Somehow the Fawcett Society find it useful to keep this blog on its email list and as ever it is very useful as they have told us they are running a day of action called "Don't turn back time".
This of course is not a day of action against obvious grievances (like the St Paul's crowd for example), it is a day of action to protect and enhance women's rights over men. A day of action for more special treatment.
It is worth looking at the lies and myths they are using for the basis of their day of action (comments in italics).
On average, women earn less, own less, and are more likely to work and retire in poverty than men.
It has never been proven that women get paid less than men for doing the same job and according to gender pay gap younger women earn more than younger men. Men may own more, but as most of the male owners are married and will have daughters then those women own as much of it as the male owner does. More retire in poverty than men - where's the proof and what's the definition of poverty?
The government’s approach to cutting the deficit will widen the gap between women and men:
- Female unemployment is rising as jobs are cut in public service
The latest unemployment figures (Table A3) show that 1.486m men and 1.047 women are unemployed (June to August 2011). A year ago, the respective figures were 1.424m and 992,000. It means the number of men unemployed has increased in a year by 62,000 and 55,000 for women.
More men have lost their job in a year than women and far more are still unemployed. Nailing the Fawcett Society lie.
In addition, the rate of job losses at the beginning of the recession for men when the private sector was hammered was far higher than for women. Something Harman was caught out on.
The benefits and services women rely on more are being slashed
There is no difference between the benefits men and women receive except that child benefit normally goes to the mother. As this is a benefit for the benefit of children, it benefits the family unit - that is, it for the father and the children as much as a women. Even if there is no father around - it still benefits his children! An examination is here.
- Women on low incomes are becoming poorer
- The pay gap looks set to widen
- Women’s access to vital support services is being undermined
- Increasing numbers of women are being forced to give up work as cuts to childcare support means their jobs no longer cover the family's care costs.
These have been lumped together because they are all hypothetical because the Fawcett Society offer no proof and they are based on what could happen. There is no proof on low incomes, the pay gaps issue is just an opinion and a red herring as are the other issues. WHERE IS THE PROOF?
If you compare the depth of the issues affecting men and the maturity of the Men's Network in dealing with them at the conference on 1st November, the cries of justification of the Fawcett Society are desperate and unfounded. They are not based on any facts, they are based on the cry for more special treatment.
One issue worth looking at in the next few weeks is to see how much media coverage there is of the first national conference for men and boys and the Fawcett society's march. If there is no coverage of the Men's Network conference but lots of the march then we all know how biased the media will be against issues affecting men and boys.
Posted by Skimmington
"On average, women earn less, own less, and are more likely to work and retire in poverty than men."
But they have better working conditions (more flexibility and paid leave, less danger, more protection against discrimination and harassment), control and spend more money, get to retire and claim their pensions earlier, and live longer. Swings and roundabouts.
The unemployment thing completely gives the game away. Naked damsel-in-distress-ing. Equality doesn't matter, only looking after women.
Posted by: Patrick Brown | Sunday, 23 October 2011 at 12:42
An excellent review and reply to their misandry. I admire your ability to wade through their sexist diarreoa without becoming too nauseous.
On a similar vein, the EHRC have published their
reponse to their recent public consultation and anounced a further sixty day consultation. I think they are gunning for a few findings to be changed!
For example that they were bias against men or as they put it;
"...within the gender protected characteristic, women were prioritised over men" - this was in their "could do better" section by the way. For some reason though they missed this key point out in their summary.
Also missing from the summary was the recommendation that they consult men's groups as well as women's. Though they do say they will "target the websites of organisations and blogs that vulnerable groups use. We will also ensure that we involve these groups, or their representatives, in our focus groups, as appropriate" ...I wonder how many men's rights groups and websites they will find 'appropriate'?
The following pages are on the EHRC site page http://tinyurl.com/6fdtte5
Their site is very confusing so here are the quick links;
EHRC Phase 1 response (doc)
http://tinyurl.com/6a2yzuc
EHRC Phase 1 response summary (doc)
http://tinyurl.com/6yaolvz
EHRC Phase 2 (60 Day) Questionnaire
http://tinyurl.com/6jzrsdw
Anyone can take part in the 60 day consultation and they will base their goverment consultation on these questionnaires and their own consultation phases;
"Today we launch a 60 day consultation to help us develop our next three-year strategic plan, which will be laid before UK Parliament in April 2012."
This will be the basis for their policy until 2015 so now is the time to let them know how we feel.
Posted by: Bob | Sunday, 23 October 2011 at 13:47
To pretend that child benefit somehow belongs to the woman and is part of her income is incredibly dishonest. It's to be spent on the children, they're almost condoning stealing from kids by the way they approach the issue.
Anyway there's a simple solution to the problem in relation to child benefit - simply split it between the parents, particularly in cases of separation and joint custody.
Posted by: John Kimble | Sunday, 23 October 2011 at 21:14
Yes bob you are right to smell a rat. Can I urge all readers to write to the EHRC, even if you have done so already.
Posted by: Groan | Sunday, 23 October 2011 at 22:21
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/nov/04/women-equality-clock-back-fawcett
More from the Fawcett Society. They seem oblivious to the implications of their pleading. The first is they say there are "women's jobs" surely bizarre for an equality group. Next they seem to assume women can't get employment in the private sector so they have to be employed in the public sector. And overall what they are saying is opportunities for women relies on massive public expenditure. Surely opportunities rely on the gumption of individuals and in recent years it seems young women can outstrip men (as per recent pay gap data). Its so obviously not about equality it escapes me how they get away with this.
Posted by: Groan | Friday, 04 November 2011 at 08:32