care and support for men suffering from depression
Campaign against anti-male propaganda and male stereotyping in the media
Support equal sentencing criteria for men and women
Stop the political disenfranchisement of individual men by abolishing discriminatory all-women shortlists and priority lists
Now, before I start taking the nonsense bits apart, some of these points are right: improving boy’s achievement in schools; better treatment for male-specific cancers and depression; support to get long-term unemployed men, usually in former heavy-industrial areas, back to work. If I were to write a manifesto for things that need to be better for men, I’d add a few more points - about the corrosive effect of male violence and macho culture on men themselves, about the latent homophobia that limits men’s career choice and proscribes young men from entering child care and other caring professions, about the need to increase paid parental leave and massively decrease the hours that men are expected to work so that they get time to spend with their families or on leisure pursuits, and about the hideous health problems caused to men by alcohol.
Of course, the big difference between the manifesto to make things better for men that I’d write and this one, is that I’d write mine with the aim of making society better, the lives of women and men better. By contrast, these twelve key points (and I’m still surprised, given the usual intellectual standards of the men’s rights movement that it wasn’t entitled a MANifesto) seek redress, even vengeance, for the perceived slights to men. With supreme inconsistency, it recognises that women and men are different and have different needs, and yet proceeds to demand absolute parity in treatment for women and men - to the extent of calling for a minister for men just because there’s one for women. And this is the complete misunderstanding at the root of it: the author just can’t get his head round that trying to make sure that men and women aren’t massively disadvantaged vis-a-vis one another demands, occasionally and with clear evidence to justify it, treating them differently.
So, to the text.
Make the state recognise/support male domestic violence victims
Support anonymity for men accused of rape, unless found guilty
These two points are about denying the reality of men’s violence against women, by on the one hand belittling it by claiming that men suffer just as badly, and on the other hand, not recognising the scale of it, by claiming that women make false allegations of abuse.
The state does recognise male victims of domestic violence: they are mentioned in each policy paper on the subject, and men who flee their home in an emergency would be entitled to emergency housing and to housing benefit dependent on their individual circumstances just as are female survivors of DV. What the author of the paper is complaining about is that in the 70s, 80s and 90s women’s organisations, recognising that many women are financially-dependent on their violent husbands and partners, opened refuges for women to flee to. These are usually supported by women residents claiming housing benefit, and through grant or in-kind support from local authorities who recognise that violence against women is wrong. If the men’s movement thinks that there should be a refuge for male victims of DV in every local authority area, let them go out and prove the scale and impact of violence against men justifies it and then get organised and set them up themselves, as the women’s movement did, rather than bleating that the men must have everything the women do, no matter how unsupported by the evidence.
And no, you wouldn’t expect me to support the idea that every woman who incredibly bravely reports her rape to the police should be institutionally considered to be a liar. And it’s an interesting and illustrative choice of priorities, isn’t it, to put this in rather than attempting to increase the 15% reporting rate and the 6% conviction rate or decrease the horrific number of rapes in this country.
Make judges enforce child contact orders
Support equal parenting laws
Force a review of maintenance criteria where the mother has left her husband for another man, remarried or simply walked out with the children
These three points reveal the unpleasant misogynist views lingering in the background of this document, about the rights of men to control women who had the misfortune to marry or partner them, even after the relationship is over. It’s most clear in the final point, which is about the vengeance of the spurned husband on the wife who dared to leave him and reflects incredibly badly on its proponents. Making judges enforce child contact is similar: it feeds a view that all women are out to keep their children from seeing their fathers, which just isn’t the case. Judges can and do enforce contact of children with their fathers, even at times when there is evidence of domestic violence and when doing so makes the children distraught. Equally, equal parenting laws appearing in a manifesto about men’s rights shows it exactly for what it is: a demand that is about the father, and the father’s rights, and not wanting the woman to have something they don’t, rather than about the children’s needs. I strongly believe that both parents should continue to be involved in their children’s lives after relationship breakdown, but that inserting a second overriding presumption in child custody proceedings fatally undermines the other overriding presumption - that the needs of the child are paramount.
