The Rights Of Man

BANK HOLIDAY FOR WORKERS MEMORIAL DAY - 95% OF UK FATALITIES ARE MEN

When Yvette Cooper MP, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions produced, out of the blue,  a consultation suggesting that there should be a bank holiday for people who died at work on the internationally recognised Workers Memorial Day, there was a crucial issue missing.

Having examined the Health and Safety Executive's latest figures for fatalities at work (180 in 07/08) and discounting the fact that 66 were members of the public (that is, they died at a workplace but not whilst they were working at their workplace) its calculated that 110 fatalities were male and 4 female. Without going through figures again (may go boss-eyed), that makes the figures 95-96% male or in laymen's terms for every 20 workplace fatalities, 19 are men and 1 is a women.

Without wanting to be paranoid, why did the Secretary of State not mention the gender breakdown. I ma sure she would have done if it was the other way around.

Also it brings into question again all the nonsense about the gender pay gap. Part of the reason why men earn more money (not more when doing the same jobs as a woman) is because they carry out more dangerous work. Nearly all of the deaths are related to work in agriculture, manufacturing or construction where men predominate. Because of the dangerous work these men do, there is a premium vis a vis their salaries which needs to be taken into account on any debate on the gender pay gap. You never hear the Equalities Commission, Harriet Harman and the Fawcett Society talk about that or putting that into context.

Media Coverage - Google News (the general consensus was negative especially as if there was another bank holiday, it should rightly be on Armistice Day)

ABUSE OF GENDER PAY GAP STATISTICS CHALLENGED AGAIN

A week ago this site highlighted the fact that despite previous guidance from Sir Michael Scholar from the UK Statistical Authority to the Government that using the gender pay gap figure of 23% was wrong, the Women and Work Commission went ahead anyway.

Even though the media cover the story when Sir Michael originally queried it, the media, who do not fact check or connect things up, they still unquestioningly used the 23% figure again.

Now the row has blown up again with another letter(see 7th August) sent by Sir Michael, this time to Baroness Prosser.

The whole episode is covered by Mark Easton at the BBC.

One question remains though, does Sir Michael read this blog, so picking up on the issue that was previously raised on this site about the Women and Work Commission!

WOMENS' COMMISSION GENDER PAY GAP MYTHS - SLAVISHLY LAPPED UP BY MEDIA

A 56 page report called Shaping a Fairer Future by the Women and Work Commission (no Men and Work Commission exists, of course) run by the UK Government's 'Equalities' Office.

The report essentially state that the gender pay gap is down to gender stereotyping in career choices promoted by schools.

Yet, as pointed out so many times on this site, there is a gender pay gap overall but:-

• Lifestyle choice (ie taking years out to bring up a family) is the biggest explanation of the gender pay gap as explained by the Office of National Statistics report in 2008
• Women and men earn the same wage until they reach their 30's (see above for reason) so it is not down to school career stereotyping
• Single women earn more than single men
• In landmark research by the Daily Telegraph, they showed that far more women are entering the professions than men.
• There is no evidence that women get paid less than men due to discrimination.

 An additional point worth looking at is the fact that in June, the Government were slammed by the UK Statistical Authority for using the figure of 23% for describing the gender pay gap instead of the more accurate 12%, yet the report still uses 23%. They ignore the truth.

The deliberate and sexist lack of intellectual rigour in reports like this just keep coming and one of the problems is that th British media, which as each year goes by, lacks serious depth, never challenges them. They just spew out the copy verbatim without looking at the above points, the evidence or points by academics.

In the myriad of articles, there is not one challenge to it in the news reporting or an alternative voice. The only article is by Jill Kirby of the Centre for Policy Studies in the Telegraph

NEW ATTACK ON MEN IN THE CITY

The UK Parliament's Treasury Select Committee announced yesterday that it is calling for evidence about sexism in the City. Just like the recent report by the Equalities Commission on the supposed Gender Pay Gap which was used as a public flogging exercise against men, this is just the same.

Again, supine men in the City will stand back and take (only Sir Stuart Rose has complained about it) he fall because they scared of the equalities industry.

Media Coverage

CRUCIAL EQUALITY BILL CLAUSE 153 WIDE OPEN TO ANTI-MALE JOB RECRUITMENT

As previously commented upon, the Equality Bill will allow companies and public authorities to discriminate against candidates of equal merit when considering offering people a job base on whether they are 'under-represented'. We all know what that means in the real world - discrimination against men.

A crucial part of the debate took place on 30th June 2009 when there was a debate in the House of Commons' Committee Stage on the crucial clauses - 152 and 153 (clauses near the bottom).

Mark Harper MP (Cons) put down an amendment on clause 153 because it was too vague and too open to 'interpretation'.

The crucial point is that the clause says  

(a) A is as qualified as B to be recruited or promoted.

What Harper said was that the wording should be ‘equally qualified to’ because the current clause in the Bill meant it narrow the remit where positive action could take place. Leading businesses and also the Law Society said it would this would provide a narrower meaning.

