The Rights Of Man

STORIES ROUND-UP

As things have been a bit hit and miss on the site for the last few months, please find below a selection of stories and issues that have not been covered in any detail but should have been.

Daily Mail: Paedophile Fears Driving Male Teachers From Primary Schools

Scottish Sun: Domestic Violence Against Men Rises At Time Of Old Firm Matches

Conservative Home: All Women Short-Lists Break All Notions Of Fairness

BBC: Asian Abused Men's Living Hell

BBC: Are Women Paying For Sexism Laws?

BBC: Women Who Abuse Children

Daily Mail: Erin Pizzey - Why I Loathe Feminism

Independent: Prescott Tells Harman To Stop Going On About Women's Rights

Times: Men In Boardrooms Have been A Disaster

Daily Mail: Falsely Accused Victim Wins £25,000 Compensation

Lib Dems: Domestic Violence Convictions Against Women Trebles

Daily Mail: False Accusers Must Go To Jail

Wigan Today: Labour Party All Women Shortlists in Wigan

CONSERVATIVES TO BAN MEN FROM APPLYING TO BE MP'S

The UK Parliament is currently holding what it calls a 'Speakers Conference' a very rarely used tool to debate key issues facing Parliament. The current Speakers Conference has been set up to "Consider, and make recommendations for rectifying, the disparity between the representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in the House of Commons and their representation in the UK population at large".

In laymen terms, Parliament is looking at how to boost the numbers of women in Parliament, which is not necessarily a bad thing, except when it means putting barriers up to stop men from having an equal chance of serving in Parliament and serving a constituency and our country.

Just to recap, the Labour Party has used the blunt instrument of All-women short-lists since the 1997 General Election. They were temporarily stopped because a number of male Labour members who wanted to stand for Parliament took the Labour Party to an industrial tribunal and won. The response by Labour was to introduce the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act in 2002 which meant they could start using All-Women short-lists again because political parties were exempted from the original Sex Discrimination Act.

This site has long highlighted how it continues to be used by Labour, effectively banning man from standing for the Labour Party which means that Labour supporting men who want to be a candidate at the next General Election are politically disenfranchised right across the UK.

The Conservatives under David Cameron have been going down a similar-ish route. Firstly they had an A-List of preferred candidates (that is, chosen by the Party centrally) which had more than 50% women. Only if you were on this list could you apply for a winnable seat. Then they abandoned this after 18 months when most of the winnable seats had selected their candidates from this list and moved to a system where each local Conservative Party had to ensure they interviewed equal numbers of men and women in each selection round. That is, if they wanted to interview 20 people there had to be 10:10 then narrow that down to 2:2 for the final selection round. It was irrelevant how many women or men had applied (there are 7 men for every 3 women on their 'candidates list'.). At the European Elections they also introduced a system for choosing candidates which made it far harder for a man to be elected.

The reason for raising all of this is that this week, the Conservatives have declared that from January 2010, if a MP decided that he/she is standing down from their seat, the seat will only be available to female candidates. That is, they are also introducing all-women short-lists and this was announced by David Cameron this week when he spoke at the aforementioned Speakers Conference.

This announcement has been met with a real backlash from within the Conservative Party (the party of meritocracy supposedly) and has engendered a massive amount of column inches and print ( a list of key articles are below). Part of the reasoning is that they are still not getting enough women in good seats (30% of their candidates are women, thereby matching the make up of their Candidates List so what's wrong?). In addition, they have recently been selecting candidates in winnable seats and all have been men but that has been becuase they are the best candidate at the interview.

John Maples MP, who heads up candidate selection, said this week "All 8 selections have produced male candidates.  The only woman selected has been Sarah Wollaston, in the all postal primary in Totnes.  This trend is not acceptable." Of course, all of the selections were independent of each other and the local parties pick their candidate based on who they think is the best person for the job.

What this all shows though is that the two major parties in the UK have been active in politically disenfranchising men. They have been doing all they can to stop men form being selected to stand for them atn the next General Election to boost the numbers of women. This is anti-democratic and undermine the liberal democrat 'unwritten constitution' which is the founding principle of modern Britain.

While there are more men standing at the next General election for the Conservatives at the next General election than women, this forgets that the issue that each person wanting to stand for Parliament or public office is an individual first and foremost. Their gender or anything else is irrelevant under the liberal democratic constitution.