Campaign against anti-male propaganda and male stereotyping in the media
Forgive me, I’m not sure what the author means by this. If they mean combatting gender stereotypes in TV and encouraging young men to consider non-traditional careers and to move away from the notion that violence and machismo are intrinsic to being a man, then I might agree, but I’m not sure that is particularly likely.
Support equal sentencing criteria for men and women
Actually, I could support this, but I doubt for the reason the author does: twice as many women as men receive prison sentences for a first-time offence, yet women’s offending is much less serious than men’s, with most women being in prison for theft and handling stolen goods. And given the impact on children of women being gaoled and the huge number of women who have responsibility for children who are imprisoned, there is a case for using non-custodial sentences wherever possible for women. Once again, the author of the manifesto seems to think that absolute parity of treatment is more important than actual outcomes, whatever the devastating effect.
Stop the political disenfranchisement of individual men by abolishing discriminatory all-women shortlists and priority lists
Finally, we get to this old chestnut. It’s one point on which reasonable people may reasonably differ - and those who differ should vote for parties that don’t believe in guaranteeing women’s representation, like the Tories and Liberals.
You know, reading this, I worry about the women in this author’s life. There are lots of men in my life who I love deeply, and I strongly believe that my feminism is part of buiding a society that’s better for my brothers, father and grandfather, for my male friends and colleagues, as well as for the women I love and care about. I reckon that women getting paid more is a good thing if you’re married to one, for example. I reckon that flexible working makes it possible to be a good dad and a good employee. I reckon that reducing domestic violence and rape means that fewer fathers have to pick up the pieces after their daughters and granddaughters are abused. I reckon that abortion and contraception and divorce mean that couples get to make choices that are right for them rather than having their hand forced by biology or law. I reckon that paid parental leave gives lots of dads a wonderful chance to concentrate on their family rather than rushing back to work. I reckon that breaking down stereotypes about what women and men can do opens up opportunities for men as well as women, whether they want to play with dolls, enter the caring professions or become a ballet dancer. I reckon that feminism is good for men; why aren’t more men pro-feminist?
Whenever I post anything about the men’s or fathers’ rights movements, I get masses of sexist and homophobic comments. So, just so you know, here are the site rules again:
I’m not going to create a platform for racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial or homophobia. I will delete comments that violate these rules, and that are otherwise offensive.
Just so you know, “feminazi” will get you banned. So will other comments that imply that me, feminists or the Labour party are in someway the inheritors of Adolf Hitler’s tradition. So will comments that use my sexuality as a basis to insult me. Comments that won’t get deleted are those which agree or disagree with my arguments politely and respectfully.
Why aren’t more men pro-feminist? As a feminist, you probably already know the answer is about power, and the psychological reaction to a more equal distribution of it.
Regarding the anonymity of those accused of rape, I would make one point. We live in a society where those accused of crime are innocent until proven guilty, and this has to be balanced against the media reporting ‘no smoke without fire’ attitude, and the effect this can have on the lives of those falsely accused of crime, and their families. There may then be a case for anonymity for people accused of all types of crime, but there is no real reason to single out rape in this regard.
“These three points reveal the unpleasant misogynist views lingering in the background of this document, about the rights of men to control women who had the misfortune to marry or partner them…”
No they don’t. The first two points are about making sure men can have contact with their children and play a role in parenting them. The last has nothing to do with ‘vengeance’ but is simply about not wishing to be compelled to financially support a woman who has abandoned you for another man.
It’s interesting that in response to this what you see is men trying to control women. You see women’s independence as more important than men having a right to play a role in their children’s lives. I’m all for women’s independence, but frankly, if you have a child with someone they’ve got a right to be a parent. If you want independence, then you should have thought about that before you have their child.
I reckon that feminism is good for men; why aren’t more men pro-feminist?
People have realised what’s going on. Plenty of men did exactly what feminists wanted, they played a full role in their children’s lives only to find themselves excluded upon divorce and feminists acting as cheerleaders to this exclusion. Plenty of men have been betrayed by feminism, it’s not surprising they aren’t pro-feminist.
