FRIENDS LIFE REPORT PROVES THE ANTI-MALE MARXISTS FEMINIST PROPAGANDA TO BE FALSE

Thank you to everyone for putting names forward for the heroes section. I will get to work on it in August.

One of the themes of the website has been the issue where anti-male and anti-equality organisations like the 30 per cent club, the Fawcett Society, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and others have been campaigning to block men from taking places in the boardroom which should be the preserve of women. A situation which goes against meritocracy where the best people irrelevant of gender should be in the boardroom.

These organisations put the lack of women in boardrooms solely down to sexual discrimination against women and barriers erected by men. They find it difficult when women like Dr Catherine Hakim put it down to women making choices when they want to become mothers and also how they (and the family unit) want to bring their children up.

Sure things can be made easier but often it is around the edges, women (and some men of course) do not want the 9-5 hard focused lifestyle and bring their children up. Some prefer to let the man take this strain while they take the strain of bringing up children, It is called teamwork and the family - something anathema to feminists the world over. They don't understand what real normal women want.

The reason for bringing the issue up is that this week the Friends Life Provident issued one of its 2020 reports on women and the workplace. One of the key areas in the thrifty thirties section which highlighted three areas which completely debunk the Marxist theories of the anti-male feminists which they use to attack men:

(1) Is gender itself a barrier? A quarter of working women think that it is. 24% of working women agree that “I feel that my gender is sometimes a hindrance to my progress at work”; 51% disagree. Surprisingly, this increases to 32% agreement among those in their 30s.

Commentary  - So one in four (presume the missing 24% said don't know) women do not believe that gender is sometimes a hindrance.

(2) The same proportion (24%) of working women agree that “I would like to see the industry I work in become less male orientated”. Agreement here varies widely by sector, from 37% of women working in the primary/ manufacturing/construction/distribution sector, 28% in financial services/legal/consulting and in civil service/local government, to 18% of women working in arts/leisure/ recreation or in healthcare and just 10% of women working in education.

Commentary - it does not mention in what way but shows again that three in four working women do not view their workplace as being male orientated.

(3) 53% of working women agree that “By the end of this decade, women will still struggle much more than men to secure senior roles in the workplace” (only 30% of men agree). Why is this? Simply, motherhood remains the biggest barrier, the biggest pillar holding up the glass ceiling:

Commentary - But the 30 per cent Club, the Fawcett Society etc say its discrimination by men (not discimination by nature).

What this research shows is that when real normal women getting on with their lives away from the politically driven anti-male world of modern-day feminism are asked, they do not agree with the Fawcett Society, the BBC, The Guardian, the 30% club and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. When real women talk about barriers they are practical issues  - they do not resort to the tactics of attacking and diminishing their husbands/partners and sons like these groups do.

Posted by Skimmington

 

Comments

[John Kimble]

The most illuminating stat there is those 10% of women in education who think it still needs to become less male oriented.

Those 10% need sacking. Holding such ridiculous views whilst working in such a female dominated and feminised sector is beyond belief.

Either 10% of women in the education sector are insane, stupid or simply man hating female supremacists. Unfortunately I expect many of the 10% are in senior roles.

[Wobs]

Society has spent generations asking what women want. Given that such information is useless, why continue asking it? Women are more unhappy now than they were in teh 1950s.

So they want an industry to be less male dominated. And? Does anyone ask if an industry should be less female dominated? No of course not, because society doesn't care what men want.

Men don't have large organisations batting for their side, they don't have powerful groups of both sexes discussing their needs/wants.

Here's an original question: What do men want?
Here's another one: What would help men develop a fulfilling life?

But where's the political benefit in asking that?

[Groan]

It is an interesting fact that when men and women are asked about these sort of issues men are often more into equity than women. Dr Hakim shows how in such surveys men are more supportive of shared responsibility for breadwinning, children, finances and career choices. Rarely remarked on by other authors it is in fact men who are more likely to support the sharing of lifes responsibilities than women. As Hakim points out in preference theory it is women's choices not men's intransigence. If you read the research the actual big mismatches occur with the majority of men wanting shared responsibility for earning and children but a minority of women. One is left with the conclusion that men are less likely to achieve what they wand than women. As Hakim points out this the reverse of the feminist theory.