The Rights Of Man

LABOUR'S SEXIST MANIFESTO FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION

Most major parties have now published their manifestos for the 2010 General Election. Over the next week we'll be reviewing the proposals of the various parties analysing any obvious misandry as well as pro gender equality content. Let's start by taking a look at Labour's plans for the next five years.

Given their track record since 1997, not to mention their sexist MPs, and the use of All Women Shortlists, the Labour Party is a almost certainly the most sexist party in Britain. However, for the purpose of this post, lets stick solely to the content of the manifesto as we are going to do with the other parties. The first sign of sexism is their boasts regarding the disastrous Equality Act. This legislation allows employers to discriminate on the basis of gender when recruiting staff instead of choosing the best person for the job. Legalising sex discrimination really isn't a valid method of promoting "fairness across our society" as they claim. The manifesto cites how the Equality Act will increase equality of opportunity when it's actually reducing equality and pushing unfair equal outcomes instead.

Further notable sexism in Labour's manifesto concerns the area of domestic violence. Section 5:3 concerning domestic violence states "we are committed to zero tolerance of violence against women". Whilst such a commitment is impressive, we mustn't forget that Home Office figures show that 40% of domestic violence vicitms are men. It's quite sickening that so many domestic violence vicitms dont' even get the slightest mention, nevermind any sort of commitment to their well-being or deal with their attackers. The party do at least note how domestic violence had fallen by 50%, though unsurprisingly, under New Labour the number of male vicitms bucked the trend and actually risen significantly! Clearly the number of male vicitms is likely to continue to rise under a Labour government given such a willingness to pretend that female perpetrators don't exist.

Perhaps the most offensive part of labour's plans for the next five years is the section titled "Punishment and Reform". On the one hand it talks about giving longer sentences to the most violent and serious offenders, yet the next sentence makes a commitment to  "work to reduce the number of women, young and mentally ill people in prison". Given that violence by females is on of the fastest growing crimes in society and that the number of male domestic violence vicitms is increasing, then surely the two statements are completely contradictory? Further still, given that the police have largely ignored female paedophiles until recently and caught a shamefully small proportion of them, is the party suggesting that raping children isn't a serious crime? A Labour candidate yesterday suggested the Liberal Democrats would be giving the vote to the likes of Vanessa George, yet given the content of the manifesto, presumably his own party is going to go further and release her altogether!

We should note that the policies proposed here aren't just misandric, the manifestos is also extremely offensive and damaging to women. Labour are also lumping in adult females with children and the mentally ill. There's a clear suggestion that women aren't at all equal to men, instead they're some sort of child like and mentally deficient beings, incapable of telling right from wrong and thus immune from punishment. Ending such infantalisation of women would do far more for equality in the workplace than any so called "positive" discrimination or pay audits.

Labour talk about a commitment to "always put the victim first" in criminal cases, yet there's no mention of how they' will protect men form false allegation allegations and put a stop to the deadly consequences of such incredibly serious offences.

In the interests of balance, we should examine any positive aspects of the manifesto in terms of commitments to gender equality. However, having read the documents I saw no mention of the gender education gap, the suicide rate, deaths at work, men's health and poor life expectancy, nor even any mention of equal parenting. It's all very well Labour proposing slightly more time off for fathers, but if they can't actually get to see their kids or if requires the mother's permission then they're basically just rubbing salt into the wound for so many dads. Further still, proposing four week's paternity leave for fathers, and 52 for mothers seems strange at best. The only positive aspects of the document are the recognition of the importance of marriage and that the Family Courts are in need of review. Yet even when talking about issues such as helping parents back to work, they bizarrely continue their misandry by stating the importance of "especially" helping mothers out of poverty.

Rather tellingly, Labour's manifesto doesn't' even restrict misandry to these shores, there's also a commitment to doubling funding to the new UN Women's Agency. I'm not exactly sure what the point of that is as most of the UN tend to be only concerned with the needs of women as it is, even going as far as denying food to male earthquake vicitms. If nothing else this certainly demonstrates quite clearly Labour's contempt for men, not only at home, but abroad too.

QUOTAS AND "POSITIVE" ACTION PROGRAMMES MARGINALISE MEN

The last post on quotas received much comment and as Thomas pointed out in a post Christine Odone quotas are being called for to increase the number of female scientists. It is not just boardrooms.