I feel I have to agree on the rape issue. It isn’t about inherently assuming women reporting rape to be liars but about assuming the media to be inherently irresponsible. You’re right the priority should be on improving prevention, reporting and conviction but that doesn’t negate the very real problems that arise. And cases have been thrown out because media reporting has made a fair trial impossible - do you want rapists going free because of an irresponsible media?
Just so you know, “feminazi” will get you banned. So will other comments that imply that me, feminists or the Labour party are in someway the inheritors of Adolf Hitler’s tradition.
[C4 goes on to compare me to a Nazi... REMOVED BY SITE OWNER]
Even if those claims that you reject were false, tackle them head-on in an open debate and use your knowledge and brain to riddicule your opponents. At the very least you would be taking the moral high ground and prove your claims that you are a democrat who believes free-speech and would defend people’s civil liberties. The fact that you won’t do this proves that can’t defend the indefencible ideology of the left and that you know yourself that you are in wrong!
Please surprise me and prove me wrong? Really! Don’t be like Councillor Terry Kelly (councillorterrykelly.blogspot.com and terrywatch.blogspot.com)!
Hmm, must respectfully disagree with some of your views Antonia. These three points reveal the unpleasant misogynist views lingering in the background of this document, about the rights of men to control women who had the misfortune to marry or partner them, even after the relationship is over.
Without commenting on the views of the manifesto writer, actually a fairer family court system would benefit women as well as men. I can’t for a second believe that you would support a presumption anywhere else in society that women ought to take care of children - but there is some reasonably strong evidence that often family courts do just that. Proper analysis is hampered by the secrecy that surrounds their proceedings. It is also certainly true that contact orders can be very hard to enforce - and that a minority of parents flaunt them as a way of seeking revenge on their partners. There is an issue about where contact orders are given inappropriately where there has been, for example, domestic violence, but that is an issue about the granting of the order in the first place and not its subsequent enforcement.
I think you are also guilty of erecting something of a straw man (person?) when you extrapolate the author’s claims about domestic violence into LA provision. Whilst this may be an attempt to belittle men’s role as the main perpetrators of DV - that is not to say that there isn’t a need to address the societal perception that domestic violence is solely about battered women. It isn’t and that perception - combined I’m sure with the macho stereotyping you mention - keeps many of the men who suffer DV from reporting it - which is worth addressing.
The issue of anonymity in sexual offences is a very difficult one - and there are strong arguments to be made on all sides here. Certainly it is true that the level of rape convictions is a national scandal. It is also true that in the vast majority of cases the anonymity of the complainant is entirely appropriate. However, it is also true that, in a very small number of cases, that anonymity has been abused. Whether this very minor group of the population should demand such attention is debateable - and certainly it has been used in the past as a trojan horse by people with a more sinister agenda - but that is not to say it is an issue where there is no place for rational debate…
I’m not a big fan of this manifesto - but that is not to say that the issues it touches on are not important - but I’m probably more respectful of the way organisations like Families need Fathers choose to address them - than this tack.
Really good article Antonia. A couple of quibbles but I basically completely agree with you. I do think like Tim that perhaps we need to reform the law on the way that trials are reported- I have to say my own feeling would be that reporters should be banned from any reporting of a trial except for the bare details until after the verdicts. I am sure for instance that in case like the Fred and Rosemary West case had they been foudn innocent because of press coverage it would have been difficult for them to live their lives afterwards. Because rape is a particularly emotive crime this problem is more of an issue than say it is with shoplifting but I don’t personally see it as a rape specific issue- more that we need to stop the media turning people who may yet be innocent and are only accused into monsters.
Second point, I like you would like women and men to both assume a role in childcare adn stuff like that. I think for instance extending paternity leave is a great idea- it does strike me that the government’s pro family agenda which relies on counselling and paternity measures is good- there just isn’t enough of it! I do think though that might have consequences on the presumption that the woman is the natural person to have custody- I’m not sure in a new environment say men wouldn’t get custody too a lot of the time though women would still get it a lot of the time too.
