The Rights Of Man

THE END OF MERITOCRACY AND EQUALITY FOR MEN IN BRITAIN'S WORKPLACES

The publication this week of Lord Davies of Abersoch's government backed report on getting more women into British boardrooms means the end of meritocracy and equality in Britain's Boardroom. An issue this site has been covering for some time. No longer will talent, qulaifictaions or dedication matter, your gender is all that counts.

If you are a man - your only chance of getting onto a board is if the female quota has been fulfilled. If it has not you can be the best business person in the world, but you still won't get on. That is the end of meritocracy and equality for men in the Britain's companies.

The report states that UK listed companies in the FTSE 100 should be aiming for a minimum of 25% female board member representation by 2015. Davies recommends that FTSE 350 companies should be setting their own, challenging targets and expects that many will achieve a much higher figure than this minimum. 

The explicit threat is that if the recommendations are not met British companies will be forced to do it and have quotas like those in Norway (40% of boards have to be women).

The issues it raises are clear - as stated there will be no such as meritocracy, gender is all that matters. Secondly, it is clear this government is as anti-male as the last one and is doing all it can to undermine and attack men.

This boardroom issue is basically another tactic to berate and undermine men to ensure they remain viewed by the metropolitan elite as second class citizens who are to be blamed for everything.

The report is very explicit in saying that the reason there are not as many women on a board as men is down to discrimination by men. But there is no evidence of this, and reports like those by Catherine Hakim  and the Institute of Leadership and Management (covered in the Daily Mail) have clearly shown that not all capable women want to be on the board. Some because they haven't got the drive, some want to stay at home and bring up a family, some  make other lifestyle choices and some just do not want all the hassle that comes with it.

Davies and others complain of Groupthink but all the clamour to support this is Groupthink of the worst kind. If you don't agree you are cast to the margins. Plus there is no evidence to suggest that more gender balanced boards are more successful.

Many very successful women also work in the public sector which is not affected by this. Theresa May  (Minister for Women) spins by saying that 51% of the population are women therefore implying that this should be reflected on boards in the private sector. But twice as many women (40%) work in the public sector than men so one of the reason there are less women on private sector boards is actually because they employ fewer. There is less of a pool to choose from. 

This fact is worth looking into more because it has not been taken into account because it does not play to the distorted picture Davies, May and others are spinning.

With the Government bringing in the measures of the last Government to ensure there is discrimination in getting a job (section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 which the government had campaigned against when in opposition) and now ensuring talented men will hit a quota ceiling there is no equality for men at either end of the job scale.

With educational standards far behind those of girls, men being stopped from getting into work or getting to the top and with young men now earning less than girls all because the government and the state actively discriminate men and boys, it is now clear:

British men are second class citizens by Order of the Government

Posted by Skimmington 

Media Coverage - BBC#1, BBC#2, Daily Mail#1, FT#1, Guardian #1, Guardian #2, FT#2 (Catherine Hakim quote), Independent#1, FT#3, Daily Mail#2 

2010 - ANOTHER BAD YEAR AND ANOTHER BAD GOVERNMENT FOR BRITISH MEN

When the coalition government came together (also with lots of new MP's) there was some hope that the prospects for equality for men would improve after 13 years of a proudly anti-male Labour government with Deputy Leader, Harriet Harman, proudly proclaiming her anti-male credentials.

When the coalition government came to power, there were a number of positive things it outlined. Family law reform (still pending), anonymity for rape defendants unless found guilty and a commitment not to implement the controversial 'positive' discrimination sections of the Equality Act specifically designed to undermine the employment chances of men. Plus there was a general feeling that there would no longer be the harsh anti-male tone of the previous Government.

There were still troubling issues such as the fact that there was again a Minister for Women but no Minister for Men (how can a government state it believes in equality and have a Minister for one gender and not for the other, if it has to them at all). It also talked about equality in the boardroom (now going ahead), continuing with pension age discrimination and also nothing on men's health or education.

So what has happened, well its worse than we feared:

(1) The government performed a heinous u-turn on anonymity for rape defendants.

