The Rights Of Man

NEWS UPDATE

Will be away for a few days so here is some to catch up on:

A Voice for Men: Interview with Tom Martin (Paul Elam)

Register Her: New website listing false accusers

Northampton Chronicle: Domestic abause campaign launch - Jumping on the false bandwagon that more men beat up women when the sport is on.

Daily Telegraph: The perversity of Britain's diversity regulators is bad for men, women and minorities (Graeme Archer)

Huffington Post UK: Female quotas needed in tech industry (Sue Black) - Read the comments

The Guardian: As the Topman T-Shirts show, misogny is so common it's mundane (Ellie Mae O'Hagan) - I spat my coffee out when I read this from new anti-male rabble rouser who I never saw write a complaint about the "throw rocks at men they are stupid' T shirts.

Daily Mail: Dinner ladies win payout from Sheffield Council (Jessica Satherley) - This case has the hallmarks of a similar case and would be useful to know what happened to men in the same position in Sheffield.

The Observer: Having ovaries does not make you a better person (Elizabeth Day)

The Sun: Taser attack hubby beaten by his wife for 30 year (Amy Little) - Why are the police and CPS not prosecuting this woman! 

Kent News - False accuser gets suspended sentence

Men's Health Forum - Bowel cancer campaign

International Men's Day UK - New website

Posted by Skimmington

WHY DOES NO ONE MENTION 70 YEARS OF STATE PENSION SEXISM AGAINST MEN

Never underestimate the power of the "women's movement" in pleading for special treatment and special favours - they always get their way. You only have to look at the infamous anonymity u-turn.

When the coalition government said that the state pension age should be 65 for men and women at 2018 and then rise to 66 in 2020, the "women's movement" went mad. And as we all suspected, the government has caved in and is looking to make special compromises.

No decisions have been made but the mood music all this week at the Lib Dem conference has been how the coalition government is looking to 'soften the blow'. Steve Webb, the pension minister is looking at it, spurred on by the Cabinet Member, Iain Duncan Smith, with the soothing overtures of David Cameron who is going  after the women's vote. 

There has been  plenty of coverage on the issue and wonderful comments in the sections which allow it, but there continues to be no recognition by politicians or the media about the fact that men have been condemned to 70 years of sexism by having to retire at 65 while women have had the luxury of retiring at 60 (now albeit rising) - as well as living longer.

One of the best comments in the newspapers sums it all up:

When I celebrated my 60th birthday five years ago a female colleague of mine celebrated her own 60th birthday at around the same time as mine. Being male, I did not receive any State Pension at all. My female colleague started to receive her State Pension on top of her salary and also stopped paying National Insurance. State Pension equality is well overdue. Allan Jones, Prenton (Daily Mail)

The silence remains deliberate and shows how sexism against men does not register on the political map, but a whiff of alleged sexism against women, goes straight to the very top. Shameful.

Posed by Skimmington

Media coverage - Telegraph, Daily Mail

NEWS UPDATE

Just a few from the last few weeks where there has been a fair amount of issues to cover

Daily Telegraph:  Quotas won't help the battle of the sexes (Dominic Raab MP and Priti Patel MP)

Press Association:  Scottish government's definition of domestic abuse should change (Prof Brian Dempsey). Also featured on Scottish TV.

Daily Telegraph: No male teachers at 4,500 primary schools (Graham Paton). Just like on this issue the governement do nothing. Other coverage - The Sun and BBC.

Daily Telegraph: A male teacher can never replace a missing father (Katherine Birbalsingh)

Daily Telegraph: Abortion reform - a modest proposal gone awry (Christine Odone). Feminism and death threats. 

Scottish Government: Social attitudes survey 2010 (published Aug 2011). The Scottish government doesn't believe equality applies to men  - Figure 6.1 onwards. And 79% think just interviewing a women for a job is wrong - would be great to see gender breakdown of the way different genders answered that.

BBC - Margaret Moran MP faces 21 charges. One of the old Labour Government's most prominent men-haters could go to prison - what a shame.

Posted by Skimmington

THE CHARTERED WOMANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

Sorry for lack of posts this week - been away working - and that matters because according to the anti-male Chartered Management Institute I will have been ensuring that male executives get paid more than female executives.

The big story from the CMI this week was that it would take up to 98 years before female executives in Britain get paid the same as male executives. This is despite the fact that female junior executives get paid more than junior male executives.

The CMI claim older female executives get paid less than male executives for doing the same job. They offer no proof that it is the same job with the same hours and that all managers who are compared are doing it with the same talent. They claim they have produced a report on this but it is not published on their website so cannot be corroborated. So they cannot say it is for the same job without actually offering public proof.

Secondly, they applaud the fact that junior female executuives are getting paid more than male exectuives - so if the CMI were being fair and equal they would be now campaigning to stop the gender pay gap against junior male exuectives. Of course, they say nothing because they are only interested in facts that play out a pro-women, anti-male narrative.