Personally as a man I have seen friends of mine who are women sexually assaulted and I know one rape victim and it made me very upset that people I loved had been wounded in such a deep and horrible way. Sometimes when I think about those things I hate the way my sex treats yours but one of the things that I really admire about the three women I know who have been sexually assaulted is that they haven’t turned it into a hatred of men but instead reserved their ire for the particular men involved.
To be honest, I think your attitude here is just right though I’d quibble over some details and obviously bits of law will evolve over time in ways that neither of us will expect- but I think your attitude is right- we are all ultimately individuals- on a last point I think all men have gained amazingly from feminism- I can’t imagine what it must have been like when the sexes were seen as different species- the ammount I’ve gained from women demonstrates to me that we should never go back there. Sorry to waffle on…
Hi Antonia
This is a thoughtful and reasoned reading of the situation but people are hurting and they will try to find someone to blame for that. Labour must bear at least some of the responsibility because the inequality gap has widened in the last ten years and that makes many people, men and women, feel powerless. Demands for boy pupils to be given priority (for example) are obviously nonsense because the only ‘priority’ they can be given is over girl pupils. Is that really what the proposers mean? Probably not.
“I think for instance extending paternity leave is a great idea- it does strike me that the government’s pro family agenda which relies on counselling and paternity measures is good- there just isn’t enough of it!”
Paternity leave is a classic example of this government bullshitting. I know it sounds good, but it’s all talk, and the government is ideologically biased against fathers. When they talk about paternity leave they are using the word ‘paternity’ very loosely. In fact, it’s nothing to do with actual paternity as most people would understand it.
What it actually is is leave awardable to the mothers partner at her discretion. The mother can award it to anyone she’s partnered with regardless of their legal or biological relationship with the child, in preference to the actual father if she wishes. If you are a bisexual who has become pregnant through a one night stand with a man, there is nothing to stop you awarding ‘paternity’ leave to your lesbian partner.
I’ve nothing against lesbians. Parental leave would certainly be apropriate where the child was conceived through AI and the women was a legal parent to the child. But I think the fact that a woman who’s a biological and legal stranger to a child could claim government support to spend time with the child in preference to the actual legal father and parent, essentially because she’s sleeping with the child’s mother, is very telling about how much this government actually cares about fathers.
james:
“If you are a bisexual who has become pregnant through a one night stand with a man, there is nothing to stop you awarding ‘paternity’ leave to your lesbian partner.”
So you’d rather a complete random who has nothing to do with the child’s life got paternity leave which he might not use to support the kid, over someone playing an active role in the child’s upbringing?
Bizarre.
You assume the mother doesn’t want (or isn’t capable of judging) what’s best for the kid. Why?
And why use the example of a bisexual woman anyway? On your (flawed) logic, it shouldn’t make any difference if it is another man who is getting the leave or a woman, so why is the woman in your example bisexual?
I LOVE these quotes about you [EDITED by site owner as C4' compares me to a Nazi again]
“Antonia…. ….is enough to turn anybody into a rabid MRA (Men’s Rights Activist)…”
“”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’.” - Blog 4 Justice on Iain Dale’s Diary
“And why use the example of a bisexual woman anyway? On your (flawed) logic, it shouldn’t make any difference if it is another man who is getting the leave or a woman, so why is the woman in your example bisexual?”
To ram home the point that paternity leave has a rather Orwellian name, given that in reality it has nothing to do with paternity. Even in the loosest ‘father figure’ sense.
To be honest, I know New Labour’s agenda isn’t going to change. But why do they have to lie about it so much? Why not just call it ‘discretionary maternally awarded leave’ or something, rather than set out to mislead people?
“So you’d rather a complete random who has nothing to do with the child’s life got paternity leave which he might not use to support the kid, over someone playing an active role in the child’s upbringing?”
