The Rights Of Man

EQUALITIES COMMISSION TURMOIL NEEDS TO CLOSELY WATCHED

The beady eyes of the media have started to look into what is happening at the UK's Equalities and Human Rights Commission (link) which was established in October 2007 as the Equal Opportunities Commission, Race Commission and Disabilities Commission merged.

The Commission is pivotal (link) not in dealing with discrimination cases but also, just like the Equal Opportunities Commission, in pushing a pro-female agenda which often is discriminatory against men or just ignores the needs of men altogether. Hardly any pronouncements or studies are produced into looking health or domestic violence issues, though from time to time it has made pronouncements about boys education and fathers rights, it never really follows these up in the same way it does for women (see yesterday's report).

It is therefore vital for all those wanting equality for men to monitor what it does and says especially as to whether it truly believes in equality and will actively enforce the Gender Equality Duty in helping men obtain the public services they are entitled to.

The media's digging has revealed that:-

Huge turmoil in the way that it is runs including high profile resignations such as the Chief Executive Nicola Brewer and bitter infighting. All revealed in gory detail in The Independent. Other coverage can be found here (Guardian, The Times, Guardian2, Daily Mail).

Salaries soar by 25% in two years with the Conservatives accusing the Commission of "abusing taxpayers" (The Sun). The Sun also revealed it costs £22.7 million more than the previous three bodies (now £70 million). It employs 514 people.

A Freedom of Information request (link) by a SJS Jackson shows that two in every three employees  are female (66% women - 34% men). Under the old Equal Opportunities Commission the figures were 85% women and 15% men and it is likely that the proportions working on gender issues are the same.

What these stories show is that an internecine turf war is going on within the Commission, which is not uncommon considering three distinct bodies merged together.

Whatever happens, pressure needs to be maintained to make sure they remember that equality also means equality for men. The fear is that if the ultra PC brigade win, there will be even less attention on men and more calls for more bias against them. The report on the City's Gender Pay Gap is one such example of this happening.

THE WAR ON THE CITY'S GENDER PAY GAP IGNITES THE DISCRIMINATION CHARGE

In February, the site commented that the review led by the Equalities Commission into the City of London's pay gap was nothing more than showtrial designed as a ruse to attack men (link). The way the initial findings have been skewed by the Commission and others show that prediction to be prescient.

The initials findings (link) show that pay gaps in the City reach up to 60% and the quotes from Trevor Phillips scream " The figures we’re releasing today are shocking and indicate just how serious the pay gap has become in the financial sector, with women concentrated in lower paid, lower skilled roles and few able to make it to the top. The truth is that however you look at the numbers, women do not have equal status or equal rewards."

Never one to miss out on a bit of male bashing, Harriet Harman, minister for women and equality, said in the Guardian (link) that the inquiry "proves that the finance sector is a breeding ground for discrimination and unfairness" and promised "tough new measures" in the equality bill.

Except it doesn't...

What the research from the National Institute of Social and Economic Research (link) shows is that

• Twice as many men have degrees than women (39% to 20%)
• There are more women than men in admin/secretarial jobs
• Men undertake more unpaid overtime than women
• Working conditions are less family friendly than on in other professions

Whilst it shows that for many women, the attractiveness of the City is not as high as that for for men, but that does not mean there is sexual or gender discrimination. There is no proof that a women with the same skills, experience, working the same hours, in the same job with the same company earns less than a man.

In addition, many women choose to work in the relatively lower paid public sector than men and the Commission does not prove that there are any barriers to entry for any women wanting to work in the same way as men. In addition, of course, many women want to take time off to look after children.

The City may not be family friendly which means for some it is not women-friendly but that does not mean there is active discrimination. It also does not mean as Trevor Phillips contends that women do not have equal status.

The headlines and comments from politicians and the Commission has to recognise that and also have they asked women if they would like to work in the City?

The showtrial is gathering pace and the outcome is just another stick to beat the City with. And as Harman says, there will be tough measures in the forthcoming Equalities Bill, which means more positive discrimination (no such thing as positive discrimination means negative discrimination for someone else), which therefore means that some men will be denied a chance to work in the City, soley because of their gender.

KEVIN MYERS EXPOSES IRELAND'S NATIONAL WOMEN'S COUNCIL

Although this site is mainly about the UK, it is useful to see what is going on elsewhere, especially across the Irish Sea. Kevin Myers in a very perceptive article in Ireland's Independent newspaper has an exposed Ireland's National Women's Council where he explains how they wanted the Irish Government to put women and children first in their budget. Read the article here.

