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.

BBC BIAS ON GENDER PAY GAP

In a post last week, the issue about BBC bias was on the issue of domestic violence (see previous post). This time it is on the gender pay gap.

In October, a publication by J R Shackleton which received a high volume of coverage (see previous post) highlighted that the gender pay gap was largely about lifestyle choice and not discrimination.

Yet when the latest figures are published, the BBC just stick to their left-wing politically correct assumptions and publish a story (link) that does not mention the alternative arguments. Instead, it gives a free platform to anti-male organisations such as the Fawcett Society and the Commission of Equality and Human Rights to berate men and companies.

The BBC are biased, what other reasonable conclusion can you draw?

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 )

GENDER PAY GAP - GOVERNMENT'S OWN STATISTICS EXPLAIN AWAY HARMAN'S MYTHS

The Gender Pay Gap and the reasons behind it is one of the biggest anti-male myths going.

When Harriet Harman put forward draft legislation in June (link) explaining that there was a need for employers to be able to discriminate between men and women, she explained it was due to the Gender Pay Gap.

This has been used for decades now as a stick to beat men and also to allow all sorts of discrimination against them such as women-only courses, "positive" action training and used as a general anti-male propaganda tool. There has never been any systematic proof that a women is paid less than a man when she is doing the same job as a man at the same company with the same skill, experience and adding the same economic value

The Office of National Statistics this year produced clear statistics (link) and an explanation on why the gap exists and also that in some cases the gap is in favour of women.

The graph below from the Economic & Labour Market Review Vol 2 / No 4 / April 2008 shows that there is no discernible pay gap between men and women working full-time (median) until a women reaches her mid 30's (7% gap) and then accelerates to around 19% when a woman is in her mid forties.

Why is this? Well of course, as the research states, it is because many many women change their priorities in life (of which they are comfortable with) to bring up a family. It means there are then either working part-time, limited full-time hours or not working at all. In addition, when a mother is home, the father tends to work harder not only because there is one income coming in but also to make sure the household remains financially viable and he is also committed to bringing in as much money as possible for his and her children.

With such career breaks, when a woman goes back to work full-time, she has less work experience which will have an impact on her salary.

The report also shows that women working part-time in large companies earn more than men. In addition, in the health, social care and secretarial occupations, part-time women also earn more than part-time men. In the first two categories, the gap is 22.% in favour of women.

It is interesting to note that the oft-quoted 17% gap between men and women is based on a mean average rather than the more sensible median average which takes out the distortions of the very high earners. If the median is used, the figure is just over 13%.

What the research states is that the reason for the gap is because of :-

• Differences in educational levels and work experience;
• More part-time women workers;
• Travel patterns as men travel further to work than women;
• Occupational segregation because many female occupations are paid less than male ones.

It also clearly states that "part of the gender pay gap is the result of RATIONAL choices made by the different sexes and not all due to discrimination."

What this means is that whenever the Government or others wheel out the Gender Pay Gap as a reason for more positive discrimination for women and therefore negative discrimination for men, use this Government report.

It nails the myths of those who want to use Gender Pay Gap as another stick to beat men with.

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)

HARMAN DECLARES WAR ON MEN

In the death throes of this nasty anti-male Labour Government, before they are  unceremoniously booted out, they have officially declared war on men.

After the publication and announcement this week by Harriet Harman (the enemy of men) of the Equalities Bill (Bill - Debate), following on from the abolition of fatherhood (here) , no sane man can ever vote Labour (worse even the Liberal Democrats support it all as well).

It is anti-men in its intent, its action and in it prescription. It is dangerous not just to men but to society as a whole. As Philip Davies MP states, "how can the party that introduced anti-discrimination laws now reintroduce discrimination into the workplace."

There are so many angles to look to at this from, so I will restrict it to just a few.

Langauge

Trawling through the annoucement and the interviews, it is clear, in the politically correct food chain, men are the plankton.

Every example quoted, all the phraseology and all the emotion is based on that men are the masters of the universe and are still subjecting women. It is straight out of the Marxist feminist doctrine that all men are bastards.

Such across the board, sweeping generalisations ignore the fact that we are individuals and our gender is secondary. Not every man receives better pay than every single a woman, not every man has more opportunities in life than a woman. These are dangerous assumptions.

It is very rich that Harman, who went to posh girls-only public school, St Paul's (here)  believes she and the rest of the female population have less opportunity in life than a working class boy from a council estate in her Peckham constituency.

Positive Action

One of the great lies and weasel phrases of the politically correct is the term "positive action".

There is no such thing, it is a phrase used by the politically correct to put a positive gloss on discrimination against men.

By its very nature, positive action means negative action for somebody else. It means that positive action is just plain old discrimination.

Effects on Men

The most concerning part of the proposed Bill is that when faced with people of equal qualifications and equal ability, employers can discriminate. This will be 99.9999 times out of 100 against men.

In the politically atmosphere of language and debate, employers will feel they would have to select/promote a woman and this new law will only to apply to women. There is no why they will discriminate in favour of a man. They would be hung drawn and quartered if they did and if a complaint was made to the supine anti-male Equalities and Human Rioghts Commission, they would support a woman, whatever the evidence. In addition, the way the Bill is being discussed shows that it is aimed at women and not men. Men will be discriminated against on the basis of the gender not on their ability.

Furthermore, in areas where men are under-represented - education, social services, HR for example, do you think that the authorities will actively discriminate in favour of men. No chance.

