ALL WOMEN SHORTLISTS UPDATE: ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, ANTI-EQUALITY, MISANDRIC AND LABOUR HYPOCRISY

One of the most invidious things about the discriminatory onslaught that men in the UK have to face is the introduction of all-women shortlists, quotas and special training sessions that female wannabe politicians receive, while their male equivalents do not.

In addition, it is an issue that still baffles me that apart from this site, no one else in the men’s equality movement seems remotely interested in, despite the fact that it means men are banned (in Labour's case) from standing for Parliament solely because they are men and also that all-women shortlists are at the vanguard of where our society is moving.

All-women shortlists have opened up the acceptability of gender quotas on boards and other institutions – it is inevitability of making one thing acceptable thereby allowing more similar things acceptable.

This site researched the issue a couple of years ago.

For the May 2015 elections, having changed the law over ten years ago to get round their employment tribunal defeat, Labour has continued to build on their previous support for all-women shortlists.  And as repeated before, no man should vote for Labour in these particular seats (see end).

Before March 2013, they had banned men from being candidates in 22 seats (see list one below) for the 2015 election and following consultations, they had decided to ban men from being candidates in a further 39 (see tranche 1 of those declared to pick from all women shortlists in the
future). This means men will be banned in 61 seats, compared to 58 in 2010.

Just a point for the Justice for Men and Boys party but an angle for choosing any new candidates may be to put them up in seats where Labour have chosen from an all-women shortlist as there is a clear hook to say that men were banned from being their candidate.

This theme of modern-day anti-male radical feminism can be seen in this article in the Guardian.
Of 18 open contests, 17 winners were men so the response is one that there must be some form of discrimination and that women must be given special treatment and more all –women shortlists introduced.

Of course, the results above do not take into account the fact that because men have been banned in so many of the seats before these selections, that the good quality women will have bagged an all women shortlist seat, so for the open seats, then men in the frame will be of very high
quality. Obviously that is too logical for Labour’s anti-male brigade to process.

As for the Conservatives, with their Women2 Win set up, they are still giving special treatment to women who want to be Conservative MP’s including special training sessions in September on how to become selected.

As for the Lib Dems, they are concerned about 66% of their members oppose all women shortlists. At least they are still sticking to equality and liberalism.

The key thing is that banning people (in this case men) from seeking public office because of a particular characteristic is a sign of a totalitarian state and not a democratic one. It is of the utmost hypocrisy of Labour to champion equal suffrage earlier this year while at the same time, 100 years later, they are banning people from standing for public office under their banner solely because of their gender. The Pankhurss must be trining in their graves.

Posted by Skimmington

(1) Parliamentary seats where Labour have already banned men from being their Parliamentary candidate:

Thurrock

Carlisle

Lincoln

Northampton North

Hastings & Rye

Worcester

Warwick & Leamington

South Swindon

Stevenage

Norwich North

Great Yarmouth

High Peak

Peterborough

Harlow

Redcar

Dover

Stafford

Redditch

Reading West

Tamworth

Cambridge

Bristol West

 (2) Seats where Labour intend to ban men from being their Parliamentary candidate:

Ealing Central & Acton

Enfield North

Harrow East

Hornsey & Wood Green

Lewisham Deptford

Stockton South

Weaver Vale

Wirral West

Brighton Kemptown

Brighton Pavilion

Kingswood

Aberconwy

Cardiff Central

Cardiff North

Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire

Birmingham Yardley

Dudley South

Halesowen & Rowley Regis

Nuneaton

 

Erewash

Croydon Central

Hampstead and Kilburn

Burnley

Lancaster & Fleetwood

Morecambe & Lunesdale

South Ribble

Argyll & Bute

Rugby

Brigg & Goole

Colne Valley

Dewsbury

Comments

[Mike Buchanan]

Skimmington, good evening, and thanks for this post. Along with TROM, 'Justice for men & boys' is VERY interested in the issue of all-women shortlists. Indeed, without them, we might well not exist.

