The Rights Of Man

ANOTHER HARMAN MYTH IS DESTROYED: THIS TIME ON RECESSION DEPRESSION

Yesterday's post highlighted that the UK's Minister for Women, Harriet Harman MP, said that "We [women] have to worry more than men and we are definitely worrying more about the recession than men are."

However, mental health charity MIND published a report (link) stating that "Men are struggling to cope with the emotional impact of the recession. Almost 40% of men admit to feeling low at the moment with job security, work and money playing on their minds."

Their report Men and mental health: Get it off your chest showed:-

• 37% of men are feeling worried or low

• Middle aged men are 7 times more likely than women to have suicidal thoughts

• Only 23% of men would see their GP if they felt low over a fortnight

• Men were only half as likely to talk to friends about problems as women

This, just like her other myth, subsequently destroyed by the Office of National Statistics' own figures (link) that the recession harmed female employment more than it did men, destroys her myth that women are worrying about the recession more than man.

With three times as many men committing suicide per year than women (link), the MIND figures come as no surprise but it shows how desperate Harman is in trying to keep her malevolent agenda going.

She bases nothing on facts, just myths to try and make out on each and every subject that women are more hard done by than men.

She has been proved yet again to peddling untruths.

Story covered also by the BBC and Daily Mail.

Hat-tip: John Kimble

 

 

EYES STARTING TO OPEN OVER THE PRACTICAL IMPACT OF HARMAN'S EQUALITY BILL

Now that our favourite Government Minister, Harriet Harman, has got her Equalities Bill (link) up and running in the UK Parliament, the practical impact of its policy to stop men from being treated as equals in the workplace is starting to be shown.

It is not helped of course, that she is now off the leash and gone into full-on male-bashing mode. You see, she blames maleness, for the collapse of the banks and as now so many are nationalised she wants to use the pro-women laws in the Bill to, as the Daily Mail put it, 'put women in charge of the banks'. No problem in theory with having women (or anyone) in charge of banks so long as they are suitably qualified.

But Harman's Law is not about this, it is about letting someone from one gender (women) being able to leapfrog above other people (men) up the career ladder solely based on gender. Just how fair it is for a man who has dedicated himself to a career to then be denied that opportunity because he is a man? It is wrong and morally so.

Also having been found out to be misleading everyone with her previous campaign saying the recession affected the employment of women more than men, she has turned her attack more generally. She said "because women generally remained homemakers, the recession caused them to fear not only for their own jobs, but also for their husband's, for their children's futures, and for elderly relatives. We have to worry more than men and we are definitely worrying more about the recession than men are."

There is not single shred of evidence to base this on and if she thinks that men are not worried to the same extent (or more) than women then she is just wrong. Patronisingly and desperately wrong.

Harriet Harman will do anything she possible can to attack at men. Why does she dislike us so much?

Other coverage is here:- Daily Mail, This is Money, Express, Telegraph

WIDESPREAD COVERAGE OF MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Last week marked another landmark period of coverage on male victims following the burst of coverage earlier on this year (see March/Feb here).

Ian McNicholl came forward and reported the traumatic situation he found himself in which led to his ex-girlfirend being sent to prison for a lenient seven years.

The coverage was broken on the front page of Britain's biggest selling daily newspaper The Sun (1, 2, 3) and also featured an interview on BBC Look North. The case was also covered by This is Grimsby and the Yorkshire Post.

In addition, the Sunday Express had a large feature and there were features in Scotland's Herald newspaper (1, 2).

Lastly, and apologies for missing this, but Liz Lynne MEP also had an article in the Birmingham Post.

What this shows is that the media are still starting to take this issue seriously and see it as an area where equality is not present. If it newsworthy enough to be on the front page of The Sun then there is enough evidence to show that the Government can no longer with any credibility claim that it 'the vast majority of cases are against women'.

CAMPAIGNER BRANDS MANY FEMINISTS AS BEING ANTI-MEN

Campaigner Erin Pizzey hit out a few weeks ago in the Daily Mail.

Pizzey, who has never described herself as a feminist, fell out with many in the women's movement because she did not share many of their views.

The middle-class Christian said many feminists were obsessed with destroying men and marriage and said for many it was like a 'born again' religion.

The article is here for anyone that missed it.

MEDIA CONDEMNATION FOR HARMAN' S EQUALITIES BILL

A week since the ironically named Equalities Bill was published and covered here (link and previous links here, here and here), there seems to be universal condemnation (especially from women) on a number of issues. The additional coverage is listed at the bottom but the issues are:-

(1) It is anti-male and unashamedly so;

(2) It is anti-business;

(3) The gender pay gap is down to lifestyle choice and not down to discrimination.

Harman's colleagues in the UK Government, which seems to be rotting further each day, seemed to be able to resist her when she put this forward. It is interesting to note none of them seemed to be rushing to support her publicly. Is it because they are embarrassed, do they support it or they so in hock to the anti-male PC brigade to say anything?

What will the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats do? Will there be enough labour MPs who could help to vote it down like they did on this week's Gurkha Bill.

There is no way any sensible person could possibly vote for this swingeing anti-male legislation surely? Thank the Lord the laughable Fawcett Society do not run Parliament, they don't think it goes far enough! (link)

Progress will be analysed as it wends its way through Parliament.

