The Rights Of Man

EYES STARTING TO OPEN OVER THE PRACTICAL IMPACT OF HARMAN'S EQUALITY BILL

Now that our favourite Government Minister, Harriet Harman, has got her Equalities Bill (link) up and running in the UK Parliament, the practical impact of its policy to stop men from being treated as equals in the workplace is starting to be shown.

It is not helped of course, that she is now off the leash and gone into full-on male-bashing mode. You see, she blames maleness, for the collapse of the banks and as now so many are nationalised she wants to use the pro-women laws in the Bill to, as the Daily Mail put it, 'put women in charge of the banks'. No problem in theory with having women (or anyone) in charge of banks so long as they are suitably qualified.

But Harman's Law is not about this, it is about letting someone from one gender (women) being able to leapfrog above other people (men) up the career ladder solely based on gender. Just how fair it is for a man who has dedicated himself to a career to then be denied that opportunity because he is a man? It is wrong and morally so.

Also having been found out to be misleading everyone with her previous campaign saying the recession affected the employment of women more than men, she has turned her attack more generally. She said "because women generally remained homemakers, the recession caused them to fear not only for their own jobs, but also for their husband's, for their children's futures, and for elderly relatives. We have to worry more than men and we are definitely worrying more about the recession than men are."

There is not single shred of evidence to base this on and if she thinks that men are not worried to the same extent (or more) than women then she is just wrong. Patronisingly and desperately wrong.

Harriet Harman will do anything she possible can to attack at men. Why does she dislike us so much?

Other coverage is here:- Daily Mail, This is Money, Express, Telegraph

CAMPAIGNER BRANDS MANY FEMINISTS AS BEING ANTI-MEN

Campaigner Erin Pizzey hit out a few weeks ago in the Daily Mail.

Pizzey, who has never described herself as a feminist, fell out with many in the women's movement because she did not share many of their views.

The middle-class Christian said many feminists were obsessed with destroying men and marriage and said for many it was like a 'born again' religion.

The article is here for anyone that missed it.

MEDIA CONDEMNATION FOR HARMAN' S EQUALITIES BILL

A week since the ironically named Equalities Bill was published and covered here (link and previous links here, here and here), there seems to be universal condemnation (especially from women) on a number of issues. The additional coverage is listed at the bottom but the issues are:-

(1) It is anti-male and unashamedly so;

(2) It is anti-business;

(3) The gender pay gap is down to lifestyle choice and not down to discrimination.

Harman's colleagues in the UK Government, which seems to be rotting further each day, seemed to be able to resist her when she put this forward. It is interesting to note none of them seemed to be rushing to support her publicly. Is it because they are embarrassed, do they support it or they so in hock to the anti-male PC brigade to say anything?

What will the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats do? Will there be enough labour MPs who could help to vote it down like they did on this week's Gurkha Bill.

There is no way any sensible person could possibly vote for this swingeing anti-male legislation surely? Thank the Lord the laughable Fawcett Society do not run Parliament, they don't think it goes far enough! (link)

Progress will be analysed as it wends its way through Parliament.

Further Coverage:-

Express 1, Express 2, Express 3, Express 4, Express 5, Express 6

Mail 1, Mail 2, Melanie Phillips Mail 3, Edwina Currie Mail 4

Telegraph 1, Charles Moore Telegraph 2, Telegraph 3, Telegraph 4,

Minette Marrin Times 1

Guardian 1, Guardian 2

HARMAN'S EQUALITIES BILL MEANS OPEN SEASON ON MEN AND THEIR LIVELIHOODS

Harriet Harman introduced the Equalities Bill (link, link, briefing) into the UK's House of Commons today.

The main areas of concern and ones raised on this site a number of times is around the gender pay gap (employment section) and the positive action (link) proposals (no such thing as positive action as it means negative action for someone else).

With male unemployment higher than female unemployment (link, link) pressure on businesses and a willful abuse of the gender pay gap statistics, what in reality Harman has done is declare an employment war on men.

Her intentions are clear.

Companies will be forced to publish their gender pay statistics and this is with the sole intention of shaming employers, no matter what rational explanation.

British Aerospace (BAE) for example, said at the weekend that they have a large gender pay gap because their highest paid employees are engineers who are predominately male. They have female engineers but fewer of them so their gender pay gap will be large but this is not down to discrimination especially when they want more female engineers. BAE, according to Harman and her acolytes though, want to place BAE in the stocks and put them through some grotesque Stalinesque show trial.

She said "You have got to believe that either women are 20 per cent less intelligent, less hard-working, less committed to their job, less experienced, less qualified, or you have got to believe that there is structural pay discrimination. We believe there is structural pay discrimination."

 No one as ever said this, it is down to lifestyle choices and career decisions. 

The other issue is that the positive action issues are clearly designed to discriminate against men. The legislation will be gender neutral but its interpretation by the courts, lawyers and HR staff will not be. The intention of the bill is clear - it is discriminate against men.

The bill says that companies can choose one person above another because of their gender when the two candidates are equally qualified. Quota's will also be introduced for companies bidding for public sector wo.

Firstly, it is virtually impossible for two candidates to be equally qualified especially after interview and any other testing. It is mischievous to suggest differently.

Secondly, in the current climate with more men on the dole queue they could be denied a job solely on the basis of their gender. This is discrimination.

Lastly, if a man is discriminated against (and could be from a working class background and studiously made his way up the ladder), it will not just be him who loses out, it could be his daughter, his wife/girlfriend and mother. That will go down well as those women will be equally discriminated against but it is being done in their name.

The Bill, if it passes, and it is likely to, is open season on men and will enshrine discrimination in law against them. Don't anyone think differently

It is the culmination of three decades of anti-male propaganda and male bashing. The nightmare is coming true.