He also wanted clause 191 amended which will stop a Minister from making provisions and amendments based on what he/she thinks but on a basis where they can demonstrate.

The crucial part of the debate centred on an example (column 605) where Harper gives an example between people being 'as equally qualified' to do a job which is different to their ability to be 'qualified to' do a job (hard to follow I know). The difference is that two candidates could have an equal degree but there could be a difference in their aptitude.

His amendment would have narrowed the remit in law. He has particular experience in this as a number of his constituents were involved in one of the UK's most scandalous examples of anti-male discrimination ever perpetrated in the UK (Gloucestershire Police 2006).

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the amendment did not gain support from either the Labour Government or the Liberal Democrats. Harper withdrew the amendment.

What it means though now is that even though organisation have raised their concern about the interpretation of 'as qualified as', it leaves it wide open for abuse and wide open for the systematic discrimination of men in employment. Just at a time when more and more men are losing their jobs.

 

Note 1

Look at the attendance list for evidence gathering at this meeting - any group missing?

Note 2

Look at the debate (column 604) where it is mentioned that Equalities and Human Rights Commission use the fact that primary schools could take positive action to recruit a male teacher because they have so few. The thinnest of fig-leafs and blatantly used as a smokescreen for the Bill's real intention. 

Note 3

Not sure why the text layout changed but it still readable (I hope)

AMFORTAS PODCASTS AND VIDEOS TO SHARE #4

The final instalment of podcasts and videos from Amfortas. I hope you have found them of interest.

Everyday Family Terrorism

"When Momma ain’t Happy, Nobody’s Happy". Amfortas and Paul Elam show how domestic violence and a lot worse are often caused by ‘controlling’ women who are willing to destroy their families to have their own way. Dr Eric Berne’s ‘Games’ are described including the major cause of broken families, the "Let’s you and Him Fight" strategy which uses the Police and Family Courts.

Is Feminism a Hate Movement?

Amfortas narrates MRA Fidelbogan’s well established, clear and logical analysis of the links between the spectrum of disaffection feelings that women have for men and the rise and sustenance of Feminism. This spectrum is lead from the top by hateful, sociopathic women and supported by ‘rent-seeking scum’ women in growing bureaucracies, who take immoral advantage.

 Video. You Tube. Everyday Family Terrorism

Paul Elam, Amfortas and Christian J show and tell of the damage done within families and society by intransigent people, in this instance Women, who are prepared to destroy their own families to get their own way. Erin Pizzey documented the effects of showing the Truth about violent women, for which she received Feminist death threats. Dr Eric Berne shows several 'Games' used including the 'let’s you and him fight' game so common today where cops and courts do the dirty work that leaves children unprotected.

Video. You Tube . The Pay Gap

Amfortas, Paul Elam and Christianj, examine the myth of the Pay Gap and show, name and shame the political women who lie to get the women's vote. Dr Warren Farrell demolished the mendacious claims but has been ignored by the media. Men do the dirty, dangerous work which pays well while women exercise choices that are more nurturing and 'safe'. The glass ceiling does not exist but the glass cellar does. Excellent video production by Paul Elam.

NO TIME OFF MOTHERS - IS THIS WHAT THE FAWCETT SOCIETY WANTS?

By Adrian Ashby

 

In a variation on the “gender pay gap” the Guardian (and a few other others) trumpets the 22% penalty for mothers in a report by the Fawcett Society. In addition, the Guardian refers to a recent research report by Vanessa Gash of the Cathie Marsh Ventre that compares the situation in six european countries. This report itself paints an interesting picture, and one suggesting some uncomfortable choices for the gender equality industry.

The countries considered are Finland, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. The first three have a labour market with a very small part time segment while the other three have a large part time segment.

Unsurprisingly

Finland

and

Denmark

have very little “penalty”. However the reasons for this are; that mothers returning to work, work full time and they do this having had very short maternity leave. In effect mothers are out of the workforce for a very short time and return quickly to their full time job. Next is

France

with comparatively generous leave (up to 3 years)  but the same pattern that once in the workforce mothers work full time. Finally there are Netherlands Germany and the

UK

with varying degrees of  maternity leave (but all much longer than

Finland

and

Denmark

) and a wide array of part time working. Surprise surprise it is these countries which have the “penalty”. Interestingly in all countries women crowd into employment in the public sector.

So in practice it seems if you take little time out and work full time you carry on earning! You will also keep up with women without children, go past men without children and earn just a little less than men with children. However if you take longer periods of time out and return to part time work you pay a “penalty”. Far from an evil patriarchal plot it seems simple practicalities are at issue. If the goal is equal pay then part time work should be the exception and maternity leave needs to be very much shorter indeed!.

(The previous CEO of the Equalities Commission was seen off for suggesting that the extension of maternity leave and “flexible working” was a feminist own goal- seems she was right.) 

