The Rights Of Man

THE CHARTERED WOMANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

Sorry for lack of posts this week - been away working - and that matters because according to the anti-male Chartered Management Institute I will have been ensuring that male executives get paid more than female executives.

The big story from the CMI this week was that it would take up to 98 years before female executives in Britain get paid the same as male executives. This is despite the fact that female junior executives get paid more than junior male executives.

The CMI claim older female executives get paid less than male executives for doing the same job. They offer no proof that it is the same job with the same hours and that all managers who are compared are doing it with the same talent. They claim they have produced a report on this but it is not published on their website so cannot be corroborated. So they cannot say it is for the same job without actually offering public proof.

Secondly, they applaud the fact that junior female executuives are getting paid more than male exectuives - so if the CMI were being fair and equal they would be now campaigning to stop the gender pay gap against junior male exuectives. Of course, they say nothing because they are only interested in facts that play out a pro-women, anti-male narrative.

Thirdly, it is clear that the research does not add up because you cannot on the one hand say it will take women up to 98 years to close the gap when junior female executives are getting paid more than their male equivalent. How can that be the case - its mickey mouse research. Melanie McDonagh in the Standardscoffs and points out the CMI said last year it would take 57 years, so suddenly it grew by 41 years, in one year!

This is what happens in the world of anti-male spin:

The CMI's spin monkeys want to get the CMI in the newspapers. So they commission this annual research with the brief to paint as bleak a picture as possible for women. They know the anti-male parts of the media will lap it up. The research gives a broad range of years so they use the one that is the most extreme - 98 years. The larger the figure, the larger the headline.

The media of course, being stretched for resources simply go along with the story and do not challenge the research or ask them to prove the 'same job' issue. They also do not challenge the issues that cause the gender pay gap (largely choosing motherhood). While the press release talks about both and leads on the gap between junior executives the spinners would have briefed the media on the 98 year figure as that guarantees more coverage.

You do wonder why any man would want to be a member of this group when it has been hijacked into making anti-male statements and research. Even to the point where their head of policy states "yet again, that businesses are contributing to the persistent gender pay gap and alienating top female employees by continuing to pay men and women unequally. This kind of bad management is damaging UK businesses and must be addressed."

Surely this organisation should be called the Chartered Womanagement Institute - it seems much more appropriate.

Posted by Skimmington   

Media coverage - BBC Today, BBC (read the comments), Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph (on the paygap between junors) and the Guardian.

SMOGS ARE NEW ANTI-MALE STANDARD BEARERS FOR BRITAIN'S ANTI-MALE SOCIETY

A consequence of the strident anti-male feminism of the last three decades, fuelled by an the political platform given to them to it by anti-male Labour government and then an anti-male coalition government, is the seeping into the wider British consciousness that it is OK to say men/boys=bad, women/girls=good.

The elites have created an atmosphere where it is OK to say men are rubbish with impunity.

The rise of Smug Mothers of Girls (SMOGs) can be seen as a direct consequence (Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Independent, Telegraph 2) where basically a group of women/mothers do not want boys and just want girls and when they have them they swagger with superiority.

This is exactly what the Fawcett Society, Harriett Harman, Theresa May, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the legions of anti-male feminists want. The distaste and dislike for men and boys is starting to go mainstream and some stupid mothers are grasping it with both hands. No longer is it confined to the political metropolitan public sector elite

What do their husbands/partners think? Probably too busy working and contributing to the gender pay gap, which they then get attacked for, no doubt. 

SMOGs are a new breed of anti-male standard bearers giving new energy to the vilification of men and boys. What is the difference between this chauvinism to that the feminists complain about?

Posted by Skimmington

SIGN THE E-PETITION ON RAPE DEFENDENT ANONYMITY

Peter Gordon has created an e-petition calling for anonymity to be granted to rape defendents as set out in the coalition governement's mainfesto. An issue they u-turned over.

Please sign it here.

Posted by Skimmington

GOVERNMENT ADMITS EQUALITY DOES NOT INCLUDE MEN

When the government came in, one of its key themes was to look at government departments and quangos and see who should stay, who should go and whether some should be merged or subsumed. The Government's ironically called Equalities Department was one of them and was to be subsumed into the Home Office.

The new equality pages on the Home Office website make it clear what the government means by equality though. It says:

We lead on issues relating to women, sexual orientation and transgender equality matters; we have responsibility across government for equality strategy and legislation. 

Basically, the Home Office who lead on equality for the whole governmemnt now admit that equality does not relate to men (or boys).

I know this site keeps on saying it but the government are admitting it and they see no shame in doing so. Obviously, with the same people running the equalities section of the Home Office who were running the equalities department there is no surprise but it is the lack of shame that just is eye watering.

On the same section is the annual report of the equalities department. Not light reading but worth noting that the abolished Women's National Commission  cost £500,000 per year (no such thing as a men's national commission) and 65% of its employees are women - fancy that.

Posted by Skimmington 

FRIENDS LIFE REPORT PROVES THE ANTI-MALE MARXISTS FEMINIST PROPAGANDA TO BE FALSE

Thank you to everyone for putting names forward for the heroes section. I will get to work on it in August.

