The Rights Of Man

HARMAN CAUGHT OUT AGAIN ABOUT WHO IS LOSING OUT IN THE RECESSION

A few days after Harriet Harman, the UK's Minister for Women, Leader of the House of Commons and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, received a letter from the UK's statistics watchdog about peddling untruths about the gender pay gap, the Government's own Equalities and Human Rights Commission proves her wrong about the recession.

Ms Harman had previously proclaimed this year that women were the biggest sufferers in the recession only to be proved wrong by the Office of National Statistics.

This time, the Equalities Commissioned issued a report on the recession showing that male unemployment in the Uk had increased by 2.4% (to 8.1%) and female unemployment by 1.4% (to 6.4%).

On four key issues now, Harman has been caught peddling distortions on jobs, depression, domestic violence and the gender pay gap. On each occasion the intention is to state that the plight of women is worse than the plight of men and to allow her to pursue her pro-female anti-male agenda.

Truly shameful.

HEROIC VICTORY IN MIDDLESBROUGH, HARTLEPOOL AND SOUTH TYNESIDE - BUT WHY DID THEY HAVE TO FIGHT

This week, 300 heroic men won a test case at an employment tribunal in the North Eastern councils they work (Middlesbrough, Hartlepool and SouthTyneside). This has implications for 12,000 men across the UK.

The case was based on the fact that men and women working for these three councils had previously taken a case against these councils where they were not given bonuses for similar graded jobs to jobs mainly carried out by men (such as gardeners and refuse collectors).

However, whilst these women were rightly awarded a financial settlement or received tribunal awards after winning their case, the three council's employing these men refused to make payments to the men or change their terms and conditions. Pure unadulterated discrimination.

That meant they continued to receive not only less than other men, but also less than the women.

The men then lodged sex discrimination cases in addition to their equal pay claims. The tribunal upheld this, but the council's scandalously appealed, and lost.

The situation is well set out in the BBC and Teesside Gazette.

This test case, was a landmark victory for these men not just because of the decision but also because of what the Judge and lawyers said about it on the BBC:-

 Mr Justice Underhill said: "It would be surprising and unsatisfactory if the [Equal Pay] Act offered no remedy to men in a situation like the present. The case where men and women do the same job but receive different rates of pay is the paradigm of the kind of situation which the Act was intended to prevent, how would it seem if the roles were reversed and the 'piggyback' claimants were not men but women?"

Lawyers involved, from the Cloister Chambers, have described it as a landmark ruling which will have a bearing on many other cases, and could cost councils hundreds of millions of pounds.

After the ruling, Yvette Genn, a barrister who specialises in equal pay law with the chambers Cloisters, said: “This is an important decision as it demonstrates that equal pay laws can be applied not only by women who compare themselves with men, but also by men who are comparing themselves with better paid men.

“Even though women historically have received lower pay than their male counterparts, it is too often forgotten that the law applies equally to men as it does to women.”

It crucially shows that equalities legislation can be used by men and with decent legal teams they can win. The Judge alludes to the hypocrisy of discrimination against men because he is basically saying if it was the other way round, then there would be no dispute and that he would not have to make a decision as it would unlikely to have to go to court for a settlement to be reached. A sound judge.

The key issue though is why did the councils not pay up in the first place when the women won their case and why did the three council's could automatically assume that it was OK for them to pay just the women concerned and not automatically extend it to these 300 men.

They did so, because firstly they felt they could get away with it but importantly because they felt these men did not matter because they were men. These three councils clearly do not believe in equality and it is shameful that public authorities feel that it is right and proper to discriminate against them.

What about the male councillors on these local authorities, what did they do about this, did they think it was OK that male workers working for them were discriminated against?

These men are heroes whilst the male councillors and male senior executives who appealed this decision have behaved disgracefully, they are traitors.

Other Media Coverage - The Times, Personnel Today, People Management, Daily Mail

MEN NEED NOT APPLY: HAVE YOUR SAY ON CLAUSES 152 AND 153 IN EQUALITY BILL

By Adrian  Ashby

As part of the passage of the Equality Bill the parliamentary committee looking at the Bill invites evidence and comments. It does this through invited oral evidence sessions and written submissions. This is during June and July. A glance at the invitees for the oral sessions shows a line up of the usual representatives of the equality industry.

However anyone can submit written evidence to the committee. I’m sure few will know about this opportunity. Chapter 2 "Positive Action" should be commented on as it is the first two clauses (152 and 153) that will actually result in discrimination against men in getting jobs or promotions.

I hope readers individually, or through organisations, will make their views known to the committee as they are amending the Bill. The links below tell you how to do this.

Equality and Diversity Forum

Government Equalities Office

These clauses once enacted as currently drafted will effectively mean quotas in employment and promotions.

Editors Note

The Equalities Bill is one of the most anti-male pieces of legislation ever as the intention (even though hundreds of thousands of men are losing their jobs) is to discriminate against men. This has been well documented on the site (1 and 2) . An example of this in practice and with more to come to make this legal.