With the UK Government's Budget due on Wednesday 22nd April, watch with interest how the Equalities Commission, Fawcett Society and others, repeat the trick. With the Labour Government so far behind in the polls, this could be the last Labour budget and these organisations will do all they can to pressurise the Government to help women but not help men, when of course, they should be helping both.

MESSAGE IS GETTING THROUGH TO COUNCILS ON HELPING MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE

Thank you to readers for sending through the stories in the Telegraph (link) and Observer (link) about UK council's using the Gender Equality Duty (link) to try to achieve refuge provision for male victims in their communities.

The complaints by Women's Aid on funding problems because they have to include men for the first time may seem rich to some but they make an important point.

Firstly, female victims do need support so the issue is that is it right to ask an organisation and its refuges to take in men or set up male services?

I would think not, it is better to have organisations in local communities specifically geared to helping men. This could include support and advice from current refuge providers such as Women's Aid but there is more to it than just putting a roof over a man's head, especially if children are involved. There has to be special care aimed at male victims who suffer additionally from the social unacceptance and lack of recognition.

In addition, council's need to make sure they provide specific informational campaigns for men and have specialist training in helping male victims.

As council's have neglected male victims in their communities for decades, it is a bit of sledgehammer to crack a nut to force a women's charity down this path. It would be better if the council's took a step back and assessed what they need to do to specifically meet the needs of male victims, either setting up their own organisations, asking housing association's to set up specific refuges for men (some already do) or asking other charities/organisations that already help male victims.

There is also a risk of igniting a  'gender war' (yes I know there is one already) by trying to take away services for female victims and giving them to male victims. No reasonable man wants to see services cut for women, what we need is extra funding and attention on helping male victims, who after all, account for 40% of the victims in the UK.

Setting this aside though, at least things are changing even if it still seems glacial.        

SHAMEFUL 'UNIVERSITY' REPORT UNDERMINES BOYS AND BRITISH MEDIA LAP IT UP

A story produced by the University of Ulster came out yesterday (link) that said that sisters spread happiness while brothers breed distress. These so-called academics quizzed a mere 571 people aged 17 to 25 about their lives and found those who grew up with sisters were more likely to be happy and balanced.

This was covered throughout the UK media (BBC, GMTV, Times, Independent, Telegraph, Mail)

There are a number of specific issues:-

Firstly, the sample size is small (only 579) and because of the myriad of ways that families are constructed (for example, two sisters with one brother or one sister and two brothers etc) these conclusions cannot be drawn. In addition, the research is not quantitative or objective, it is based on   the subjective opinions of those surveyed.

Each family is unique - will have different incomes, make up, parental attitudes, geography etc so you cannot draw these types of general conclusions without understanding each family's background.

Plus of course, with the discrimination that boys face especially poor schooling because the education system is geared towards girls plus the problems many boys face if they have no male role models (especially if there is no father in the home because of the family court system), this would also need to be taken into account.

What is concerning is that because this has been produced by 'experts' at a 'university', it is given plenty of coverage by the media even though it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There is no quote from anyone anywhere in the coverage that challenges this so all the UK media have done is taken the spin from the university (who make it as sensationalist as possible to get the coverage) and rehashed it unthinkingly. Not one journalist has stepped back for a minute and thought about challenging it.

It also means that it is now too easy for every brother in the land to be labelled and stigmatised as a problem - someone who causes distress. And of course, the generalist nature of it all means that the report is basically stating all sisters are good, when as outlined in this debate on the BBC (link), it is not true.

What this 'university' and the so-called 'experts' are doing is saying girls=good, boys=bad, and the media, because it is socially acceptable to attack boys/men, play along with it. Shocking but alas, not surprising. 

Could you imagine the coverage if their research said it was sisters who caused distressed? It would be very little, if any.

WHY ERITH AND THAMESMEAD MEN SHOULD NOT VOTE LABOUR

Previous posts (link, link, link and link)  have highlighted how the UK Labour Party are, by using all-women shortlists, banning men from being able to satnd a Labour candidates in key Parliamentary seats at the the next General Election.

Now the same is happening in Erith and Thamesmead in South East London and whilst there has been much commentary (link, link, link) on the backstabbing and arguing about the merits of particular candidates, none of the articles actually dwell on the issue that all-women shortlists are sexist and deny men the political franchise. This sexism is just now accepted as normal by the media.

The inclusion of Erith and Thamesmead in Labour's Hall of Shame means that at the next General Election, men will have been banned from standing as Labour candidates in 31 seats.