I worked as a consultant for the Conservatives (2006-8) and in late 2009, when Dave announced his plan to introduce all-women prospective parliamentary candidates ('PPCs') to select candidates for the forthcoming election, I resigned my party membership and wrote a book, 'David and Goliatha: David Cameron - heir to Harman?'. I thought visitors to TROM might enjoy the cover cartoon I commissioned from Martin Honeysett (who I'd admired for 40+ years) of Dave and his feminist mistress, Harriet:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/David-Goliatha-Cameron-Heir-Harman/dp/0956641628/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376864631&sr=1-1&keywords=David+and+Goliatha

Mike Buchanan

JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
(and the women who love them)

http://j4mb.org.uk

[steve]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2397938/Mother-beat-toddler-son-badly-looked-like-hed-hit-frying-pan-series-attacks.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

just fur lousy years for those injuries and as always she blames others for the injuries...

[BrusselsLout]

And the outcome of the 40% law? We know it will mean incompetent management boards.

And we all know the reason behind that. The 60% that will be men will have been oppressing the female minority by preventing them realizing their true abilities. Clear abuse!

Only one answer. A new 100% law of women only. Management positions will be off-limits to men. No more abuse!

And feminist equality applied to its full.

[Iain Sinclair]

The issue of providing special assistance to give women opportunities to occupy areas where they are under-represented doesn't appear to have an equivalent programme aimed at males.
I have the misfortune to be spending the next few months attending a large city hospital out-patients department.
What has struck me, as I pass anything up to 4 hours waiting, is the vast numbers of female staff. Sitting, as I do in various parts of the hospital it seems that some 99% of the employees are female.
How come public sector organisations have a public duty under the equality act which, if my observations were reversed, in gender terms would see job adverts welcoming under-represented females and a host of other special measures but absolutely sod all for males?

[barry]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2398691/Syria-Nerve-gas-attack-near-Damascus-kills-1-300-including-women-children.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Why i can understand pointing out children in this shocking outrage, why are women pointed out? are men less worthy of note?

Women and children? Children, evil and despicable but women, why should anyone care more because they are women?

[paul parmenter]

It may be that, as Skimmington complains, this particular aspect of anti-male political chicanery has not been picked up with anything like sufficient vigour by the mens equality movement. But I believe it has been well noted by many men - and women too - at grass roots level, and has generated a great deal of resentment. Nobody knows how much that resentment has expressed itself by voting patterns in those constituencies where the electorate has been presented with female candidates who owe their position solely to the fact that they were born with a vagina. More's the pity. But I have a pretty strong gut instinct that many votes are thereby lost by the party that is stupid and spiteful enough to embrace the policy.

If they bring these quota candidates on, then we can vote them down. Maybe then the penny will drop.

BTW I have always referred to people who get elected on the back of discriminatory shortlists as "quota" MPs, or "QMPs" for short. I would encourage everyone else to use the same terminology. It will remind us all that they are of lesser merit than properly elected MPs, and also remind THEM that they have not fooled us with their dirty tricks.

[Matt P]

Good post. I believe the next parliamentary session is going to be a very productive beneficial time for the men's rights movement.

The establishment figures have had their fun and some feminist half-wits have got some publicity with their pathetic little campaign on bank-notes.

But now we have a chance to demand REAL equality. If we take the opportunities which
are there then the establishment cronies will not be able to ignore us for any longer.

[brian]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2402198/Hundreds-pregnant-women-new-mothers-convicted-crimes-apply-bring-children-jail-year.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

not counting the thousands that walk for court when a man wouldn't eh?

[bRRYB]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2402511/Marriage-proposal-ends-disaster-mans-bride-clumps-round-head-buskers-ukulele.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

Outrageous P.R stunt for Cadbury, women violence on man....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2402511/Marriage-proposal-ends-disaster-mans-bride-clumps-round-head-buskers-ukulele.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

[Karma]

Thanks for finally talking about >The Rights Of Man : ALL WOMEN SHORTLISTS UPDATE: ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, ANTI-EQUALITY, MISANDRIC AND LABOUR HYPOCRISY