 

 

 

WHY THE GENDER PAY GAP IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS WOMEN BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST

By Adrian Ashby 

 

The row over the misuse of the Office of  National Statistics information highlights the dishonesty in the whole policy with regard to the “Gender Pay Gap”. Constantly presented as about women paid less than men for the same work it generates a feeling that women are treated unfairly in terms of pay.

 

Yet the Equal Opportunities Commission Reports produced in the early part of this decade identified little difference in pay rates for the same sorts of job. In fact the key factors were identified as time out of work and the popularity of part time work in a comparatively narrow range of occupations.

This drove the EOC to support “flexible working” and encouragement for young women to consider other occupational choices.  

 

Of course at that point the debate becomes about the issues for mothers (and fathers) rather than all women. As there was found to be little “gap” for childless women partnered or not.

The other issue is then what drives the choices of occupation made by men and women?

 

The Office of National Statistics has published regional figures. There are some interesting patterns.

For instance the pay “gap”is very small in regions that have suffered the collapse of  “men’s” occupations (mining, heavy manufacturing etc.). In those same areas, such as Wales or Northern Ireland the more prominent role for public sector employment (mainly female) means that as the recession hits private industry the “gap” is getting  very small indeed.

A feature rarely commented on is that men are also more concentrated in low earning occupations working full time hours. This matches with the figures that part time men are paid less than part time women.

 

The men are much more likely to be in low skilled P/T work while the figure for women includes the many professional women who choose to work part time, for instance the new GP contract precipitated a dramatic increase in female doctors working part time.

 

In general women are concentrated in the public sector and have a narrower distribution of pay rates. There are of course men at the heady heights of the now discredited banking industry but many more in “dirty” jobs that pay little. In other words there is a much wider distribution. Portering, cleansing, labouring, delivering and so on tend to be both low paid and invisible but also men’s work.

 

Though the fact that full time male workers statistically work ten more hours per week than women is often taken to indicate preferences of men in management or professions. However a more accurate analysis of statistics  would note that this is more often a reflection of low paid workers keen to earn more through overtime.

 

Of course the reality for most people is that choices and trade offs have to be made. Often these are made by couples and families. The patterns frequently change over the life courses of both men and women. Occupational segregation is an issue though the statistics show that the “female” occupations have been becoming more female over the same time many “male” occupations have become less male, so here again it isn’t a simple issue. 

HARMAN IS CAUGHT AGAIN DELIBERATELY DISTORTING THE TRUTH - GENDER PAY GAP

In Orwellian/New Labour/PC industry double-speak the mantra is 'if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.' Never more so, when it comes to perpetuating untruths by the Marxist anti-male feminists who continue to tell untruths about how discriminated against women are vis a vis men.

This site has already highlighted on three occasions this year, where such myths have been destroyed by the media, professors or statisticians (Recession and Depression, Recession and Jobs, Domestic Violence), now this time it is the deliberate misuse of the statistics on the Gender Pay Gap.

Sir Michael Scholar who heads up the UK's independent Statistical Authority gave Harriet Harman an official warning last week after he had previously protested about the her misuse of the gender pay gap statistics.

He said her office had been warned that including part-time workers in her calculations could be misleading but pressed ahead. They claimed that women were paid 23 per cent less, but Sir Michael says 12.8 per cent would be a more accurate figure.

Her and her acolytes in the Government, the laughably named Equalities Commission and the Fawcett Society do not care about the misuse of this or any other statistics so long as it positions women in a unfavourable light with regard to men.

The reason is that it acts as the lever to get more support for women at the cost of men and this can be seen by the Equalities Bill. That is the reality of the lies they use, they are not casual lies, they are lies used to justify more discrimination against men and more special treatment for women. Their lies trun into public policy.

What is so terrible about this propaganda war is that often the media just accepts what they say (though they are now being questioned more) but also that they won't accept the truth.

Harman and her acolytes continued to use this statistic in full knowledge that they should not. In addition, even when this latest issue was uncovered, the anti-male Equalities Commission (taxpayer funded and of course, they are public officials) said the statistical watchdog was wrong. They said "women representing over three-quarters of the part-time workforce, we believe this figure gives the fullest picture of the country's gender pay gap."

It proves that they are willing to peddle untruths so long as they can claim more victories in their war on men.

Coverage is here:- Daily Mail with readers comments, BBC, Mark Easton BBC, Independent, Daily Telegraph

DYING FOR A LIVING by ADRIAN ASHBY

The Health and Safety Executive published the results of a survey which showed that people completely underestimate the number of serious injuries and deaths at work.

 

Not only was there a lack of understanding of the number it was also not understood that the overwhelming majority of deaths and seriously injured are men. In 2006/7 five women were fatally injured and the same year 173 men died as the result of injuries at work. Similarly 20,235 men suffered a “major non fatal “ injury with 8,307 women suffering the same. Over 80,000 men had an injury resulting in at least 3 days of work with just under 34,000 women.