I think you’re missing my point. In a world in which the government cared about fathers, and didn’t encourage strangers to usurp their place where it’s convienient for the mother by offering them two weeks paid leave to spend time with the kid while the father will be having difficulty getting contact, maybe the father wouldn’t be a ‘complete random’.
“You assume the mother doesn’t want (or isn’t capable of judging) what’s best for the kid. Why?”
You’re assuming the kid is the property of the mother who should get to make these choices. Why shouldn’t the father have a role in deciding what’s best for the kid?
[i]“To ram home the point that paternity leave has a rather Orwellian name, given that in reality it has nothing to do with paternity. Even in the loosest ‘father figure’ sense.
To be honest, I know New Labour’s agenda isn’t going to change. But why do they have to lie about it so much? Why not just call it ‘discretionary maternally awarded leave’ or something, rather than set out to mislead people?”[/i]
I accept that the language of “paternity” leave is sexist, and implicitly reinforces the idea that the person who should get the leave is always male, rather than the person who - as the partner of the primary carer - is likely to play a larger role in bringing up the child. I don’t think that’s what you meant, though.
[i]“I think you’re missing my point. In a world in which the government cared about fathers, and didn’t encourage strangers to usurp their place where it’s convienient for the mother by offering them two weeks paid leave to spend time with the kid while the father will be having difficulty getting contact, maybe the father wouldn’t be a ‘complete random’.”[/i]
No, you’re missing my point. In the analogy you used, the biological father’s only relationship with the mother was a temporary sexual relationship during a one-night stand. I hardly think it’s better for the child that this person has a role in the child’s life than the long-term partner of its mother.
[i]“You’re assuming the kid is the property of the mother who should get to make these choices. Why shouldn’t the father have a role in deciding what’s best for the kid?”[/i]
No, I’m assuming the kid is neither the property of the mother or the father, so the person who gets to make those choices should be the person who is best qualified to make decisions in the interests of the child.
Again, your analogy was predicated on the example of a man who had a one-night stand resulting in a pregnancy. Now unless you think there are men going round having one-night stands with the intention of creating children (really??!!), all the man did is put his penis in a vagina for pleasure. The woman made a decision to have a kid, went through pregnancy/childbirth and altered her life to prepare for a caring role. Who do you think is better qualified to make a decision in the best interests of the child?
I can’t use the italics function. Sorry if it makes that more difficult to read.
“I accept that the language of “paternity” leave is sexist, and implicitly reinforces the idea that the person who should get the leave is always male… I don’t think that’s what you meant, though.”
That’s quite the understatement. There’s nothing implicit, using the word paternity explictly suggests the child’s father will be taking the leave. My worry is less that this isn’t PC, and more that it’s a calculated falsehood.
“I hardly think it’s better for the child that this person has a role in the child’s life than the long-term partner of its mother.”
How did ‘long-term’ creep in there? I think that’s a figment of your imagination, the only qualification in the legislation is just that you a partner of the mother. Still, at least this figment of your imagination could exist. I doubt I’ll be bumping into the imaginary ‘complete random who has nothing to do with the child’s life [who's] got paternity leave’, given that if he’s ‘got paternity leave’ he’s certainly not got ‘nothing to do with the child’s life’.
“The woman made a decision to have a kid, went through pregnancy/childbirth and altered her life to prepare for a caring role. Who do you think is better qualified to make a decision in the best interests of the child?”
I don’t think paternity leave should be about letting the mum award someone two weeks to spend with the child. So I’m not interested in her qualifications to make this decision. I think paternity leave should be about allowing the father to spend time and bond with the child. I think that’s valuable, allowing some random person who’s got nothing to do with the child except for fancying its mum to do the same isn’t. Turning paternity leave into ‘discretionary maternally awarded leave’ defeats this purpose.
James:
Do you have children? From the sounds of your comments, you don’t, so let me educate you a little:
Newborn babies are completely dependent on their mothers. It is well known that breastmilk is far superior to formula, and it is even more well known that men don’t lactate.
It follows that the best place for a newborn baby, in almost all cases, is with his mother.
