When of the clear cases of hypocrisy in the so-called Feminist movement in the last few years as been their lies about the unemployment during this recession.
First we had Harman and Co saying the recession had affecting women in the private sector more than men. This was nailed as an untruth by the Government's own Office of national Statistics (here and here).
Then when the effects of the recession and government over-spending became clear and the need for retrenchment ion the public sector had top be made, there were the squeals of horror that this effected women more than men, and therefore had to be stopped.
We have argued long and hard on the site about the hypocrisy of this and also that any cuts in a woman's job or in benefits effects men as well (here and here).
The Fawcett Society, Britain's leading McCarthyite 'every man is a potential woman-hater' anti-male organisation, challenged the UK government in the courts about the government's Budget in July this year and the fact they had not carried out an assessment on its effects on women and also that it affected women more than men. They wanted a Judicial Review of the Budget but Judge Ouseley refused on Monday. There response is here.
However, it is not all good news.
Firstly, the government admitted it had not considered a gender assessment of the Budget. It did so for the Comprehensive Spending Review in October which now means this type of assessment is now entrenched as the 'normal' way of policy-making. The government should of course repeal the rule forcing it to make such assessments as this was introduced by Harman and Co in the last government.
Secondly, the Judge says the Equalities Commission should carry out such a review, which then extends their power and influence. The government has to scrap this body but will be scared to do so because of the strength of the oxymoron - the so called 'equalities' lobby.
Thirdly, it gives more credibility to the Fawcett Society when they deserve absolutely none. Few if any real normal women support this orgainsation - only political activists do.
Lastly, it sets a precedent for this sort of activity through the courts, so all government's will be wary of upsetting the women's lobby. No one cares about the male equality so when it comes to making policy decisions they will become even more anti-male because they would be afraid of upsetting women's groups so they overcompensate. This will be unconscious and back of the mind decision-making leading to discrimination which will damage men and boys.
The Fawcett Society have made progress which is bad news for men and boys, and for all those women who like sharing their lives with men and boys.
Posted by Skimmington
Media cioverage - Catherine McKinnell in the Guardian (one of the most laughable articles ever published and please read the comments section as well) and Press Association.
An excellent analysis. You are quite correct. It was widely accepted in the industry that the case had no chance of success. In fact it was thought success may have galvanised support for repael of the act. I'm sure th Fs are satisfied with the result as they believe it will have the effect you describe. It is going to be a hard time for men and the families that rely on them. Hard too for women in basic jobs. But pretty good for middle class women in careers . Odd that they are just the group the FS is composed of. More women in the board room and management but no push for more Rosie the riverters. I'm sure the FS would be shocked if they saw women mending roads.
Posted by: Groan | Friday, 17 December 2010 at 08:56