The Rights Of Man

ACADEMIC SAYS MEN WILL SUFFER UNDER HARMAN'S EQUALITY BILL

As the recession starts to bite and employment becomes tougher, Harriet Harman will be cementing the plans for her single Equality Bill which will allow employers to discriminate against men when it comes to recruiting people to the workforce.

Following on from comments made by Trevor Phillips who declared that such discrimination will provide extra support for the BNP because it will be the white-working class that will be discriminated against, an academic has also hit out at the plans.

Writing for Public Policy Review and covered here (Telegraph), Dr Catherine Hakim, believes that men will become the new victims of sex discrimination if workplace equality laws are strengthened further.

The Telegraph article quotes that she accuses 'feminists of peddling "myths" about the extra hours put in by women and their thwarted career ambitions to justify "futile and perverse" attempts to help them balance work and family life'.

This is important article for a number of reasons:-

Firstly, it is a woman defending men and the Fawcett Society et al cannot deal with it. She understands that the motivation behind this equality law is not equality but a way of legally discriminating against men. If a man is discriminated against it is his wife/aprtner, mother, sister and daughters who will also be discriminated aagainst.

Secondly, it ignores the facts that women are now more great inroads into what would traditionally be termed male occupations. This investigation in the Telegraphshows for example that 61% of trainee GPs are women, 63% of students enrolled into the law society are women and 79% of vets are women. What more help do women need.

Thirdly, Marxist anti-male feminists such as Harriet Harman are hell-bent on destroying men. When boys are seven years behind girls at school (the outcome of which is highlighted in the above), it is men that need help. If this carries on then Harman and her friends will have succeeded.

GENDER PAY GAP HYSTERIA DESTROYED

For a decade at least now, the anti-male establishment hasused the gender pay gap in the UK to beat men and employers up - its all allegedly about discrimination in the workplace. Anyone who disagreed with campaigns from the anti-male Fawcett Society, the Labour Government, the TUC and others were shouted down. The media, always looking for an easy anti-male story, lapped it up (link).

At least in the USA they had Warren Farrell (link) highlighting how the gender pay gap is down to lifestyle choices, the family unit and how the gap does not apply across the board. There had been no equivalent in the UK, until now.

In a ground breaking monograph for the Institute of Economic Affairs, J.R. Shackleton, Professor of Economics at the University of East London, comprehensively destroys the arguments of the politically correct.

In "Should We Mind the Gap?" (link), he finds that 'the free choice of men and women - as well as earlier educational choices and the choices they make regarding their domestic arrangements - are at the heart of differences in pay levels'. He states the 'it isn't appreciated what a crude statistical artfefact the gender pay gap is.'

It's conclusion is that the gender pay gap is not down to discrimination. It is down to women making a choice to bring up families and also that inequality exists within groups. He also highlights huge anomalies in the blanket 17% gap that the anti-male groups use to beat men and employers up.

For instance, he shows how that although married men earn more than married women, singlewomen, as they get older, earn more than single men. Or that, Black Caribbean women earn more than their male equivalent.

In addition, as more women choose to work in the public sector and pay in that sphere is generally lower than in the private sector, it is small wonder that there is a gap.

His clear insightful study, using official figures, completely and utterly destroys the arguments put forward by the Fawcett Society, the Commission for Equality and Human Rights and the anti-male hystericspurveyed by Harriett Harman (she will be introducing more legislation soon on it). They even try and describe hisresearch as 'unhelpful', they know they have been found out.

Whenever, you hear them making the point, ask them whether they have read this research?.

Articles on the monograph can be here (Sunday Times, Sunday Times 2, Telegraph  and Daily Mail with debate).

Recent articles on the site can also be found here (1, 2,3 )

RESULTS HIGHLIGHT THE DESTRUCTION OF BOYS EDUCATION

The latest set of education results this week showed that the crisis in boys education continues apace.

The SATS results show that in English, Reading and Writing, 14 and 11 year old boys are a long way behind girls.

More than a third of 14 year-old boys have a reading age below 11 years of age (link) supposedly 10,000 boys had a reading age at 14 that was lower than when they went to school at 11.

 

The feminisation of education is destroying boys in our country (link) and the Government and the education establishment do nothing about it.  

SAVE THE MALES - NEW BOOK ON THE PLIGHT OF MEN IN TODAY'S WORLD

American columnist Kathleen Parker's book "Save The Males" has now been published in the UK (link). It was also the subject of a two-page article in the Daily Mail by columnist Amanda Platell (link).

After decades of subjugation, there is an ever increasing library of books on the plight of men. As ever, a well recommended read.

UPDATE 4th AUGUST - Book with debate featured in The Sunday Times (link)

THE BETRAYAL OF BOYS' EDUCATION - WHY THE STRUCTURES MUST CHANGE

One of the key themes of this web-site has been following how the feminisation of education (link) has betrayed two generations of boys with the changeover from O-levels to GCSE's in 1988  being the  catastrophic event. There has been much commentary on the issue including recently a book by Leonard Sax (link) and a scorching new article by Martin Newland in the Daily Mail (link).

The betrayal of generations of boys is now starting to be recognised and while the Government are on the surface concerned, the key structures causing this betrayal are not being touched and are not reaching the grassroots, that is, the schools themselves.