Further Coverage:-

Express 1, Express 2, Express 3, Express 4, Express 5, Express 6

Mail 1, Mail 2, Melanie Phillips Mail 3, Edwina Currie Mail 4

Telegraph 1, Charles Moore Telegraph 2, Telegraph 3, Telegraph 4,

Minette Marrin Times 1

Guardian 1, Guardian 2

CALL FOR A MINISTER FOR MEN

This site's most popular ever post (link) was two years ago when a Minister for Men manifesto was published (see left).

This week, Mark Brooks, posted an article on the hugely popular independent Conservative web-site, Conservative Home, outlining why one is needed. It sparked off a fair old debate.

FAMILY COURTS - WHEN OPEN DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN OPEN

There has been much debate (link, link) about whether the landmark change in allowing accredited journalists into the UK's family law courts will make much difference.

The reason for the concern has been about the fact that judges can still stop journalists from reporting what they see and hear and also from attending in the first place.

Some of the outrageous judgements made by judges on custody issues and the enforcement of custody orders means that they themselves can still hide behind many of their absurd views. This also helps to protect the inept and bias against fathers by Cafcass and Social Services.

Another concern is that because of the savage cutbacks in the local media, apart from any very serious cases, there are not enough reporters to cover the courts. Many a journalist cut their teeth as a court reporter for a local paper but these newspapers can no longer keep such posts going and nearly all such positions have gone. It means that apart from this week and perhaps in an outrageous/serious case, the interest in this issue by local papers will wane.

At least there is some transparency but it is doubtful there will be a change in attitude on custodial/parenting issues when the judges who make the rules up as they go along still have the power to hide and be unaccountable. There will still be no justice.

Coverage from the the Times, who won awards for opening up the secret family courts is here (1, 2, 3. Other coverage includes (Press Gazette, Families Need Fathers, Daily Mail, Daily Mail 2, BBC, Guardian, Independent)

HARMAN'S EQUALITIES BILL MEANS OPEN SEASON ON MEN AND THEIR LIVELIHOODS

Harriet Harman introduced the Equalities Bill (link, link, briefing) into the UK's House of Commons today.

The main areas of concern and ones raised on this site a number of times is around the gender pay gap (employment section) and the positive action (link) proposals (no such thing as positive action as it means negative action for someone else).

With male unemployment higher than female unemployment (link, link) pressure on businesses and a willful abuse of the gender pay gap statistics, what in reality Harman has done is declare an employment war on men.

Her intentions are clear.

Companies will be forced to publish their gender pay statistics and this is with the sole intention of shaming employers, no matter what rational explanation.

British Aerospace (BAE) for example, said at the weekend that they have a large gender pay gap because their highest paid employees are engineers who are predominately male. They have female engineers but fewer of them so their gender pay gap will be large but this is not down to discrimination especially when they want more female engineers. BAE, according to Harman and her acolytes though, want to place BAE in the stocks and put them through some grotesque Stalinesque show trial.

She said "You have got to believe that either women are 20 per cent less intelligent, less hard-working, less committed to their job, less experienced, less qualified, or you have got to believe that there is structural pay discrimination. We believe there is structural pay discrimination."

 No one as ever said this, it is down to lifestyle choices and career decisions. 

The other issue is that the positive action issues are clearly designed to discriminate against men. The legislation will be gender neutral but its interpretation by the courts, lawyers and HR staff will not be. The intention of the bill is clear - it is discriminate against men.

The bill says that companies can choose one person above another because of their gender when the two candidates are equally qualified. Quota's will also be introduced for companies bidding for public sector wo.

Firstly, it is virtually impossible for two candidates to be equally qualified especially after interview and any other testing. It is mischievous to suggest differently.

Secondly, in the current climate with more men on the dole queue they could be denied a job solely on the basis of their gender. This is discrimination.

Lastly, if a man is discriminated against (and could be from a working class background and studiously made his way up the ladder), it will not just be him who loses out, it could be his daughter, his wife/girlfriend and mother. That will go down well as those women will be equally discriminated against but it is being done in their name.

The Bill, if it passes, and it is likely to, is open season on men and will enshrine discrimination in law against them. Don't anyone think differently

It is the culmination of three decades of anti-male propaganda and male bashing. The nightmare is coming true.

Media Coverage so far (Daily Mail 1 plus debate, Melanie Phillips, BBC, Metro, Telegraph) and more will emerge over the week.

OPENING UP FAMILY COURTS A 'CON TRICK'

The last post welcomed the outline proposal to open up the family courts to the media. It would seem according to the analysis by John Hemming MP (link) and Marcel Berlins (link) that all is not what it seems.

In many respects, what these two commentators have revealed is worse, because at least before there was no pretence of openness, now the judiciary and Government can say there is, when there is not.

Very Orwellian but is anyone surprised?

Hat-tip: Mensaid

BREAKTHROUGH ON OPENING FAMILY COURTS UP TO THE MEDIA

One of the biggest complaints made about the UK's Family Courts System is the fact that because the media are not allowed access, they are unaccountable and not transparent. Basically, it all goes on behind closed doors and there is no scrutiny, and therefore justice is not being seen to be done. There is no public confidence.

The Government has been well aware of this and has been lobbied by the media (link) and groups such as Families Need Fathers for this transparency.

At last, the Government (link) looks like it will deliver and they are measures now before Parliament to allow accredited media into the family court system. Fingers crossed it goes through.