Media Coverage so far (Daily Mail 1 plus debate, Melanie Phillips, BBC, Metro, Telegraph) and more will emerge over the week.

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

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

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

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

Except it doesn't...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DID THIS MEDIA COMPANY BREAK THE SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT?

There was an article in the UK's Daily Mail this week (link), where Samantha Brick set up a media company that only employed women. It went bankrupt but her aim was "...to achieve my Utopian dream - a female- only company with happy, harmonious workers benefiting from an absence of men. "

One issue that was not picked up was whether setting up this media company with such a recruitment policy actually broke the  Sex Discrimination Act (1975) (link). The Act does allow for gender-only discrimination but only in specific circumstances, normally around issues of vulnerable people or where there is an obvious reason.

However, a media company would not fit into that category. As far as can be seen the policy of only recruiting women broke the Act and therefore was operating illegally. Any man who applied for a job with this company and was turned down because of his gender would have won a case in the civil courts.

Because it was a woman-only company, it is not challenged but if it was a male-only company then this point would have been made, such is the double standards.

The question is, how many other companies out there that purposely only recruit women and not men? And are proud of it!

EQUALITIES COMMISSION MAKES CASE FOR INCREASING SUPPORT FOR INCREASING PATERNITY LEAVE

The UK's Equalities and Human Rights Commission made the case this week for increasing paternity leave for men, though it has catches (link). It is part of their campaign to de-genderise parental care.

It has not been reviewed fully so welcome any thoughts or comments.

It does seem somewhat patronising describing for instance 'By supporting men to be good fathers' as if they are not good fathers already, just because some continue to work through a child's first year.

At least there is some recognition of the value of fathers, now that is a radical change!

EQUALITIES COMMISSION WILL NOT GIVE UP PEDDLING GENDER PAY GAP MYTHS

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

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

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

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

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

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

HARMAN AND OTHER ANTI-MALE FEMINISTS EXPOSED FOR RECESSION UNTRUTHS

In February a post (link) outlined how Labour's Deputy Leader Harriet Harman, the anti-male movement and others were using the recession as an indirect way to attack men and an opportunity to call for more special treatment for women. It was almost as as if the recession did not affect men as well (and of course, their wives/girlfriends/daughters!). They said that women would suffer more than men and Harman said she would not let women become victims of the recession (link).

A number of key issues occurred last week.

The increasingly hysterical anti-male organisation The Fawcett Society launched a document 'Are women bearing the burden of the recession' (link) which called for gender quotas and described 'The collapse of financial institutions has vividly demonstrated how power in our major corporate rests almost exclusively in the hands of white men.' It deliberately says the recession is 'man-made' (link) which clearly shows the organisation is not being rational or objective but is actually at the forefront of attacks on men. It no longer tries to hide it.

A special summit from all over the country in key positions to 11 Downing Street for a session on 'Women and the Recession' (link).

There were debates, to celebrate International Women's Day and the effects of the recession on women, in both the UK Parliament (link) and Scottish Parliament (link).

Vitally, the official public statistics provider Office of National Statistics (link) produced a report which exposed the untruths of Harman, The Fawcett Society, The TUC and all those other anti-male groups.

 The ONS' published figures (link) that showed that:-

Redundancy rate (Oct to Dec 08) - 13.6/1,000 (men) and 6.6/1,000 (women)

Employment rate (Oct to Dec 08) - 1.0% fall (men) and 0.3% (women).

The ONS explain this could be due to more women being employed in the public sector which has not suffered in the recession.

The statistics completely and utterly demolish the untruths and the myths that the biggest victims of the recession are women. This gender war myth has been exposed because it was built on sand, there was no evidence.

The recession can no longer be 'captured' by Harman et al as a ruse to talk up women (at the cost of men) and demand special treatment for women. Both men and women are suffering in this recession.

This recession argument shows that the tactics of the anti-male feminists is that if you keep telling the same lie it will eventually become the truth.

We must work hard to expose it time and time again

Coverage of the ONS figures that exposed Harman are here:- (Daily Mail, People Management, Yahoo, Telegraph, This is London and FT). 

HARMAN DECLARES THE CITY GUILTY OF SEXISM EVEN BEFORE SHOWTRIAL BEGINS

At the end of last year, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission declared they would investigate the City because of the wide gender pay gap and harassment. The site covered the issue here.

Last week, Deputy Prime Minster and Minister for Women, Ms Harriet Harman, the UK's leading anti-male campaigner, wrote to the Commission asking them to investigate these issues especially as the gender pay gap in financial services is 40% (link, link).

In the UK, one of the founding tenets of the legal system used to be that you were innocent before being proven guilty. In the War Against Men, no such distinction counts in the Orwellian world that Harman and others live in. She has already declared that men in financial services are guilty.

She says "There is something rotten in the remuneration system of the banks and finance companies. Men paying themselves millions of pounds of bonuses each - and then saying that they didn't know what was going on." She denounced what she called an "old-boys' network" paying itself millions amid financial turmoil.

As covered here before, the gender pay gap is mainly down to lifestyle choices not discrimination. That many women choose not to work at the high-end of the financial services system because of the long-hours, time spent away from family and often the pure pressure. Many women, certainly not all, prefer not to have to deal with it and leave it tho their husbands whilst they look after their children. Also many women choose to work at bank counters etc because a lot of this work can be part-time and fits into their lifestyle.

To say it is down to discirmination (as if no woman got a big City bonus), it one of those classic Politically Correct lies that if you say it enough, people will believe it.

The City and the financial services industry have already been found guilty by Harman et al and now we have to put up with the unedifying witch unt and show trial.

What is a shame is that no-one in the City has the balls to challenge her.