Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

« POISONING YOUR HUSBAND IS FUNNY ACCORDING TO OLD JAMAICAN GINGER BEER | Main | CITIZEN KHAN IS NOT RACIST IT'S MAN-HATING MISANDRY »

Tuesday, 04 September 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Stuart

Your journalistic Poetry offends women everywhere :-)

Truth always offends.

John Kimble

Featherstone was a really nasty, sexist piece of work. I don't believe there is anyone in the coalition quite as sexist against men as her, therefore even if she has been replaced by the second most sexist person in the coalition it is still an improvement. I agree with most of the article but getting rid of Featherstone is a clear win, so lets not be too downbeat.

I see Grant was previously in the Labour Party which says a lot about her and is a worry. Also the fact she worked in Family law may well be a concern. On the other hand she worked with Iain Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice so that may well be a positive sign?

Mike Buchanan

Thanks S. There's a nuance here not many people have spotted. The Conservative-led coalition appointed the LABOUR peer Lord Davies not to investigate WHETHER there was a case for increasing the number on boards (as is usually misrepresented in the media), but HOW to do so. Following on from the Davies report - which is predictably left-wing / feminist throughout - the government's official stance is that if FTSE100 companies don't have 25% female representation by 2015, there will be legislated quotas forcing them to do so. This is driving women onto FTSE100 boards, and the 25% target is on track. 14% of new FTSE director appointments in 2010 were women, while in 2012 to date it's been 44%. In 2012 all female director appointments have been non-execs, while all 18 executive director appointments were men. Here at C4MB we're campaigning for a retraction of the threat of quotas. I was on Nick Ferrari's LBC show this morning making these points. The tide is slowly starting to turn in favour of meritocracy... about damned time! S, thanks for your exposure for our campaign.

Mike Buchanan
mikebuchanan@hotmail.co.uk

CAMPAIGN FOR MERIT IN BUSINESS
http://c4mb.wordpress.com

Groan

really helpful analysis. One thing that does concern me is the overall supposed "toughening" of the Gov. The idea seems to be there are more ministers who will "get tough" on issues. My observation is that getting tough on many issues tends to be getting tough on men, for instance the P.M.'s speech on "absent" dads, and some similarish stuff from IDS. Given that there are no votes in getting tough with children and very few in getting tough with women then politicians wanting to look tough will pick issues that particularly impact on men. Expect more from the gov. on absent fathers, feckless young men, DV, the younger disabled (mainly men a fact rarely observed),alcohol and drug abuse,"bad" behaviour in schools from "youths" and so on. As often observed on this site there is a curious similarity with the ideas of gender feminism and the right wing on gender . Both expect much more from men and much less from women.Both assume all males are responsible for their ills but no woman is. Both also assume men will make it on their own and women need a leg up. It is the men in the Gov. as much as the women who have to be observed.
As you say Mike the idea that a 30% Club isn't about a quota defies reason. But I venture to suggest that support for these quotas comes as much from the "ladies first" brigade as the feminist firebrands.

Dave

Different but same theme: I see the usual BBC Eastenders Domestic violence white knight cobblers is to be spewed out again! She has an affair but of course, she is the poor wittle victim, blah blah blah.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2198187/EastEnders-Kat-Moon-finally-comes-clean-affair.html

Stuart

Well doesn't this show us a glimpse of how bad things are for young men in the West.

He felt the need to film his mentally unstable ex girlfriend jumping to her death because he thought "he would be blamed for it."

I can fully understand his thinking on this now I know what I know. I have always said all men, especially younger men should have surveillance on them or the ability to instantly record audio or video (or both) at all times to protect themselves from false allegations, and or other types of spiteful mentally unstable females. This is how twisted and sick feminism and it's agenda has made our society. People need to realise the level at which false rape, false abuse and such allegations are in this country, once they actually see for themselves, they will realise what I recommend men do, is not as unwarranted as they might think.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199097/Ex-boyfriend-filmed-teenager-jumping-bridge-feared-blamed-death.html?ITO=1490

Groan

Will quite by accident I managed to ruin my post Para olympic glow(following watching the closing ceremony/concert). I happened on and watched Hilary Devey "investigate" the lack of women in board rooms. As usual in such things various sexist assertions about the value of "diversity" were trotted out. Some of it was entertaining (in one bit one was supposed to take seriously the idea that potential high flying decision makers would be put off from applying for jobs due to the words "gravitas" and "demanding" being in an advert).
The dismaying bit was that this was an OU production, so rather than light entertainment it was porporting to be factual.
There was the usual Diversity Expert doing a gender audit of Hilary's company. Low and behold almost all the "blue collar" jobs were done by men while half the "middle managers" were women. Needless to say this particular imbalance didn't get looked at as it suggests that shop floor workers won't get much opportunity to move up in the company.

Bob

The day we get the media sorted out is the day we can start to galvanise men. Women have the idea of a 'sisterhood' drummed into them every day from a very young age, whereas men have the opposite; vilification and shame, certainly not brotherhood! Unless of course its an a gang, where many young men get their sense of society, brotherhood and their value systems from these days...then more vilification.

In the end what you have is a gang (for want of a better word) of women versus a nation of individual men. Women voting en masse to get rid of any pro true equality candidates, in fact getting them eliminated from the democratic process because of their gender and replacing them with feminists.

Of course you could argue that women shortlists don't necessarily mean feminists, but its funny how they almost always do though.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Twitter

Blog powered by Typepad

Reading List