Thirdly, it is clear that the research does not add up because you cannot on the one hand say it will take women up to 98 years to close the gap when junior female executives are getting paid more than their male equivalent. How can that be the case - its mickey mouse research. Melanie McDonagh in the Standardscoffs and points out the CMI said last year it would take 57 years, so suddenly it grew by 41 years, in one year!

This is what happens in the world of anti-male spin:

The CMI's spin monkeys want to get the CMI in the newspapers. So they commission this annual research with the brief to paint as bleak a picture as possible for women. They know the anti-male parts of the media will lap it up. The research gives a broad range of years so they use the one that is the most extreme - 98 years. The larger the figure, the larger the headline.

The media of course, being stretched for resources simply go along with the story and do not challenge the research or ask them to prove the 'same job' issue. They also do not challenge the issues that cause the gender pay gap (largely choosing motherhood). While the press release talks about both and leads on the gap between junior executives the spinners would have briefed the media on the 98 year figure as that guarantees more coverage.

You do wonder why any man would want to be a member of this group when it has been hijacked into making anti-male statements and research. Even to the point where their head of policy states "yet again, that businesses are contributing to the persistent gender pay gap and alienating top female employees by continuing to pay men and women unequally. This kind of bad management is damaging UK businesses and must be addressed."

Surely this organisation should be called the Chartered Womanagement Institute - it seems much more appropriate.

Posted by Skimmington   

Media coverage - BBC Today, BBC (read the comments), Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph (on the paygap between junors) and the Guardian.

NEWS UPDATE

Just a few articles, including one following up from yesterday:

Daily Mail - Father falsely acused of being a paedophile by ex-wife tells his story (Jenny Johnson) - Proof of the power of the false accusation.

Daily Mail - Wicked women jailed for crying rape

ManKind Initiative - Sponsor Emily Spink at the Great North Run

Evening Standard - Feminist group plans cuts backlash (Anna Davis) - Did they see the GCSE results this week?

Financial Times - Why women are losing the battle for jobs (Liz Bolshaw) - Does the author of this actually look at the unemployment figures which show far more men are unemployed!

Daily Telegraph - Legal case stops expats moving children abroad (Henry Brookman)

BBC - Tubecrush site taking pictures of men on the Underground (Matt Cooke): Women are allowed to post pictures of men without their permission but not the other way - an everyday example of sexism against men in the UK.

Posted by Skimmington

BBC MENTION MALE UNEMPLOYMENT SHOCKER

Juts a quick aside, the latest unemployment figures showed that the number of unemployed women increased by 21,000 on the quarter to reach 1.05 million, the highest figure since the three months to May 1988. Much attention was lavished on this - despite the fact that there are nearly 1.5 million unemployed men. An issue covered before.

However, maybe the BBC look at this site as many of their bulletins caveatted the announcement of the female figure with a 'we should mention more men continue to be unemployed than women!

Posted by Skimmington

ANOTHER VOICE OF SUPPORT FOR ABOLISHING THE 'EQUALITIES' AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

One of the advantages of not having an anti-male PC Labour government (this isn't a party political point!) is that it allows a freer debate on issues without always being howled down as 'fascists' (as in my university days!) therefore allowing a much wider debate on things.

The think tank Civitas has always been radical which is why this site has always included some of their publications (see bottom right side bar). Last week, they published a pamphlet by Jon Gower Davies called Small Corroding Words (press release) which called for the abolition of Equalities and Human Rights Commission, a policy I believe in because it is anti-male and is infested with too many people sharing that view (it was hoped the coalition government may abolish it).

I have to read the pamphlet it yet (it is on order) but certainly the press release sets out clearly some of the problems that chime well with the site.

There is the issue of Assuming the Worse, where Civitas state the commission believes that any inequality is due to unfairness in Britain without looking at what is responsible for it. As we know, the critics of the gender pay gap lie about it by claiming it is down to discrimination in Britain when sensible people (including the vast majority of women) know it is about lifestyle choice. Anyone reading Catherine Hakim or John Shackleton knows that.

A Double Bind example can be seen with women where the Commission calls for more women to be in the boardroom by using quotas (discrimination in the workplace) but forget most women of a boardroom age have husbands/partners trying to get in the baordroom so want them to be stopped from making it (less income for the family unit including any wife/girlfriend/daughter).  

The other issue I have is the complete ignorance by the Commission at looking at issues affecting men - suicide, unemployment, education, domestic abuse, family courts etc - and what causes the inequality.

At least with issues affecting women, they recognise them, even if they don't look at the causes and just lump it all in as discrimination. With men, they don't even get recognised.

Posted by Skimmington

The pick of the media coverage - Daily Express.

FRIENDS LIFE REPORT PROVES THE ANTI-MALE MARXISTS FEMINIST PROPAGANDA TO BE FALSE

Thank you to everyone for putting names forward for the heroes section. I will get to work on it in August.

One of the themes of the website has been the issue where anti-male and anti-equality organisations like the 30 per cent club, the Fawcett Society, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and others have been campaigning to block men from taking places in the boardroom which should be the preserve of women. A situation which goes against meritocracy where the best people irrelevant of gender should be in the boardroom.