In addition, the assumption is made that every man has had more advantages in life than every women. How iniqitous would be for a man from the Peckham council estate to have lost out in this politically correct box-ticking to a girl who went to St Pauls.

Effect on Women.

There are two effects:-

Firstly, for talented, qualified women, an air of suspicion already exists that many have got their position solely because they are a woman. For many women, this is completely unfair because it suggests they have not got the talent to succeed. As the BBC's Mark Easton pointed out this week (link) ; women run 700,000 companies; they now sit on 78 of the FTSE-100's boardrooms; they are more female millionaires than male millionaire's between 18-44 (47,000 women / 38,000 men).

The second effect is of course that it ignores the fact that men and women do not live in isolation from each other. If a man loses out to "positive action", then that will have an effect on his daughters, wife/partner, sister, mother and any female friends.

Gender Pay Gap Myth

The main argument used by Harman to justify the Bill is that there is a gender pay gap, 13% overall but 40% for full time workers.

It has been rehearsed many times on this site and elsewhere (link) but the gender pay gap is a lie and a myth. A clear mis-use of statitics by the politiaclly correct to justify their hatred of men. It does not exist for women who are doing the same job, with the same degree of talent, experience working for the same company where they add the same value. It occurs becuase men tend not to take career breaks to bring up children, a choice that many women want. In addition, men take on more dangerous, dirty work so are likely to be paid more for it. 

What has Labour done for men? 

Nothing, of course. If Harman and Labour were interested in helping men, they would have tackled a number of issues such as:-

The biased family court system

The educational underachievement of boys

The fact that three times as many men commit suicide than women

The lack of treatment for male cancers

The lack of support for male domestic abuse victims.

Conclusion

As stated in the beginning, this piece could have flowed for tens of thousand more words.

The foundation stone of the modern United Kingdom has been based on meritiocracy and liberty, where people succeed based on their talents and abilities. Harman and Labour have abandoned this, they want men to be consigned to the dustbin of humanity.

They want all men in chains and this Equalities Bill will mean exactly that.

Links to some of debates on the Equality Bill can be found here:-

Daily Mail 1; Daily Mail 2; Telegraph 1; Telegraph 2; Telegraph 3; Telegraph 4; Telegraph 5; Telegraph 6; BBC; Times

 

EVEN STOCK MARKET HAS TOO MANY MEN

Whether it is because of an over-tetchiness but the recent report stating that stock markets were volatile because there were too many testosterone-filled men working in them just seems to be another reason for a bout of male bashing (link), (link), (link).

However, it does again prove that men and women are different and have different motivations in life, which as ever, undermines those who think that differences in employment patterns and wages is down to sexual discrimination.

The report by John Coates at Cambridge University, and Professor Joe Herbert, a neuroscientist, set out to study the brains of City traders to discover what makes them tick.

It's conclusion was more women and older people were needed on trading floors to stop volatility.More 'positive action' no doubt.

As ever, they misunderstand that no matter who works on a trading floor they are complex, challenging and competitive environments with long long hours. By there very nature they are volatile and no matter who worked there, it would not change. This just seemed an excuse to run an anti-male story.

 

MALE POLITICAL DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN SPAIN

One of the most disturbing aspects in the war on men has been the use of gender quotas to disenfranchise men as individuals from the political system. It is the complete reversal of the situation till the 1920's when women did not have the vote and could not stand for Parliament. Now men are being actively stopped and being denied promotion.

The Labour Government brought in all-women shortlists in 1997 and even for the coming General Election have used them in 27 seats so far. They introduced a Minister for Women but have steadfastly refused to bring in a Minister for Men. Now we have the Spanish Government bringing in effectively gender quotas for its Cabinet.

In Spain (link), nine of the seventeen Cabinet members are women. Prime Minister Zapatero, had also passed a law making it compulsory for electoral lists and even company boards to have at least 40% women (link). He is "very proud that there are women ministers than men". Not a problem of course, if the nine women are amongst the best people he can get but he does not say this or prove that it is nothing but a political gesture.

Times columnist, Mary Ann Sieghart chips in with a commentray on how we need more women in the UK Cabinet (link) without any evidence that gender is more important than ability. She is roundly derided in the debate at the end of her commentary.

Both Spain and the UK Labour Party are quite unashamedly clear about their objectives.

It is not about ability or equality of opportunity but equaility of outcomes. Instead of tackling the reason why there are few women in politics whcih is essentially a supply side issue and that they choose not to be a politician (there is no sexual discriminiation in being selected as a canddiate or winning a seat), they sexually discriminate against men by blocking them from political positions including even standing.

This promotion of gender quotas for political positions is very serious for men who want to enter politics because they want to improve their community and their country. No longer will people be judged on their skill, talent and commitment. Their fitness for political office is judged on their position in the politically correct league table and men of course are always rock bottom.

Meritocracy and universal suffrage, the guiding principles of 20th century Western Democracy, have been thrown out of the window. Gender is more important than ability in the 21st Century.

This is comparable to the time when women were denied a vote and not allowed to stand for Parliament. It's turned 360 degrees.

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.

USA ADVERTISING INDUSTRY'S BACKLASH AGAINST PORTRAYING "MEN AS FOOLS"

The American advertising industry woke up some years ago to how "men as idiots" was self defeating from a sales point of view but alaos importantly from a social/moral point of view.

This article from Advertising Age explains (link).

Let us hope the advertising idiots in the UK at MFI, Littlewoods LX Direct and others featured on this site wake up.