The Rights Of Man

EVEN STOCK MARKET HAS TOO MANY MEN

Whether it is because of an over-tetchiness but the recent report stating that stock markets were volatile because there were too many testosterone-filled men working in them just seems to be another reason for a bout of male bashing (link), (link), (link).

However, it does again prove that men and women are different and have different motivations in life, which as ever, undermines those who think that differences in employment patterns and wages is down to sexual discrimination.

The report by John Coates at Cambridge University, and Professor Joe Herbert, a neuroscientist, set out to study the brains of City traders to discover what makes them tick.

It's conclusion was more women and older people were needed on trading floors to stop volatility.More 'positive action' no doubt.

As ever, they misunderstand that no matter who works on a trading floor they are complex, challenging and competitive environments with long long hours. By there very nature they are volatile and no matter who worked there, it would not change. This just seemed an excuse to run an anti-male story.

 

GENDER PAY GAP EXPOSED AS A MYTH - ONCE AGAIN BY WOMEN #2

The commentary from women but the myths of the gender pay gap are starting to come thick and fast.

This article (link) by Vicki Woods in The Daily Telegraph entitled "The pay gap is down to babies, not sexism" should be sent to all the usual suspects who believe it is.

A previous article appeared only last month (link).

CAMILLE PAGLIA REVEALS WHY WOMEN ARE TURNED OFF ANTI-MALE CLINTON

Academic and best-selling author Camille Paglia reveals why women in America should not vote for Hillary Clinton.

This article (and please read the debate underneath it) appeared in The Daily Telegraph (link).

Her final paragraphs reveal why a Clinton Presidency would have every man cowering under the table:-

"...by attaching herself so blatantly to anti-male rhetoric - particularly in view of her debt to her husband - she is espousing a retrograde brand of feminism no longer applicable to the US."

"If Hillary loses, batten the hatches against a mass resurrection of paranoid, paleo-feminist martyrs, counting their wounds and wailing at the blood-red moon."

Why was there no newspaper article written on this when the UK version of Hillary, Harriet Harman, was trying (and successfully) to be Deputy Leader of the Labour Party?

MALE POLITICAL DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN SPAIN

One of the most disturbing aspects in the war on men has been the use of gender quotas to disenfranchise men as individuals from the political system. It is the complete reversal of the situation till the 1920's when women did not have the vote and could not stand for Parliament. Now men are being actively stopped and being denied promotion.

The Labour Government brought in all-women shortlists in 1997 and even for the coming General Election have used them in 27 seats so far. They introduced a Minister for Women but have steadfastly refused to bring in a Minister for Men. Now we have the Spanish Government bringing in effectively gender quotas for its Cabinet.

In Spain (link), nine of the seventeen Cabinet members are women. Prime Minister Zapatero, had also passed a law making it compulsory for electoral lists and even company boards to have at least 40% women (link). He is "very proud that there are women ministers than men". Not a problem of course, if the nine women are amongst the best people he can get but he does not say this or prove that it is nothing but a political gesture.

Times columnist, Mary Ann Sieghart chips in with a commentray on how we need more women in the UK Cabinet (link) without any evidence that gender is more important than ability. She is roundly derided in the debate at the end of her commentary.

Both Spain and the UK Labour Party are quite unashamedly clear about their objectives.

It is not about ability or equality of opportunity but equaility of outcomes. Instead of tackling the reason why there are few women in politics whcih is essentially a supply side issue and that they choose not to be a politician (there is no sexual discriminiation in being selected as a canddiate or winning a seat), they sexually discriminate against men by blocking them from political positions including even standing.

This promotion of gender quotas for political positions is very serious for men who want to enter politics because they want to improve their community and their country. No longer will people be judged on their skill, talent and commitment. Their fitness for political office is judged on their position in the politically correct league table and men of course are always rock bottom.

Meritocracy and universal suffrage, the guiding principles of 20th century Western Democracy, have been thrown out of the window. Gender is more important than ability in the 21st Century.

This is comparable to the time when women were denied a vote and not allowed to stand for Parliament. It's turned 360 degrees.

GENDER PAY GAP EXPOSED AS A MYTH - ONCE AGAIN BY WOMEN

Although the site will look again at the myth of the gender pay gap propagated by anti-male organisations like The Fawcett Society et al, this feature in the Daily Mail is worth reading for those that missed it (link).

Remember, there is a gender pay gap but that is not due to sexual discrimination, it is about life choices and the family.

EVEN MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS CANNOT ESCAPE POLITICALLY CORRECT GENDER-DIVIDE NONSENSE

The other week, there was a University of London’s Institute of Education report which complained that  "Macho instruments such as the trombone, drums and electric guitar are the province of boys, while girls stick to the gentler tones of the flute, harp and violin. Now education experts are asking why. They blame gender stereotyping by both teachers and parents, peer pressure and the fear of bullying and the size and shape of instruments."

The articles had the usual one-eyed side to them and The Times led with "Why don't little girls play the tuba?" (link)

The clear issue is whether there is gender stereotyping or is that simply boys and girls, whilst they should have equal opportunities to play what they like,  are just different.

The majority of boys want to make a noise and have physical input (drums, guitars) and girls want mellower instruments.