The issue runs much deeper because as pointed out before the Equalities Bill will do much damage to men and much has been in place for a long time but has never really been challenged. Even in a recession when more men have lost their jobs than women (see this section for previous posts on employment).

For example, one contributor has pointed out that Lloyds TSB bank, now merged with Halifax Bank of Scotland has its very own positive action programmes for women (positive action means negative action for someone else - basic maths) and a women's network. Often it is not direct, it is discrimination by omission where management courses and special training courses are made available to all but men. They do not say so directly but men are left off the list. 

A white boy from a rough council estate has hardly more advantages in life than a girl educated at public school, but according to Lloyds Banking Group he has.

The problem with this tokenism and discrimination is again down to the fact that in the age of political correctness we are not treated as individuals, only as members of groups. Some men will need help to get on the management ladder and some women will not need the help, but that does not matter at Lloyds Banking Group, it is your gender that matters. Excluded men also find their wives/girlfriends/daughters indirectly discriminated as well - second hand discrimination.

With so many more women now joining the professions than men partly due to better exam results and partly due to 'extra help', along with the recession and anti-male society we live in, men are becoming more and more marginalised. Quotas and positive action programmes ensure this will continue. 

Posted by Skimmington

FEMALE QUOTAS ARE ON THEIR WAY INTO BRITISH BOARDROOMS

Over the past year the issue of introducing female quotas into the boardroom of UK companies has been bubbling under the surface, and now it soon will be here as the Government has submitted evidence into the Financial Reporting Council (a body that sets the overall rules as to how boards of plc's should work) asking them to find a way to increase female representation.

This follows the lead of Norway who introduced a legally binding 40% quota for their boardrooms, with Spain following  in 2009, then France (1 and 2) this year plus German firm Deutsche Telekom. Italy and Holland may also follow. 

This issue was brought to life in the UK becausepeople like Harriet Harman and the institutional oxymoron ,the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, blamed the financial crisis on men, declaring it avoidable if there were less men running banks.

Quotas are wrong because they undermine the basic principles of a liberal democracy where everyone is equal and to be judged equally. Their gender, race etc is irrelevant. Bringing in quotas would mean that some people (men) would be denied a position on the Board solely because of their gender, not what they could offer. This is discrimination. As mentioned before, it affects their wives/girlfriends and daughters and sisters and mothers, as men do not live in isolation.

The way the UK Government is undertaking this is very subtle and pernicious. It has already built in discrimination against men at all levels of employment through the Equalities Act but rather than deal with the boardroom issue with a sledgehammer like other countries, it is trying to influence those who make business rules. These rules (known as the Combined Code) are based on what is known as a "Comply or Explain" whereby companies only have to explain why they do not adhere to the rules and it is up to shareholders to then vote them down.

The issue is that if these quotas are accepted by the Financial Reporting Council, they then become the normal way that companies have to behave. They would do so to avoid the risk of shareholder censure or simply having their reputation dragged through the mud by Harman and others. Once it is the norm then it makes easier for any quota rules to be passed through Parliament.

The Government's proposals like, all their anti-male proposals, are the thin end of the wedge. They seem 'harmless' to many at the time but once the inch has been taken, it will be soon be a mile.

Posted by Skimmington

MINETTE MARRIN SPEAKS UP FOR MEN

The site has mentioned before that all the media commentary on the war on men is being written by female journalists. It is as if male journalists are too scared to talk about the subject.

Minette Marrin of the Sunday Times has been extremely impressive of late and here are a selection of her recent articles:-

What women want is an end to hectoring feminists

Unwanted men, we need to curb the welfare Amazonians

Women aren't equal to men, especially the feminists

Hymn to him, men are good for women

 

Posted by Skimmington

WILL 2010 BE THE YEAR OF EQUALITY FOR BRITISH MEN?

As a new year starts, it is worth reviewing the events of the past year and look forward to 2010 to see what hope there is for male equality in 2010.

2009 was a mixed bag. We had the awfulness of the Equalities Bill trundling through Parliament allowing men to be discriminated in the workplace and the recession taking its toll in increasing male unemployment (and the associated depression), particularly damaging for young men who cannot get on the job ladder and hampered by their lack of academic achievement at all levels compared to women. The Coalition on Men and Boys produced an awful paper that basically said that men are bad and are to blame for everything that affects them.

We had the continuing and wilful ignorance of male issues from the Labour Government and its acolytes at the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. In fact, both organisations did all they could spin the myths that women were more affected by the recession, that the Gender Pay Gap was leading to more discrimination against women and the refusal to accept that men are also affected by domestic violence.

