The Rights Of Man

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

UNIVERSITY GENDER GAP REVEALED TO BE 45,000 BOYS PER YEAR

A few stories back, the site looked at the issue that politicians, the elites and the commentariat were more concerned about male-only golf clubs than the fact far fewer boys went to university than women. A kindly reader sent over the detailed facts from UCAS and they show clearly the year on year gap between the number of boys and the number of girls going to university.

Covering, a six year period 2007 - 2012, 445,035 (average 74,173) fewer boys applied to go to university and 270,554 (average 45,092) fewer were successful. This means 45,000 fewer boys per year are going to our universities each and every year.

This shows the reality of the crisis in the education of boys at the top level as well as the crisis at the bottom level where so many boys leave school with no qualifications.

The misandry and spinelessness of today's politicians, commentariat and education establishment is that none of them are interested and none of them are prepared to do anything about it. They do not even speak about.

This crisis plays out in terms of men not being able to find work leading to depression, crime and a sense of rootlessness/identity and also the inability to use their talents and skills to the full (why is it that boys did better than girls 20 years and now the reverse has happened). No wonder younger women earn more than younger men and more women are the main breadwinner (not a problem per se) 

Who is speaking up for boys and the missing 45,000 who are not going to university? Or is it that golf club membership really is more important? Where is the Government's Equalities Department? Where is the Secretary of State for Education? Where are Barwell and Willetts?

Posted by Skimmington

WHTY ARE MEN NOT AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDED IN EQUAL PAY APPEALS AGAINST LOCAL AUTHORITIES?

There have been a number of equal pay cases over the past few years involving the unions fighting for equal pay, normally around bonuses or pensions, for women undertaking jobs such as care/classroom assistants, dinner ladies and the like. These roles were governed by one set of employment rules and more manual roles, such as dustmen for example, who were governed by another set of rules. However, the latter were able to get bonuses, overtime, pay rises etc and the former were not or recoved lower benefits.

The cases that have come out of the woodwork suggest that the same conditions should have applied and the litigants keep on winning.

Now, we can get into arguments on whether in reality they should be viewed as the same type of job but that can take us down a cul-de-sac. The real issue for me is whether men are being included in the litigation and also whether by default men who were also carrying out the same jobs as the women were also winning backpay etc. Not all care assistants, classroom assistants, dinner 'ladies' etc are women.

The "Equalities" and Human Rights Commission in Scotland won a case against Dumfries and Galloway council recently but they only mention women: "The Supreme Court has today ruled in favour of 251 female employees in their equal pay case against their employer, Dumfries and Galloway Council."

The court papers also state that they classroom assistants et al did not want to be compared to janitors who did not get bonuses etc - is this because they were men! Why were the janitors not included in the case? Plus would Alastair Pringle of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission support a case if the roles were reversed - I think we know the answer to that!

 (media coverage - here, here and here)

The site has covered other cases before:

Were men included in the Birmingham victory? Have any men claimed, does it apply to them, can they piggyback?

And we know that men in Tyneside, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough had to fight for their rights when they were excluded (full judgement here). It looks like the councils did shamefully appeal but I cannot find the outcome. It would be very interesting to see whether they did successfully appeal and also even if they then lost or withdrew - how much did that cost local male council taxpayers.

Overall though, why are men not automatically included in these appeals?

If it was about equality for all, then men would be but when has equality been an issue of interest to Unison or the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

Posted by Skimmington

 

Here is the solicitor responsible and helpfully at the botom you can click through to the court papers.

 

HOW THE FEMINIST NARRATIVE TEMPLATE DISCRIMINATES AGAINST MEN AND BOYS

This week, has been a landmark in showing how modern-day feminism (mutated from being an equality movement to one about gender supremacy and misandry) is actively denying both equality for men and boys through misandry but also even recognition that men and boys have problems to whether men and boys actually exist.

We have seen these issues as showing how the feminist man-hating narrative has become the mainstream view, the new normal, the standard view for Britain and its elites. Every issue that a woman faces is the fault of a man and/or only happens to a woman - so men get excluded from the story even through they also form part of the story.

We had at the start of the week the trolling story. As stated earlier this week, the lunatics trolling the MP's and campaigners do a great disservice to our cause, but the assumption of the feminist discourse readily picked up and accepted as Gospel by the media and the "elites" is that only women are trolled. Er, what about this then, on GQ (Telegraph, Independent). The professor in this story who says it is not a gender issue gets little traction all week.

Then there was a story on the introduction of application fees for employment tribunals. There was much anguish about the fact that this would be bad for low-paid women. It was if there were no low-paid men, yet 40% of low-paid workers are male! (Listen)

 The Evening Standard announced there was a summit on the lack of female engineers and a Parliamentary inquiry into whether science is institutionally sexist (I cannot find any news on this). But where is the campaign and the summit about the lack of male teachers, the lack of men in social services, healthcare, education etc. Er...there isn't one.

Mens Conference UK picked up on Marilyn Stowe's revelation that the Ministry of Justice's guidance on legal aid mentions husbands as perpetrators but not husbands and wives. The Ministry of Justice acting with pure unadulerated institutional discrimination against men. The rules are gender-neutral but the Ministry of Justice does not believe they apply in practice to men.

