Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Friday, 22 June 2012


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


This is a point well worth repeating again and again.

Also worth directing people who continue to broadcast this myth to the following paper: since they obviously seem to have forgotten the fact that the gender pay gap has been debunked on numerous occasions. The BBC is one of the key guilty parties here, and I've lost count of the number of times I have linked to the above on the BBC boards alone.

It also in my opinion ties into the lower life expectancy for males. There have been some studies supposedly showing that there is a genetic reason for this, but I wonder what the statistics would look like if they took account of those who died in job-related activities, or from heart conditions brought upon by the high-stress jobs that men tend to work in? To illustrate this, women's life expectancy used to be lower than that of men, simply due to the relatively large number of women who used to die while giving birth. This was then largely eliminated due to medical advancements. The life expectancy of women then overtook men's (as one would expect when one half of the demographic works most of the dangerous, stressful, and time consuming jobs) and they have been ahead ever since.


Another point that is never mentioned is disposable income, namely WHO disposes of it.

I have seen a good few studies which show that it is women who 'dispose' of the income that men earn. That is never mentioned in the 'pay gap' stories. If I toil for £XYZ a week and my wife spends it then who exactly is oppressed. Officially of course I am loaded and she has nothing, so my suffering goes not only ignored but is thrown back at me as an injustice!

Feminists will argue, why should the man be in control of the money and use it as a weapon against the woman. Well, there are laws which force the man to give the woman the money he earns, not to mention the old divorce trouncing he'll get if SHE decides to remove him from of his home!

Thay also ignore the other side of the "work-life ballance" for that read "work-home ballance". Men have no ballance when it come to the home. Only work for them. Why should the woman control the home and stay there during the day? Its just as valid an argument as "Why do men control the money"...there is one difference however, women do not let men spend their time in the home, unlike men who do let women spend their money in the shops. Also there are no laws to say that he can stay at home as his enshrined right to be exercised as he chooses. Though there may be one (paultry) law recently announced to partially redress this.

Feminist infiltrated authorities have sought to skew even further this already imballanced system by introduceing 'Tax Credits' and Child Benefits etc. There are paid to women almost exclusively, on the back of the premise that mothers are more important to kids than fathers therefore should receive money as they will almost always get custody, not to mention the home.

Don't get me wrong, I know many women who get money from the gov't for looking after kids, but no men strangely. The men have been replaced by a gov't handout, but never the women. The men are never the ones who get to stay at home with the kids.

We ever hear of gov't care to replace women. Could there be either a nanny system to replace mothers if fathers decide they are unfit for motherhood? The idea would be unthinkable, yet men are replaced routinely. Who would want their child brought up by an nanny instead of the mother? Not many men would agree to that. But conversly there are many women who believe it is an act of emancipation to have the father removed and their kids provided for by a government payment scheme. They have no problem with HIM being replaced.

Most people don't even see this double standard such is our indoctrination by the media. Once you break through the programming though and see the reality you can really begin to appreciate the extent to which they have duped us, but also recently the extent to which men are waking up.


Well okay...I ain't gonna disagree with that....for once you actually wrote more than a line based on someone elses work...well done.

Now try moving the Bar a bit higher....


Who is this really offensive too?

The MEN who landed on the moon
The MEN who invented every mode of transport ever?
Men cracked the DNA code

Well lets face it Men did pretty much everything that gives us all we have...

But somewhere is a woman with a sense of self entitlement who is unhappy...


Yes Jon. The Equal Opportunities Commission paid for a whole slew of research reports which concluded that equal pay would be achieved if women had only very brief time out of the workforce and sought jobs outside "family friendly" industries (ie. public service,care and services).For instance crane drivers.

On health it is becoming clearer. There are congenital illnesses and disorders that affect males more. However all things being equal these are rare enough for there only to be a marginal effect on general life expectancy. For instance social class A Frenchmen can expect the same lifespan as their female peers as both enjoy all the advantages their sovciety has to offer. While male Glaswegians in "routine" occupations can expect the shortest lives in northern europe(and very much shorter than their female peers). As you say the occupations of the "glass cellar" have dramatic effects on health both from risk and danger and from stress related illnesses. Its actually a common public and press misconception that stress is particularly bad among executives. In fact purely from a health point of view the most at risk are men in repetative and machine controlled occupations.
In addition suicide and mental ditress rises as the income levels fall with unemployment being a huge risk factor(much greater risk for men than women).
If men were not at such health risk then yes there would not be anything like the current gap in life expectancy. In other words if men attended to their health and avoided these risks then they could expect to live as long as women. But of course then who would do all the work? The feminist answer should be women!, sharing the dirty,boring,dangerous,difficult and demanding roles that create and support our "post industrial" wealth. Sharing the responsibility too. Instead there is a clamour for quotas for a few hundred women to get plum jobs at the "top". And a perverse push to increase time out of work when this is shown to be the factor that adversley affect careers and wages. Meanwhile men are actually dying for a living.

