2. Discrimination against Men


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. Men makeup the majority of accident and emergency cases because more men drive and are involved in road traffic accidents. Since men work in dangerous occupations they suffer the majority of industrial accidents. It seems men can do more to help themselves as they leave serious medical conditions too late by not visiting the doctor. Men drink and smoke at a greater rate than women. The suicide rate for men is 3.7 times that for 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 almost as many women also commit domestic violence. That there is a higher rate of domestic violence amongst lesbian than heterosexual couples. 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. Many men who are experiencing domestic violence probably know at least five females who unlike him regularly visit the doctors and would provide a male-victim with a domestic violence helpline.

Domestic Violence

All serious studies into domestic violence show a roughly equal balance between the genders. For example 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.

 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.

 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.'"

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.

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.

Local council

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 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 to forbid the use of eye goggles. The fourth point is that barring men is an apartheid measure.

If women are able to make the case that they are the victims (victim-speak) 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:

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

Men Cambridge Friend (Gay men) xx xx

Public Libraries

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. Radio-4 therefore needs to also have a program where men are equally able to complain about women.

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 Tulley and Misha Glenny. A recent drive is under way to feminise the world service (announcement: calling all our women listeners BBC 13-Aug-96). New 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 Tulley 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 every year who loose 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.

The car company Nissan recently placed advertisements in women's magazines. The heading was 'Hate Male'. The advertisement encouraged women readers to write in and get sent 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 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).


At present 75% of all divorces are called for by wives.

If a man takes the step of marrying and has children:

bullet He has a 50/50 chance of: divorcing, losing custody of his children and paying �92233 (avg)
bullet He will have a 1 in 3 chance of losing his home
bullet 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:

bullet It is almost certain she will keep her children
bullet She will also have a 1 in 3 chance of losing her home
bullet Have a 50/50 chance she will benefit by �42927 (avg)


Women have multiple lifestyle opportunities versus men's single opportunity i.e. work. At present women have the option to:

bullet Work
bullet Stay at home as a housewife
bullet Stay home with children
bullet Work part time and care for children part time

Family courts

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. 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.

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.

Parental alienation

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.

Mother-Headed households - total control

Mother headed households produce the majority of our criminals, and of our drug users. Children who live with only their mother do less well at school. The issue here is 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.


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.

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.

Access courses are 'back to work' initiatives for mainly mothers paid for by government. So while funding is being withdrawn from some of 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. 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 42 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" (xx find ref). These persistent truants are often the product of fatherless families whose father-expulsion Richards refuses to help. Richards also has been involved in an affair (xx) despite belonging to a party that has promoted back-to-basics and family values. An effective way to improve behaviour in schools is to reduce the number of fatherless families.


An unmarried man cannot apply for a passport for a child unless he has the permission of the mother. A mother does not need the fathers permission to apply for a passport since nationality for children of unmarried parents is via the mother.


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 tell 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 we could 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 with horrific burns, and 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 was paid xx in compensation and the mother was paid �150K for unfair dismissal.


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.

Criminal Law

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].


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.


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. Back to Home Page