(2) The controversial section (section 159) of the Equality Act was implemented (on the link see latest news on 2nd December 2010) and hidden in the small print on its announcement on its Equality Strategy (see 8 below). This pernicious part of the Act was substantially covered on this site (1 and 2 ) and the u-tunr was covered in the Telegraph, Daily Mail, Metro, Daily Telegraph 2, Daily Telegraph 3

(3) Still no Minister for Men

(4) The government adopted the End Violence against Women & Girls strategy which has meant that male victims of rape and domestic abuse do not feature in government, police or local authority plans in tackling rape or domestic abuse. The outcome can be seen by the way the government handled its trials on 'stop' orders which were framed at female victims (thereby setting the tone for the way the police will handle the issue) or its Christmas campaign. For an example of how it percolates through the system, see a response the ManKind Initiative recently received from the Equalities Commission.

(5) Its continuing and deliberate misinterpretation of the gender pay gap, even though we now know younger women earn more than younger men. Plus resurrecting the issue that there are not enough women in the boardroom (1 and 2) and stating it has an aspiration to ensure 50% of appointees to public bodies are female.

Lord Mervyn Davies who is leading the taskforce looking at the female make up of boardroom has already declared "let's put women first for 2011". I kid you not. With this and the Equality Act, men are being shut out, make no mistake. Academies for female executives, board internships and now the 30% club.

Equality should mean the best people, now basing people on their gender but that is now what is happening and in many circumstances men (and of course that means their wife/partner or daughter as well) will lose out because good men will be held back to allow a woman with less skill to take their place. How can this be equality, gender is irrelevant.

Can Lord Mervyn Davies hand on heart say that a black boy from a run-down council estate attending a sink school has more chance of being on a board of a FTSE-100 company that a white girl living in Knightsbridge and going to a private school. Davies thinks so. 

(6) No action on boy's education, men's health (Prostate Cancer society article shows why) or suicide (80% of young people committing suicide are men).

(7) No one in Parliament (including the 232 new MP's - 35% of the total) and certainly no one in the Government is standing up for men and men's issues. It means the anti-male feminists in all parties are again riding roughshod over the true meaning of equality and doing all the can to marginalise men. 

(8) And finally - the coup de grace - the government's shiny new Equality Strategy - Building a Fairer Britain. At no stage (except fleetingly on Caribean boys)  does it ever mention men and boys or the isuses facing them. None of them in this post are ever mentioned. Nothing on education, higher rates of unemployment, health, suicide - just example after example on issues affecting women.

The Equality Strategy published this month, makes it completley clear - this governement is no better and no more interested than the last in tackling issues that affect men & boys (and consequently their mothers, sisters, daughters and wives/partners/girlfriends).

It actually wants to make things worse not just by the overt discrimination (see 1, 2,3,4 and 5 above) but the covert discrimination of discrimination by omission. And with Parliamentary terms lasting five years now, we have over four years of this to go.

There have been a few advances, equality of pesnion age, a family review still pending (who know what the result will be) and Mirko Fischer's BA win. Plus some organisations seem to be pushing more and more (Men's Network, ManKind Initiative, Prostate Cancer Society, Families Need Fathers, Parity, False Allegations Support Organisation, Men's Health Forum amongst others) and they will need to be encouraged by us all to continue.

However, looking back, the hopes at the beginning of the year have proved unfounded and it is clear that things have got worse in 2010 for men and boys.

Posted by Skimmington 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS NO GOOD WITHOUT ACTION ON FAILING BOYS EDUCATION

A recent post highlighted how the gender pay gap showing young women get paid more than young men and this is one of the clear signs of the educational establishment's failure to give boys a decent education. At least two generations of boys have seen their education damage by establishment failure and neglect.

This has been caused by the move from exam-based O-levels to course-based GCSE's, few male teachers, the feminisation of the curriculum turning pupils into robots with little room for initiative or challenge (letting boys be boys) and a whole host of other issues covered in these recent posts in particular (1, 2).

The symptoms been clear for some while now. We have the gender pay gap as mentioned, we have more females entering the professions as highlighted by the Daily Telegraph, 40% of women participate in higher education (university) against 32% of men and there are gaps at A-level (though Daily Telegraph said it narrowed this year), GCSE level (BBC) and also concern about how boys are falling behind at a SATS level (BBC 1, BBC 2 , BBC 3, Daily Mail).

The issue is that while there is recognition that boys are behind, it is almost treated as a footnote rather than something that is a core or central problem. There are one off type initiatives but nothing central or fundamental.