Instead of trying to get more good women into Parliament by making it more attractive for high calibre women to become candidates (high calibre in terms of meaning they can beat/compete against high calibre male candidates), instead the two main parties have chosen to boost female numbers by sexually discriminating against men.

A travesty and the ultimate act of discrimination, and if the UK political system is meant to be the 'Mother of al Parliament's' then men across the world who want to stand for Parliament in their own country had better watch out.

Key Articles

Conservative Home 1, CH 2, CH 3, CH 4, CH 5, CH 6, CH 7, Iain Martin, Simon Heffer, Amanda Platell, Virginia Blackburn, Daily Mail,  Ann Widdecombe MP and Google News

MEN-ONLY BOARDS ARE A NIGHTMARE EVEN IF THEY ARE THERE ON MERIT

Picture the scenario, some young lads from a mixture of ethnic backgrounds and all in single parent households living on a council estate in Camberwell and Peckham in South London. They work hard at school, excel in Maths, go onto university and after graduating get back together and set up a hedge fund or work their way up through an investment bank and eventually all sit to together on the Board.

Picture another scenario, some young girls from well off backgrounds go to the all-girl public school, St Paul's, in Fulham. Again, all do well, go to university, set up their own finance company in The City or work their way up an investment bank and eventually all sit together on the Board.

According to Harriet Harman and her views on men and the City, the former scenario is a "nightmare", yet, the latter is not.

On Tuesday, as part of Parliament's and Equalities Commission's witch-hunt on the City and men in general, Harman declared to the Treasury Select Committee that men-only boards were a nightmare.

This of course is all part of the current Government's anti-male agenda where anything can be said against men and where there are more men in a position than women that this is due to sexism and there is no need to prove this, because if the politically correct say its true, it has to be true. So few of course, stand up to it (of course, if you do, then according to the Coalition on Men & Boys, you are anti-equality and are ignorant).

In addition, she said that the Government would withhold Government contracts for City or financial organisations if they did not have enough women on the Board and she also did rule out quotas (a scenario in Norway where all Boards must have 40% women - so much for meritocracy in Scandinavia)

This witch-hunt is on top of the Equalities Bill which should finish going through Parliament in the next month which is the most anti-male piece of legislation probably ever entered into Statute.

The issue is simply that no longer will be people be judged on their merits or talents but on their gender. The latter is all that counts. It is sexist by its very nature as gender becomes the dominant factor rather than the individual. It is the end of liberalism in the UK.

Furthermore, there will be sexism at the individual level because if one single man who is more talented, adds more value and has more to offer than a woman both in competition for a place on the Board and she is chosen. That man, and his wife/girlfriend/male partner/sister/daughter and mother have been sexually discriminated against.

Harman and her acolytes forget, men and women do not live in isolation. If you discriminate against a man then you discriminate against the female members of his family.

  

Google News Coverage plus excellent Daily Mail article

WHY DOES THE COALITION ON MEN & BOYS DO DOWN MEN & BOYS?

In 2007, a group called the Men's Coalition was set up by a number of public funded organisations who  speak up for men. The organisation mutated into the Coalition on Men & Boys and its members include the Fatherhood Institute, Men's Advice Line, Men's Health Forum, Relate, Respect and the White Ribbon Campaign.

A month or so ago they produced a report called Man Made: Men, Masculinities and Boys which attempts to "provide a unique, in-depth picture of the circumstances and needs of men and boys."

So far so good you would think, but as ever, it depends what lens you are looking through and the lens in this report is one that on one hand says public policy needs to ensure it better meets the need of men (good), but then blames and patronises men and is guilty of making some serious and glaring omissions. It is based on the fact that men need to change not that society or public policy needs to.

The 158 page report says that men need help but bases this on a feminist world-view (it says "The report draws significantly upon feminist scholarship" page 19) and throughout suggests that men need to change to help women, children and men themselves. Indeed, it keeps coming back to the theme that male dominance in positions of power (which is reducing all the time) means that men have to be more aware of gender equality and to stop blocking and being sexist towards women.

In addition, in key areas it fails to address the key problems of discrimination or the lack of help for men and boys such as education (exam results) and issues such as domestic violence, forced marriage,  and the bias of the family courts. It only really excels in the area of health which will be down to the Men's Health Forum's input.

It says that the Coalition of Men and Boys is committed to work with women's groups, but whilst at face value we should all be working for gender equality, the basis for this statement is to patronise and not recognise the discrimination that men regularly face in their lives. Would such a report on Women & Girls state that it would like to work with men's groups, I very much doubt it.

