MINISTER FOR WOMEN MILLER TO BRING IN MORE INSIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST BOYS - WILL BARWELL AND WILLETTS BE SILENT?

The Observer is running a story today that shows how anti-male the government is. The story is that the Minister of Women (still no Minister for Men - 16 years and waiting) is to launch an information pack that

"will offer advice on how to guide daughters through subject and career choices, amid concerns that many people feel they lack key parenting skills at such crucial times. It is feared that girls are not being brought up to be ambitious for themselves. The number of female chief executives in the FTSE 100 has fallen in the past year, with just three now heading large London-listed firms."

All at the taxpayers expense of course.

This is insidious for a number of reasons.

The last two generations of boys are the ones that need help

Just look at four key areas

• Just 30% of male school-leavers applied to university for autumn 2012, compared to 40% of female school-leavers.
• Boy's results at school continue to be way behind those of girls, especially English
• There are far fewer men than women entering the professions
• Unemployment is higher for men (1.4 million) than women (1.1 million) - despite the spin put out that women suffered more in the recession than men (as the CIPD showed)

Ignoring the generation gap

The average age of a FTSE-100 board member is 57 so if there is an issue with unambitious women, it is not the girls and young women of today (who are going to university and/or entering the professions - encouraged by their fathers and mothers) it with those entering or in their 40's. Many of whom do not want to be in the boardroom (anti-male feminists like Karen Brady and the 30% club always presume that every women wants to be a board member).

So therefore to provide information guides to parents with daughters to enable them to be more ambitious and successful is not only nonsense when they are more successful than boys already, it is discrimination and reinforcing disadvantage.

Not just because parents with sons won't get them (imagine a family with twins - one boy and one girl - she gets the pack he doesn't! ) but that it will make it even harder for boys to compete as they are not being encouraged and girls are. It will push them further behind.

Where is David Willetts MP who said that society and there were discriminatory barriers against boys going to university and working class men. Where is Gavin Barwell MP who sponnsored the report raising his concerns about feminism and boys education. Both of these are Conservatives, so why are they letting Maria Miller who is also a Conservative get away with this?

This initiative is driving a stake through the heart of equality and rubbing another generation of boys face in it. The Minister for Equalities is making it harder for equality to be achieved.

 Men are to blame for women not going into boardrooms

The underlying theme for all those who want quotas remember is that it is men are to blame and it is another male conspiracy driven by the some the tyranny of the patriarchy ideology. Quotas would discriminate against men.  

This is the real driver for Miller. She has bought into the anti-male ideology of her predecessors and wants to be loved by the anti-male feminists. She can get away with it because no one dare take her on - who speaks up for men and boys in this government?

This initiative is not about equality. It is about reinforcing inequality against boys, pulling the drawbridge up further from them.

Posted by Skimmington

 

 

Comments

[barryb]

Simple answer, all men should grab their money and possessions and walk in the opposite direction to western women, do nothing for them, ignore them, avoid them look the other way when they need help or the hard/dirty/dangerous work needs doing.

See how long it woudl be before they "get it" and even those who are not feminists will realise their mistake.

What am I saying,?! Get western men to do that...hahahahahaha!!! As if they were that united or strong.

[barryb]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334684/Guide-girls-given-parents-help-bring-daughters-tackle-lack-ambition-young-women.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490#

Daily wail version of the story....

[barryb]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/healthyeating/10095183/Children-think-cheese-grows-on-plants.html

With women nearly all teachers now, after men have been systematically pushed out of teaching, sit back and enjoy the downfall of a nation and its education standards.

[barryb]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10095242/Unmarried-Chinese-mothers-to-be-fined.html

Oh my, just think of the BILLIONS we could have saved, the generation of reprobates we could have avoided and the ruin of a nation.
Instead over here thanks to feminism and gutless British men, we reward this kind of woman! Can you imagine one of our simpering cow-towing pussy whipped English representatives coming up with this idea at a meeting?

The only bit I would disagree with is if she had a child out of wedlock but with a married man then he should also pay a fine.

[scott]

By fostering and enabling womens violence, and arresting men on false accusations of violence, law enforcement can manufacture statistics that do not represent the true dynamic of domestic violence.
The manufactured statistics Alliances for federal pork bloating dollars is also fueling the perversion of the course of justice.

[Evelyn]

Well, with the board room positions, all that'll happen is that the number of member on the board will double and HMRC ends up giving an unintended tax break since the previous unemployed wives/daughters/friends now can claim their personal allowance since they now have jobs. Executive wages and bonuses will also be smaller, since the govt. has been lobbying for this too... happiness all round! ;-D

Regards the 'do not be a lay-about' nanny advice for girls only, be grateful they have not yet printed brochures on how to 'civilise' boys, the last time they did that, it was the trope about 'manliness' ie. go to war and die or work yourself to death BS. I think we call can do without a rehash of that stuff...

Will all this Maoist propaganda make a difference? Nope. Because the BS only works on the young and naive and not even then... otherwise, we'd all be well-mannered, drug-free happy shiny people who have nothing but success in life because we eat our 5-a-day and save for our pension.

[Dave]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjPSmLhgjVQ

Another great video from The Ignored Gender.

[Dave]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntVPqMT04-w

Mike B puts up with another white knight interviewer who adopts the usual irritating and patronising tactic of siding with female listeners by sneering and acting surprised and amazed at Mike's claims.

I just wish Mike would read out a list of male inequalities and ask the interviewer to read out a list of female inequalities without refering to women on boards or historical issues where most of those affected are now actually dead!

Anyone got a succinctly worded factual list for Mike?

[Dave]

Oh, now I get it. just listened to some more and the interviewer revealed that his three bosses at three different radio stations were all female!

Too risky for him not to be seen to side with the girls!

[Mike Buchanan]

Hi Dave, feel free to email me at [email protected] if you want a 1:1 exchange on the approach(es) I'm taking. Not sure what 'historical issues' you're referring to, but the raison d'etre for this piece going out last Saturday was that it was the centenary of the death of Emily Davison when she stepped in front of the King's horse at Epsom.

There are reasons for referring to 'women on boards', but I try to speak about the issue sparingly these days. Had another BBC Three Counties Radio interview this afternoon, much better than last Saturday's interview because in the studio rather than over the phone. Should be on our YouTube channel (link below) in next day or two.

http://j4mb.wordpress.com/youtube-video-and-audio-files/

[Dave]

Hi Mike,

Oops, I think you got the wrong end of the stick due to my badly worded comment. A clearer paragraph would have been:

"I just wish Mike would read out a long list of irrefutable, factually based male inequalities and then request that the interviewer reads out a list of UK female inequalities but on the basis that the interviewer can't refer to the old chestnut regarding a lack of women on boards or other historical issues where most of those women affected are now actually dead! - like the female vote, for example"

So I'm not saying that you, Mike, shouldn't refer to women on boards. In actual fact, I think you should keep bringing up the fact that the women on boards issue is a complete joke and waste of everyone's time and that it's actually more sexist against men! You handled the issue very well with regard to women on boards so please continue to put these interviewers in their place!

What I would like in addition, however, (and I think I might be speaking on behalf of thousands of men here) is for you to reel off a load of male inequalities and double-standards, and then ask the interviewer to match your list in terms of credibility without mentioning or resorting to the usual 'talk of the town' misandric gossip on the streets about how bad women have it!

[Douglas]

I saw this issue on another site and have posted my letter to my MP there. People are welcome to use it as a template to send to their own MP.

Don't just moan - get your MP involved!

http://antimisandry.com/showthread.php?t=51881&p=328830#post328830