Why has the government not commissioned full scale research  or a Commission looking at why boys are now way behind girls educationally. Michael Gove (Education Secretary) acknowledges the problem of boys being behind academically but does absolutely nothing about it.

Why is the Education Selection Committee in Parliament silent on the issue?

There is lots of hot air but precious little action from the government, just like the last, about seriously tackling this issue. Another reason for a Minister for Men.

And of course, if it was girls who were underperforming we would never hear the end of it.

Posted by Skimmington 

MORE RECOGNITION ON THE PLIGHT OF BOYS IN BRITISH SCHOOLS - BUT IS IT GROUNDHOG DAY?

The lack of male teachers has always been a strong theme here, an issue ignored for too long by policymakers who want to do nothing that could be seen as being helpful to men/boys.

This has left a dearth of male role models in school especially at a primary level, even more serious if after is not in the home (barred by the family courts/CSA as much as anything else) and has made some contribution to the continuing problem of boys falling way behind girls at school.

The lack of male teachers has not been helped by the "all men are potential paedophiles" atmosphere we live in. So much so that 25% of primary schools (4,700) do not have a male teacher.

The latest GSCE results show the damage done to two generations of boys education when exam-based O-levels (boy friendly because of their pressurised and competitive nature) were replaced with coursework and continuous assessment (girl friendly) and will still take decades to close (check out the amazingly warped last para in this Guardian article!). Boys are ahead/level at maths but way behind girls at English at 11 (Telegraph, Guardian, Daily Mail)

However, there is change on the horizon to ensure another generation of boys are not blighted by an education system that does not meet their needs thereby relegating them to second class status.

Firstly, there is a report by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission due to be published tomorrow which highlights the gender gap. It will be an interesting read especially in what it proposes in the support for boys because the Commission is notoriously anti-male and has done nothing in its three year existence to highlight or take action on discrimination against men and boys.

Secondly, the AQA exam board will offer only exam-based GCSE's, at last giving parents of boys the opportunity and choice on an exam system that suits their sons, rather than have to put up with an exam-system that only favours girls (girls and boys should be able to choose exam boards so they can sit courses that suit their relative strengths).

Thirdly, there are groups like this trying to attact more male teachers into primary schools and that there is more proactive studies (Standard, Independent, PA) and suggestions being put in place, rather than as previously seeing the problem and then not bothering to do anything about it (move along Harriet, there is nothing to see here).

Lastly, there was this cracking show (Gareth Malone's Extraordinary School for Boys) on the BBC about how to get boys re-engaged with education. What was the magic formula, er..., allow boys to act like boys.

Perhaps some progress will start to be made, maybe the change in Government has meant people are no longer scared to look at it without being hounded, but we cannot afford to see another generation of boys being left behind.

Posted by Skimmington

   

 

 

AUGUST ARTICLE SUMMARY

Been away so sorry for the lack of posts, anyhow, here are a few issues that have come up lately which should be shared:

General

Men's Hour - BBC Radio 5

Men's Matters - Express FM (scroll down)

Daily Telegraph - Feminism, forget it, sisters (by Neil Lydon)

The Spectator - The death of the male working class (by Fraser Nelson)

Domestic Abuse

Northern Echo - Women jailed for stab attack on ex-boyfriend

Dorset Echo - Weymouth councillor on assault charge (oh the irony)

Irish Times - Hypocrisy over ability to be hypocrites (by Padriag O'Moran)

Medical News Today - Counsellors struggle to treat male victims

The Herald - Male abuse victims face extra barriers

Scotsman - Male victim tells of decade of abuse

Scotsman - Council accused of ignoring male victims

False accusations

Daily Telegraph - Britons trapped in false rape sting

Daily Record - Boxer's son released

BBC Dorset - Warning after Bournemouth woman jailed

Scotsman - Father wrongly accused in flawed abuse inquiry

BBC Norfolk - False rape mother is jailed

If Caroline Flint & Co say there isn't a problem, why is it that every week a woman is jailed for making false accusations!

Employment

Daily Mail - Work experience at Foreign Office: Not if you're a white middle class male

Daily Telegraph - Debt 'Men are new underclass'

Mixed-sex wards and health

Daily Telegraph - Government announced the end of mixed sex wards

An issue raised some timeago as the last Government promised it way back in 1997!