One of the themes of the website has been the issue where anti-male and anti-equality organisations like the 30 per cent club, the Fawcett Society, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and others have been campaigning to block men from taking places in the boardroom which should be the preserve of women. A situation which goes against meritocracy where the best people irrelevant of gender should be in the boardroom.

These organisations put the lack of women in boardrooms solely down to sexual discrimination against women and barriers erected by men. They find it difficult when women like Dr Catherine Hakim put it down to women making choices when they want to become mothers and also how they (and the family unit) want to bring their children up.

Sure things can be made easier but often it is around the edges, women (and some men of course) do not want the 9-5 hard focused lifestyle and bring their children up. Some prefer to let the man take this strain while they take the strain of bringing up children, It is called teamwork and the family - something anathema to feminists the world over. They don't understand what real normal women want.

The reason for bringing the issue up is that this week the Friends Life Provident issued one of its 2020 reports on women and the workplace. One of the key areas in the thrifty thirties section which highlighted three areas which completely debunk the Marxist theories of the anti-male feminists which they use to attack men:

(1) Is gender itself a barrier? A quarter of working women think that it is. 24% of working women agree that “I feel that my gender is sometimes a hindrance to my progress at work”; 51% disagree. Surprisingly, this increases to 32% agreement among those in their 30s.

Commentary  - So one in four (presume the missing 24% said don't know) women do not believe that gender is sometimes a hindrance.

(2) The same proportion (24%) of working women agree that “I would like to see the industry I work in become less male orientated”. Agreement here varies widely by sector, from 37% of women working in the primary/ manufacturing/construction/distribution sector, 28% in financial services/legal/consulting and in civil service/local government, to 18% of women working in arts/leisure/ recreation or in healthcare and just 10% of women working in education.

Commentary - it does not mention in what way but shows again that three in four working women do not view their workplace as being male orientated.

(3) 53% of working women agree that “By the end of this decade, women will still struggle much more than men to secure senior roles in the workplace” (only 30% of men agree). Why is this? Simply, motherhood remains the biggest barrier, the biggest pillar holding up the glass ceiling:

Commentary - But the 30 per cent Club, the Fawcett Society etc say its discrimination by men (not discimination by nature).

What this research shows is that when real normal women getting on with their lives away from the politically driven anti-male world of modern-day feminism are asked, they do not agree with the Fawcett Society, the BBC, The Guardian, the 30% club and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. When real women talk about barriers they are practical issues  - they do not resort to the tactics of attacking and diminishing their husbands/partners and sons like these groups do.

Posted by Skimmington

 

CLARE'S LAW MUST BE CLARE AND CLIVE'S LAW

The papers this morning (Telegraph and Daily Mail) are previewing the launch of  the "Clare's Law" which will allow women to ask the police if their boyfriend/partner has been convicted for being violent. It is being launched on Monday and Home Secretary Theresa May is considering the issue.

Robert Buckland MP makes the point though  ''We're all in favour of curbing violence against women but we have to be certain this will not lead to fishing expeditions by women demanding confidential information about potential boyfriends without proper justification. You cannot have a carte blanche system where people can simply turn up at a police station, give the name of a boyfriend or potential boyfriend, and expect the police to open up all the files on him.''

As well as creating some sort of stasi state, the whole undertone behind the law is all men are likely to be guilty of violence so we better make sure we check up on him. This is the way it is being presented in the newspapers - all men are potential women-beaters. 

The other point and this is really for the media's ear - will "Clare's Law" by "Clare and Clive's Law"?

The media must keep asking those running the campaign whether a man can equally check up on his girlfriend/female partner to check she has a hidden violent past. With 88,000 women a year being arrested for violence - men have a right to know if women have a right to know.  That's called equality.

Posted by Skimmington

 

EQUALITIES ACT ATTACKED BY DOMINIC RAAB MP

This site and its readers have long been saying that the Equalities Act (especially clauses 158 and 159) are the most anti-male pieces of legislation ever to be passed into British law. Not only because of the discrimination they promote directly but also because of the indirect social pressure which leads to anti-male sexist organisations like the 30% club.

Dominic Raab MP wades in with his view on how wrong it is but the most telling point in his article are points out in the Independent from a young Asian woman, Kat Akingbade - who was told that a key factor on her getting a job was because she was a Asian woman, not because she was the best. The fact she was the best is of no matter to her - it is what people believe.

Positive Action and Positive Discrimination = bad news for all men and talented women and = good news for untalented women who want to play the gender (and sometimes the race) card.

Posted by Skimmington

 

WHY DOES NO ONE SAY THE OBVIOUS - THE 30% CLUB IS SEXIST

Sorry everyone it has been a while, been away working.

And on that point, a keen-eyed reader highlighted the launch of the 30% Club, a sexist organisation that promotes gender selection and therefore gender discrimination in the membership of the boards of UK companies. Its site says that a better balance positively influences decision making - a sexist notion that says having too many men (and also too many women you presume) negatively influences decision-making.

