Thank you to everyone for putting names forward for the heroes section. I will get to work on it in August.
One of the themes of the website has been the issue where anti-male and anti-equality organisations like the 30 per cent club, the Fawcett Society, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and others have been campaigning to block men from taking places in the boardroom which should be the preserve of women. A situation which goes against meritocracy where the best people irrelevant of gender should be in the boardroom.
These organisations put the lack of women in boardrooms solely down to sexual discrimination against women and barriers erected by men. They find it difficult when women like Dr Catherine Hakim put it down to women making choices when they want to become mothers and also how they (and the family unit) want to bring their children up.
Sure things can be made easier but often it is around the edges, women (and some men of course) do not want the 9-5 hard focused lifestyle and bring their children up. Some prefer to let the man take this strain while they take the strain of bringing up children, It is called teamwork and the family - something anathema to feminists the world over. They don't understand what real normal women want.
The reason for bringing the issue up is that this week the Friends Life Provident issued one of its 2020 reports on women and the workplace. One of the key areas in the thrifty thirties section which highlighted three areas which completely debunk the Marxist theories of the anti-male feminists which they use to attack men:
(1) Is gender itself a barrier? A quarter of working women think that it is. 24% of working women agree that “I feel that my gender is sometimes a hindrance to my progress at work”; 51% disagree. Surprisingly, this increases to 32% agreement among those in their 30s.
Commentary - So one in four (presume the missing 24% said don't know) women do not believe that gender is sometimes a hindrance.
(2) The same proportion (24%) of working women agree that “I would like to see the industry I work in become less male orientated”. Agreement here varies widely by sector, from 37% of women working in the primary/ manufacturing/construction/distribution sector, 28% in financial services/legal/consulting and in civil service/local government, to 18% of women working in arts/leisure/ recreation or in healthcare and just 10% of women working in education.
Commentary - it does not mention in what way but shows again that three in four working women do not view their workplace as being male orientated.
(3) 53% of working women agree that “By the end of this decade, women will still struggle much more than men to secure senior roles in the workplace” (only 30% of men agree). Why is this? Simply, motherhood remains the biggest barrier, the biggest pillar holding up the glass ceiling:
Commentary - But the 30 per cent Club, the Fawcett Society etc say its discrimination by men (not discimination by nature).
What this research shows is that when real normal women getting on with their lives away from the politically driven anti-male world of modern-day feminism are asked, they do not agree with the Fawcett Society, the BBC, The Guardian, the 30% club and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. When real women talk about barriers they are practical issues - they do not resort to the tactics of attacking and diminishing their husbands/partners and sons like these groups do.
Over August, this site will be highlighting men or women who have made a significant contribution to the campaign and fight for male equality in Britain and the end of male discrimination.
The site is looking its readers to make nominations and include one or two paragraphs on why they should be included and what impact they made. This will help the site's contributors to piece a short biography of them.
There is no vote or hierachy or top 10 or anything like that. This is because it is too subjective and is where madness lies. We don't want arguments about people's positions, all that matters is they have made a contribution. There are no restrictions to how many you can make but they must have made a public contribution.
If you wish to make any nominations/suggestions, please either place the names and reasons in the comments section or email them at the usual address: email@example.com
One of our regular readers pointed out new research commissioned by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission about how schools were supporting the public sector equality duty and what practices they were carrying out. It is a long document (192 pages and the Commission response was thankfully 28).
While its conclusions state that 75% of schools were able to provide a positive example of how the duty had had a positive impact on boys, only 13% had actually either changed the curriculum to help boys or taken another action to improve boy's learning (chart on page 77).
In addition, contributed to measurable outcomes, schools were most likely to say they had ensured that clubs/activities/subjects/sports are open to both boys and girls (19%).
While there are clear problems in the education of boys, it seems that ensuring equality in being involved in clubs is more important. The underlying message is that improving boys attainment is not on the top of the equality agenda within schools when clearly it is the most important education issue.
The anti-male Equalities and Human Rights Commission continues to purposely turn a blind eye on the issue and barely mention boys in their report. We all know if it was girls who were falling behind at school, the Commission would be churning out reams of reports on that subject alone and Trevor Phillips (its Chairman) would never be off the airwaves.
