Comments on: A discussion: key priorities for a minister for men

By: A concerned surfer

A concerned surfer — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:10:10 +0000

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

By: Antonia

Antonia — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:16:28 +0000

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.

By: Londoner

Londoner — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:26:25 +0000

Male rape btw is man on man

By: Londoner

Londoner — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:20:35 +0000

Until the conviction rate for male rape is the same as it is for female rape there will never be true equality.

By: Ben

Ben — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:27:19 +0000

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’?

By: Dan Factor

Dan Factor — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:53:36 +0000

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!

By: Becks

Becks — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:38:00 +0000

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.

By: Palma Perez

Palma Perez — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:15:53 +0000

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.

By: Vernon Couch

Vernon Couch — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:03:31 +0000

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

By: David Hughes

David Hughes — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 14:13:52 +0000

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.