The idea is to ensure that all UK boards of the FTSE-100 have a membership of at least 30% women. This is by definition sexist as selection to be a board member is based on gender and not ability.

And before, the usual suspects rant on about dinosaur views - it is never a problem if a board was made of 100% women so long as they were the best people for the job.

The outcome on the ground of this is that it will mean actual discrimination against men. As argued many times before (here), it means some men will not be able to be considered to go onto a board because it may mean the magic 30% figure ratio will be broken. Even though that man may be the best and most talented candidate if a spot becomes available.

On the reverse, many talented women will be viewed suspiciously and tokenly as being just there to make the 30% figure even though they may be a great board members. And of course, some women may be placed on a board who really are not good enough but again the numbers need to add. Dear 30% Club - this will negatively effect decision-making!

The point this site never loses sight of is that if a man cannot get onto the board becuase of gender quotas then his wife/girlfriend and any daughters are also being discriminated against by proxy, all done in their name.

Lastly, it is not just about the membership. What will also be happening underneath the board level is the whole continuation of schemes such as talent spotting for women, mentoring, specialist senior management training and the like for women only. Thereby leaving men in their peer group at below board level at a disadvantage. That is, they will be sexually discriminated against.

A parallel in some ways can also be drawn with the current News of the World saga. In that for years the behaviour of the paper has been tolerated and people been too scared to take it on. The whole anti-male set up in the UK is similar - no politicians or business leadwers are prepared to take it on. This can be seen in this subject where it is so blatantly sexist against men and breaks the British tradition of meritocracy and equality but no one is prepared to challenge it (except Stuart Rose).

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage: Guardian (of course),

NEWS UPDATE

Lots been going on this week, so to keep up here are a few of the articles of relevance:

The Sun - Tories worse than Labour on U-Turns (Tom Newton-Dunne) Recognition of the infamous rape anonymity u-turn as this u-turn seems to have been erased when others talk about u-turns. Well done The Sun.

The Independent - How does slut-walking advance feminism (Yasmin Alibhai-Brown) - she attacks slut walking but then makes wild accusations about men

Daily Telegraph - Chivalry is benevolent sexism (Andy Bloxham) - madness from the USA making feminism a laughing stock

Daily Telegraph - If chivalry is dead, blame it on the selfish feminists (Lucy Jones) - sensible women fight back

Daily Telegraph - Why I'll be keep opening the door for women (Stephen Bayley)

Daily Mail - Equalities Office where women earn more than men (Gerri Peev) - Great work from Dominic Raab MP showing the hypocrisy of the Government's Office where equality only counts if you are a woman (and in Telegraph).

Conservative Home - Andrew Bridgen MP has no case to answer - Another man having his name dragged through the papers when he is not guilty, no mention of the girl's name - perhaps Mr Bridgen may want to campaign against his government's u-turn?

Daily Mail - Forgiving husbands begs police not to charge wife he stabbed him

Northampton Chronicle - Brian Binley MP hits out at Nuffield Foundation

The Guardian - Don't turn the clock back on women (Rachel Reeves) - More anti-male, pro women special pleading

Daily Mail - Feminism is so passe, it's boy's who need help now (Sandra Parsons) - Brilliant from Sandra Parsons

Daily Mail - Female drunks at Take That concert (James Tozer) - What will the feminists think of this sign of empowerment?

BBC - Russell Crowe backs downs on circumcision - The anti-male (including many men) out in force to force the actor to backtrack

The Sun - Bulimia rise in boys (Emma Little) - Emma's first class research which was on the front page of the Sun shows the paper has its serious side on men's issues (it run a front page on male victims of doemstic abuse two years ago). The Daily Mail and Telegraph  followed it up.

Posted by Skimmington

WOMEN'S JUSTICE TASKFORCE PROPOSES THE END OF BLIND AND EQUAL JUSTICE

One of the stories of last week was the story on the increase in the number of women being convicted of domestic abuse. The same week, the Women's Justice Taskforce, set out a report welcomed by the Ministry of Justice, that said women's prisons should close. The BBC also reported that the taskforce of self-appointed experts wanted a  director of women's justice to be appointed to provide "clear leadership and accountability". A Minister for Women is not enough.

The story was also in the Daily Mail (read the comments for illumination) and Independent and Mary Riddell in the Telegraph waded in with some rank hypocrisy of the highest order.

This is an issue that we have covered before but reports like this are unbelievably dangerous for men and society as whole. How can Britain possible ever claim to be a champion of equality and have equality before the law when there the justice system discriminates against genders.

The whole justice system is based on the tenet that justice is blind, but how can it be when she sneaks a look from behind the blindfold to check what the gender is of the prosecuted and then hands down the sentence accordingly. Prison for the man, community service for the women - even if the crime is the same.

That is what the Women's Justice Taskforce wants and believes in (do they want this woman out on community service?).

It is not equality of justice is it is discriminatory justice.

Is there no end to discrimination against men, special treatment for women and the undermining of the rule of law and equal justice.

Posted by Skimmington

Notes to Editors - this issue has been covered before: here, here