• Airdrie
• Birmingham Ladywood
• Brighton Pavillion
• Bolton West
• Burton
• Camborne & Redruth
• Cardiff Central
• East Dunbartonshire
• Erith and Thamesmead
• Gravesham
• Hackney South
• Hemel Hempstead
• Hornsey & Wood Green
• Ilford North
• Keighley
• Kenilworth & Southam
• Leeds North West
• Leeds West
• Manchester Withington
• Nottingham South
• Nuneaton
• Reading East
• Rochester & Strood
• Scarborough & Whitby
• Selby & Ainsty
• Sunderland Central
• Walthamstow
• Washington & Sunderland West
• Wellingborough
• West Ham
• The Wrekin

No man in any of these constituencies should vote Labour

BEN BRADSHAW, LABOUR HEALTH MINISTER, PROVES NHS DOES NOT CATER FOR MEN

In a previous post it was mentioned that you should not make jokes about politicians because too many get elected. A particularly sick joke can be made about the comments made by Ben Bradshaw MP, Labour Health Minister, who claimed that there was a health bonus in higher unemployment rates because it would mean that more men would see their doctor, because they had the time.

There has been much commentary in the UK media on this, rightly so (Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, The Sun, The Express). However, it misses one crucial point, it proves the National Health Service adequately cater for men.

Everyone in the UK is forced to pay taxes for the health service and therefore the health service should be available for everyone, man or woman, when they need it at a time that suits them.

What Ben Bradshaw is effectively admitting is that the health service and GP surgery opening hours are not suitable for the working man because he cannot get a 'heath check' because he is too busy earning his and his families' upkeep. This is because the health service and GP opening hours are based around what suits them and not their paying customers who are forced to pay the taxes. This is wrong.

What Bradshaw should be saying, and of course he won't as he is a member of the most anti-male Government in the history of the United Kingdom, is that the opening hours of GP surgeries and other parts of the health service, should change or be modified to fit around the working lives of men.

He has it the wrong the way round and health checks should be made available for men all week round. But that would mean equality.

BANK HOLIDAY TO CELEBRATE WOMEN - NO MENTION OF MEN

An old saying is that the reason you shouldn't make jokes about politicians is because too many get elected. 

A case in point can be made about Welsh MP Julie Morgan (link) who has called (link and link) for a bank holiday to celebrate International Women's Day (8th March). She believes the Government should acknowledge the work and contribution of women.

The contention of course is not so much that there shouldn't be a bank holiday to celebrate the contribution of women, but that there is no mention of a reciprocal arrangement to acknowledge the work and contribution of men.

No male (or female) politician though would dare challenge her and make such an announcement partly because they would be scared of the 'backlash' and be treated with disdain but also because men don't feel that they need any extra praise for the work and contribution they make. They just make the contribution because innately that is what men do.

If the suggestion by Julie Morgan MP gains momentum, which it could because her husband is Rhodri Morgan (The Welsh First Minister in their Assembly) then Welsh men and politicians need to make that challenge.

STORIES ROUND-UP

There have been a number of stories and issues recently that the site has not caught up on. So instead of trying to, it is opportune just to list them.

General

Harman Less Popular Than Mandelson

Men - Depressed, Repressed and Objectifed

Domestic Violence

Beer Mat Campaign Only Aimed At Female Victims

Woman Bit Off Man's Tongue

False Rape Claims

BBC Personality

Bristol

Rochdale

Education

All work and no play - bad for boys

Boys results

Male Suicide

Wokingham Campaign

Fatherhood

Woman Can Name Anyone As Father

EQUALITIES COMMISSION WILL NOT GIVE UP PEDDLING GENDER PAY GAP MYTHS

If you keep telling the same untruth long enough and it is not adequately challenged, then it becomes a fact. This can easily be applied to one of the key battlefronts opened up against men, the gender pay gap.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission has called for the repeal of the 1975 Equal Pay Act because it is not 'fit for purpose' (link).

What the Commission really means is that because the 17% Gender PayGap can easily be proven to be about lifestyle choice (see previous links here and here) and not sexual discrimination, as the Commission and the anti-male industry proclaim, it is time to rip up laws and invent new ones to 'prove' it is because of sexual discrimination. All on the taxpayer of course, as the Commission is made from the public purse.

What makes the situation worse is the clear spin from Nicola Brewer, the Chief Executive of the Commission.

She quotes the overall figure of 17.1% and the part-time figure of 36.6% yet single women, as they get older, earn more than single men. Or that, Black Caribbean women earn more than their male equivalent. No mention of the granularity in the statistics.

The Commission has launched this on the back of the forthcoming Equalities Bill which will entrench firmly into law, that it is Ok for men to be discriminated against and the Commission which is meant to be about equality is firmly on board.