Pfizer - Man MOT

This is a brilliant initiative by Pfizer

Education

European Union - Study into gender inequality in education

Why is the EU having to do this when the UK Government should have done it years ago, but even Gove, the new Education Minister is not bothering. 

Politics

BBC - Harman wants half of Shadow Cabinet to be women

 

 

UPDATE: EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN

As things have been really busy the past four months or so, the next week few weeks will see interspersed with the usual commentary a list of articles on similar topics which then can be discussed.

Preferably it is better to have some commentary in the posts themselves but time is of the essence and it is better that the articles etc are shared rather than being overlooked because of time then not at all.

The first ones are on some employment related issues (not including the Equality Act which will be dealt with at a later date).

Useless Jobless Men by Camila Cavendish (The Times)

Debt - Men are emerging as the new underclass (Daily Telegraph)

Equality payout for female cleaners in Birminghamby Jamie Doward (The Observer)

The issue with the above is whether or not it also applies to male cleaners as well as female cleaners as well as other types of similar jobs wher ethe issue was apllied for females. If you remember this was an issue from last year where the sexist councils of Middlesbrough, Hartleppol and South Tyneside had to be taken to court so that men could be granted equal treatment.

South Tyneside were going to appeal. Love to find out if this decision also applied to male cleaners and whetehr South Tyneside appealed or not?

Sacked lawyer wins sex discrimination case (Yorkshire Evening Post)

Unemployment rate far higher for male graduates than female graduates (Higher Education Policy Institute) and Guardian article

Work experience at the Foreign Office? Not if you are a white middle class male by Brendan Carlin (Daily Mail)

Have we missed any employment related discrimination stories?

Posted by Skimmington

WHAT PARENT WOULD SEND THEIR SON TO ACLE HIGH SCHOOL?

So many big issues to write about, so little time, but just in case anyone missed this I couldn't let this go.

Headteacher Tim Phillips, at Acle High School in Great Yarmouth decided that none of the boys were good enough to fill the Head Boy or Deputy Head Boy positions so put girls in those places. It means that the positions allocated to Head Boys/Girls and the Deputy Head positions are all filled by girls.

As can be seen by the comments in the Daily Mail and also in the piece itself, there is much disdain for this position.

Obviously Tim Phillips thinks it is OK to mock boys (all the boys at this school will be a laughing stock) based on his own "judgement" and thinks there is nothing wrong in doing so. No wonder boys lose confidence in their ability when they mocked and undermined in such a way. The man obviously thinks he is some sort of tough guy when really his decision just damages people. No boy at that school will have any respect for him, bet they can't wait to leave school.

The key issue is firstly, no parent with a son in their right mind would send him to that school if he remains headteacher. He thinks they are rubbish and is happy to publicly say so.

Secondly, would Phillips ever think of doing the same the other way 'round. That is, if no girls were good enough in his laughable mind, would he put four boys into these positions? Of course not and of course if he did, the Equalities Commission, the Fawcett Society and Guardian/BBC would be all over him.

So angry...

Posted by Skimmington

He has tried to backtrack but still does not accept his wrong (Eastern Daily Press) 

EDUCATION ASIDE, BNP MANIFESTO OFFERS LITTLE IMPROVEMENT IN EQUALITY

Our fifth manifesto to review from an equality perspective is that of the British National Party.

By far the strongest aspect of the BNP manifesto in relation to equality is their education polices. They propose the reintroduction of sporting and academic competition and by reverting to a more traditional syllabus - policies which would perhaps start to close the gender education gap. There's a promise to rid schools of political correctness, which would at least rule out brainwashing kids with sexist messages about domestic violence.  There's also a promise to challenge gifted pupils, which is inline with Conservative policy. Finally, the strongest part of the policy concerns higher education with the party stating "politically correct degrees have also proliferated and while they may be of use to ‘equalities’ minded left-leaning councils, they are of little use to the productive economy". The BNP promise to withdraw subsidies for such degrees and even wish to see "ideological balance in university faculties" which would certainly put many of the bigoted women's studies professors under the microscope.

