UK General Election: A Men’s Rights Perspective

2010-04-29
By

The UK general election takes place on the 6th of May. Generally speaking, my interest in party politics is piqued only when it coincides with gender politics issues, and consequently, even though I’m 34 years old, this will be the first time I have voted. I’m going to vote for the centre right Conservative Party, the major opposition to the incumbent left wing Labour Party. I’d like to tell you a bit about my reasoning, both in terms of my decision to participate as a voter for the first time and why I think that the Conservative Party offers the best deal for men and for equality between the sexes in general.

You’ll have a rough idea of what society is like in the UK if you’re familiar with the social conditions in any first world country. Gender politics in the UK is feminism, a female oriented philosophy. Women occupy the greatest range of roles, both in life and in the workplace. There are many important occupations, such as those connected with child care, social work and welfare, in which almost no men have any involvement. In roles in which women are less well represented, their interests are well represented due to feminist lobbying, and programmes exist to increase female participation.

Men work the longest hours, have few legal entitlements to obtain employment contracts similar to those of women and do most of the dangerous jobs, and yet all employment law is heavily biased towards improving things for women. Men are majority of victims in all crime, particularly violent crime. Women do better at every level of education and more women than men attend University. As you might expect, men have scant rights towards their children.

I believe that there is almost no chance of any improvement in these areas if the Labour government stay in power. If anything, it’s going to get a lot worse for men if the Labour Party remain in power.

To increase the appeal of the party to women voters, the Labour party employs a system called all women shortlists. Under this system, the central party office forces the local party in some regions to select candidates from a pre-approved list consisting only of women. Local people are often furious when a female candidate has been “parachuted in” in this way, as that candidate often has no connection to the region of the country that she is supposed to represent. Even amongst those who support arguments against the sanctity of the free market, very few would tolerate interference in free elections like this.

Two male politicians, who had hoped to run in an election, challenged this, and an industrial tribunal agreed that the Labour Party had broken sex discrimination laws. Don’t worry though, when the Labour Party were successfully elected in 1997, they simply added an exception to the sex discrimination laws that legalised positive sexual discrimination in the case of parliamentary candidate selections.

The policy of all women shortlists is a good example of what’s wrong with the Labour party and why they are not a party that will ever do anything to improve the lives of British men. A lot of people reading this might hold left wing political attitudes, but the Labour party are a far left party, and when the far left talk about equal opportunities they really mean equal outcomes. Painting over the rust, micro management and constant interference are always favoured rather than the difficult process of bringing about real changes.

Advocates of egalitarian gender politics like myself agree that males and females should be equally represented in Parliament. One barrier is that the working conditions of MPs are difficult as they involve continual movement between the capital and their home constituency, making it a difficult career path for some women. I can’t see how any woman who looks after the kids while her loyal husband goes off to work every day can ever adapt to those working conditions. Improvements in a typical man’s life are needed to allow create more female MPs. Wherever affirmative action is forced onto organisations that employ more men, equal action should be enforced against organisations that employ few men. Men and women should have equal custody rights towards their children, and married women should participate in winning bread on a level equal to men. Men should be able to insist upon equal employment agreements to ensure that they too have a decent work-life balance. Measures such as these would free up more women to get involved politics by making society as a whole more equal. But policies such as these, in the current climate, are vote loosers, and every politician knows it.

Harriet Harman is a senior politician in the UK cabinet and she serves as a good example of what the Labour Party stand for. Unlike some of her cronies, such as former home secretary Jacqui ‘jackboots’ Smith, she was initially elected, fairly, before the introduction of all women shortlists. Her name is ironic because, in the eyes of most people involved in men’s rights causes in the UK, she causes a lot of harm to men. Some would go further and describe her as a caricature of a ’70s-style, man hating feminist. On every issue, be it family law, electoral procedure, employment law, the rights of women to kill their husbands, or snide, inappropriate remarks about men, she’s a feminist hard-liner.

Guess what she’s in charge of in the government? I’m not making this up, she’s in charge of equality. She holds the (sexistly entitled) post of Minister for Equality and Women, a position for which it would be hard to think of anyone less well suited to. If you’re wondering how she uses her position, try to imagine what would happen if the leader of the Ku Klux Klan were put in charge of racial equality.