John Kimble

I'm not so sure it's the crane operators who are in the most danger, it's usually those working alongside such machinery who end up dead or severely injured, but of course they are men too so the argument is sound. (I think the premium paid to a crane operator is primarily based on the huge amounts of skill needed).

The most dangerous job in the world by far is a mobile telephony mast engineer. Absolutely incredible fatality rates in that field.


Tragic news, another baby boy has bled to death in England - the Rabbi advised the parents to put Vaseline (petroleum jelly) on the bleeding wound and the baby lost three quarters of his blood and died of a cardiac arrest. Please share this, sign the petition, spread the word...

For you pretenders. looking to make money out of it all.....


Hi Groan,

"There are congenital illnesses and disorders that affect males more." wouldn't surprise me, however isn't this similar to women who used to die during childbirth? eg if attention was paid to these illnesses/situations instead of people seemingly acting like they do not matter or count, perhaps progress could be made?

Instead the attitude seems to be... "well that's just the way it is, so what can we do?". I am sure that the massive focus on breast cancer research and screening, for example, has raised the average life expectancy of women as compared to men.

Do you, or anybody here, happen to know if the "gender life gap" is increasing, or decreasing?


Hi Jon,

It's decreasing according to this:

John Kimble

"I am sure that the massive focus on breast cancer research and screening, for example, has raised the average life expectancy of women as compared to men."

Spot on, especailly if you factor in the corresponding total neglect of prostate cancer that occurred simultaneously. One of the main attitudes with regards to "treating" prostate cancer until relatively was basically just hope something else killed off the patient first!


Also John, as men have breast tissue too it does get affected and around 80 men die of breast cancer every year. It'd be interesting if one of these men applied to Race for Life to see what they said. Of course Race for Life now purport to be for all cancer sufferers, yet neither I nor you nor any man on this forum can take part!

Mike Buchanan

Swayne O'Pie in his new book - free download of seven chapters in the most recent post on this blog - has a lot of interesting information about the genders and the world of work, for example the number of hours worked by the average 'full-time' employed man is much higher than the hours worked by the average 'full- time' employed woman. Men also have on average markedly longer commutes to work.

The book's debunking of statistics and assertions around men and women at work is extensive. In one section he looks at statistics comparing the hours 'worked' by employed men and housewives. Among the areas defined as work for the housewives were 'chatting with friends' and 'emotional housework'.

A comment on the issue of Skimmington's anonymity, brought up by an earlier commentator. I know nothing about Skimmington's identity, but I assume he has perfectly good reasons to remain anonymous. People have been financially ruined after becoming publicly known as anti-feminists (Neil Lyndon comes to mind).

Among the supporters of the Anti-Feminism League and the Campaign for Merit in Business are people who tell me their careers could swiftly end if their identities were made public. I can only campaign openly because I've retired from corporate life and survive on my corporate pensions.

I think Skimmington has been doing a considerable public service for years with this blog, and if he wishes to remain anonymous, so be it. I take my hat off to him.

Finally, a 'thought for the day'. Some wise words from Mahatma Gandhi, which I feel applies to our struggle against militant feminists:

'First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win'

We're clearly still at the stage where militant feminists are ignorant. I look forward to the next stage, when they become ridiculous. Although Harriet Harman reached that stage many years ago.

Mike Buchanan






Though the gap is closing (slowly) in the UK and much of the EU. There was a dramatic increase in eastern europe and specially the former soviet union following its collapse. The dynamic appeared to be tha the acute social distress in the decades following the collapse contributed to a dramatic fall in life expectancy for men (though very much less so for women in fact in some countries women's life expectacy simply stood still unluke the falls for men.)In Russia for instace the position for men remains worse than ove two decades ago.
All this suggests that men are much more at risk of death (to put it bluntly) in societies in crisis. The disposability of males was very evident in the health statistics from the former USSR equally interesting is the comparatively small effect on females.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad

Reading List