MORE PEOPLE START TO QUESTION THE ANTI-MALE RHETORIC AND SPECIAL PLEADING

Last week David Cameron went to Sweden to learn more (and here and here) about to discriminate against men and end meritocracy in British business by ensuring there were quotas in British boardrooms – a subject raised many times on the site.

 As ever, we were in the land of fantasy where he asserted that "case is overwhelming that companies and countries run better if you have men and women working together at the top".

 This is classic Orwellian doublespeak -  tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth. There is no proof that more women in the boardroom leads to a better performing business. If that was the case, shareholders would be making sure there were plenty of women in the boardroom because it means higher dividends. They don't insist on it because they do not care what the gender is of the boardroom they only worry about having the best people there – no matter their gender.

 On a different but albeit more importnat subject, the latest unemployment figures were published. By the end of december 2011, there were 1.548m men unemployed, a rate of 9% - 89,000 more than a year ago. There are 1.123m women unemployed, a rate of 7.7% - 91,000 more than a year ago. All we ever hear is how the recession and the cuts are affecting women more than men.

The reason for raising these two issues is the fact that more and more people are starting to challenge the anti-male feminists and special pleaders who want women to have rights than men. Most are actually women.

Take Cameron's stance on boardroom quotas. Helena Morrissey a top banker said "In the UK it would be difficult for women to feel very much as an equal member of a board or as a senior manager if there was a quota.” Janice Atkinson-Small makes the point that no one is interested. The Institute of  Economic Affairs said "Proposals to force companies to increase the number of women on boards are extremely ill-advised. Imposing a mandatory quota would be yet another irritant to UK firms. Burdensome overregulation of this kind is not a driver of economic growth."

Dominic Raab MP was as sound as ever.

On the question of unemployment, the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development came out and said women had not suffered anymore than men in the recession.

Both groups of people have suddenly found their voice and started to ask the questions that only readers of this site and a hardy bunch of other people have done for the past number of years in Britain.

Every time these assertions come up - the mantra has to be "prove it". Only then will we start to get the truth about the special pleading by special interest men-hating groups for more rights of women over men and also get to the truth that it is men who face the most disadvantage in 21st century Britain.

Posted by Skimmington

Comments

[Mike Buchanan]

A quick note about the 'gender balance in the boardroom' issue, a feminist attack on the business sector, which I'm focusing on at the moment (details on my blog http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com). I'm writing a new book which again covers this topic at length - you're right to call Cameron's comments Orwellian doublespeak - and last night I posted the following content on my blog:

'John Van Reenen is a Professor in the Department of Economics, and Director of the Centre for Economic Performance, at the London School of Economics. He also serves on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Industrial Economics. It would be hard to imagine anyone more professionally qualified to comment on the causal link (if any) between increased female representation in the boardroom and enhanced corporate performance – a link which is confidently and frequently asserted by the prime minister, a number of cabinet ministers and junior ministers, the CBI and others, to justify ‘improved’ gender balance in the boardroom.
Earlier today I emailed Professor Van Reenen the press release relating to the open letter I recently sent to the Director General of the CBI, John Cridland, concerning the CBI’s position in this area (see earlier post). I asked Professor Van Reenen whether the LSE (or specifically the Centre for Economic Performance) had any evidence of a causal link between increasing the proportion of women in the boardroom, and enhanced corporate performance: and if he did, could he kindly share it with me, because I’ve been seeking such evidence for years without finding any. Professor Van Reenen this evening emailed me the following:

"I personally don’t know of any such evidence, and I am sceptical that there would be a positive causal effect".

As they say in France, ‘Je reste ma valise’.

[Explore Nature]

Anti male agenda of feminists is full of lies. It is not for feminine women, it is based on gender hypocrisy. Feminism is not accepting feminine gender specifications of women. It is not accepting real masculine men as well. A set of gender specific human activities is not generating stress in any society. This male hatred feminist movements are complicating the society and human sexuality as well.

[Dave]

HELLO, media, HELLO! I can see the light is on but is there anybody in? Is there anyone who has the guts to speak the truth and expose all this nonsense! Firstly, OK, let's have quotas then, and yes, let's include the jobs where men appear to outnumber the women, and I agree, let's tackle those jobs which are fundamental to the success of the country and can make the difference between a competitive UK or a failing one. So now we've agreed on that, we'd better make a nice long list which includes not only the nice comfy board room where you get free lunch, but also the plethora of other dirty, dangerous, unsocial, rotten jobs that men do, eh! Or doesn't that enter into the feminist remit (or David Cameron's misguided brain)! No, I didn't think so!

And when are the media going to WAKE UP and have the decency to speak the truth about unemployment figures instead of rattling off the usual boring crap about how hard women are being hit all the time! I'm mean, for crying out loud, MEDIA, WILL YOU GET A GRIP!

[Click Here]

Helena Morriseey is proud of the fact that she has nine children and so she should be, but what would be her view if one of her sons was blocked from being on a board simply because he was her son and not her daughter.

[mickey]

male suicide rate is 3.2 times higher than the female one. THIS IS A STATISTIC: U CANT ARGUE WITH IT THE QUESTION IS WHY? I SUGGEST SOME REASONS THAT MEN ARE IN DESPAIR AND DEPRESSION AND CANT COPE AND ARE COMMITTING THE ULTIMATE ACT OF DESPAIR.DEATH IS THE ULTIMATE HUMILITY AND GIVES A LIE TO THE FACT THAT MEN ARE THRIVING BULLIES WHO KEEP DOWN WOMEN.IT IS very hard for a man to deal with women in situations the women are always ready to accuse them of sexual assault. It is pathetic even ugly old bags think a man is going to rape them or something.Most of the time men would rather have sex with a dog than these rat bags.