As well as being in charge of equality, she is also the deputy leader of the party. In politics she’s known not only for her feminist convictions, but also for her level of ambition. The prime minister, Gordon Brown, is currently suffering from a historically low level of popularity in the polls, and he’s had to survive a few leadership challenges and plots since he took over from Tony Blair in 2008. Even if Labour are able to maintain their power in this election, it seems unlikely that he’d remain the leader for very long.

At this point, I think you can probably guess where this is going. As Harman is the deputy leader at the moment, there is a strong possibility that she could become the first man-hating prime minister of Britain. Because of her famously biased views, she’s unsuited to the position, but she’s also laughably unsuitable for the position that she current occupies. If this happens, British men face a change from a life that is often unfair, to a nightmare.

She once mused on the prospect of her becoming prime minister and commented that it should not happen because there wouldn’t be enough airports in Britain for all of the men to leave. Naturally, if she made remarks like this about any other group, such as Jewish people, non-whites, gay people or women, it would bring about a swift end to her political career.

There are probably some within the labour party who recognise the unfairness of giving someone like Harman so much power, but those people have not spoken out against her. There’s no getting way from it, a political party that tolerates someone like Harman will never be a friend to men. For me, on its own, the Harman situation would be a sufficient reason to vote against the Labour Party.

As I said at the beginning, I’ve never closely followed party politics, and the Conservative party are far from perfect. In this election, they have chosen a leader, David Cameron, who plays things strictly from the centre of politics, a break from traditional Conservative values. He hasn’t said much about helping men or anything specific about stemming the tide of political correctness in government. However, the party that he represents is a right of centre party and this means less direct interference in people’s lives and less political correctness. As men are never a group favoured by protective measures, I believe that this will lead to a better deal for men and a chance for genuine progress in men’s issues.

A freelance writer, Michael Reed writes about technology, retro computing, geek culture and gender. He’s had articles published in various magazines and websites. See his website to hear more about his continuing adventures.

A freelance writer, I write about technology, geek culture, retro computing and gender politics. I've had articles published in some of the UK mags and online. My ambition would be to have a men's rights column in a UK newspaper. See my website for full biog and links to other articles.

Tags: , , , , , ,

  • NorseFire
  • mongo

    Labour have been kissing female arse since last millennium. The Conservatives promised more of the same. Neither got in.

    What a perfect result.

    As I write this, Gordon Brown has resigned in a last ditch effort to keep Labour’s chances of a coalition afloat, and the Conservatives have immediately responded with a proposal for proportional representation.

    It is only in a proportional representation system that a few MPs representing a Men’s Party would have any influence – and an awful lot of influence at that.

    And we men could actually cast a positive, principled vote rather than the destructive, strategic voting that brought this current situation to pass.

    None of this would have happened by voting for either of the Big Two. Think about this my American brothers.

  • tom of covent garden

    http://www.therightsofman.typepad.co.uk has reviewed all the parties manifestos, from a men’s equality perspective, and recommends a vote for the Lib Dems, with the Consevatives coming in fourth place.

  • Bettyswoloks2

    I had intended to vote this time, a first in many years, sadly when I looked at the candidates there is no one standing for the monster raving looney party in my neck of the woods. Plan B is to spoil my vote with a similar red cross and message as mentioned by a previous poster. IMHO, the only true vote any self respecting man has left is to vote with his feet, drop out, go ghost or become a MGHOW. Society is fecked and I aint fixing it.

  • Dabir Dalton

    A vote for the least evil is still a vote for evil…

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    @ everyone

    I agree with Harry on this one. (Gee, there’s a shock. lol!)

    That being said, I don’t think that NOT voting, at least in the U.S., has any real political weight to it, but that is a very minor dissent.

    Not voting can’t be any more ineffective than voting. And I say that as someone who still votes, lol! I write in whoever I like and vote, assuming that if I am going to waste my time I will do so on behalf of one of the few people I have some faith in. And doing that, i.e. voting for people that can’t win, is often bemoaned as a waste of time by people who vote for leading brand A or B. Or worse, they whine about how if you vote for some one other than brand A or B that you are helping the guy they want to beat.

    Now that is democracy in action! LOL!