In fact, some of the things it says are a bizarre for a report and organisation purporting to be on the side of men. An example includes:-

"The Government's Equalities Dept and Equalities Commission should establish designated policy and research positions focusing on how men and boys can contribute to tackling gender and other inequalities." This though is about men and boys pushing a female equalities agenda and has nothing to do with helping men and boys in terms improving access to health, improved examination results etc?

There is plenty of mentions of a Minister for Women but the report does not mention that it is unequal therefore not to have a Minister for Men.

In addition, "it admits that the Government has no strategy or have not been a work stream within the work of the Women's Unit (page 33). This is partly due to lack of resources but probably also to the relative invisibility of masculinity as a gender issue". No mention of course to the fact that why would a Women's Unit look at supporting men and of course, no irony is given in the report to the fact there is no resources. The report mentions it but does not condemn it.

It's key policy-specific recommendations (page 16) on work, fatherhood and education do not mention the bias in the family law court system (the report in Chapter 6 rejects that men get a raw deal in the family court system), the poor results of boys in the context of a lack of male teachers and the switch from exam-related O' Levels to course-based GCSE's (it rejects the notion that the lack of male teachers is a problem) and domestic violence - it makes no mention of male victims and the lack fo support they receive.

It even says that the proposals in the Equalities Bill to allow men to be discriminated against in the workplace are 'mild' (page 41). Not if you are a man who is discriminated against.

The health section is the only one that could be said to be positive in that it demands more that the health authorities not only do more to educate men about male heath issues but also that an assessment of services is needed to ensure they are there to support men.

Overall, the report is negative about men and boys, it patronises them, wants them to change (to be less masculine)  and does not confront, on purpose, the obvious problems that men face in areas such in education and elsewhere.

The report is a wasted opportunity and one that look at the problems that men face not through a male lens but one that believes men are a negative force in the UK.

Editors Note

There are many references in the report to the "men's rights movement". References include

"..There are some risks in involving men in gender equality strategies" (page 12)

"Some men are resistant to change - especially if the proposed changes entail giving up some privileges (better pay than women) and result in them having less power at work and in the home. The emergence in recent decades of a range of vocal 'men's rights' groups, both in the UK and internationally, is evidence to this." (page 12)

"It should not be assumed, however, that all men and boys share the same hostile approach of many 'men's rights activists to the progress of women and girls" (page 26)

These accusations, probably aimed at this site and other organisations/sites are a disgraceful slur not backed by any evidence. This is a example of using a report to try and trash people who believe that equality should actually mean equality for both men and women. If the reports authors can find anything on this site that is anti-women, then they will not find it.

Editors Apology #1

In this post I originally called the Coalition - Coalition of Men & Boys but as Bob rightly pointed out (see comments) I was sorely mistaken. It is the Coalition on Men & Boys, a subtle mistake but one that is vital to be aware of because it shows emphatically and with more clarity that it is not a coalition about supporting men & boys at all. It is a coalition that hectors men & boys.

MALE EMPLOYMENT CONTINUES TO FALL - EXPOSING HARMAN AGAIN

Do you remember early this year when (not for the first time) Ms Harman was caught out peddling myths about men and the recession? Well here are some more figures to prove it.

Figures released by the Office of National Statistics yesterday show that one in six homes are now without someone of working age in employment. Delving into statistics on page 24, it can be seen that the employment rate of married/cohabitating men has fallen from 91.0% (April to June 08) to 88.8% (April to June 09) whilst the same figures for married/cohabitating women has only fallen from 71.7% to 70.7% over the same period.

Let's hope that those men and women who have lost their jobs find work soon.

If a married/cohabitating men loses his job, his wife/partner is also suffering (plus any children). This is always important to remember because the anti-male crusaders would have you believe that male suffering only affects men so that's why men do not matter. They forget that women are as equally affected.

Google News Coverage

EQUALITY BILL CONSULTATION DATES

For anyone interested (we all should be!) in the travails of the Equalities Bill, the Government's Equalities Office has announced some dates for open consultation meeting.

Details available here.

Hattip - John Kimble

MALE GRADUATES SUFFERING IN RECESSION

Imagine a scenario where fewer female graduates were finding jobs in this recession than men or that fewer females were entering the professions than men. Imagine, the acres of newsprint, airtime and gnashing of teeth from Harman Towers, the Fawcett Society, the Equalities Commission and anyone else wanting to moan about discrimination.

