The Rights Of Man

HARMAN DECLARES WAR ON MEN

In the death throes of this nasty anti-male Labour Government, before they are  unceremoniously booted out, they have officially declared war on men.

After the publication and announcement this week by Harriet Harman (the enemy of men) of the Equalities Bill (Bill - Debate), following on from the abolition of fatherhood (here) , no sane man can ever vote Labour (worse even the Liberal Democrats support it all as well).

It is anti-men in its intent, its action and in it prescription. It is dangerous not just to men but to society as a whole. As Philip Davies MP states, "how can the party that introduced anti-discrimination laws now reintroduce discrimination into the workplace."

There are so many angles to look to at this from, so I will restrict it to just a few.

Langauge

Trawling through the annoucement and the interviews, it is clear, in the politically correct food chain, men are the plankton.

Every example quoted, all the phraseology and all the emotion is based on that men are the masters of the universe and are still subjecting women. It is straight out of the Marxist feminist doctrine that all men are bastards.

Such across the board, sweeping generalisations ignore the fact that we are individuals and our gender is secondary. Not every man receives better pay than every single a woman, not every man has more opportunities in life than a woman. These are dangerous assumptions.

It is very rich that Harman, who went to posh girls-only public school, St Paul's (here)  believes she and the rest of the female population have less opportunity in life than a working class boy from a council estate in her Peckham constituency.

Positive Action

One of the great lies and weasel phrases of the politically correct is the term "positive action".

There is no such thing, it is a phrase used by the politically correct to put a positive gloss on discrimination against men.

By its very nature, positive action means negative action for somebody else. It means that positive action is just plain old discrimination.

Effects on Men

The most concerning part of the proposed Bill is that when faced with people of equal qualifications and equal ability, employers can discriminate. This will be 99.9999 times out of 100 against men.

In the politically atmosphere of language and debate, employers will feel they would have to select/promote a woman and this new law will only to apply to women. There is no why they will discriminate in favour of a man. They would be hung drawn and quartered if they did and if a complaint was made to the supine anti-male Equalities and Human Rioghts Commission, they would support a woman, whatever the evidence. In addition, the way the Bill is being discussed shows that it is aimed at women and not men. Men will be discriminated against on the basis of the gender not on their ability.

Furthermore, in areas where men are under-represented - education, social services, HR for example, do you think that the authorities will actively discriminate in favour of men. No chance.

In addition, the assumption is made that every man has had more advantages in life than every women. How iniqitous would be for a man from the Peckham council estate to have lost out in this politically correct box-ticking to a girl who went to St Pauls.

Effect on Women.

There are two effects:-

Firstly, for talented, qualified women, an air of suspicion already exists that many have got their position solely because they are a woman. For many women, this is completely unfair because it suggests they have not got the talent to succeed. As the BBC's Mark Easton pointed out this week (link) ; women run 700,000 companies; they now sit on 78 of the FTSE-100's boardrooms; they are more female millionaires than male millionaire's between 18-44 (47,000 women / 38,000 men).

The second effect is of course that it ignores the fact that men and women do not live in isolation from each other. If a man loses out to "positive action", then that will have an effect on his daughters, wife/partner, sister, mother and any female friends.

Gender Pay Gap Myth

The main argument used by Harman to justify the Bill is that there is a gender pay gap, 13% overall but 40% for full time workers.

It has been rehearsed many times on this site and elsewhere (link) but the gender pay gap is a lie and a myth. A clear mis-use of statitics by the politiaclly correct to justify their hatred of men. It does not exist for women who are doing the same job, with the same degree of talent, experience working for the same company where they add the same value. It occurs becuase men tend not to take career breaks to bring up children, a choice that many women want. In addition, men take on more dangerous, dirty work so are likely to be paid more for it. 

What has Labour done for men? 

Nothing, of course. If Harman and Labour were interested in helping men, they would have tackled a number of issues such as:-

The biased family court system

The educational underachievement of boys

The fact that three times as many men commit suicide than women

The lack of treatment for male cancers

The lack of support for male domestic abuse victims.

Conclusion

As stated in the beginning, this piece could have flowed for tens of thousand more words.

The foundation stone of the modern United Kingdom has been based on meritiocracy and liberty, where people succeed based on their talents and abilities. Harman and Labour have abandoned this, they want men to be consigned to the dustbin of humanity.

They want all men in chains and this Equalities Bill will mean exactly that.

Links to some of debates on the Equality Bill can be found here:-

Daily Mail 1; Daily Mail 2; Telegraph 1; Telegraph 2; Telegraph 3; Telegraph 4; Telegraph 5; Telegraph 6; BBC; Times

 

EVEN STOCK MARKET HAS TOO MANY MEN

Whether it is because of an over-tetchiness but the recent report stating that stock markets were volatile because there were too many testosterone-filled men working in them just seems to be another reason for a bout of male bashing (link), (link), (link).

