COALITION GOVERNMENT - WHAT IT MEANS FOR MALE EQUALITY AND THE ENDING OF MALE DISCRIMINATION

Just before polling day on 6th May, this site concluded that the Liberal Democrats had the most man-friendly policies and now they are in a coalition with the Conservatives, their influence can be seen as there is much that is man-friendly in the Coalition Government's plans which were agreed after their negotiations.

In fact, and it seemed to have been hidden away as it received no publicity, the Liberal Democrats had actually produced a short manifesto for men during the election campaign. Nick Clegg said "Men are often a forgotten group in political debates."

While there are many good things in the Coalition Governments plans, there are also some areas of great concern especially on pensions and the fact that there remains a Minister for Women but not one for men.

The good things

(1) Anonymity for rape defendants (unless proven guilty).

John has covered the opposition to this in his last post and it has also been well covered in the media as anti-male organisations such as the Fawcett Society stir up their hatred of men.

This issue is totemic because it is clear that the Coalition Government are aware of the inequality in British Law where the defendant is named and the victim (rightly) is not. The law may not have been changed though if it was not for the epidemic of false accusations (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 , 6   and 7 plus more here). It is those women who are to blame for this and it is those women who should be attacked by The Fawcett Society, the Women Against Rape Group and those who signed the Early Day Motion.

The Coalition Government must hold its nerve against the onslaught from the anti-male marxist feminists who don't believe in equality, justice and do not care about those innocent men who have had their names and reputations dragged through the mud.

This though is ground-breaking.

(2) Anonymity to teachers accused by pupils and take other measures to protect against false accusations.

This is another area similar to the rape issue and again, because the false allegations are normally against men, this is hugely significant and to be supported. It is also backed crucially by a whole swathe of organisations including the teaching unions.

There is a case though for it to be extended to those in the medical professions as doctors (and indeed dentists as shown in this case) are also at great risk of false allegations.

(3) A comprehensive review of family law in order to increase the use of mediation when couples do break up, and to look at how best to provide greater access rights to non-resident parents and grandparents and encourage shared parenting from the earliest stages of pregnancy – including the promotion of a system of flexible parental leave.

This is hugely significant because probably the biggest and long-standing injustice against men to have been used in the past two decades or so has been the deliberate denial of access to their children by  (some) mothers and the legal establishment (many family court judges) and of course Cafcass who have all acted in cahoots. It's why we ended up with Fathers4Justice and Families Need Fathers who have supported estranged fathers up and down the UK.

The review is greatly needed and should not only enshrine the concept of shared parenting when and if custody disputes come to court but also that there is actual enforcement of contact orders. Families Need Fathers are very supportive.

The not-so-good things

(1) Minster for Women but no Minister for Men

When Blair became Prime Minister in 1997 he introduced the extremely invidious position of a Minister for Women without having a reciprocal Minister for Men. It meant that for every single day that that Government was in place it discriminated against men.

Sadly, the Coalition Government has gone down the same path and as well as being Home Secretary, Theresa May is also the Minister for Women. There is no Minister for Men.

(2) Discrimination over Pension Age

Currently legislation shows that the state pension ages for men and women will be equalised in 2020 at 65 and then gradually increase together over time including both rising to 66 in 2026 (Covered by John here).

The Conservatives when in Opposition proposed that the state pension age should be moved forward to 66 for men with no change for women except for that planned (move from 60 to 65 for women in 2020 and then to 66 in 2026). The Conservatives were questioned on this at the time and it was clear that they had forgotten to think about women (it was Ok for men to see if their retirement age of 66 brought before by ten years - men are expendable of course).

The details in the proposed Pension and Savings Bill are still sketchy (until it is published) but the Government has said that the first move, to 66, "will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women", which obviously shows some backtracking.

After the battle led by organisation like Parity for the equalisation of pension ages and other benefits, if the state pension ages are not equalised by 2020 then this will be certainly be discriminatory. How the detail will be worked out before then will also be significant. We will be watching.

(3) Gender equality in the boardroom

The Coalition Government has said they will promote more gender equality in the boardroom. Much will depends on how this is done.

