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.
Comments