    But let me add something else to the mix here. Voting, alone, as a form of political expression and proof of participation in your countries business, is pathetically self deluding and ultimately just plain lazy. Not just lazy, but actually an attitude of intellectual sloth and cowardice.

    If you think you “did your duty” by simply casting a vote and nothing else, then I would submit that your level of investment in the government that dictates so much of your life is even less significant than deciding what kind of crust you want on your pizza.

    In fact, I think you are one of the ones that have just been duped. All this focus on the vote as an act of patriotism and involvement is, if you will forgive my bluntness, laughable. And I mean pathetically so.

    Who is more of a concerned citizen, Marvin Middleclass who votes his conscious, tells everyone he did his patriotic duty, and then spends each evening watching mindless garbage on network TV, or Angry Harry, who refuses to vote but who fights like a bull to challenge peoples thinking, often successfully, about the cloud of deception that they walk around with their head in each and every day?

    Who is of more value to the culture around him?

    The answer is a no brainer. Voting as your only act of political involvement is wearing a condom full of holes and telling yourself that it is real protection. And telling the public that voting is, by itself, anything or real significance, is just helping the public accept defective condoms as the standard.

  • http://www.mensnewsdaily.com MRTruth

    @Harry

    First let me thank Harry for his great website and hard work related to Men’s rights. That said; I must disagree with you on this issue. Not voting and expecting change is like bring your gun to a gunfight with no bullets and expecting to live, neither will happen. By all means make your voice heard, but without the influence of your vote, your voice is less likely to be heard. Politicians want to be re-elected, and they follow the vote. The best thing to do is to make a small contribution to a politician, but with that contribution, express your concerns and complaints in a letter. I’ve got to catch a plane so I can’t expound, but thanks again for your work.

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    @MRTruth

    “The vote is our only collective voice ”

    No, it isn’t.

    Far from it!

    Indeed, so astonishingly miniscule is the effect of our votes – particularly MY vote – that if I had never voted in my entire life, not a bit of difference would it have made to anyone. And if I voted at every election for the next trillion years, MY vote would still most likely make no difference at all.

    My VOICE might make some noticeable difference. But my vote will not.

    Worse still, these days, any vote of mine will, at best, simply give some tiny amount of added support (and, hence, legitimacy) to a party that will do me more harm.

    Where is the sense in me supporting a party that is going to harm me?

    In my view, the best way to disempower what we have at the moment (in the UK) is not to vote at all – and to persuade others not to vote at all – because a reduction in the number of votes cast reduces the perceived legitimacy of the power (and, hence, of the real power) of the winning party.

    Of course, if there WAS a party that was worth supporting in the UK, then I would vote for it, and I would try to encourage others to vote for it.

    But **MY** vote would still be more or less worthless.

    Indeed, you cannot have it both ways.

    Either your vote is of value or it is not.

    If you believe that your vote has an effect, then the ABSENCE of your vote also has an effect.

    In which case, given that UK men currently only have the choice between the foxes and the wolves, why should they seek to empower either the foxes or the wolves, when NOT voting will reduce the power of both?

  • http://www.mensnewsdaily.com MRTruth

    With all due respect to all Pro-Male advocates that think not voting can help Men, you are horribly wrong on this issue! That is exactly what feminists want. Any feminists reading these comments are licking their chops and laughing. Not voting is not a solution, IT IS THE PROBLEM, get a clue, please! The vote is our only collective voice and it must be expressed. As an independent, I do not like either party, but I know that a vote for the democrats is a vote for feminism and a vote against Men. It is that simple.

  • http://www.unmusic.co.uk/ Michael Reed

    Thanks for comments guys. Lots of interesting points.

    @Tim “If Harriet Harman ever become PM, I wouldn’t be surprised if the male suicide rate went up dramatically.”

    I wouldn’t give her the satisfaction. She probably jumps out of bed and rushes over to the laptop to check the latest figures each morning.

    @others

    Interesting dilemma, vote for the least bad candidate or not vote at all?

    I agree that the Conservative party campaign has involved very little straight talking about what they would do to repeal the PC and Soviet style policies of the Labour Party. However, it’s their leader and their campaign policy that are mind bogglingly moderate on every issue. The party itself represents a political approach that is closer to my own beliefs. Rationalism at least stands a chance against emotivism and token protection of certain anointed groups.

