PARISH NOTICE: SELECT COMMITTEE APPEARANCE ON WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE

The quite brilliant Mike Buchanan, along with the excellent Catherine Hakim and Steve Moxon have been invited to give oral evidence at The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee inquiry into Women in the Workplace inquiry into ‘Women in the Workplace’.

Mike reports that the three of them will be speaking at 11.00am on 20 November in the House of Commons. It is free to attend and open to the public so any support would surely be most welcome.

As well as the issue covered extensively on this site and on Mike's Campaign for Merit in Business, there are two additional significant issues at play.

Firstly, it shows that responsible and mature campaigning for male equality and against male discrimination is starting to work. 'Responsible and mature' are the key words. With organisations and campaigners like Mike and Swayne O'Pie (who also put in a submission) with academics like Catherine Hakim and Steve Moxon willing to put their head above the parapet but also campaign and lobby with the right positive tone and approach, these issues are no longer totally being ignored and going unchallenged.

Having such a platform at a Select Committee must be one of the few occasions that male equality issues will have been aired so explicitly in Parliament.

The second issue is bias of the Select Committee inquiry itself and their assumptions. For example, here is a few of the issues it wants to look at (my comments underneath)

 What has been the impact of the current economic crisis on female employment and wage levels? 

What about the impact on male unemployment and wage levels? The latest unemployment figures show that 1.44 million men and 1.08 women are unemployed.

How should the gender stereotyping prevalent in particular occupations, for example in engineering, banking, construction, and the beauty industry, be tackled

What about the stereotyping in the public sector, education, health, care, secretarial and other sectors?

Good luck to Mike, Catherine and Steve and it really is a great breakthrough.

Posted by Skimmington

 

Comments

[stuart]

Firstly, it shows that responsible and mature campaigning for male equality and against male discrimination is starting to work "

I disagree. I also notice in the last few years more MRM sites are being "more inclusive of women" and as far as I can see they are allowing themselves to be manipulated.

We are as far from equality for men as ever if you scratch the surface. In fact things are getting worse if you bother to look behind the family courts, jobs and health.

Plenty of scumbags trying to make coin or position for themselves from it, all while giving the illusion of "fighting" I notice.

[Mike Buchanan]

Stuart, good morning. Am I correct in inferring you consider I'm one of the 'scumbags trying to make coin or position themselves'? If so, a few thoughts:

1. I took early retirement from business in 2010 so as to write and publish full-time. In early 2012 I started actively campaigning for the first time. I survive on pensions from early-surrendered corporate pensions, which has resulted in an enormous drop in earnings and therefore living standards.

2. 'Position themselves' for what precisely?

3. I agree that things are getting worse for men, but that will only change as and when MRAs engage effectively on an issue-by-issue basis with government and the policy-making and law-making processes. And that takes a lot of focus, time, and hard work.

4. For us, part of the 'hard work' has consisted in developing a substantial evidence base to support our key argument that 'improving' gender diversity on boards leads to a decline in corporate eprformance. A good deal of the credit for that evidence base, and the associated analysis of many academic reports, is attributable to our Research Director, Michael Klein of http://sciencefiles.org. He has debunked many studies allegedly whoeing a causal link between 'improved' gender diversity on boards and enhanced corporate performance. Not a single such study is left 'standing'.

5. I confidently anticipate I'll keep losing money with my campaigning efforts. I cannot see how it could possibly be otherwise.

6. C4MB, which is run by unpaid volunteers, is the only organisation in the world (to the best of my knowledge) fighting the drive for 'improved' gender diversity in boardrooms, although the overwhelming evidence is that this 'improvement' harms corporate performance and will in time impact on the government's corporation tax receipts, private sector employment levels, income tax receipts... as well as denying many men the senior jobs they deserve, when less talented women are given the jobs that should go to those men.

Have a nice day.

Mike Buchanan
CAMPAIGN FOR MERIT IN BUSINESS
http://c4mb.wordpress.com

[Groan]

As the Gender Feminist commonly use a tactic of drawing men into fight mode and then using this to discount their view as misogyny it is simply good tactics to be calm and measured. Of course one of their weaknesses is that they aren't representative of women and it is clearly so when women join men in challenging their dogma. I think we have to live with our deep impulse to be "white knights" and not fall into the traps left for us. Finally I would want to say that there are
Many women who both campaign and help men and I think they should be included from simple fairness. That isn't to say that also there shouldn't be all male groups too.

[Mike Buchanan]

Thanks Groan, good points. It's been my experience that the more 'calm and measured' one remains, the angrier feminists become, because - in the final analysis - they have no legitimate arguments which can bear robust analysis. They only have shaming tactics. If you refuse (as I do) to accept the premise of gender-wide responsibility for the actions of a few people - women themselves wouldn't accept gender-wide responsibility - then you've made yourself immune to those shaming tactics.
I agree 100% with your point about there being space for men-only and mixed groups. That said, I've found it difficult to get prominent women (especially prominent journalists and politicians) to offer support publicly as opposed to privately. I believe this will change in time, as society becomes ever more dysfunctional as the feminist project advances and hurts the majority of women ever more.

Mike Buchanan
ANTI-FEMINISM LEAGUE
http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com

[stuart]

Mike, I did not mention you, in fact I wasn't even thinking about you when I wrote it nor so much as gave a hint in that direction.

Your post was rather long and defensive though wasn't it?

[stuart]

Maybe you should be more calm and sensible before jumping to conclusions Mike :-)

[Mike Buchanan]

Stuart, thnks for the clarification. I am mystified, then, as to who the 'plenty of scumbags' you refer to are, and what relevance the term has to a post concerning the forthcoming House of Commons inquiry.

Just learned there's to be a fourth person on our 'panel', Heather McGregor, a businesswoman and leading light in the 30% club.

Mike Buchanan
CAMPAIGN FOR MERIT IN BUSINESS
http://c4mb.wordpress.com

[Scarecrow]

Stuart, I think you are being harsh on some of the women who campaign for men's rights. Take the excellent Girl Writes What, a woman who has done much to highlight the problems caused by feminism and misandry, and the double standards to which men are held.

Take a look at her YouTube channel - you may like what you see:
https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat/videos?view=0

[Mike Buchanan]

Scarecrow, you make a very good point. And who's done more to publicise the ravages caused by militant feminists over the past 40 years, albeit in one area, than Erin Pizzey? I was flattered beyond words when she agreed to pen the Foreword for my last book.

Mike Buchanan
ANTI-FEMINISM LEAGUE
http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com