Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Sunday, 23 October 2011


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

Patrick Brown

"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.


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

Their site is very confusing so here are the quick links;

EHRC Phase 1 response (doc)

EHRC Phase 1 response summary (doc)

EHRC Phase 2 (60 Day) Questionnaire

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.

John Kimble

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.


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.


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.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad

Reading List