    Any political party that wants to be elected in the western world has to feature some nods to man hating policies. They’d be an obscure, fringe party if they had no appeal at all to what people in society wanted. Obviously, no political party will be a perfect match with the political beliefs of any particular voter.

    I’d rather do what it takes to get the most anti-male party out of power. Personally, I think that if you want to affect politics in a male positive way through lobbying and awareness raising activity, you stand a much better chance with the Conservatives in power than Labour. With a typical Conservative, it’s at least possible to discuss men’s rights issues. With a typical Labour/Liberal Democrat, it’s pretty much impossible.

    The Labour/Conservative split isn’t quite analogous to the Democrat/Republican parties.

    The Labour Party is actually very closely connected to the labour movement and the unions. In fact, it’s a common criticism that the relationship is too close. Many Labour MPs, for example, are also big union activists and the unions themselves make up a lot of the funding for the Labour Party. Up until the mid-90s the typical Labour voter would be a working class man. Unfortunately, this set the Labour Party on a course of doing whatever it took to attract the female vote. This leaves a typical steel worker or a train driver in an absurd position as the party that with the closest ties to the unions is also the PC, man-hating party. It’s also worth noting that the Labour party is behind the Soviet style policies of using surveillance and unreasonable record keeping against ordinary citizens, policies that always a larger impact on men.

    In the UK, religion doesn’t play a very big role in elections. Having said that, there is some churchy, traditionalist baggage that comes with the Conservative party, but not to the same extent as with the Republicans.

    Those of you based in the US might recognise the (much maligned) Daily Mail, The Telegraph and The Times from links posted to this site. They are some of the Tory (another name for the Conservative Party) supporting papers and the only ones that will cover feminist critical stories. The Guardian is pretty much the paper of the “progressive” wing of the Labour Party, and that is the paper that gives voice to the most hateful feminist writers in the UK. I think it’s fair examine the content of those papers to see what would happen to the political scene if the Conservatives get back in.

    Thanks again for the comments.

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

  • paul parmenter

    I am with Harry on this one.

    Voting is a meaningless exercise in a state where you may think deeply about politics, listen and learn about it, make rational judgements based on knowledge, experience and your own morality, and make a considered voting choice accordingly; only to have your vote immediately cancelled out and made worthless by the next moron who follows you into the polling booth and votes for someone because they have nice blue eyes, or because their name happens to be at the top of the ballot paper, or because they kissed a baby.

    Are you aware that according to the opinion polls, there are still about 30% of the electorate who support Labour, despite the fact that they have destroyed our economy, increased the power of the state over its citizens to a dangerous extent, wrecked the traditional family, taxed us to death, erected the Great Lie into a pillar of the state, killed thousands of people through their insane warmongering, and have turned us into the most filmed, photographed and monitored country on the planet?

    Given that I am a heterosexual white male living in the UK, it should be apparent to everyone reading here that NONE of the political parties in the UK gives a damn about my life, my welfare or my rights, such as are left of them. Therefore NONE of them deserve my vote, and NONE of them will be getting it.

    But I will register my protest. We don’t have electronic voting yet, so I can do this. I intend to enter the voting booth with a large red marker pen. I will put a large red cross through the names of all the candidates, and write in bold capitals NO VOTES FOR LIARS AND THIEVES. If there is enough room, I might add a few more comments.

    Of course this will simply mean one more “spoiled” paper. Of course this will make no difference to the useless turd who will get elected in my constituency – because it will indeed be a useless turd (I have met all the candidates who have any chance of winning, and know who and what they are). And of course it will make no difference to the government that will emerge after May 6th. But it will be seen by someone who opens the ballot paper and reads it; and by anyone at the count who cares to take an interest. It might even create a little ripple effect.

    And it will make me feel a bit better.

    Meanwhile, I will continue the real business of resistance in my own way.

  • Dabir Dalton

    On this issue Paul you are right since the Democrats are doing their level best to impose socialism on us and the Republicans are hell bent on establishing an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing (religious) system of government which is fascism. So the only choice a voter here in the US of A has is to vote for socialism by supporting the Democrats or vote for fascism by supporting the Republicans. Either way one is voting for tyranny sorta kinda like choosing between two different flavors of ice cream cause no matter the flavor one is still eating ice cream. So which flavor of tyranny one happens to prefer is determined by who one votes for in an election. And since both the left and the right actively promote hatred of men (misandry) in order to gain the female vote any man who actually votes either for the Democrats or the Republicans is also voting for the misandry that he and the rest of us are being forced to endure.

