The Rights Of Man

VERY FEW WOMEN BELIEVE THEY ARE BEING DENIED PROMOTIONS - NEAR PARITY WITH MEN WHICH WON'T LAST LONG

Just before Christmas, one of our regular readers ('Groan') kindly pointed out the findings of the 2009-10 Citizenship Survey which had been sneaked out in the week before Christmas. Produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government, the 123 page report was entitled "Race, Religion and Equalities."

Paragraph 5.57 states "one per cent of people who had looked for work cited gender as a reason for being discriminated against when refused a job; and two per cent of employees cited gender as a factor in being discriminated against regarding a promotion.

"Males and females were equally likely to cite gender as a reason for discrimination in relation to being refused a job (in both cases 1%), while female employees were slightly more likely than male employees to cite gender as a reason for discrimination regarding promotion (2% of females compared with 1% of males)"

The key statitistics from this show three things.

Promotion - boardroom discrimination

Firstly, the anti-male Marxists feminists who bitterly complain against discrimination against women from the gender pay gap to promotion to boards and such like are out of step with what women actually think. Only 2% of women believe they are denied a promotion (1% men) because of their gender and 1% refused for a job because of their gender. 

Organisations like the 30% Club, Fawcett Society, Lynne Featherstone MP, and all the others are wrong when they say it is a disgrace that women are being discriminated against because women themselves do not believe so.

This organisations live in a fantasy world of male hatred where white fat upper middle class men are keeping the 'sisters' in the kitchen and on the shop floor. Women disagree with the 30% Club, Featherstone and everyone else who says it is a scandal.

These groups do not speak for women, they speak for female privilige for (upper) middle class women at the expense of men.

Equality Act

We know the Conservative Government had initial reservations about sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act (2010) which allows employers to discriminate against people when it comes to training, filling jobs and promotions, however, they ended up putting it into law on 1 April 2011.

It means that while 1% of men and 2% of women claim they are being denied a promotion because of their gender, I would expect this to be reversed over the next five years and that there be a clear gap emerging and perhaps 5% of men claiming they are being denied a promotion because of their gender.

This will not only affect those men themselves but will also affect their wives/girlfriends, daughters, mothers etc, so this discriminations affects women as much as it does the individual man.

Sample Size

Following on from the above, the numbers of 1% and 2% are very small and could be classed as insignificant. Perhaps a lot of that is down to the fact there still remains broadly a gender split in the work roles that men and women undertake. Without wanting to be too broadbrush about it but it is hard for a male car mechanic to say he is being denied a promotion because he is a man when there are so few female mechanics. Likewise, a female primary school teacher may not be able to say she has been denied a promotion when there are so few male primary school teachers.

It means that while the figure on paper looks small, it's signifcance should not be under-estimated.

In conclusion, this report undermines those anti-male Marxist feminists who with every breath they take say that women are discriminated in the workplace, when women themselves say they are not. Secondly, the Equality Act 2010, will I predict, see a gap created where more men feel discrimated than women in work.

It is shame this report was buried but it is essential research nonetheless (thank you to 'Groan' for highlighting it).

Posted by Skimmington 

FEMINISTS END 'WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST' AND STILL MEN GET BLAMED

With the angst about the capsizing of the Costa Concordia two strands have been running.

Firstly the implicit male-bashing by some of the mediawho have latched onto the fact that a few men were trying to get off the sinking ship without letting women and children go first (some articles implied that men were pushing women and children out of the way but no mention made that some women were probably doing the same as well). One commentator on BBC Breakfast on Tuesday actually said you shouldn't prioritise anyone because the priority is to get everyone off quickly and picking up slows things down. Also if there was a family, it was vital the family unit stayed (including the father) together. 

Secondly, it has raised the whole debate about whether 'women and children first'  still applies. Well it used to and still in many minds it remains true but feminism especially modern day anti-male feminism, says it doesn't. And this is the ruling ideology. And remember this!

And of course, because the anti-male feminists only speak when it is on their terms, people like them are keeping their head down when the debate is raging. This is because they hypocritically want their cake and eat it/bread buttered on both sides.

They want equality but then still want privilege and special treatment for women, and undermine men whenever they can. What those who are calling for the return of 'women and children first' is that women are more important than men, so where is the equality there?

If people like Harriet Harman, Caroline Flint, Theresa May, Lynne Featherstone, every writer at the Guardian, Anna Bird, Katherine Rake etc really do want equality then they should be making comments that it is right that 'women and children first' no longer exists. But instead they stay silent because they want both equality and privilege at the same time.

This is the the clearest example of double standards of modern feminism and they are to blame for the ending of 'women and children first'.

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage of issue (good debates in comments section) - Daily Mail 1, Daily Mail 2, Daily Express, Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Independent

OFFICIAL SILENCE ON GENDER PAY GAP FOR YOUNG MEN

Really sorry everyone for a lack of recent posts - work.

Last week, the Office of National Statistics  published the latest gender pay gap figures. The median gap is now 9.1% and helped by women's wages increasing by 1.9% as opposed to 0.9% for men. The gap for part-time workers favours women (-4.3%).

A subject well covered for years on this site.

Anlaysing the figures more deeply there is clear evidence of the way the figures are manipulated half truths and myths are spread by organisations such as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the Guardian and the Fawcett Society  as well as government equalities department and a number of MP's.

Figures on Page 19 show that men between 22 and 29 earn 3.6% less than women an issue that has been a trend for some time now and is clearly due to the educational underachievement and the continuation, despite the clear evidence now, of the need for positive discrimination for women. The gap which starts the other way we all now is done to lifestyle choice where many men as part of the family unit decide to take time off work to bring up their children.

The key thing is the policy response. As well as the continuation of the positive discrimination courses and training for women when they are already doing better than men under 29, is the fact that the usual suspects mentioned before, ignore the fact that younger women earn more than younger men. It is almost as though this figure does not exist. They continue therefore to call for more special treatment for women but also do not even mention the boys figure and therefore are not prepared to do anything about it.

As we know the cause is a function of boys underachievement, so you would expect there to be a positive policy response to this but instead there is silence. This silence is discriminatory and other example of the discrimination men face in Britain.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission does not mention it and the Home Office in this quote from the Press Association still welcome it and want to challenge gender stereotypes for girls even though girls are earning more than boys!! The unions do not care about men either bearing in mind Brendan Barber's quote. The Government's Equalities Department don't care they are used to it.

The only real analysis of this comes in the Telegrpah which predicts that women's pay will overtake men's by 2020 which will be true and the Daily Mail covers this as the main issue. Jill Kirby makes the point that Dr Catherine Hakim has often made -

A family expert and author of The Price of Parenthood, Kirby said "the pay gap between the sexes had ‘nothing to do with discrimination’. It is the fact that women become less committed to the workplace at the point in their lives when they have children. They want to spend more time with their children, and regard lower pay as a trade-off for family time. The pay gap we should be worrying about is the one that shows young men in their 20s falling behind."

Another issue is the fact that considering men who work longer and in more dangerous jobs which comes with a premium (an issue the anti-male feminists never mention), then if this was taken out it would be expect the overall gap would be even smaller overall and larger at the 22-29 age level.

What can be seen is that the betrayal of an education system not suited to boys has now fed through to pay and the silence of those who supposedly believe in equality is sickeningly quiet.

Posted by Skimmington