This is especially the case as schools have been feminised with 13 times as many female primary school teachers than men. When it comes to teacher training, the most recent intake shows there were 26,217 women and 9,375 men. At primary level it was 14,183 women and 2,301 men. It means that boys, many of hwom have no male role models in their lives, are not being taught by men when they need disclipline, challenge and understanding.

The Government and the education system will only be playing lip service to the problem unless they reform the structures so that the educational needs of both boys and girls are treated separately. It used to be the case that supposedly the education system was biased against women. Whilst that could have been the case, it is now, beyond doubt, biased against boys.

The problem is that with feminist fundamentalism sweeping away all before it, whilst there is some concern, there is precious little real action. The Government and, with some exceptions (link) the education establishment do not really care about boys, only girls matter to them.

In that regard, three things (at least) should happen:-

(1) The re-introduction of O-levels for boys and girls who wish to take them. The GCSE would also be maintained (link) for those who wanted to use it.

(2) Single sex teaching and schools to be the mainstay of the educational structure especially at secondary schools.

(3) Out reach work to recruit more male teachers at every level of education. Many men lose their jobs in the coming economic downturn - retrain them to be teachers.

OFSTED LAUNCH EDUCATION REPORT TO SUPPORT BOYS FROM LOW INCOME BACKGROUND

With the ever increasing and irrefutable need for the education of boys to be improved, the schools inspectorate Ofsted have launched a report on what they feel needs to be done to help boys from low incomes. Years of the feminisiation of education have wrought havoc and failed a whole generation of boys, now work has to be done to stop the next generation of boys suffering.

The report looks at approaches that work such as building confidence, self-esteem and personalising education.

The report can be found here (link).

A great web-site called Boys Into Books (link) lists the sorts of books that boys should be reading and to help them get engaged. A very worthwhile project.

BOYS SHUN UNIVERSITY - IGNORED BY GOVERNMENT?

A number of years ago, a member of the Commission of Equalities and Human Rights lauded the fact that more girls were going to university than boys (180,000 boys to 210,000 girls). She thought this was wonderful and when questioned what help she was going to give boys who were now underperforming. She went silent.

An analysis published by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) has produced a report (link) showing that the proportion of men studying for a degree fell to 35% whilst for women the figure is 47%. The report also states that ethnicity is an issue with white and afro-Caribbean boys being well behind. The report was covered in The Daily Telegraph (link) accompanied by a debate (link).

So what is the Commission and the Government going to do now? When Harman and others ramble on about how unfair the world is for women and that is why they need to discriminate against men, these sorts figures show what anti-male hypocrites they are.

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.

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.

   

HARRIET HARMAN - THE ENEMY OF MEN

This site and many others have often commented on how Harriet Harman, The Deputy Leader of The Labour Party, Cabinet Member, Leader of The Commons and Minister for Women, is the most dangerously anti-male person in the UK. As pointed out here (link), this is not a new phenomena. What makes her such a danger is the fact that she is in power and can actually bring in new laws and rules that actively damage individuals (who happen to be men) and is certainly the leading Marxist feminist in the UK. Whilst other groups can lobby and complain, she can actually do.

The key reason for raising this issue again, is the fact that this week she and her spin doctors were briefing the media about a consultation on changes to the Single Equalities Bill that will stop men (predominately white, but this site is not interested in the racial aspects) from getting jobs because it will allow employers the right to take into account gender when choosing candidates with exactly the same qualifications. 

The change as described and debated in the media (link, link, link, link) will be similar to the so-called 'positive action' (there is no such thing as positive action, because it means negative action for someone else, which means discrimination) schemes in the USA where in areas where there are few women, they get a specila treatment.

This is very dangerous system for men and all men in the UK should be scared because:-

Firstly, it plays to the politically correct game of identity politics and victim status. Instead of treating everyone as an individual whose gender is very much a secondary feature, it places men as the victors in every facet of life and women as victims who need help. It means that a poor boy from Peckham is seen as having more life advantages as a rich girl from Rodean public school (or St.Paul's Girls School which Harmen went to). This is manifestly wrong, immoral and unethical.

Secondly, men will lose out and they will be discriminated against solely on the basis of their gender, so the talents of a man are secondary, it is the fact they are not a woman that counts. There is already too much women-only grants, women-only societies and women-only management courses, many of which are funded by the taxpayer.

Thirdly, it means that the so-called meritocracy is dead, and a new system where your talent and contribution is secondary, it is your gender that is more important. Again, immoral, unethical and wrong in a democratic society.

Fourthly, male discrimination affects women. Men have mothers, sisters, wives/partners and daughters. If a male is discriminated against, then these women are also discriminated against, yet, according to Harman, it is being undertaken in their name.

Fifthly, it will not be applied, it is never is, to areas where men are wholly under-represented. This is especially a consideration in the primary school education sector where only 15% of teachers are male. Local authorities and the other state agencies are infested with feminist fundamentalists who were educated in the 1980's when the fundamentalist cause was born. These women are now in powerful positions and control policy, they do not care about men.

The only conclusion, and is gladdening to see for a change that even organisations like The Fawcett Society are questioning the proposals, is that if any pro-active 'action' consultation becomes law, it will give the green light to systematic discrimination against men, rich or poor, black or white (a black women will benefit from positive action over a black man - she ticks the box twice, he only once) will be systematically discriminated against.

That is why Harriett Harman is the number one enemy of British men.