Another interesting aspect of the BNP manifesto is the fact they'll hold the media to account for publishing falsehoods and slandering people. This would be particularly useful with regards to the media coverage of dubious rape prosecutions or domestic violence allegations which prove to be false.  especially as such laws also promise a right of reply.

The BNP promises to close the council run diversity schemes, something likely to increase fairness. It would certainly be positive to see an end to the plethora of sexist "women-only schemes" such as ones relating to business especially as many are failing anyway. There's also a promise to close the Equality and Human Rights Commission. There's no doubt that this organisation has huge flaws at present, though I'd argue the BNP might be wrong here. Just because the organisation totally ignores large sections of the population doesn't mean they need shutting down. Why not just get rid of the worst staff and force the organisation to be fair, honest and non sexist in future? Either way it's at least a positive that the BNP have raised such concerns.

The BNP has some reasonable economic polices, they favoursfocusing on science, technology, engineering and manufacturing, sectors of the economy in decline under Labour. More jobs in such areas would help many of the real victims of the recession.

As with UKIP, the main downside of the BNP manifesto from the perspective of gender equality relates to crime and punishment. For example they seem to be rather fond of the government's DNA database stating "A person’s DNA is only added to that database when in police custody for a recordable offence", therefore suggesting they have little concern for false allegations and concepts such as innocent until proven guilty.

Whereas so many other manifestos have polices that are sexist towards men, the BNP actually take the opposite position and discriminate against women instead through their "married man's allowance". Don't' get me wrong , it's brilliant to encourage couples to stay together, but benefits need to be payable to husband and wife, rather than just one aprtner. Admittedly this isn't a sexist as some Conservative or Labour polices as the money ultimately will be shared between the two parties in most cases, but principles are important too, and despite the relative lack of harm, such a policy sends out completely the wrong message regarding fairness.

The BNP's response to family breakdown is actually very disappointing in other ways too. They seem to recognise some of the issues around the edges, for example noting on the section on economics that "a child may be better cared for at home than in a day-care centre". Similarly they note how the cost of legal services is too high and they do have policies to address the financial incentives for separation as discussed above. However, there's no mention of family law nor shared parenting. Such absences are  compounded by the length of the manifesto - it extends to some ninety pages, so it's not even as if they've been omitted just to keep things concise.

In conclusion we should certainly commend the BNP education polices. Some of their ideas for higher education in particular are hugely impressive and have a few decent ideas on local government issues and Quangos too. The party's offerings on the really key issues such as family breakdown really aren't at all impressive though, and if anything actually discriminate against women. I find this particularly disappointing given how the BNP supposedly prides itself on tackling the tough issues. The BNP is marketed as being different to the other parties and while there are glimpses of this, they're actually very similar to the likes of Labour, both in their ignorance of many issues and in their tendency to pick on particular groups.

John Kimble

TORIES TO DENY MEN NINE BILLION POUNDS IN PENSIONS

Part three of our review of manifestos for the election takes a look at the Conservative's offerings.

By far the most concerning item in the manifesto is the Conservative policy on state pensions. At present men have to work five years longer than women to get a pennons despite the fact that they've put in more hours at work on average and thus contributed far more in taxes on average. On top of this, male life expectancy is rather poor in the UK (a fact which even the manifesto even touches on) and as a result your average woman can expect to receive some £81,000 in pension payments in her life, compared with £55,000 for a man.

Such is the unfairness of this situation we even have excellent groups such as PARITY campaigning for pension's equality and even Labour finally agreed to end this sexism one day far into the future. So what's the Conservative policy here? Are they going to equalise retirements ages as soon as possible and live up to their promise of "change"? Well actually, the manifesto promises change, but change that makes the problem even worse! They propose raising the retirement age to 66 in 2016, but only for men. Women will continue to be able to retire at 60 right up until 2020. Thus we'll have a six year difference in retirement ages instead of the present five and £49,000 paid to men compared to £81,000 for women. By my calculations the total sum the Tories will be denying men over the four years is a staggering nine billion pounds. Further still, David Cameron suggests the money is going directly to women so that they all get a full pension, I don't think I've ever seen a more sexist idea.