Next fact about newborn babies: They feed a lot. All the time. It is not at all uncommon for new babies to feed for half an hour to an hour, every 3 hours or so. Some feed more often, some less. And yes, every 3 hours means during the night as well.
So whilst recovering from the birth, the new mother gets no sleep, because she’s feeding the baby every third hour, and probably holding him much of the rest of the time. What she needs is someone to hold the baby so she can have a shower, someone to bring her meals and drinks, and someone to take the baby for a walk for an hour so she can have a nap.
Who is best suited for this role? The person who the mother lives with, or the person who happens to be the baby’s father? Who is the best judge of that?
James - I like the way you reduce the word “sexist” to “PC” in your response. It’s very revealing.
The word “long-term”, I admit, was completely propagandist on my part. Many times it will be true and sometimes it won’t be. But it’s irrelevant to the point I was making, which is that the example you used - of someone becoming a biological father through a one night stand - is one where the father has done little of significance and has no existing relationship with the mother. Of course the act of sex is biologically necessary for the production of the child, but imo it is less significant than changing nappies or supporting the mother during pregnancy. Why are you so hung up on the act of sex and not on the things which show love and prove commitment? Why is it better that someone who has f***** the child’s mother gets to bond with the child than someone who has and will most likely continue to support her? (Apologise for the cursing but it was the most appropriate word.)
You seem much more concerned about balancing biological parents’ “rights”, than the welfare of the child, and this I find quite disturbing. In my view there should be no automatic presumption that either the father or the mother gets to bond and spend time with the child unless this is in the child’s interests. Much of the time it will be in their interests - but not always. And if you take this approach the question, as Sam asks, is “Who is the best judge?” For the reasons Sam outlines and the reasons I outlined earlier, it will almost always be the mother.
I’m not arguing that the biological father should never get the paternity leave. In some cases it may be a good idea for that person to bond with the child - it may be that that person’s love for the child they have played a minor role in creating is a positive influence in the life of the child. But the mother is in the best position to judge whether this is true. You seem to think she will deliberately choose what is worst for her child. If you don’t, I apologise, I’m assuming that because it fits what you’ve said and because it’s a sexist idea which is very prevalent.
Antonia, an excellent article. Please ignore the whinging males who made comments above. There is nothing worse than people who enjoy innumerable priviliges complaning about how hard-done-by they are.
Its such a shame that so many attempts to articulate masculinity end up being so petty minded. I would really like to read a manifesto for men that espoused values I could believe in. Unfortunately, the ‘Rights of Man’ don’t seem to be capable of writing it.
Reading Antonia’s post, I worry - genuinely - about the sheer shoddiness of her thinking, at her propensity to reduce complex questions to simple formulae and then attribute it all (ta da!) to something she fondly imagines to be ‘feminism’.
Let’s just take the following sentence and hold it up to the light:
“I reckon that abortion and contraception and divorce mean that couples get to make choices that are right for them rather than having their hand forced by biology or law.”
Notwithstanding her particular fixation with abortion as being A Good Thing, there is no excuse for such sloppiness.
The whole point of Antonia’s extremist line on abortion is that it should be available to women on demand, without any justification whatsoever, that the preferences of individual men for pregnancies to be continued are irrelevant. Couples making choices, indeed!
Similarly, as far as she is concerned the beauty of modern birth control drugs and devices is precisely that they can be taken by women privately, indeed secretly, without the male being any the wiser.
Antonia’s enthusiasm for abortion and contraception can at least be put down to feminism, albeit of a very crude sort but Minerva save us, she includes divorce in her list!
If Antonia knew anything about family law, she’d know that quite a few people - including women - are divorced against their will because that is what the law allows. If an informed person were to assert that divorce allows ‘couples’ to make choices it would be a flagrant misrepresentation of the truth. But when such characteristically silly claims are made by Antonia, they can be put down to youthful ignorance.
Crocus, I hadn’t quite realised that there were still people who questioned the right of a woman to govern what happens to her own body. Your attack on a womans right to take contraceptive drugs without the knowledge of her partner or in your example any male, simply expose your own misogynistic outlook on life. A woman has the right, without consultation with her partner to consume whatever “birth control” drugs that she feels appropiate. It is her body.
