NEWS UPDATE

Here are a selection from the last two weeks (in no particular order) and thanks to those that sent them through:

The Guardian: Neither breadwinners nor losers - what role do young men play next? (Ally Fogg) Ally's article makes a number of key cornerstone points - first about men being ignored by social policymakers and also the example on ESF funding. The only issue I take with Ally is he is reluctant to really name the guilty parties who are deliberately ignoring men and carrying out these discriminatory policies. I may well be unfair here as he does mention ESF, but who are the politicians responsible for this policy - list the guilty men and women. He has a new blog.

HR Magazine: Businesses hold dads back when it comes to family (David Woods)

The Guardian: These Tory women are narcissists, not feminists (Tanya Gold) If you read the comments sections, it shows these men-haters are bing challenged.

Equalities and Human Rights Commission: Reading Lists published - The EHRC is now making it even easier to find the texts they love - I have seen the JR Schackleton pamphlet on gender pay is on it though!

Equalities and Human Rights Commission: Staff reduction announced

London Evening Standard: London can seriously harm men's health (Sophie Goodchild and Emma Slater). The full reports from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can be found here and here.  

Various: French tennis-player Gilles Simon says men should receive more prize money than women at Wimbledon (Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Guardian)

A Men and Women's MRA request for London

Daily Telegraph: Girls outperforming boys in masuline subjects (Graeme Paton)

Men's Network - Funding for male cancer

Please let me if I have missed any?

Posted by Skimmington

Comments

[dave]

I am always dubious of those Men who seem to insist we need Women in the MRM. I think some of them are not all they seem to be or at the least a bit naive.

[AllyFogg]

Hi skimmington. Thanks for the mention and the link to my blog.

In answer to your point: The only issue I take with Ally is he is reluctant to really name the guilty parties who are deliberately ignoring men and carrying out these discriminatory policies.

I'm afraid there isn't a nice clearcut list of culprits. Most of the problems here, I think are deeply ingrained in our culture and are reflected to a greater or lesser extent by most of our institutions and most individual men and women. A society that ascribes and restricts gender roles (in any ways, positive or negative, for good or ill) is discriminating, and gender divisions run through our society like the lettering in Blackpool rock. Sorry I can't be more specific!

In other business, just posted a new post on Het Pat which might interest you.

[dave]

Ally Fogg:

"Despite the disproportionate impact on women of public sector cuts, there are still three British men unemployed for every two women,"

You forgot calculate or mention that there was a Gross over employing of women in the public sector on purpose during Labour's times of treason and agenda. My local council alone has 12.5 thousand women employed compared to less than 4000 men , during the recent cuts 100% more Men where still laid off even then!

A Guardian writer. You may as well trust a thief.

[AllyFogg]

Hi Dave

Didn't mention it on the basis that I think everyone knows that's the reason and it was incidental to the point I was making.

Would be interested in the stat about you council laying off 100% more women than men though... any chance you have a source for that?

[dave]

I said they laid off 100% more MEN then women, you ...."Guardian writer".

[John Kimble]

Hi Ally, nice to see you posting here, welcome to the blog, shame you didn't join us sooner TBH. You do some good work debunking feminist myths over at the Guardian (though I never really visit any more due to their fondness for censoring my posts). I do find you pieces a bit hit and miss sometimes, though usually far more hit than miss. (I won't go into an in depth critique, but basically any criticism people such as Quiet Riot Girl have of your writings is probably shared by myself).

One thing I've always wondered was whether you write exactly as you'd want to, or if you moderate your arguments/tone to somewhat appease your employer/audience? Can we expect a slight difference between your Guardian pieces and the content on your blog?

Anyway thanks for linking to us, seeing as we've got your attention, it would be remiss of me to fail to invite you to contribute a guest post to the blog.

[John Kimble]

Dave, lets please not attack Ally simply because he writes for the Guardian. It
certainly is a sexist newspaper overflowing with misandry, and yes the vast majority of people there are untrustworthy, but lets judge him simply on what he writes please rather than a guilt by association thing. It's interesting to debate with people who have slightly different views/approaches and we pride ourselves on our fairness on this blog. By all means tell Ally in no uncertain terms where he gets things wrong, but based on his own words/actions please, not the writings of others.

[dave]

John Kimble, people like you give "divide and conquer" it's reason for being used..

Nobody is "Attacking" anyone and I was referring to his words and actions if you bother to read, so I don't know where you get off on saying the rest?

You would have thought the fact he misquoted my post and salivated when he thought some info on WOMEN being twice more discriminated against in a council. Shows how his mind is wired. Wake the heck up, it's a Guardian writer, don't be so gullible.

I Wonder if he will be so eager to make sure the fact it was double the MEN who were got rid of in the council that employs 4 times more women than men gets into his paper?

[dave]

Ally, here are the numbers of one council.