Of course, the reality is that the opposite is happening in Britain in 2009 but the silence is deafening.

The  Higher Education Statistics Agency produced research this week that showed that one in ten men (10.3%) who graduated with a degree last year is unemployed, compared with 6.3% women. With fewer boys now going into university in the first place, this is a worrying trend partly I believe because of the collapse of the private sector (men predominate) as opposed to the continuing expansion of the public sector (female predominate). Certainly, it nails again the myth that Harman put about that women would suffer more in the recession than men.

The gender balance has been changing for years now as the education gap between boys and girls continues as now more women are entering the professions than boys (I swear there was more up-to-date research on this last week but cannot find it). No mention of this profession issue in the gender pay gap debates.

"TRAITOROUS" WOMEN PREFER MALE BOSSES

When Ms Harman launched her tirade  against male bosses last week, the Journal of Financial Economics published research (which you have to pay for unfortunately) by Daniel Ferreira, of the London School of Economics with Renee Adams of the University of Queensland that showed that women in boardrooms can wreck a company.

The study of 2,000 boards and as reported in the Daily Mail said that "Employing more women in the boardroom can wreak havoc on the financial performance of companies, fresh research suggests. Two academics found that female directors were more likely to 'meddle' with boards and get rid of male chief executives who are not up to the job. However, their more ruthless approach could produce unexpected results and be 'bad for a company's coffers.' "

Essentially the research was saying that women make a good impact in struggling companies but can damage those which are performing.

As readers of the site know, this is not an anti-women site, but the research is certainly an antidote to the "all men bad, all women good" approach by Harriet Harman and others like the Equalities Commission and the Fawcett Society. 

Full coverage at Google News with the Times article being a highlight.

However, the most striking research to certainly nail the lie that male bosses are worse than female bosses is from OnePoll. Their research showed that women prefer working for male bosses!

Their research showed that 2/3rds of women prefer male bosses because they are better managers and less prone to moods like women. Also they found female bosses felt threatened by other women at work.

When I heard the story today I could hear the wailing and tears from the Fawcett Society and Harman Towers at the traitorous women for suggesting they prefer male bosses.  

Seriously though, these two pieces of research are another nail in coffin of the myth that Harman and others have been peddling.

Coverage - Daily Mail

 

BANK HOLIDAY FOR WORKERS MEMORIAL DAY - 95% OF UK FATALITIES ARE MEN

When Yvette Cooper MP, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions produced, out of the blue,  a consultation suggesting that there should be a bank holiday for people who died at work on the internationally recognised Workers Memorial Day, there was a crucial issue missing.

Having examined the Health and Safety Executive's latest figures for fatalities at work (180 in 07/08) and discounting the fact that 66 were members of the public (that is, they died at a workplace but not whilst they were working at their workplace) its calculated that 110 fatalities were male and 4 female. Without going through figures again (may go boss-eyed), that makes the figures 95-96% male or in laymen's terms for every 20 workplace fatalities, 19 are men and 1 is a women.

Without wanting to be paranoid, why did the Secretary of State not mention the gender breakdown. I ma sure she would have done if it was the other way around.

Also it brings into question again all the nonsense about the gender pay gap. Part of the reason why men earn more money (not more when doing the same jobs as a woman) is because they carry out more dangerous work. Nearly all of the deaths are related to work in agriculture, manufacturing or construction where men predominate. Because of the dangerous work these men do, there is a premium vis a vis their salaries which needs to be taken into account on any debate on the gender pay gap. You never hear the Equalities Commission, Harriet Harman and the Fawcett Society talk about that or putting that into context.

Media Coverage - Google News (the general consensus was negative especially as if there was another bank holiday, it should rightly be on Armistice Day)

ABUSE OF GENDER PAY GAP STATISTICS CHALLENGED AGAIN

A week ago this site highlighted the fact that despite previous guidance from Sir Michael Scholar from the UK Statistical Authority to the Government that using the gender pay gap figure of 23% was wrong, the Women and Work Commission went ahead anyway.

Even though the media cover the story when Sir Michael originally queried it, the media, who do not fact check or connect things up, they still unquestioningly used the 23% figure again.

Now the row has blown up again with another letter(see 7th August) sent by Sir Michael, this time to Baroness Prosser.

The whole episode is covered by Mark Easton at the BBC.

One question remains though, does Sir Michael read this blog, so picking up on the issue that was previously raised on this site about the Women and Work Commission!