Helen,
You’d have done better to have read what I wrote rather than reacted to it. As it is, you’ve proven my point again. The whole point of modern birth control drugs and devices is that they can be taken by a women without her partner’s knowledge. Hence the stupidity of claiming that they allow ‘couples’ to make choices.
Helen’s hopelessly ill-reasoned contribution is indicative of the ranting anti-intellectualism of what passes for current ‘feminism’. Her charge of a ‘misogynistic outlook on life’ (whatever that means) is clumsy and adolescent.
Over the last few days we have been informed that no-one will be prosecuted in the “cash for honours” inquiry. And what a furore we’ve had about those people who were either arrested or questioned about the matter. “They have gone through 16 months of hell,” etc etc.
Perhaps this will help to concentrate the minds of politicians (particularly of the Labour variety) on the plight of those hundreds of men falsely accused of rape. Their name is spread all over the media whilst their accusers enjoy anonymity. At least in the “cash for honours” case their accuser was named also.
It would be common justice - as used to be the case in this country - for both the accused and the accuser to remain anonymous until one of them is found guilty; then THAT name should be made public. Meanwhile men and their families suffer unjustly. Even when the woman finally confesses to have made the whole story up, she is rarely jailed for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
It is the institutional discrimination against men in both the police force and our law courts that make so many men look for some sort of justice through a manifesto which, quite obviously, you fail to understand.
Quite a number of women politicians are now openly admitting to smoking canabis when they were students.They are doing this before their smoking partners of long ago shop them. In all honesty, I have never seen such a mean looking lot of confessors in my life. It is absolutely disgraceful to read about the result of the cash for honours scandal, Corruption rules the day
to james (the one arguing with Tim)
Please, let’s remember how often men “scam” women for sex and dump them without a word, even if that woman has gotten pregnant. Let’s remember the intricate “good guy” act many men put on to swindle sex from women. Let’s remember how many men walk out on their woman and kids, never to be heard from again. Centuries of mistreatment and brutalization of women by men, often their husbands or boyfriends, and centuries of legal classification of women as little more than men’s chattel are what’s behind many of the female-friendly policies you rail against. Of course some women falsely accuse men of rape, and they’re dead wrong to do it. Of course a few women are violent to their male partners. But if such violence could fill a thimble, the arbitrary (and often legally-sanctioned) brutality of men against women could fill a thousand Olympic-sized swimming pools. Men’s superior physical strength and propensity for violence are the only reasons men have always dominated women throughout history. Had it been the other way around, a passel of policies protecting men from women’s worst inclinations would be the norm now.
ACTUALLY in the case of a baby conceived through a one night stand BOTH the womans partner (male or female) AND the biological father can take two weeks paternity leave.
The conditions are that someone taking paternity leave has to be either the mothers partner or the biological father AND intend on using the leave to spend time with the child and or provide support to the mother.
There is no reason why more than one person could not fulfill this criteria. And in practice it is certainly possible for two people to claim paternity leave for the same child, perfectly legally.
Oh dear oh dear. There’s just so much wrong here that it’s hard to know where to start. But I’ll try and be to the point:
.You seem to believe because some men behave badly that all men should be regarded by law as bad.
.You seem to believe that because some fathers mistreat and abuse their children and partners the law should regard all fathers as abusers and mistreaters of women and children (I ask you would you say that because some Muslims commit terrorist attacks that means the law should regard all Muslims as terrorist)?
.You believe that those who wish to preserve the idea of innocent until proven guilty in rape cases believe that all women who report rape to the police are liars. This is certainly not the case!
.On the issue of negative stereotypes of men in the media I’d say turn on the TV and they are right there in front of you. Watch the TV soap operas (esepcially Eastenders) and you will see men as liars, child abusers, wife beaters and adulterers. We are told by the producers of the god forsaken programmes that this is an accurate portrayal of life for working class people. Most working class people both male and female will tell them they are talking out of their backsides and the “men all bad” stereotype is far and away from anything they’ve experienced.