January 2011 - Male: 3,320 Female: 12,617

October 2011 - Male: 3,071 (92% remain)
October 2011 - Female: 12,033 (95% remain)

Which still shows despite Female employment being an incredible 84% higher as of January 2011, a grotesque equality imbalance, the higher amount of cuts overall where Male nearly twice as many.

Will we see that in BOLD in the Guardian?

[AllyFogg]

You would have thought the fact he misquoted my post and salivated when he thought some info on WOMEN being twice more discriminated against in a council. Shows how his mind is wired.

Oh calm down, dave. I knew full well what you meant and just got my murds wixed up when I typed them. I would be interested if there's a council where they are laying off two men for every women. (ie 100% more)

But those figures suggest about 300 men being laid off compared to 600 women, so it is disproportionate, but it is not 100% more men than women being laid off, which is what you suggested.

@JohnKimble - thanks, and hello - good to bump into you again.

[dave]

Do the math again and work it on percentage of total employed to percentage of those laid off within gender. Then try again.

[AllyF]

Dave, it's a pretty minor statistical point, and I'm sorry to be a bit geeky and pedantic about it, but what you mean is that men were laid off at nearly twice the rate as women, not that nearly twice as many men as women were laid off (which is what "100% more" would mean, or in your later post "double the MEN who were got rid of").

Imagine a company had 102 employees, 100 women and two men, and they laid off 1 man and 10 women.

They've laid off 50% of the male staff and 10% of the female staff, but they haven't sacked five times as many men as women.

For all that, it I'd *still* be interested to know if across the public sector, male employees are being made redundant at a faster rate than women, because statistical terminology aside, it would be wrong, as you suggest.

I'm not particularly convinced by one council laying off 5% of women and 8% of men, because for all I know the council next door did the exact opposite. That would be a natural part of a distribution. But I would like to know if anyone has analysed the national picture. Might have a look and see if the stats are available somewhere.

[dave]

Yes Ally you are being pedantic and trying to refit as your agenda wants it. The song remains the same none the less.

The other fact that there is also a grotesque and unjustifiable disparity between the number of men employed to women, does not even seem to hit your radar? I can't think of many jobs in a local council that ONLY a woman can do, can you?

Then explain to me how they have 12500 women and only 3500 men employed? This quite clearly unacceptable and discriminating.

However it does explain the huge scale of incompetence , waste and off- sick days in the same council, it even made national news.

[AllyFogg]

"The other fact that there is also a grotesque and unjustifiable disparity between the number of men employed to women, does not even seem to hit your radar? I can't think of many jobs in a local council that ONLY a woman can do, can you?"

No, and it is an interesting question. My hunch is that, for various reasons, women are more likely to seek out careers with fixed hours and flexi-time, men more likely to go for careers with higher demands and larger potential incomes. Hence more women in public sector, more men in private.

Unless we know how many women v men actively pursue public sector careers, we don't know whether (or how much) discrimination has been in play.
---

"However it does explain the huge scale of incompetence , waste and off- sick days in the same council, it even made national news."

What explains this? Are you telling me that women are more likely to be incompetent, wasteful and skivers?

Keep it classy mate.

[dave]

Check the off sick figures for that council, I did. It speaks for itself.

Keep in denial mate.

[dave]

Looks like your Avatar lost face Ally....;-)

[dave]

My next question to you is this. This is not a spiteful question, or one of politics. This is one of natural absolute fact. No garnish, no spin..think about it in real terms.

Other than giving birth, please tell me what women can do that men cannot, what have women achieved in the 6000 years compared to men?

Today what do women do that any man cannot.

If women stopped tomorrow, do you think men could not cope or cover out safety and needs?

If all Men stopped what they are doing tomorrow do you realise that the World as you know it, would end in about 1 week?

Do you have the honest intellect to realise and understand that?

[cheap generic viagra]

I normally prefer reading news paper every day, but one fine day while checking my e-mails, one of my friends ping me your article. I wasn’t very keen in reading thinking that it would be a trash, but later after reading it I realized that I was wrong and your article was just out of the world. I should thank my friends now!!!

[Prosperoid]

Re the debate about public sector jobs and gender.

An anecdotal point maybe, but I remember the public sector job ads in my regional newspaper a few years ago ending with "we particularly welcome applications from women" for vacancies such as school admin, general clerical and college admin, none of which seem particularly male-dominated.

If there are more of one sex working in a particular workplace than the other and there are redundancies it seems inevitable for that numerically superior sex to suffer more redundancies. Only a Guardianista (or other left-wing fantasist) would think that unfair.

[commision junction]

You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this topic to be actually something that I think I would never understand. It seems too complex and very broad for me.

[life insurance]

I am very happy. Your writing skill is very good...

[Affiliate Marketing]

It is the best time to make some plans for the future and it is time to be happy. I've read this post and if I could I desire to suggest you few interesting things or advice.