The anti-male feminist wants quotas and to use discrimination to stop men from getting into the boardroom by ensuring that places are set aside for women, irrelevant if they are the best candidate for the job.

If a Labour Government had become re-elected then this would have eventually been legislated for as it is in Norway and elsewhere (link). How the Coalition Government go about this will be crucial but even by promoting it, it will put companies under 'social' pressure to do so.

There has been some talk also that the Coalition Government will not implement the parts of the Equality Act that it disagreed with. These were on the gender pay audits for all firms with over 250 employees and also the (laughably named) ' positive action' clauses that allowed employers to discriminate against employees or potential employees (mainly men) when it came to recruitment. Let us hope they do not implement these parts.

(4) The Missing Pieces

There were a number of issues that were missing but if they can brave it out against the anti-male feminist on the false accusations issue, then perhaps they will introduce them later.

This includes issues around support men's health (especially ensuring GP surgeries have man friendly opening hours) and boys education for example.

Conclusion

While there will be dismay that there is not more for bringing about male equality and ending male discrimination in the UK, the moves on false accusations and shared parenting are real landmarks. Certainly if a Labour Government had been re-elected men would have been done for and certainly none of these proposals would have been put forward.

This site will be monitoring and commenting on the Coalition Government as it trundles along but so far it is good start, but it could and can do better. 

Posted by Skimmington

Comments

[John Kimble]

I thought you were exaggerating when you suggested the Lib Dems produced a men's manifesto. The document really made quite excellent reading, though I thought the link to lower taxes were extremely tenuous. Men work full time more than women thus are far less likely to benefit from the Lib Dem proposal. I do agree with it, but it's far more of policy for women I believe.

I felt this was a much needed article against including importnat content noen of us were aware of, but does it take account of any negotiation that have gone on? Have any of the policies (good or bad) been dropped in order to establish the coalition?

[John Kimble]

The other obvious missing piece is the issue of domestic violence, not to mention the issue of democracy and also genital mutilation.

[Skimmington]

Fair point on missing issues but the points listed on the post are the ones actually in the Coalition Government's formal plans (ie they have gone through the negotiation process).

[amfortas]

It will be interesting (and likely) to see which pro-men ideas are thrown out to reach a consensus. In 'negotiation' politicians 'reluctantly' let go of the least important to them, but let them go they do.

[Buy Kamagra Online]

These are the point in Coalition Government's formal plans

[Groan]

Thanks for the work done here. I have been surprised by the lib dems. I think the equality act and it's enactment should be closely scrutinised. The positive action clauses especially. I totally surprise myself in having some hope of the coelition. Whatever the weakness of content it is very good a party even noticed men.

[christina sarginson]

You are right there is a lack of women in the cabinet and there should be more. I too was disappointed to see a minister for women this is not really diversity. I am a woman and dont feel the need to have a woman minister, this goes against what i think equality is about. I hold my breath to see what happens and hope equality is not just paid lip service too.

[Pete_]

Reading through the comments here uncovers a worrying trend, just as the womens equality movement has gone beyond fairness and we now see policies to hamstring men in order to give women an advantage, we're now seeing men calling for "pro men" policies.

We're in danger of having a see-saw battle of the sexes, why can't we just have equality for all, why to we have to be fighting to gain ground all the time. Of course many of us grew up in an era when women were chattel, so we remember the womens battle for equality, which some are still fighting, despite the fact that they have gained unfair advantage over men in many cases.

I don't expect to see the battle of the sexes end in my lifetime, not while personal vendettas are driving the whole families court process during relationship breakdowns, and false accusers are let off scot free whilst the falsely accused is left trying to rebuild their lives unaided.

[T]

One man who's already been given the 'push' by the new coaltion government is the Number 10 Chauffer. Despite the fact that he's of 20 years standing and has been the recipient of an MBE for his services, new PM's wife Samantha Cameron has had him moved to other duties for the simple reason that she says she feels uncomfortable having a man drive her children to school. Why?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1282581/Sam-Cams-chauffeur-reshuffle-She-drops-veteran-20-years--wants-woman-driver.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Can't believe there hasn't been more outcry over this, but I guess this just goes to show how much this has now become the accepted norm.