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    @Michael Reed

    “David Cameron, who plays things strictly from the centre of politics, a break from traditional Conservative values. He hasn’t said much about helping men or anything specific about stemming the tide of political correctness in government. However, the party that he represents is a right of centre party and this means less direct interference in people’s lives and less political correctness. As men are never a group favoured by protective measures, I believe that this will lead to a better deal for men and a chance for genuine progress in men’s issues.”

    I think that your assessment reflects how I feel, more or less.

    But I will not vote for Cameron because of his anti-male rhetoric and his anti-male policies – such as increasing the age of pension entitlement from 65 to 66 years for men, while allowing women to continue receiving this entitlement at age 60.

    Why should I vote in support of such policies?

    No. Thank. You.

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    @rohara

    “I respectfully disagree with you on the not voting thing. I don’t see how not engaging in the political process will help men at all.”

    Voting is not the only way to engage in politics. Indeed, I would hardly call voting ‘engaging in politics’ given that your vote is almost worthless.

    Besides which, I spend most of my online life engaging in politics. So, clearly, I am not suggesting that men do not engage in politics!

    Au contraire. I would like more men to engage in politics.

    And, of course, NOT voting can also be a ‘political act’ – which is what it is for me.

    And to cast a vote IN SUPPORT OF a party that is going to do nothing for men JUST BECAUSE IT IS A PARTY is, surely, crazy!

    When you cast a vote for a party, you are publicly giving support to it.

    Why would any man want to support a party that is going to do him harm?

    If there was a party that, I thought, would address at least some of the issues that really concern me, then, of course, I would vote for it.

    But, in the UK, there isn’t one.

    Finally, your vote, Rohara, is almost completely worthless when it comes to effecting change.

    Your voice, however, is worth a great deal.

  • http://remasculation.blogspot.com/ Snark

    Small correction to my earlier post … eleven years of Thatcher, not eighteen.

  • SingleDad

    I am no political expert but, perhaps I have more real world experience than some commenters on here. I was a prime mover and the deciding organizer for the largest unionization of a group in the last 25 years in the US. I don’t want to go into details as I still have a young son so must be ever vigilant about my public profile. And I suppose I have more street cred as a liberal given I helped start a labor union bargaining group. All the opposition was conservative.

    I have more grass roots organizing experience than Barak Obama. That is not a boast it is simply a fact, and more of a reflection on his lack of experience than my having experience.

    When Bush was in power NOW said they had “no access” to the White House. Bush actually did some things to help boys in school: he changed title IX to include the three prong test (already repealed by Obama) and made same sex schools legal for example.

    With the democrats and Obama, NOW runs the white house and have been described the only political group that Obama has really followed through for on his political promises.

    So, clearly the republicans may not be our friend but don’t seem especially out to get us.

    I have been following British politics about as much as most on here but, really, can we with a straight face, say that a party that includes Harriet Harmen, makes policies that are blatently sexist, and may indeed make Harmen their leader is anything but virulently anti-male?

    So, maybe the conservative party in the UK wants some traditionalism to placate it’s female constituency. Maybe their afraid to piss women off and lose votes. Maybe they espouse increasing retirement age for men and not for women.

    But they don’t seem to openly hate men.

    To use the worst analogy, as I can’t think of any others right now, but many countries did and do hate Jews, but none are as bad as Hitlers Germany. We are the Jews and the Harman’s are Hitler in this analogy.

    I am a liberal and know it, but I can’t vote for a party or espouse voting for a party that openly and unappologetically hates men. The Democrats in the US and Labour in the UK hate men to the core.

    The only power we have is in our vote. As a political organizer I had to get votes. Not voting is a vote for your enemy. They are counting on this. Men already vote less as a group than women.

    If there is one thing the MR movement should do is mobilizing the male vote. And it should not be diluted by third party voting. We need to vote straight conservative, in my opinion.

    If we can show politicians that we are organized and can make or break elections we will get on their radar screen and they will start pandering to us. It’s as simple as that.