However, it does again prove that men and women are different and have different motivations in life, which as ever, undermines those who think that differences in employment patterns and wages is down to sexual discrimination.

The report by John Coates at Cambridge University, and Professor Joe Herbert, a neuroscientist, set out to study the brains of City traders to discover what makes them tick.

It's conclusion was more women and older people were needed on trading floors to stop volatility.More 'positive action' no doubt.

As ever, they misunderstand that no matter who works on a trading floor they are complex, challenging and competitive environments with long long hours. By there very nature they are volatile and no matter who worked there, it would not change. This just seemed an excuse to run an anti-male story.

 

MALE POLITICAL DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN SPAIN

One of the most disturbing aspects in the war on men has been the use of gender quotas to disenfranchise men as individuals from the political system. It is the complete reversal of the situation till the 1920's when women did not have the vote and could not stand for Parliament. Now men are being actively stopped and being denied promotion.

The Labour Government brought in all-women shortlists in 1997 and even for the coming General Election have used them in 27 seats so far. They introduced a Minister for Women but have steadfastly refused to bring in a Minister for Men. Now we have the Spanish Government bringing in effectively gender quotas for its Cabinet.

In Spain (link), nine of the seventeen Cabinet members are women. Prime Minister Zapatero, had also passed a law making it compulsory for electoral lists and even company boards to have at least 40% women (link). He is "very proud that there are women ministers than men". Not a problem of course, if the nine women are amongst the best people he can get but he does not say this or prove that it is nothing but a political gesture.

Times columnist, Mary Ann Sieghart chips in with a commentray on how we need more women in the UK Cabinet (link) without any evidence that gender is more important than ability. She is roundly derided in the debate at the end of her commentary.

Both Spain and the UK Labour Party are quite unashamedly clear about their objectives.

It is not about ability or equality of opportunity but equaility of outcomes. Instead of tackling the reason why there are few women in politics whcih is essentially a supply side issue and that they choose not to be a politician (there is no sexual discriminiation in being selected as a canddiate or winning a seat), they sexually discriminate against men by blocking them from political positions including even standing.

This promotion of gender quotas for political positions is very serious for men who want to enter politics because they want to improve their community and their country. No longer will people be judged on their skill, talent and commitment. Their fitness for political office is judged on their position in the politically correct league table and men of course are always rock bottom.

Meritocracy and universal suffrage, the guiding principles of 20th century Western Democracy, have been thrown out of the window. Gender is more important than ability in the 21st Century.

This is comparable to the time when women were denied a vote and not allowed to stand for Parliament. It's turned 360 degrees.

GENDER PAY GAP EXPOSED AS A MYTH - ONCE AGAIN BY WOMEN

Although the site will look again at the myth of the gender pay gap propagated by anti-male organisations like The Fawcett Society et al, this feature in the Daily Mail is worth reading for those that missed it (link).

Remember, there is a gender pay gap but that is not due to sexual discrimination, it is about life choices and the family.

USA ADVERTISING INDUSTRY'S BACKLASH AGAINST PORTRAYING "MEN AS FOOLS"

The American advertising industry woke up some years ago to how "men as idiots" was self defeating from a sales point of view but alaos importantly from a social/moral point of view.

This article from Advertising Age explains (link).

Let us hope the advertising idiots in the UK at MFI, Littlewoods LX Direct and others featured on this site wake up.

2008 BUDGET OFFERS MONEY FOR ENTREPRENEURS : ONLY WOMEN APPLICANTS WELCOME

One of the many items outlined in Darling's budget was the announcement that £12.5 million would be set aside for an "access to capital fund", only available for women entrepreneurs (link) and (link).

Not only is this patronising to women and another form of legalised sexual discrimination against men, it fails to understand basic economics.

If anyone has a sound business idea, they will get the funding through banks or other vehicles of venture capital. There is no evidence to show that women cannot get access to this funding because they are a woman and that men get more access solely because they are a man.

This is just another sexist policy by this anti-male government, paid for by the humble taxpayer.

HARRIET HARMAN - THE ENEMY OF MEN

This site and many others have often commented on how Harriet Harman, The Deputy Leader of The Labour Party, Cabinet Member, Leader of The Commons and Minister for Women, is the most dangerously anti-male person in the UK. As pointed out here (link), this is not a new phenomena. What makes her such a danger is the fact that she is in power and can actually bring in new laws and rules that actively damage individuals (who happen to be men) and is certainly the leading Marxist feminist in the UK. Whilst other groups can lobby and complain, she can actually do.

The key reason for raising this issue again, is the fact that this week she and her spin doctors were briefing the media about a consultation on changes to the Single Equalities Bill that will stop men (predominately white, but this site is not interested in the racial aspects) from getting jobs because it will allow employers the right to take into account gender when choosing candidates with exactly the same qualifications. 

The change as described and debated in the media (link, link, link, link) will be similar to the so-called 'positive action' (there is no such thing as positive action, because it means negative action for someone else, which means discrimination) schemes in the USA where in areas where there are few women, they get a specila treatment.