On the other hand, there has been a greater awareness of the issues affecting men. The Men's Health Forum continue their good work (with others in the prostate cancer field), Families Need Fathers have opened up new centres with a growing recognition of the bias of the family courts and the ManKind Initiative speaking with more authority on the plight of male victims of domestic violence. The NPSCC also produced some authoritative work showing that abuse at home affected boys as well as girls highlighting that mothers were as involved in this than just fathers.

We also have seen what I would call an epidemic in the numbers of women falsely accusing men of rape, a concern for the men accused as well as those poor women who are attacked.  

But does 2010 bring any hope?

The only answer that can be offered is that it may do and this is dependent in large measure to the result of the General Election.

The odds are that it looks like a hung Parliament or a small Conservative majority. Whatever happens, as long as Labour, the most anti-male Government in the history of the United Kingdom, are turfed out then that has to be something positive. In addition, this will tend to allow a change in the mindset of the civil service and other public servants to one based on genuine equality not on Labour's and the Equalities Commission's Animal Farm meaning of Equality ("everyone is equal but some are more equal than otehrs") .

We can hope that the recession ends and that men (and women) can find themselves back in work. We can hope that family law reforms such as a presumption fo share parenting come to fruition and that the needs of men in education, health and domestic violence find themselves higher up the political agenda. The need for a Minister for Men (if there is to be the continuation of a Minister for Women) should be at the very least the first step (this site will be updating its manifesto this month).

We really do need some politicians especially female politicians (they are mothers, sisters and wives to men) taking the lead on this. With so many new politicians coming into Parliament whoever wins, let us hope so.

There is a risk of course that David Cameron as part of his touchy feely positioning continues to only concentrate on the needs of women and not on men. He has not made a good start with the threat of using All-Women short lists.

Whatever happens, groups wanting genuine equality for men will continue to fight and express their views, we hope that in 2010, politicians and public servants actually make the changes necessary. We just have to keep going and hope that the plight of British Men starts to receive the recognition needed. Now that would be EQUALITY.

EQUALITIES COMMISSION HAS NO SHAME IN LOBBYING GOVERNMENT ON 'EQUALITIES' BILL

Looking back in a few years time when people question why men have been marginalised in the workforce, then they would be best to look at the who was pushing the Equalities Bill (still wending its way through Parliament) and why they were doing it.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission, a public sector body paid wholly by us taxpayers, has been putting its full weight behind the Bill. This page shows how deep and often their lobbying has been. Rather than let the Government and others do its bidding and arguing, it unashamedly uses taxpayers money to lobby the Government when it is already part of the Government.

As set out before, this Bill is the most dangerous Act of Parliament ever passed because it simply will be used either covertly or overtly to discriminate against men. It is the intention behind the BIll.

Editors Note- The Daily Telegraph reports that Bill will only affect a few companies regarding the gender pay gap. In the long run though, once the inch has been taken the mile seems a whole lot nearer.

Hattip: Groan

EQUALITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THE GENDER EQUALITY DUTY MEANS SO HOW CAN IT SERIOUSLY POLICE ITS COMPLIANCE?

Back in February, this site covered the Equalities and Human Rights Commission's Map of Gaps exercise which looked at whether local councils were providing services for women at risk of domestic and sexual violence.

The point was made that they were not producing a Map of Gaps exericse for male victims of domestic violence, a point picked up subsequently by the ManKind Initiative who were given short shrift by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission when they asked for this to happen.

Last week, the Commission issued compliance notices against three councils for not having a Gender Equality Duty plus 14 who were likely to be in breach of the Gender Equality Duty for not providing services for female victims of violence and a further 56 for possible breaches. Still nothing on whether councils are breaching the Gender Equality Duty failing to support male victims.

What is more sinister is how the Equalities and Human Rights Commission does not even understand (or pretends not to understand) how the Gender Equality Duty works and how it is to be applied even though under the Sex Discrimination Act it is the quasi-legal authority responsible for policing it. 

The Gender Equality means that all statutory authorities (police, councils, NHS, Government etc) have to ensure they meets the needs of both men and women within their communities. Each authority has to ensure that it "properly investigates, develops plans and delivers services for both genders." It is why the ManKind Initiative I presume complained about the lack of support for male victims of domestic violence.

However, read through the press release (link in paragraph three) again. 

