wrote in message
news:1112133815.456345.151560{at}o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >The discrimination against men is clearly evident in:
>>the under-achievement of boys in education;
>
> Maybe fathers should spend more tie teaching their sons.

You suggest that because you think mothers don't care about their sons
progress at school (or lack of it!)?
You think that mothers (who are in the majority as custodial parents
anyway!) are either useless as teachers or that they allocate their care and
concern accordingto the sex of their children?
Just what is going on in that addled brain of yours?


>
>>the denial of men's basic human rights within the legal system and
> social
>>services
>
> Which legal system? In the British legal system?

Read the title of the thread for a free clue!

>
>>particularly in respect of: anonymity for accusers who allege sex
> crimes, prosecutions >for domestic violence where allegations are not
> supported by evidence, and attacks on
>>the presumption of innocence for men accused of crimes;
>
> I will admit I am not an British so I can not speak for their laws at
> this time, however in the US who have the right to face your accuser
> and you can not prosecute anyone for anything with out evidence. I will
> assume it is the same in Britain until I see something showing that not
> to be the case.

So restraining orders are never issued in the US against men\fathers on the
mere allegation of a woman\mother?
News to me.


>
>>the exclusion of men from the family home and the reluctance or
> refusal of
>>the family courts to act where children are denied contact with their
>>fathers following divorce;
>
> You need to keep this more specific you are speaking about so many
> different issues as to make this an effective topic.

 You need to read the TITLE of this thread and then do one more thing -
COMPREHEND WHAT IT SAYS!




 In the US however
> there are fifty different states with fifty different family law
> systems. I can't speak about Britain.

No you can't - you have made that quite apparent!

Phil


>
>>paternity fraud and access to DNA testing for paternal certainty;
>
> Wouldn't access to DNA help show the father was/wasn't responsible for
> the child?
>
>>the massive bias towards women in the public provision of preventative
> health services;
>
> I've actually seen the opposite, that there are more public provisions
> of preventative health services geared toward men. But I am not in
> Britain.
>
>>the life chances of men being reduced by the influence of feminist
> mediators within >public services, who resolve conflicts of interest in
> favour of women, ostensibly "in the >interests of children".
>
> this really is very general so that there are almost no points to argue
> since this covers such a broad spectrum of topics.
>
>>Men now experience widespread and systematic sex discrimination,
>>particularly when they encounter the public services.
>
> Vague
>
>>The remarkable thing is that the new sexism is public,
> institutionalised and often overt.
>
> Vague
>
>>Nowhere is the institutional bias against men more obvious than in the
> media
>>were negative and demeaning images of men are frequently used to
> undermine,
>>denigrate and ridicule masculinity.
>
> Seen a rap video recently? Say who owns the media?
>
>>Of course, the media are subject to many influences, but the hostility
> to
>>men has become so single-minded and relentless, precisely because it
> is the
>>result of an organised effort by groups of highly motivated activists
> who
>>are determined to impose their radical feminist agenda on society.
>
> Well if you are not motivated.
>
>>  These groups operate throughout society, but with particular effect
> in the public
>>realm through the media, regulators of public service and private
> sector
>>broadcasting, publishing and in other government agencies like the Law
>
>>Commission and the laughably misnamed Equal Opportunities Commission.
>
> Wait, whose EEOC?
>
>>Other activists use their professional positions within quasi-public
>>institutions like the Law Society; and public services like the Crown
>>Prosecution Service.
>
> Well then become an activist and advicate your cause, since apparently
> the pages are spread across the world you should probably aim for
> something in Britain if you are hoping to change the law.
>
>> In fact, the activists occupy important decision-making positions
> within an informal and >sexist network that permeates the political
> establishment, and governing elite.
>
> I guess you are speaking of political organizations, well start your
> own political organization., obviously if wopmen are doing what you say
> they are it is because they did. This is not witch craft.
>
>>This even extends to Government Ministers, who seem to forget that
> they are supposed
>>to represent the interests of men as well as women.
>
> Start a political movement then
>
>>The activists operate more or less covertly, depending on the
> positions they occupy and >whether they need to maintain the pretence
> of impartiality.
>
> see above.
>
>>Most pay lip service to sexual equality, as required by the 1975 Act
> and the law, but in >practice they are engaged in a process of
> subverting men's human rights.
>
> Great! if they are violating the law then sue them.
>
>>These gatekeepers promote their radical feminist agenda by mounting
> media
>>campaigns which integrate press, TV and radio reports, and which are
> linked
>>to staged pressure group actions and the introduction of feminist
>>legislation.
>
> See above.
>
>> They also do their best to spoil and deny access to alternative
> perspectives, which >promote the legitimate interests of men.
>
> See above.
>
>>The overwhelming feminist domination of social and cultural commentary
>
>>ensures that issues are presented from an exclusively female
> perspective
>>that subjects men to largely unchallenged judgmental and sexist
> criticism.
>
> See above.
>
>>Even when the outcome of an issue has significant implications for
> men's
>>rights, the male perspective is ignored or dismissed.  There is no
> sense of
>>men being defined as a group in order to defend their collective
> rights in a
>>way that happens automatically and without fail for women.  There is,
>>however, always an organised chorus of commentators lined up to give
> the
>>feminist line on the issues of the day and they are primed to give
>>word-perfect responses to planted questions designed to put down the
> men's
>>movement.
>
> See above.
>
>>Radical feminist activists in public services are working in a
> fundamentally
>>ndemocratic way, with the support of a small and unrepresentative (but
>
>>nfluential) metropolitan elite, to force their self-serving and
>>nfrontational ideology on society.  Instead of representing mainstream
>
>>society, they are abusing their positions of authority to subvert the
> values
>>of ordinary people.
>
> Start a political group, Sue under the 1975 law.
>
>> Working in concert with pressure groups, they systematically provoke
> divisive conflicts >of interest between men and women, and then proceed
> to rig the argument in favour of >women.  The media have been captured
> by extremists who are determined to drive >through a subversive agenda
> that undermines the collective values of mainstream society.
>
> Start a political group.
>
> Ok this is getting boring, start a politcal group in the UK if you
> think there are disparities.
>




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/30/05 8:47:47 AM ---