This is very dangerous system for men and all men in the UK should be scared because:-

Firstly, it plays to the politically correct game of identity politics and victim status. Instead of treating everyone as an individual whose gender is very much a secondary feature, it places men as the victors in every facet of life and women as victims who need help. It means that a poor boy from Peckham is seen as having more life advantages as a rich girl from Rodean public school (or St.Paul's Girls School which Harmen went to). This is manifestly wrong, immoral and unethical.

Secondly, men will lose out and they will be discriminated against solely on the basis of their gender, so the talents of a man are secondary, it is the fact they are not a woman that counts. There is already too much women-only grants, women-only societies and women-only management courses, many of which are funded by the taxpayer.

Thirdly, it means that the so-called meritocracy is dead, and a new system where your talent and contribution is secondary, it is your gender that is more important. Again, immoral, unethical and wrong in a democratic society.

Fourthly, male discrimination affects women. Men have mothers, sisters, wives/partners and daughters. If a male is discriminated against, then these women are also discriminated against, yet, according to Harman, it is being undertaken in their name.

Fifthly, it will not be applied, it is never is, to areas where men are wholly under-represented. This is especially a consideration in the primary school education sector where only 15% of teachers are male. Local authorities and the other state agencies are infested with feminist fundamentalists who were educated in the 1980's when the fundamentalist cause was born. These women are now in powerful positions and control policy, they do not care about men.

The only conclusion, and is gladdening to see for a change that even organisations like The Fawcett Society are questioning the proposals, is that if any pro-active 'action' consultation becomes law, it will give the green light to systematic discrimination against men, rich or poor, black or white (a black women will benefit from positive action over a black man - she ticks the box twice, he only once) will be systematically discriminated against.

That is why Harriett Harman is the number one enemy of British men.

IS THE WEST COUNTRY THE CENTRE OF ANTI-MALE DISCRIMINATION?

Over a  year ago Gloucestershire Police Authority had to pay compensation to male applicants who were turned as trainee police officers solely on the criteria that they were men (link). The police force broke the law with a secret policy of 'deselecting' more than 100 potential recruits for no other reason than being white men. They had to pay £2,100 to one man in compensation.

As quoted in the Daily Mail article above ,this followed on from Avon and Somerset's Police Authority decision in 2005 to reject 186 white applicants at the first stage of selection. In November 2005 the force received 800 applications for just 180 jobs. The force admitted they also deselected the applicants in a bid to increase its ethnic diversity.

Now as widely reported (link), (link), (link) and (link), Avon Fire Authority has held five Open recruitment days where for four of the days, white men were not allowed to attend.

There is something pernicious happening in the West Country when the authorities have embraced the anti-male feminist fundamentalist agenda hook, line and sinker. The authorities concerned are not apologetic about it and do not seem to think they had done anything wrong.

Whilst these abuses have been uncovered in this part of Engalnd, the burning question is where else is it happening?

NEW BOOK - THE WOMAN RACKET BY STEVE MOXON

Steve Moxon, well known male rights activist and also the man who exposed the immigration scandal at the heart of the UK Government, has published a major new work, called The Woman Racket (link). More detail can be found here (link).

The book challenges the myths about the downtrodden woman and exposes how men are the discriminated sex.

At its heart it is a work that applies science to challenge the politically correct view of the elites that woman are the discriminated sex and men are the privileged sex. He argues that it is the other way round.

His view is that men should not apply for victim status as that plays into the hands of the politically correct, and that it should be the victim status of women that should be revoked.

This is highly recommended and is a vital weapon in the fight for male equality. Let the battle commence.

WOMEN-ONLY COURSES AND SPECIAL TREATMENT DAMAGING MEN

A report in the Daily Telegraph (link) stated "Men's chances of rising up the social scale in Britain have stalled because of greater competition from women and a slower rate of growth for top jobs, a study published yesterday reported. The research, by Oxford University, showed that upward social mobility has come to a halt despite Government reforms to tackle class inequality and offer opportunity for all.

Worse still for men, Labour's goal to promote "equality of opportunity" failed to mention that any increase in social mobility was likely to create as many losers as winners, with men losing out to the increasing number of women pursuing careers."

A link to the report's conclusions is here (link) and the authors were Dr John Goldthorpe and Dr Michelle Jackson from Oxford University.

One issue the report does not cover is the plethora of women-only training, management and leadership courses and whether this, alongside the feminisation of education that is condemning generations of boys to a life of under-achievement, is starting to have an affect.

These courses, normally promoted by senior women to give other women in their organisation an unfair advantage over men, or, by senior men browbeaten by the feminist fundamentalists/trade unions within their organisation, are a clear example of sexual discrimination in the workplace.

As ever, it treats people as if their gender is their primary trait so a talented and confident women gets to go on a women-only leadership course but an equally talented but shy man does not go on any course. Or the girl from Rodean goes but the boy from Brixton does not.

These academics ought to look into this as well.