I don’t doubt that women got it in the neck at the hands of the media (women as brainless bimbos only good for shagging urgggh!) but two wrongs don’t make a right.
But the worse thing of all this is the way that the media openly condones and glamourises violence against men as both justified and admarable.
Tell me would you as a feminist stand by and allow a TV programme to show a man smashing a frying pan over a woman’s head and suggests she was deserving of it because she was unfaithful to him? No you would be protesting to the brodcasting regulators and quite rightly too.
But reverse the roles with the women with the frying pan and the man on the receiving end and it’s all so very funny isn’t it? I don’t think so.
To finalise I would like to say I don’t deny there are violent and abusive men out there. But I don’t see how treating all men as violent and abusive and punishing every man and father for the sins of a few is going to help the cause of men OR women one little bit!
Antonia, I agree completely that the conviction rate for male rape is appalingly low and that more measures need to be taken to encourage victims to come forward. However, could you explain why supporting anonmity for alleged rapists is equal in your view to institutionalising those women who make the allegations as “liars”? In other words, if it is assumed from the outset that all women who make rape allegations are telling the truth (and I fully accept over 99% of them are) then how does that tally with ‘innocent until proven guilty’?
Until the conviction rate for male rape is the same as it is for female rape there will never be true equality.
Male rape btw is man on man
Ben - people accused of a crime in our political system do not get anonymity, no matter what the crime is, unless identifying them would in some way identify a vulnerable person - the victim or a child, for example - or unless they are themselves a child. I do not want to create a separate category of crime, rape, where anonymity is afforded the defendant. To do so would set it apart as a different sort of crime, and would institutionalise the message that women make up allegations of rape.
Londoner - you’re wrong. Equality is not about numbers. Rape of men is a dreadful crime, often homophobic in intent, and I want it stopped, as I want all violent crime stopped, and the perpetrators caught and pubished severely. Rape of women is more than a horrendous violent crime: it is a demonstration and manifestation of the power over women, intimately linked to the lower status of women in our and almost all other societies. I do not want the police to stop prosecuting rapes on women while they find a male rape to prosecute to keep the numbers up, and neither do you, when you think about it.
I’m really concerned about the tenor of these arguments. Why is it that we can’t discuss these things without deliberately misconstruing the meaning and intent of others? I’m afraid this applies to all contributors.
My concern is about equality. Equality of respect as well as equality of opportunity and, of course, equality before the law.
For those that are interested, re-read some of these posts reversing the gender in the stories told. It does seem as if there is a deep-seated cultural bias which will make this exercise difficult.
However, there is also a problem with the gender division of violence and crime. I’ve no doubt that men are more often perpetrators of violence in all forms (that are reported) but, by definition, I cannot know (nor can anyone) know what goes unreported. One cannot build a case on that latter figure.
However we can all agree that violence is wrong and that anyone perpetrating violence shuld be dealt with by the law. I feel that it should be the criminal law and, as a matter of principle, that all law procedings shuld be open to scrutiny.[It is a sad fact that many people do not want to go to court because of fear or of shame, but the law should must be upheld without fear or favour - there should be no hiding place for perpetrators].
Now, leaving aside domestic violence, we come to case of family disputes.
The rights of children are paramount so where adults decide to separate, the wishes of the children should be taken into account. The legal presumption of equal parenting means that parents ca come to an agreement about how actual contact time should be allocated but that, in the event of them not agreeing, the court looks at reasons to vary an equal split.
In many cases this will result in women effectively having a greater ’share’ of the caring, especially of younger children. However I would hope that this wuold also cause parents of both sexes to consider what is right for their child.
I also believe that if the child’s interests are paramount, that where the court makes an order this should include specific responsibilities of the parents to facilitate the agreed shared caring (in whatever proportions agreed) such as not moving mmore than say a certain distance away, and a mechanism to renegotiate this as necessary.
All of this can only happen if
a) all issues of violence are dealt with first - by the criminal justice system
b) the subsequent system is transparent