Continuing on the domestic abuse front, a Facebook message from Karen Woodall (Centre for Separated Families) stated "here's one for all of you interested in domestic violence.... Nick is training today for the DWP, he is not allowed to talk about violence against men or violence in separating couples in any way other than that which is ratified by the Coalition Government Policy on VAWAG by order of the HOME OFFICE - he also has two observers sitting in on the training to make sure he does not transgress this order (that's because they are nervous about my blog and my refusal to do as they ordered me to).   This is what your taxes pay for people...the state is most definitely controlling you and if you separate it will be Women's Aid and Refuge who rule your world."

Will the media point out in the Eddie Kidd story that men are victims too? (will Refuge's Sandra Horley spin this as self-defence?)

Will the media look at this story about this wicked mother and attack women, like they would attack men if it was the father who was at fault?

Plus of course the Co-Op bow to pressure and put men's mags in plastic covers because they have half-naked women in. When Hello etc have half naked or provocatively dressed women on their cover and sometimes men. Where are the feminists crying about this cover "The lost art of the handjob"!!!

There will be more and the site has already covered how feminism meant the media and the elites were more focussed on the membership of golf clubs than the number of men not going to university. The same has happened all week and what is so disappointing is that the media just do not question the facts or challenge the commentators so that modern-day radical feminism dominates the news agenda with no challenge, but they also do not challenge or even accept male related issues onto the agenda. Radio 4 had a section on feminism getting stronger, but when will they do the same on men's issues.

Glen Poole this week, set out his poll and it is more vital today than it ever has been to get some form of group up and running to put our case that men are discriminated against in every day society and that by shutting out men and boys  from the equality narrative and also acting with plain hypocrisy.

Modern-day radical misandrist feminism is a devastating barrier for men and boys. Their voice has been drowned out. 

Posted by Skimmington

 Ps I do like this article from Carol Sarler in case anyone has missed it.

 

LUNATIC TROLLS OPEN THE DOOR FOR MORE MEN BASHING AND MISANDRY

Today was depressing with one of the dominant stories today was 'all men are rapists' men-bashing narrative because some stupid dangerous male lunatics think it is OK to go onto Twitter and say they want to 'rape' feminists and female MP's.

It hands the ammunition to those modern-day men-hating feminists who want to paint all men as potential rapists and Neanderthals as part of the patriachal conspiracy. It just adds momentum after the banknote 'success', the golf club conspiracy and today's news on employment tribunals (more tomorrow on this).

We are back to the "when did you last beat your wife' territory - now it's "when did your last tweet you wanted to rape an MP" 

Of course, it is painted as a women against the patriarchy when it comes to trolling, but we know from this site that men can be victims of trolls and also, that women will troll other women on Facebook etc. And just remember that the Luluvise site is one big troll fest against men.

So it meant a great story such as the clear up rate for testicular cancer or the lack of men taking paternity leave  - thereby showing paradoxically how committed men are to the family unit as they will sacrifice paternity leave to protect their family's income (you won't hear the anti-male feminists talking about how men support their wives/partners/daughters).

So a few lunatics men mean pro-male stories are relegated and men again are lumped together by those who want to paint us all as bastards. Those trolls have damaged the women they trolled but also men campaigning for equality.

Posted by Skimmington 

GOLF CLUB EQUALITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE FAILURE OF THE EDUCATION SYSTEM TOWARDS BOYS

On Monday, UCAS published its figures on university admissions and the main story was that white teenagers (especially boys) were less likely to go to university than black teenagers especially boys.

Buried away was the fact that "Gender remains one of the biggest factors in application rates, with females remaining substantially more likely to apply. In 2012 in England, 49% (40% in 2007) of women
applied compared with 38% (31% in 2006) of men." 

Roughly for every seven applications, four are from girls and three are for boys - an actual gap in 2012 of 29%. 

This is an issue this site keep turning to (here and here) and still the silence from politicians, the government equalities office, department for education etc is deafening. Not a word from the Minister for Equalities - she thinks men-only golf clubs are more of an equalities issue.

It is why there are now more and more women earning more than men in their household, or when they are in their 20's and why more men are unemployed than women.

Reverse the genders (The Lyndon Concept) and there would be hell to pay - more attention is on the number of women in the boardroom or the cabinet or golf clubs.

 If ever there was a need for a responsible men's equality organisation this is the reason.

Posted by Skimmington

 

KARREN BRADY - GENDER SUPREMACIST

I just caught the Apprentice at the weekend - the last three were women - great no problem they were better than the men. But the best people for the job is not what counts nowadays, it is your gender and you can tell thta's what Sugar's sidekick Karren Brady thinks.

Scroll to 57:32 and here her say "I cannot tell you how pleased I am that your new business partner is going to be  a woman" . If it was about equality, the gender of the finalists would be irrelevant.

Posted by Skimmington

ORWELLIAN GUARDIAN REPORTER KATIE ALLEN AND HER ANTI-MALE LIES

Regular reader 'Groan' pointed this article out that I had missed and the comments clearly show that even the Guardian's readers (see comments section) had spotted the man hatred in Katie Allen's piece that was pure Orwellian.