In separate reported research the surprising discovery was made that successful female bosses are “bossy” just like male bosses. So just maybe the role of boss requires certain character traits irrespective of who fulfils that role. After all the majority of men aren’t bosses either!

STORIES ROUND UP

As ever, the stories and issues have come thick and fast so here are some that were too important to miss:-

The Guardian (Lee Elliot Major) - Why Boys Can't Keep Up With The Girls

Daily Telegraph (Melanie McDonagh) - Maybe Men Are Now The Underdog Sex

Sunday Times (Sarah Baxter) - Women Are Victors In The ManCession

The Guardian (Sarah Boseley) - The Future Is Female

The Independent (Richard Garner) - University Women Beating Men At Almost Everything

Scotland on Sunday (Dani Garavelli) - Let Our Boys Be Boys

Daily Express (Anil Dawar) - Outrage At White Men Prevented From Being PCs

AMFORTAS PODCASTS AND VIDEOS TO SHARE #3

See last two Saturday for previous instalments. in the series of podcasts and videos from Amfortas and colleagues.

Deliberately Lying about about Domestic Violence in Australia. Pt.1.

The ‘women’s Safety Survey’ was "uncorroborated, biased and manipulated" ‘Advocacy research’ orchestrated by the Office for the Status of Women and passed off as Bureau of Statistics report. It caused an enormous row, says MRA Amfortas. Manipulated definitions and hysterical claims copied from America made innocuous behaviour criminal. DV sells commercial products to women and expropriates public funds for the fastest growing ‘Industry in Australia.

Deliberately Lying about Domestic Violence in Australia. Pt.2.

Three other sources of ‘official’ data which are routinely manipulated and presented to support DV lies are analysed by Amfortas and compared to Independent University research which completely contradicts the ‘official message’." It would be generous to think that this manipulation and bias was just the result of incompetence. But as we can see there is something far darker behind it. It is corruption. It is deliberate."

Deliberately Lying about DV in Australia. Pt.3. The Truth is out there – Somewhere.

Christian J narrates how the 2006 Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey completely contradicted the Government’s 1996 survey. He also points to the attempts by feminist bureaucrats to manipulate by having ONLY female interviewers to bias the results. Results show women twice as safe as men. The Government has thrown a blanket of silence over it. Feminists maintain an undemocratic stranglehold, expropriating public monies for their anti-male ‘Industry’.

The Degradation of Women – by feminism

"In textbook leftist style, feminist supporters of the play ’Vagina Monologues’ cloak their attack on normal family values and morality under the guise of promoting awareness about violence against women. One does not have to be a prude to see a weak excuse for pornography and an anti-male agenda. But to disguise it as ‘awareness of abuse’, is an abuse of women’s minds and sensibilities." Amfortas lauds Bridget Blanton for her stand and protests and against the glorification of lesbian rape of young girls.

The Wages of Spin

Amfortas narrates the analysis of Paul Elam of the Pay Gap Myth, showing the mendacious and partial statistics promoted by politicians to anger women for political advantage. Women’s choices are intelligent and nurturing while men not only work longer hours but take the dangerous jobs that pay more. Dr Warren Farrell’s early rationales are sustained.

GENDER BIAS AGAINST MALES HIGHER THAN BIAS AGAINST FEMALES, IN SOME JOBS

By Megan Jones

Back in March, the website accountingweb.com reported on a UK study that found male job applicants in the fields of accounting and computer analysis were experienced greater bias than female applicants. The study tested out over 400 jobs, sending two fake applications, one from someone named Emma and the other from a job candidate named Phillip.

The applications – which listed the same age and level of experience and qualifications – were sent to employers and companies seeking to hire accountants, computer analysts, engineers and secretaries. Accountingweb.com, via The Guardian, reports that “men were up to four times as likely as women to suffer bias when seeking jobs in accountancy and computer programming. Men were also four times less likely than women to be hired for secretary positions, while women were “half as likely” to get the engineering jobs, according to accountingweb.com.  

In response to the study’s findings, some analysts believe that employers who hired women are practicing what is called “stealth affirmative action,” though there is no law that requires employers to modify their hiring practices according to affirmative action in the

UK

. Others have responded by saying that while men should not be discriminated against, women still bear the brunt of the majority of workplace discrimination.

In either case, gender discrimination is unfair. The news article also referenced a study from Rutgers University graduate students and published in the Psychology of Women Quarterly, which found that men who acted ambitious and like they really wanted to succeed in their careers were viewed as favorable candidates, while women who acted in the same way were considered less than desirable in terms of social skills and likability. This finding led those in the study to feel less passionate about hiring women who acted ambitious.

It is unclear exactly why the employers in the first study favored women over men in three out of four industries. And while computer science and accounting are still traditionally male-dominated fields, especially in upper management, a stealth affirmative action initiative can’t be a conclusive answer, as it does not apply to the field of engineering, at least according to the study.

This post was contributed by Megan Jones, who writes about the bachelors degree. She welcomes your feedback at Meg.Jones0310 at gmail.com