    And we need to hire more lobbiests too, look at Glenn Sacks. His efforts are already bearing fruit in California.

    I am passionate about men’s rights, and am of the same stipe of MRA as Paul Elam, I do not want to go back to the 50′s, do not believe men should be dominant over women, I believe in equality of equivolence.

    What is my agenda, why do I comment on MND? Venting really is only helpful to the ventor and a few like minded people.

    The only reason I write these comments is to raise conciousness of men to men’s issues for the purposes of getting male’s, and the women who love thems, votes. We will never win this by armed conflict.

    Voting is our only weapon, use it or lose it.

  • http://www.standyourground.com Poiuyt

    There is a longstanding political consensus of furthering misandry, furthering anti-male cynicism and furthering anti-male hypocracy in all wetsren societies at every election period. Not least in England, the original home of modern autocracy, sex repression and puritanism as a way of life and method of social control.

    The shell game of all westren politics is the betrayal of every and any remaing male and childrens intrests and protections by male politicians. That is, in their headstrong and zealous pursuit of an abstract power to wield over their fellow men, via bribes to women but at all costs to males and to children and even to themselves as a genderclass.They usurp males of their property, their progeny and their autonomous personhood in a blind service to the socialistic imperative of redistribution for redistribution sake.

    These candidate males for office are at the forefront of criminalising fatherhood, criminalising sonhood, criminalising maleness and criminalising masculinity all with the aim of maintaining an illusion of social modernity and an illusion of full employment for vast hordes state workers. That is state workers whom are promised employment over the violated and abusded people these male politicians promise to create by generating perpetual conflict amongst their peoples.

    What these vast armies of newly created and paid for intruder state workers do for a living is simply usurp males of autonomous and mutual activities they originally did freely as husbands, lovers, fathers, boyfriends and sons. i.e on the insinuated pretext these workers themselves perpetuate to women, because their jobs depend on it, that maleness is bad for females and their children.

  • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

    You’ve given a lot of good reason not to votefor theliberal, but few reasons to actually vote for the conservatives. I don’t know much about British politics (I’m American), but a website called The Rights of Man has been running an excellent series on the manifestos of all the parties. I’ve found it quite educational. For instance, I was appalled at learning that men and women have different retirement ages (60 for women and 65 for men) and that the conservatives want to raise the age for men (but not women). I would highly recommend reading it before deciding how to vote.

    -TDOM

  • http://remasculation.blogspot.com/ Snark

    Interesting article, Michael, I thank you for writing it and giving me pause for thought, although I won’t be voting Conservative.

    I don’t have the time or the energy right now to write anything as articulate as you have, but my feeling is that the Conservatives still cling to the socially conservative view that men must be ‘civilised’ by women. While Harman and others in the Labour party may indeed by misandrists, the Conservatives seem to me to be what we might call WHITE KNIGHTS.

    But on top of that, they have added a good measure of ‘equality’ (meaning goodies for groups deemed ‘disadvantaged’ even when this is obviously absurd, i.e. women) in an attempt to seem modern and NEW.

    And I seem to recall fairly recently, one frontbencher advocating tax breaks for married couples. Nice if you’re married, and it might just convince the occasional conniving wife to not divorce for financial gain. But it’s morally grotesque to punish single men, considering how much punishment they face if they stop being single men.

    The three main parties all play for the same team, in a sense: they all want to increase the size of the state. This may be symptomatic of democracy more than anything. We have no real libertarian party. Even Thatcher’s Conservatives increased the state’s purview. Her talk of ‘rolling back the state’ referred to benefits, not the control which is actually exercised over individual citizens. That was most definitely increased, and significantly so.

    Though, I must remark, that in her eighteen(?) years in power, I do not think Thatcher did anything particularly anti-male. She did not even make the kind of misandrist remarks that Harman has made lately, unless I am much mistaken.

    So, perhaps it is true that the Conservatives are the least misandrist party, but as Harry has mentioned, it seems unlikely that they would do anything to actually reverse anti-male discrimination.