 

The last time the HSE did a gender analysis (in 2000 !) it noted that men had a 75% greater risk of suffering a work based injury rising to 85%  for serious injuries. Of course as can be seen  almost 100% of deaths are men.

 

In these times of gender awareness it is surprising that this hugely disproportionate  risk is not made more note of. Similarly figures for serious illness contracted as a result of work show a vastly greater number and risk for men.  

 

SIR STUART ROSE CHALLENGES HARMAN ET AL OVER THE MYTH OF THE 'GLASS CEILING'

At long long last, a senior business person has has the balls to openly challenge Harman, The Fawcett Society, The Equalities Commission and anyone else who continually uses the the gender pay gap or the career 'glass ceiling' as a way to attack men (see number of posts in the employment section) For far too long men have lied back and taken it without a whisper of dissent, it has been female commentators who have been left to pick up the cudgels.

This week, Sir Stuart Rose, the Chairman and Chief Executive of Marks and Spencers said women had never had it so good and were able to bring up children and enjoy a successful career, if they wanted to. This not only challenges the glass ceiling but also the gender pay gap which studies, time after time, show that it is not down to discrimination but lifestyle choice.

The Equalities Commission who are currently carrying out a witch-hunt in the City will be particularly exercised by this.

What is also credible about Sir Stuart Rose is that not only is he a captain of industry but also that his record of promoting women (based on tehrio merit) is very good so what brickbats can be thrown at him? None.

Media Coverage including the obvious (yawn) backlash from the usual suspects can be found at:- Daily Mail, The Guardian, BBC, Daily Telegraph

PADEL RESIGNATION SHOWS THE POWER OF THE FALSE ALLEGATION

So what does the case of Ruth Padel's resignation as Oxford's first female (why does it matter that she is a women) Professor of Poetry say about the whole issue of male equality and the metropolitan elite's demonisiation of men.

The issue arose last week where Ms Padel resigned because of her involvement in an 'alleged' smear campaign against a rival Derek Walcott. She passed on the 'concerns' of a student about an allegation (to which he was cleared) in 1982 at Harvard to two journalists. 100 Oxford academics had been sent an e-mail (not from Ms Padel) with details of the claim obviously in an attempt to derail his application. It worked as he withdrew.

Three issues, albeit interlinked, arise.

Firstly, what it proves is the power of false accusations made against men as a weapon to attack any man who has been accused, even if the allegation was unfounded. The allegation is 27 years old but still it was used as a weapon against Walcott.

Not knowing whether the law is the same in the USA as here (though it is likely), his name was in the public domain but the person making the accusation was not. If there was real equality in the law on this issue then both the defendant and plaintiff's identity should be kept secret  and then this would not have arisen. As we have seen, aided by the power of the internet (only takes a Google search), once an allegation against a man has been made, the stigma can never be removed for the innocent.

Secondly, it shows that a minority of females are prepared to use it as an advantage and obviously the concerned student who asked Ms Padel to pass it on wanted to use the allegation to help Ms Padel. But also whilst Ms Padel said she was naive in passing on the claims to two journalists, what was her thought process for doing so. Why did she think it was relevant to the campaign. If she did not think it was relevant to the success of her campaign, why pass it on, why not tell the student to do it herself and that she would have nothing to do with it.  

Thirdly, the excuses made by supporters of Ms Padel also do not understand (or care) about the gravity of the effect that false accusations have on men.

In The Guardian:-

Rose Tremain, rightly says: "It is a tragedy. But there is a moral question here – and I think it is unanswerable."

But why does Novelist Jeanette Winterson say "It's a pity she has been backed into a corner. What she has done is so much more ­trivial than her contribution to poetry. This feels malicious and nasty. We ought to be able to look beyond the woman to the poetry. This is a way of reducing women; it wouldn't have happened to a man. But then Oxford is a sexist little dump."

or as poet Jackie Kay said: "This was the first time that we had a woman as Oxford Poetry Professor – and she has had to resign over two emails. The old boys have closed in on her. It would not have happened to a man, and I am very sad."

The key lines are in Bold above. Firstly, it is certainly not to trivial to pass on false accusations and also it would have happened to a man if they passed on these smears. What it shows is that the mindset of those quoted is one where anything that adversely happens to a woman must be because of the fault of man or the male society etc.

This type of double think is seen as acceptable and shows clearly that we do not have an equal society where some people (members of metropolitan elite) truly believe that it is right to have different rules for men and women and those rules must be more favourable to women.

Media Coverage - Daily Telegraph, BBC, Independent, Times including the e-mail

WHITSUN COVERAGE ROUND-UP

The past two weeks have been busy in terms of anti-male issues or debunking anti-male myths. Listed below is the some of the coverage.

The Times (Sue Palmer) - Who's to blame for the lost boys?

The Sunday Times (India Knight) - Having it all is a myth, girls

Daily Telegraph (David Green) - The Gender Pay Gap Does Not Exist

Daily Mail (Petronella Wyatt) - Man Flu? It we women who are the sickly sex

BBC - Fathers Cool on Parental Leave

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