Obviously such a policy instantly rules anyone interested in equality out of voting for the Tories, which is perhaps a shame given that its proposals do contain a few positives. The first thing of note is the more incisive language used in the document. There's no sexist terminology anywhere to be found. For example the two party manifestos I've reviewed so far focus on the trafficking of women for sex, whereas Conservatives address "people trafficking" which is far more appropriate given forced labour is a massively larger problem. As most people know, the issue of women trafficked for purposes of prostitution has been blown out of all proportion by Labour.

The Conservative's plans in eduction also appear quite reasonable from an equality perspective. They recognise how broken and the current system is, not to mention how devalued qualifications have now become and appreciate the need to focus on core subjects such a maths and science. They also promise more challenging activities for especially gifted pupils, as well as help fro the least able. The Conservative perhaps don't' realise but this is in fact a gender, given that boys dominate both extremes of the intelligence spectrum. More significantly, they specifically mention the issue of false allegations against teachers and promise to protect staff.

Further help from the falsely accused can be found in the section on crime, with the Conservatives promising to remove innocent people from the government DNA database and instead replace them with convicted criminals. Other positives include numerous polices from helping those in the armed services, most notably policies helping them after leaving, and also support for married couples thus helping to remove the current financial incentives for divorcing. Finally there's a commitment to shared maternity leave, which is certainty preferable to Labour's 4 weeks for fathers and 52 for mothers.

However, overall the document is something of a disappointment. Whilst you fell the party has their heart in the right place, the generally feeling you get from the manifesto is that while the Conservatives mostly understand what's important, they really don't seem to quite have the right solutions yet and still seem out of touch. The polices on marriage are commendable for example, but you get the feeling the Conservatives just want to push the clock back to a different era. The party recognises more needs to be done in terms of contact after separation even recognising that we have " some of the worst rates of family breakdown in the world", yet there's no actual commitment to shared parenting. Yes they mention false accusations, but why restrict such polices to the teaching profession when the issue can ruin anyone's life regardless of their profession? The problem isn't schools in this instance, it's society as a whole and the lack of punishment and prosecution of the crime.

Similarly there are also concerns with the Conservative's "Big Society" theme. Concerns about government bureaucracy, waste and interference are sound, but the Conservative approach also brings concerns. For example they want to see charities proving public services, but in some areas that's already the case to some extent. Take domestic violence for example, do we really want to hand even more power to gender feminist organisations such as Women's Aid and Refuge so they can continue to deny help to male vicitms and pretend most of them are making it up?

In conclusion, it's a decent enough document for the most part, but the pensions policy is so horrific it essentially cancels everything else out. It shows us the traditional Conservative way of hurting men is still alive and well. Whereas the Labour party hates men due to it's gender feminist influence, Conservatives harm men through chivalry. The pensions policy shows they expect men to work even harder and longer than women for less reward. It sends out the message that men are an expendable resource to exploit, rather than people deserving of equal treatment and you have to fear that such an attitude will find it's way into other areas of policy. It's all very well coming up with decent education and civil liberties polices, but no one is going to take your seriously if your idea of pensions reform is to ring-fence women's income whilst his taking £9 billion from men to fund it.

John Kimble

SHAMEFUL SILENCE ON GENDER EDUCATION GAP

Figures released by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills today showed that 51% of girls now enter higher education compared to 40% of boys. A gender education gap of 11%.

There is not a peep from the Government, the Conservatives or any other party about the gender education gap. Nothing from the laughably entitled 'Equalities' and Human Rights Commission.

Nothing, just silence.

Far more girls are entering the professions and boys are continually behind at all levels of education, nothing either is said on that

Compare it to the constant hullabaloo (and myth making) over the gender pay gap (12% for full time workers) even though it has been proven that the pay gap is due mainly to many women taking time out of the workplace to bring up a family.

No proper research, no proper thought as to why this gender education gap is happening and no policies that could help to boost boys education (rightly of course not to the detriment of girls' education) are ever expounded.

Can you imagine, if the genders were reversed and that far fewer girls were entering university than boys,  - we would never hear the end of it. But because it is boys, the figures just float by without comment. It shows inherently and culturally how much boys and men don't matter to the establishment in this country, they are the disposable sex -a culture explained very well by Conservative MP Paul Goodman yesterday.

It really is a tragedy that politicians and the establishment pay no attention to this matter when attention would be paid if the genders were switched. No explanation is ever given as to why this is the case.

It is sexism by silence. 

Posted by Skimmington