FAWCETT SOCIETY AND OTHERS LAUNCH ANOTHER ANTI-MALE CAMPAIGN - WHEN WILL MEDIA LOOK AT THE FACTS

The ridiculous but dangerously credible (in the eyes of the elite) Fawcett Society have launched another plea for special treatment and anti-male measures.

The acting CEO, Anna Bird, who is obviously desperate to get the job states:

“Women have not faced a greater threat to their financial security and rights in living memory. Decades of steady, albeit slow, progress on equality for women is being dismantled, as cuts to women’s jobs and the benefits and services they rely on turn back time on women’s equality."

As seen recently, along with the fact she believes 'family issues' don't include men, the facts just don't stack up yet the Media and other lavish attention on this organisation. Why does no one apart from this site, nail the lies, myths and half truths of the Fawcett Society? You would at least expect the Daily Mail or Daily Telegraph to look at it.

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage - Daily Mail, The Guardian, The Guardian 2

Comments

[mananon]

"Cuts to women's jobs"

And there you have it. The last 13-odd years' worth of public sector employment policy has been about 'jobs for the girls'. Even though male unemployment is higher than female, and even though women have been favoured by the public sector recruitment policy of the previous government all the Fawcett Society can talk about is the impact of job cuts on women.

Who remembers reading job ads with the phrase 'we welcome applications from women' in the public sector job ads in newspapers, even though the public sector employs more women anyway? Why, in the interest of equality, is their no focus on protecting male workers' jobs, since there are fewer men employed in the public sector? Why did Diane Abbott, the Labour MP say she wanted to see men lose their jobs before anybody else when the axe fell on the public sector, even though the majority employed are already female?

Equality is not the aim of feminism, women's liberation is, and men will continue to suffer discrimination until feminism is challenged by politicians.

[John Wallace]

'Women's jobs'

If a man described a profession as 'women's work' he'd be shot down in flames!

Remember - its the job that is made redundant and not the person. If 1000's of women chose professions that are now at risk then its nothing personal.

I remember the miner's strike in the 80's. I remember it was never once described as an attack on men's jobs, simply an attack on the mining industry.

Manufacturing has been allowed to die in this country and even though its populated mainly by men, its never described as an attack on 'men's jobs'

And what happened to all those male miners who lost their jobs? Many went (forced) into non traditional male jobs, e.g. working in Call Centres. Why doesn't Anna Bird encourage these women to seek employment in non traditional female roles such as roofers, builders, scaffolders. Afterall, we are constantly being told men and women are 'equal' and can perform equal tasks equally.

Anna Bird will fight for Board rooms to include 30% women but I doubt she would fight for oil rigs to include 30% females. Or deep sea trawler fleets to include 30% females. It appears that if a job is dirty or dangerous then the Fawcett Society don't seem to fight as hard to get women included.

There have been many tragic mining accidents recently and in every case there has not been a female miner involved. But no female groups have used this to highlight the lack of females in that industry. They seem quite content to allow men to crawl in the bowels of the earth for the precious metals and stones they love to adorn.

Anna - job loses are not an attack on a gender, its an attack on a job. Women's jobs are not being attacked as there are no women's jobs or men's jobs for that matter.

[Groan]

More of the Same:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/16/jobs-are-a-feminist-issue

As you say John, no advice to be less dependent on the state.

[Groan]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/nov/29/workers-equal-pay-claims-court

This story struck me in the long running campaign for "equal pay". Often posited as equal pay for equal work the comparisons are often a bit dubious. The quote from the piece shows a couple of the obvious issues that are nothing to do with discrimination(fitting in with other commitments and physical ease) and the strange view prevalent that pay is in someway a "benefit" to be claimed rather than a commercial exchange for work. It seems obvious that a popular term time short hours juob will be lower paid than an unpopular long houred job, by simple supply and demand.

"The lunchtime supervisor role was the only job that fitted round my needs. The pay was low and much lower than men on the same pay grade. Not being able to claim the pay I was entitled to is simply not right and this judgment helps me and others like me who may now be able to recover what they should have been paid over many years."