The scandal of the neglect of boys education (and here) shames this country and the silence on the issue is a victory for the metropolitan anti-male elite including the majority of those at the top of the education establishment (not all) who are quite happy to continue to sweep it under the carpet.
Posted by Skimmington
Editor's note - Mayor of London Boris Johnson scheme is noteworthy.
A few weeks ago the House of Commons Justice Committee produced its report into the Family Courts system. I couldn't see anything about the bias against men by Cafcass and the magistrates or the need to deal with systematic breach of contact orders.
Also recently the European Parliament shows that it takes fathers more seriously than the UK Parliament by launching the Platform for European Fathers. The UK were represented by the Fatherhood Institute and Mensaid.
The papers this morning (Telegraph and Daily Mail) are previewing the launch of the "Clare's Law" which will allow women to ask the police if their boyfriend/partner has been convicted for being violent. It is being launched on Monday and Home Secretary Theresa May is considering the issue.
Robert Buckland MP makes the point though ''We're all in favour of curbing violence against women but we have to be certain this will not lead to fishing expeditions by women demanding confidential information about potential boyfriends without proper justification. You cannot have a carte blanche system where people can simply turn up at a police station, give the name of a boyfriend or potential boyfriend, and expect the police to open up all the files on him.''
As well as creating some sort of stasi state, the whole undertone behind the law is all men are likely to be guilty of violence so we better make sure we check up on him. This is the way it is being presented in the newspapers - all men are potential women-beaters.
The other point and this is really for the media's ear - will "Clare's Law" by "Clare and Clive's Law"?
The media must keep asking those running the campaign whether a man can equally check up on his girlfriend/female partner to check she has a hidden violent past. With 88,000 women a year being arrested for violence - men have a right to know if women have a right to know. That's called equality.
Yesterday, the site highlighted an under the radar issue and another one has been found, this time on Iain Cockburn who has taken the government to the High Court over the discrimination he claims to have suffered because his widower's pension is less than it would have been if the genders had been reversed.
This could be another landmark decision in the world of pensions which coupled with retirement age differences has been the clearest example of the instututional and set sponsored discrimination against men (campaign history).
While the government has admitted the law is discriminatory because it means that widowed partners of female NHS staff receive a smaller pension than partners of male NHS staff, they may still not drop anything because it would cost £4 billion to rectify across all public sector pensions.
This is an issue not raised anywhere before (I think - please tell me if so).
We wait to see the result but if the government do not bring in parity immediately if the case is won, then what more proof do we need of the discrimination against men that is endemic in Britain.
How can a government state it believes in equality and then let this discrimination remain.
About 25 men per year (21 in 09/10) are killed at the hands of their partners and while a different year Tracey van Dungey’s ex-partner was one of those poor souls (BBC, Independent). Six years later, another man lost his life after she stabbed him at a party.
Only six years later - how could this be?
Well, its because the good old British Justice system applies different standards to men and women convicted of the same crime- the result of long running campaigns by Marxist feminists who do not believe women should go to prison. Their campaign nevers lets up and Tracey is one of their 'success' stories.
Tracey had served 42 months for kicking and punching her then partner Kevin Qui to death in 2004. Under four years and then later kills another man.
If Tracey was called Trevor and victims were women not men can you imagine the backlash in the papers, the lobbying, the endless use of the story as a way to campaign for tougher sentences for men who kill women by the Equalities Commission, the Fawcett Society, the Guardian and other campaigners. "42 months and then allowed to kill again" they'd say.
And to be honest they would be right. However, as Tracey is a Tracey the tragedy of her original pitiful sentence goes unnoticed.
Secondly it shows how institutionally bankrupt and infested with differing standards the judiciary and probation service has become.
How can anyone who kills someone in this way be let out after less than four years unless there was something else at play. That something else has to be, whether explicit or implicit, whether front or back of mind - she is a woman therefore she does not need to stay behind bars as long as a man committing the same crime would.
This shows how how sexism and double standards has infested the institutions of Britain and some campaigners want more of it.