To sum it up:

The female headcount in local government has plunged by 253,600 to 1.43 million since the coalition came to power in 2010 (15%)

The number of men in local government jobs is down less than half that figure, by 104,700 to 452,300 (19%).

But Katie said women were worst affected.

Plus of course it shows that three in every four people in local government are women - no bias there then.

Just like all the other lies about the recession that have been proved to be wrong about women suffering the most in the recession (here,  here,  here and here). 

Posted by Skimmington

NEW FIGURES REVEAL 98% OF PEOPLE WHO DIE AT WORK ARE MALE - WHY DOES NO ONE HEAR THAT?

New figures were issued today by the Health and Safety Executive that there were 148 fatalities at work in 2012/13, a welcome fall since 233 died in 2007/08, and the figures have continually fallen.

After interrogating the list of names and removing the members of the public (who shouldn't be in the list - obviously the beancounters at the HSE cannot sort their tables out) you are left with a list of 128, and only two (Zydre and Linda) are women. That's right folks, of the 128 people listed who died at work in 2012/13, 126 of the 128 were men.

There a number of wide ranging issues exposing the sexism and bias that men face daily in Britain.

As discussed before, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of victims were men, the Health and Safety Executive chose not to highlight that in their statistics or press release. They do not even acknowledge it anywhere at all. If the figures were the other way round, they would. So why do they choose do that? Is it because they don't think men matter?  Where is their equality impact assessment?Where is their diversity manager talking about it in the media? They chose not to so a clear case of discrimination by omission and institutional sexism.

Secondly, again there is silence from the political elite on the matter. Not just on the subject itself but also the number of men dying. Nothing from the Equalities Commission and nothing from the laughably named government equalities department.

Thirdly, and mentioned earlier this week, this is why there is a gender gap because of the danger premium associated with some of the work that men undertake. Labour, TUC, Fawcett etc want equal pay but where are their campaigns encouraging women to undertake this type of work?

Plus where are the prosecutions, the campaigns aimed at employers?

It shows that men who die at work are not of interest to those claim to believe in equality because they do not fit the 'only women matter' world of equality and diversity we live in - while men are dying at work. Collateral damage and the second sex. 

Posted by Skimmington 

MINISTER FOR WOMEN MILLER TO BRING IN MORE INSIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST BOYS - WILL BARWELL AND WILLETTS BE SILENT?

The Observer is running a story today that shows how anti-male the government is. The story is that the Minister of Women (still no Minister for Men - 16 years and waiting) is to launch an information pack that

"will offer advice on how to guide daughters through subject and career choices, amid concerns that many people feel they lack key parenting skills at such crucial times. It is feared that girls are not being brought up to be ambitious for themselves. The number of female chief executives in the FTSE 100 has fallen in the past year, with just three now heading large London-listed firms."

All at the taxpayers expense of course.

This is insidious for a number of reasons.

The last two generations of boys are the ones that need help

Just look at four key areas

• Just 30% of male school-leavers applied to university for autumn 2012, compared to 40% of female school-leavers.
• Boy's results at school continue to be way behind those of girls, especially English
• There are far fewer men than women entering the professions
• Unemployment is higher for men (1.4 million) than women (1.1 million) - despite the spin put out that women suffered more in the recession than men (as the CIPD showed)

Ignoring the generation gap

The average age of a FTSE-100 board member is 57 so if there is an issue with unambitious women, it is not the girls and young women of today (who are going to university and/or entering the professions - encouraged by their fathers and mothers) it with those entering or in their 40's. Many of whom do not want to be in the boardroom (anti-male feminists like Karen Brady and the 30% club always presume that every women wants to be a board member).

So therefore to provide information guides to parents with daughters to enable them to be more ambitious and successful is not only nonsense when they are more successful than boys already, it is discrimination and reinforcing disadvantage.

Not just because parents with sons won't get them (imagine a family with twins - one boy and one girl - she gets the pack he doesn't! ) but that it will make it even harder for boys to compete as they are not being encouraged and girls are. It will push them further behind.

Where is David Willetts MP who said that society and there were discriminatory barriers against boys going to university and working class men. Where is Gavin Barwell MP who sponnsored the report raising his concerns about feminism and boys education. Both of these are Conservatives, so why are they letting Maria Miller who is also a Conservative get away with this?

This initiative is driving a stake through the heart of equality and rubbing another generation of boys face in it. The Minister for Equalities is making it harder for equality to be achieved.

 Men are to blame for women not going into boardrooms

The underlying theme for all those who want quotas remember is that it is men are to blame and it is another male conspiracy driven by the some the tyranny of the patriarchy ideology. Quotas would discriminate against men.  

This is the real driver for Miller. She has bought into the anti-male ideology of her predecessors and wants to be loved by the anti-male feminists. She can get away with it because no one dare take her on - who speaks up for men and boys in this government?

This initiative is not about equality. It is about reinforcing inequality against boys, pulling the drawbridge up further from them.

Posted by Skimmington