These organisations put the lack of women in boardrooms solely down to sexual discrimination against women and barriers erected by men. They find it difficult when women like Dr Catherine Hakim put it down to women making choices when they want to become mothers and also how they (and the family unit) want to bring their children up.

Sure things can be made easier but often it is around the edges, women (and some men of course) do not want the 9-5 hard focused lifestyle and bring their children up. Some prefer to let the man take this strain while they take the strain of bringing up children, It is called teamwork and the family - something anathema to feminists the world over. They don't understand what real normal women want.

The reason for bringing the issue up is that this week the Friends Life Provident issued one of its 2020 reports on women and the workplace. One of the key areas in the thrifty thirties section which highlighted three areas which completely debunk the Marxist theories of the anti-male feminists which they use to attack men:

(1) Is gender itself a barrier? A quarter of working women think that it is. 24% of working women agree that “I feel that my gender is sometimes a hindrance to my progress at work”; 51% disagree. Surprisingly, this increases to 32% agreement among those in their 30s.

Commentary  - So one in four (presume the missing 24% said don't know) women do not believe that gender is sometimes a hindrance.

(2) The same proportion (24%) of working women agree that “I would like to see the industry I work in become less male orientated”. Agreement here varies widely by sector, from 37% of women working in the primary/ manufacturing/construction/distribution sector, 28% in financial services/legal/consulting and in civil service/local government, to 18% of women working in arts/leisure/ recreation or in healthcare and just 10% of women working in education.

Commentary - it does not mention in what way but shows again that three in four working women do not view their workplace as being male orientated.

(3) 53% of working women agree that “By the end of this decade, women will still struggle much more than men to secure senior roles in the workplace” (only 30% of men agree). Why is this? Simply, motherhood remains the biggest barrier, the biggest pillar holding up the glass ceiling:

Commentary - But the 30 per cent Club, the Fawcett Society etc say its discrimination by men (not discimination by nature).

What this research shows is that when real normal women getting on with their lives away from the politically driven anti-male world of modern-day feminism are asked, they do not agree with the Fawcett Society, the BBC, The Guardian, the 30% club and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. When real women talk about barriers they are practical issues  - they do not resort to the tactics of attacking and diminishing their husbands/partners and sons like these groups do.

Posted by Skimmington

 

EQUALITIES ACT ATTACKED BY DOMINIC RAAB MP

This site and its readers have long been saying that the Equalities Act (especially clauses 158 and 159) are the most anti-male pieces of legislation ever to be passed into British law. Not only because of the discrimination they promote directly but also because of the indirect social pressure which leads to anti-male sexist organisations like the 30% club.

Dominic Raab MP wades in with his view on how wrong it is but the most telling point in his article are points out in the Independent from a young Asian woman, Kat Akingbade - who was told that a key factor on her getting a job was because she was a Asian woman, not because she was the best. The fact she was the best is of no matter to her - it is what people believe.

Positive Action and Positive Discrimination = bad news for all men and talented women and = good news for untalented women who want to play the gender (and sometimes the race) card.

Posted by Skimmington

 

WHY DOES NO ONE SAY THE OBVIOUS - THE 30% CLUB IS SEXIST

Sorry everyone it has been a while, been away working.

And on that point, a keen-eyed reader highlighted the launch of the 30% Club, a sexist organisation that promotes gender selection and therefore gender discrimination in the membership of the boards of UK companies. Its site says that a better balance positively influences decision making - a sexist notion that says having too many men (and also too many women you presume) negatively influences decision-making.

The idea is to ensure that all UK boards of the FTSE-100 have a membership of at least 30% women. This is by definition sexist as selection to be a board member is based on gender and not ability.

And before, the usual suspects rant on about dinosaur views - it is never a problem if a board was made of 100% women so long as they were the best people for the job.

The outcome on the ground of this is that it will mean actual discrimination against men. As argued many times before (here), it means some men will not be able to be considered to go onto a board because it may mean the magic 30% figure ratio will be broken. Even though that man may be the best and most talented candidate if a spot becomes available.

On the reverse, many talented women will be viewed suspiciously and tokenly as being just there to make the 30% figure even though they may be a great board members. And of course, some women may be placed on a board who really are not good enough but again the numbers need to add. Dear 30% Club - this will negatively effect decision-making!

The point this site never loses sight of is that if a man cannot get onto the board becuase of gender quotas then his wife/girlfriend and any daughters are also being discriminated against by proxy, all done in their name.

Lastly, it is not just about the membership. What will also be happening underneath the board level is the whole continuation of schemes such as talent spotting for women, mentoring, specialist senior management training and the like for women only. Thereby leaving men in their peer group at below board level at a disadvantage. That is, they will be sexually discriminated against.

A parallel in some ways can also be drawn with the current News of the World saga. In that for years the behaviour of the paper has been tolerated and people been too scared to take it on. The whole anti-male set up in the UK is similar - no politicians or business leadwers are prepared to take it on. This can be seen in this subject where it is so blatantly sexist against men and breaks the British tradition of meritocracy and equality but no one is prepared to challenge it (except Stuart Rose).

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage: Guardian (of course),