Some of the adverts which appear on TV (and also in magazines and newspapers) strike me as being designed by morons for the benefit of idiots. With some I cannot even tell which product is being advertised! I know businesses have been conned for many years by the advertising industry to "invest" in advertising, but the best advert of all is a word of mouth recommendation by someone you know and is not trying to "hard sell" you anything. I always think that, if a product needs constant advertising then it cannot be getting much word of mouth recommendation.

There is still a lot of misandry in some adverts and men need to continue to swat these by writing to both the advert designer and the business using the advert. Men are frequently demeaned by the behaviour of some very unlikely characters such as women who can change car wheels and engage in DIY jobs, and some adverts even encourage domestic violence against men.

Vern (Cardiff)

It is obvious to everyone, after 30 years of feminist lies and diktats, that feminism is nothing whatsoever to do with "equality". What feminists have always wanted is to gain a position of advantage and priority for women. What I really cannot understand is that some men - yes even today after men have suffered for 30 years - are willing to become little lap-dog feminists in order to be "fair".

I think the male feminist is the lowest form of life. We find them in the form of media people very often such as disk jockeys and presenters who know that their audience is composed mostly of women (men have work to do!) and pander to the feminazi in order to keep their jobs.

Then there are some who have little natural "pull" with women (they don't really like wimps) and try to cast themselves in the roles of knights in shining armour to protect the weaker sex.

We all know about the politician feminists, of course. They are just trying to get votes!

J. Vaughan (Newtown)

Dai Thorne is so right! A classic example to illustrate his point is the mis-named "Equal" Opportunities Commission. That was set up over 25 years ago to implement the 1975 "Sex Discrimination Act".

Some women seem to think that, because the pronoun "she" is used throughout the act, it means it is designed only for women. This is not so. The preamble to the act states quite definitely that, although the female pronoun is used, the act applies equally to men and women.

Unfortunately the EOC do not seem to realise this. Over their entire existence they have employed on average 18% men and 82% women. Equality?

They have never had a man as chief executive in 25 years! And when they have had an assistant, that has also been a woman! And when they have had two assistants, they have been women too! Equality??

If the Government wants to save money it could save millions by scrapping this outdated and hypocritical body.

Trefor White (Swansea)

In December last year, Peter Hain, the MP for Neath, appeared in a photograph published in the Port Talbot Guardian. In it he was joined by members of the Neath Port Talbot Amnesty International Group seeking support for the “millions of women who suffer violence every year”.

To demonstrate his support, Mr Hain was shown lighting a very large candle. He has an increasing number of male constituents who are victims of domestic violence at the hands of their wives and partners. Would he light a candle for them and would he openly back a campaign on their behalf?

Owain (Skewen)

Amnesty International Biased Against Men

Women demand Herceptin - but at whose expense?

I agree with Owain of Skewen. As someone who has always supported Amnesty International, I am horrified at their present neglect of male victims of violence. They seem to have been taken over by a bunch of feminists. I will most certainly not be giving them any more donations. I'd rather use my money to support men's groups.

Phil Morgan (Pontypool)

For the attention of Margaret O'Reilly - Viewpoints Editor, South Wales Echo.

Dear Madam,

Jane Sullivan is being disingenuous in her claim to be fighting on behalf of the women of Wales (Sufferer's Vigil for Herceptin - Echo 30th January 2006 ) as she has already been approved for the drug by one of seven Trusts on the 'give women what they want' list.
However, the emotive argument needs to be be put into context, here in Wales, where budget for the NHS has a shortfall of £100m. Female cancers already get a disproprtionate share of the budget, compared with male prostate cancer, for instance; and lung cancer is near the bottom of the table, getting only 4% of the cancer budget, in spite of 38,000 deaths per year. More women are dying from Coronary Heart Disease than from all types of cancer, yet cardiac services are inadequate, with people dying on the waiting lists.
Where is the argument for taking money from other specialities, when more people will die than those who might benefit from Herceptin ? Women pressure groups are uncaring about what effect their selfishness might have on others by demanding money that could save more lives elsewhere.
Why is the argument to save these women apparently stronger than, say, saving the mentally ill where deaths are growing at what appears to be an acceptable rate to government, in a service already starved of money ? Given the financial constraints, who shall we allow to die in the attempt to save these women ?

Robin Williams
24 Gwyn James Court
Sundew Close
Penarth
Cardiff
CF64 2QL
Tel: 029 - 20711371 & 0775 - 1313353