Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Thursday, 24 February 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

John Kimble

Great piece, the issue of number of women in the public sector was especially interesting and it's true that no one ever mentions this.

If we should have quotas anywhere it should be for male teachers in primary schools given the way they are failing boys, though I personally would never support such sexism either way.


50% of the population are women... what about convicts, time woth kids, homeless, work related deaths.

Question, are feminists unable to look/acknowledge/care(?) about all the Men at the bottom of society because of hypergamy. Wtf is with this psychotic shit?!?


On reading the report two things I noticed. As you point out there is a lot of research exists on this but the report ignores almost all recent research. The second I'd that there is stuff about recruiting female directors from a "wider pool of talent" when you read on it means academics and public bodies. So far from helping women in general the talent pool appears to be the membership of the fawcett society. I suppose as the quangos diminish these particular women need new jobs. No wonder the director of the society was so keen when on Newsnight.

tony moore

Indeed, we could go on for a long time asking the very simple, very obvious questions that illustrate how "equality" legislation is a profoundly dishonest banner, given the real substance therein. Two more are:

Q1. Where is the clamour to see women equally well represented in low paid jobs that involve anti-social hours, unpleasant conditions and higher risks?

Q2. Who prospers most from the value created by the fruits of UK production? This question begs to know who benefits most from taxes AND earnings since over 50% of earnings are taxed and redistributed as social welfare and handouts. I hypothesise the slightly higher earnings of men - if they do indeed exist - are actually, therefore, a red herring, given the greater amount of subsidies received by women through health-care, benefits, state pensions and public services etc.

Simply, men are becoming - bit by bit - the new Jews of the west; the scapegoat for vindictive, envious others; thus the expedient target of the politically-opportunist. Just as many wars are now fought in cyberspace rather than battlefields, men face a cultural and economic suppression, rather than a physical one.

An elaborate and pernicious language has been developed to excuse people of their discrimination, such that false accusations and propoganda against men are acceptable discourse. It calls "fascism" "tolerace", it calls "discrimination" "equality" and it calls "meritocracy" "elitism". I'm afraid the reasoned, fact-based arguments you make on this site only evince your "ignorance"!

While sounding extreme, it really is the only model that fits the data. The key unanswered question is "Counter-strategies?" Come on guys, lets talk about this!

May I also suggest an interesting number: "100 million years". (It is the about the current difference in life-years, between men and women, caused by anti-male hatred in the UK today.)


Well I ,being critical of the conspiracy theories of the gender feminists, wouldn't want to subscibe to other such theories. I think you only have to look to envy and self interest to see the motivations of the self interested policies. In answer to you second question a report from the EU some years ago calculated that women's personal wealth is indeed greater than men's. There are the obvious transfers made through the tax and benefit system. Thera is also the legal assumption that the wife is co owner of matrimonial assets. Women also are bigger beneficiaries of inherited wealth, older husbands and men's shorter lifespan. Sadly I can't find the reference just now but if memory serves me right 55 percent of all personal wealth is held by women in the EU, with surprisingly little variation . More recently in recent examination of the female millionaires in britains top 200 the commonist sources of their wealth were first widowhood and second divorce. Very few were high earners or business owners or entrepreneurs the next wealthiest being entertainers.

tony moore

Thanks. V. interesting stats.

Q1) As for the "conspiracy theory", I understand what you mean. The broader explanation of this, which makes most sense to me at least, was that offered by Warren Farrell: We need a 'gender transition' movement.

However, there is a question on the transition from now to even the first step, of seeing men’s issues acknowledged. It would be ideal, of course, if we could recognise the inherited and un-necessary obligations placed on both sexes, from a prior industrial society, and act to rectify them, so people's lives were not dictated by birthrights.

This is where the desire for a reasoned discussion clashes somewhat with what might need to happen. That is, if history is anything to go by. Surely if we could appeal to such reason, that perspective would have emerged by now? Politicians hardly need more multivariate analysis about male health; or 'awareness raising' about fathers. I wonder, therefore, if the extent of entrenched political self-interest, invested in scapegoating or ignoring men, means we need to see vocal pioneers make noise, court attention and controversy and mobilise and aggregate opposition, before the reasonable position is found?

Such dynamics, characterising the diffusion of new ideas and ideologies, have shaped everything from feminism to the green movement and the anti-smoking consensus. I see no reason to suspect that the diffusion of the "rights of man" will be any different. (?)

Q2) I also wonder: Presumably, at some point, members of this site have written to MPs and the like, to ask why any of the other perspectives one could have on discrimination, aside "income", are omitted? (e.g. the perspective of equal wealth, equal access to healthcare, equal lifespan, equal access to children?).

I wondered what the response tends to be?

Q3. BTW, any way to register interest in membership here, given the email in the site doesn't work?


What email doesn't work Tony? There is no membership to the site.


The email under the search box, top left of the screen....

(I thought that there would be be some sort of membership - my mistake...)


Warren Farrell has great insight in his work. My great hope is in younger generations who expect equity and show resistance to current orthodoxy, often because it is counter to reality. Two key strategies of the marxists and its heresy gender feminism are "no platform" in which opposing views and controlling the language in use. So for instance in DV views that men may be victims is blotted out of text books, training , conferences (no platform) and the language used directs attention (wife beater, violence against women, gender violence, violence against women and girls(clever move linking tochildren). Both strategies have been used effectively to make opposing views appear maverick and even harmful. To counter this it is important influence language, such as "mancession" as a media shorthand for the fact recessions hit male employment and give what platform one can to an alternative view. This site is a small contribution to both. Just as fathers in the family courts, men's health, divorce, education and pensions are causing unrest I think positive discrimination in the workplace will add to unrest that needs platforms and language to develop a voice. As Warren and others observed one big block is the older(my) generation's chivalry so evident in out courts. Younger men and women expect more from women and rightly are irritated by privileges extended to some women,.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


Blog powered by Typepad

Reading List