It only mentions that the Gender Equality Duty means councils have to provide services for female victims of violence, when they have a duty for men as well.

Saving the worst to last, under Notes to Editors it says

"...this includes publishing a Gender Equality Scheme by April 2007, gathering information and consulting on the gender equality needs of their community and developing a plan for implementing services specifically for women."

This is not true, it also applies to servcies for men as well.

It is clear that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission does not know what the Gender Equality Duty means even though it is meant to police compliance with it.

Or the most likely reason is that it full well knows what it means but is not interested in ensuring it also applies to men and is not interesting in policing it when there are breaches in the Duty when it is relating to men.

It is almost Stalinist, as if they are trying to re-write the Duty and expunge any mention that it applies to both genders. Even to the extent that the so-called Director of Legal Enforcement puts her name to a press notice that is not telling the media and the public the truth about the remit of the Duty.

It says all you need to know about how equal the Equalities and Human Rights Commission is.

 

EQUALITY BILL (ACT) - GOVERNMENT SHOWS CLEARLY IT WILL DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MEN

The Equality Bill (previous posts 1, 2 , 3 and 4) is the most dangerous anti-male Act (when it is passed) ever to pass through Parliament. It was unmasked this week by the Conservatives (Hansard - Column 1123) for its anti-male intent.

Just to recap, the Equality Bill introduces the concept that where two candidates for a position are equally qualified, the employer can choose one person over another if they feel it will improve the diversity of their workforce (The Equalities Commission pathetically try to justify it by using the one area - male primary school teachers - where men could benefit. An obvious ruse to try and hide its anti-male intent).

The problems arise with regard to the definition of equal in the Bill and also how this will be used, as it will inevitably be, to stop men from being promoted or taken on if there are  'too many ' men in the workplace already. Although it can only be used if the man and women were equal, such is the pressure to employ more women in senior positions and the like, this threshold will not be used. If a man is better than the woman (qualifications, better interviewee etc ) but there are few women in an organisation then it is likely she will be employed.

Employers will be under pressure especially if they report a gender pay gap (not a real one where men and women doing the same job get paid differently, the alleged one where there is a difference between men and women's pay but because they are doing different jobs in a company) across the organisation. The law gives a nod and wink to it and it will lead to discrimination as men are denied a position on merit. It is sexist in intent and implementation. 

The Conservatives raised crucial concerns in Parliament about the specific wording in the clause on this issue. The clause says "as qualified" but the Conservatives want "equally qualified". As John Penrose MP, the Conservative leading on this issue states, the former leads to an interpretation of "positive discrimination" and the latter "positive action". We could debate for hours on whether there is a difference in reality but positive discrimination certainly means allowing less able people to jump ahead of more able people because of their gender.

The issue with "as qualified" as John Penrose highlights is that if two people meet a minimum threshold then the discrimination can take place, but if they are equally qualified then it means they have to be as good as each other exactly.

For example, two engineers have the same minimum qualifications (they have the same bits of paper) but the man has 15 years experience and the female 5 years. Under the Labour proposal (and other things being equal such as interview performance) company x could use the Equality Act to give her the job but under the Conservative proposal they could not because the man has more experience.

It is all technical but it is crucial and Penrose did an excellent job in explaining it.

However, Attorney General Vera Baird MP (a pal of Harman's) refused to budge and the Conservative amendment was rejected.

The issue though is that the Conservative amendment was completely reasonable and in keeping with the ethos of the Bill (the Bill is anti-male but if it is going to be passed it was better that the Conservative amendment was included thereby making it clear what the law is and making it easier for a man to sue an employer for discrimination when being overlooked for a position because he is a man).

The fact that the Labour Government with Harman and Baird in full anti-male mode meant this amendment was turned down and shows their real intent. They want to discriminate against men in the workplace, it was always their intention. They want to make it harder for men to make a living. It is sexist and will deliberately damage the life and employment chances of men for decades and decades to come.

Newspaper coverage - Daily Mail (plus 189 comments in the debate) and Daily Telegraph.

CALLING ALL DISCRIMINATED MEN - RESPOND TO THE EQUALITIES COMMISSION CONSULTATION

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission, one of the many organisations that says it believes in equality so long as that does not include men, is calling for evidence in its triennial review.

Not only can you fill in a questionnaire, there is the opportunity to have a face to face conversation with the Commission.

I would urge any readers to reply, I may just send them the link to this web-site...

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