  • rohara

    @ Harry,

    I respectfully disagree with you on the not voting thing. I don’t see how not engaging in the political process will help men at all. I refer to mongo’s comments below if you will read them. He is absolutely right when he said, and I am sure that you agree with him on this, that in a bi-polar party system both parties are vying for the same job. Once in the job they will behave in the same way.
    I remember when Ross Perot ran in this country. Yes, he was a silly man who eventually didn’t get elected but in the following election many a Republican and Democrat changed their tune in order to get the votes that were going his way.
    Newt Geingrich, another silly man but nonetheless someone who changed U.S. social policy in a profound and breathtaking way, spoke with great fear and trepidation about the emergence of a third party. He made no bones when he said that if we didn’t listen carefully to the “swing” voters and their specific concerns then a third party emergence would be inevitable.
    To be sure I am referring to U.S. politics here but from what I have observed the U.K. has the same two party debacle. The only thing that can keep this two party system in check is for independent minded people to engage in the political process. Indeed it would be great for both democracies if there were a strong third party. This would be particularly good for men, as it is they that suffer most when government becomes larger in scope.

  • http://dannyscorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com Danny

    “She once mused on the prospect of her becoming prime minister and commented that it should not happen because there wouldn’t be enough airports in Britain for all of the men to leave. Naturally, if she made remarks like this about any other group, such as Jewish people, non-whites, gay people or women, it would bring about a swift end to her political career.”

    But rest assured if someone points out her misandry and then jokes that she has not business in politics the it will instantly be determined that the jokes were made because of her gender and not her misandry.

  • http://www.angryharry.com Harry

    @Michael

    While I agree that the leftward UK parties – including the LibDems and the Greens – will only bring about further discrimination against men, I have seen nothing emanating from the conservative party to suggest that they will make matters any better.

    IMHO, men should not vote at all, because every vote helps to legitimise and, hence, to empower a thoroughly anti-male system.

    Voting for any of the main parties is a bit like a sheep voting for a fox or a wolf to take charge.

    So, why vote at all?

  • HQR3

    This article comes on the heels of a recent Glenn Sacks article Pre-Election Special! that shows that the Tories can be just as anti-male as Labour.

  • mongo

    The big parties are really only competing for who gets the job. They have a monopoly on political power, so they have no interest in introducing ideological innovation. The thing they fear the most is power moving away from either Conservative or Labour hands – that would present inconvenient uncertainties that they would rather do without. Telling a sitting member that you intend to vote for a 3rd party is the one thing that evokes a seriously animated response (it’s a wasted vote I tell you!!), whereas telling him you’re voting for his big party rival returns him to his usual comfortable jocular self with a few well-rehearsed quips gliding effortlessly from his tongue.

    The big parties watch the 3rd party vote share with especial concern. Should it grow above 10%, the potential for an unforeseen occurrence to turn into a balance of power changing event is too terrifying for them to consider. Once ousted from the cosy top two, history shows the chances of return to power are almost nil.

    Men will never get traction voting Labour or Conservative. They don’t have the numbers, and the big two will always prioritise other voters’ concerns. The most efficient way for men to cast their vote is to vote for a 3rd party that has no chance of winning. The objective is to swell out the ‘disaffected voter’ count to approach the 10% mark, which the big two will certainly notice. If they don’t do anything about it come next election, it could grow beyond 10% and their hold on power could be over for good.

    Make no mistake, they will move heaven and earth to find out why these votes are slipping through their fingers.

  • Tim

    If Harriet Harman ever become PM, I wouldn’t be surprised if the male suicide rate went up dramatically.

  • http://avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

    This article may point to more of a brick wall than a way out for men.

    I am sadly not as familiar with UK politics so I am hoping more UK readers will chime in on this, but if it is anything like it is here in the U.S., then I don’t see how this path could ever be helpful.

    Here, the right of center mentality supports anti male discrimination out of chivalry, religious dogma and pure politics. It is why despite a supposed philosophical divide between left and right here, the net result is more laws that favor women at the expense of men, with both parties more or less equally fostering and passing the questionable legislation.

    I have heard the “small government serves us best” mantra quite a while now, the only problem is that neither the left nor right in this country actually work toward anything but massive government expansion and increasingly draconian laws.

    I hope you are right, sir, for the benefit of men and women in the UK, that a vote against Labor will actually be a vote that benefits men and boys, but I am not ready to buy it yet.

    As you pointed out, they aren’t even really talking about the problems. It is very hard to imagine they will do something about them.


Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Archives