The researchers suggested setting up single-sex ensembles to bridge the divide.

The culture of political correctness has so infested British society that academics try to make up claims of sexism and victim-hood when no such thing exists.

There is no gender stereotyping or sexism in that boys prefer guitars and girls prefer the violin. It is because they are different.

If this research is taken on board by the world of music, all you will have are boys and girls being forced to play instruments they don't want to play. This type of authoritarian political correctness should be opposed and laughed out of court.

USA ADVERTISING INDUSTRY'S BACKLASH AGAINST PORTRAYING "MEN AS FOOLS"

The American advertising industry woke up some years ago to how "men as idiots" was self defeating from a sales point of view but alaos importantly from a social/moral point of view.

This article from Advertising Age explains (link).

Let us hope the advertising idiots in the UK at MFI, Littlewoods LX Direct and others featured on this site wake up.

NATIONAL LITERACY TRUST MISSES THE POINT ON HELP FOR BOYS READING

Whether the story is true as the only major reference on the National Literacy Trust's web-site is this interesting report (link), the Telegraph reported (link) that the Trust is concerned that the focus on boys in the classroom 'may risk girls falling behind'.

Their report clearly explains that only 76% of 11 year old boys reach the required level as opposed to 85% of girls. It also states two recent initiatives such as Books for Boys and also the Reader's Champion initiative aimed at helping boys.

The concern goes right to the heart of the whole special treatment/politcal correctness issue and where all people are pigeon-holed on the criteria of whether they are male or female (and on race etc) and then treated the same. The essential issue that we are all different individuals and nowadays this is the secondary focus when it should be the primary focus.

The reason that boys need specific help on reading is that the education system has largely ignored the needs of boys for far too long. The Trust's research show boys outweigh girls heavily when it comes to reading factual content (manuals/newspapers/non-fiction/action graphic novels) whilst girls outweigh boys on social networking, magazines and poetry.

Where the cry for more help for boys comes from is that more effort has to be made to provide the content and teaching that is proven to help boys. But this should not be and in recent years never has been at the expense of girls. Rightly, if girls need extra tuition, Reader's Champions and specific book lists for girls then that should not be a problem. They are individuals first, girls second.

The Trust's complaint misses the point. The help given to boys is simply about tailoring the educational system to their needs and if some girls are falling behind then it should meet their requirements as well. From my schooldays, Boy's wanted to learn about war not Jane Eyre, but all we got was Jane Eyre.

The Trust worries about girls at risk of falling behind because of the focus on boys.  That is understandable but it needs to be clear that it does not want help for boys stopped but that help for non-reading girls is also focused upon.

Any criticism of targeting help for boys must not be made out as if they are receiving special treatment when they are not, they are just getting the targeted education they need.

On a side issue, it is always bemusing to see people complaining about special treatment for boys/men when all there is ever is (apart from these targeted education schemes) is special treatment for women, whether they need it or not and no mention is ever made as to whether men need it.

   

THE TIMES AND THE SUN IGNORE MALE DOMESTIC ABUSE VICTIMS

Just when so many of the UK's media have been featuring the plight of male victims - others carry on ignoring the fact that 40% of victims are male.

The Times (link) stated on 14th April 2008 - "Thousands of women are at risk of assault because new laws to curb domestic violence have backfired, deterring victims from seeking help,The Times has learnt." It gives a grudging reference to men - "But battered wives, and sometimes husbands." It's not enough, it should battered wives and husbands.

The Sun (link) was worse, it ran a headline on 15th April 2008 - "Why does dad hurt mummy" and then solely publishes Women's Aid and Refuge's phone numbers - no mention of ManKind, Men's Aid, MALE Advice Line or Dyn Wales.

Again, it grudgingly refers  "too many women and children- and some men - are suffering in silence".

The Sun then selectively just refers to the female victim statistics. Utter bias.

Men's Aid also state that the BBC ran the story but only with females mentioned (link) but whilst this site has not seen these/heard these features, Steve Moxon (author of The Women Racket) has written to complain to the BBC.

JACQUI SMITH, HOME SECRETARY STILL IGNORES MALE DOMESTIC ABUSE VICTIMS

Despite the fact that

• the Home Secretary's own Department's British Crime Survey (link - Page 80) states that 40% of men are victims of domestic abuse and that as many men as women are victims of severe force (1.7% and 1.8% respectively);
• the fact that they laughably claim that their policies on domestic abuse are gender neutral as seen by their response to this petition (link)(see future post);
• some parts of the media are changing their tune (see future post);

SHE STILL IGNORES MALE VICTIMS.

In an Government announcement (link) she announced a new wave of specialist domestic violence courts to support victims of domestic abuse. An extra 30 new Specialist Domestic Violence Courts (SDVC) brings the total number of dedicated domestic violence courts across England and Wales to 98.

She is quoted as stating ""We have made good progress on domestic violence over the last ten years but we know there is more to do and I want to reassure women everywhere that keeping them safe from harm is a top government priority."

Does the Government do this on purpose?

Do they do it to wind-up male victims and their friends and families?

Are they just forgetful?

Or are they just institutionally sexist against men?