The Rights Of Man

CALL FOR WOMEN TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MEN IN THE WORKPLACE

After spending most of the day yesterday tiresomely on the train and contributing to the gender pay gap by working hard, someone left their copy of the Guardian behind. Flicking through it I couldn't find any misandry anywhere until I stumbled across this gem of feminist fundamentalist double-think from Weedie Sisson (of People First) and Ann Halpern (of Women Lawyers and there seems to be lots of similar types of groups).

From a bigger picture perspective there is the clear feminist and politically correct call for group and victim status. Rather than treat people as individuals, the article's theme is that it is important to lump people into their groups and only converse with them or treat them on that basis. The emphasis in the article throughout is that women are victims of a conspiracy of discrimination without offering evidence. If a women does not succeed it is not about lifestyle choice or ability it has to be about discrimination. Any man that is successful is so solely down to discrimination against women not because he happened to be the better candidate.

Looking more deeply though, what the article is basically doing is to call for women to discriminate in favour of other women.

They are saying that successful women are letting down other women if they do not promote them, irrelevant of whether they are the best for the job. To most successful women this is rightly an anathema because they will have got their posts on merit not tokenism and want to judge others by talent not gender. The two authors are not interested in that and are having a moan at women who do not want to play the gender card.

This plays to the second point.  It ignores the fact that if a women (or a man) playing the gender card they are by logic discriminating against the other gender. In this case men. They want successful women to discriminate against men by favouring women without considering talent and ability.

The double-think is at its most laughable and shows the convulsions of logic that feminist fundamentalists have to go through to justify their reasoning. There is a sentence that says:   

We agree that quotas, women-only shortlists and any other positive action (not to be confused with positive discrimination) will work in helping to counteract past discrimination and break unhelpful stereotyping. What are government and the business community afraid of?

Where to start?

Well firstly quotas and women-only shortlists are positive discrimination. And as we know positive discrimination is negative discrimination for someone else - men. To stop someone because of their gender from being able to apply for something (women-only shortlists) or to only allow a certain number to apply (quotas) is pure gender discrimination. How can it be anything different? One is a lawyer, she will know that surely?

Plus positive action as we all know is politically correct spin for positive discrimination. In the legal profession there are more women becoming lawyers than men (and this has been the case for years) so why is there the need for positive action of women? Positive action means special treatment for someone because of their gender which therefore discriminates against other people because of their gender.

Plus of course, we come back to the point about past discrimination. Whatever the arguments of the past are, what these two are saying is that the men of today should be made to pay and should be discriminated against because of the alleged actions of the men of yesterday. This is not equality it is about some form of gender revenge against the men of today.

I always say it but of course any discrimination against men means discriminating against their mother, wife/girlfriends, sister or daughter but that is the call here. If any of these two have sons who want to be successful in business or law, they will be supporting discrimination against them.

An 'amazing' article.

Posted by Skimmington  

  

MEN CONTINUE TO BE THE FORGOTTEN VICTIMS OF THE RECESSION

Today's unemployment figures show that sadly 2.46 million people are unemployed in the UK. To further quote the BBC website (I pay my licence!):

"The latest ONS figures show that the number of unemployed men fell by 31,000 to 1.43 million, while the number of unemployed women fell by 5,000 to 1.03 million. But of the 12,400 extra people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance, 9,300 were women, the highest figure since October 1996. The number of male claimants rose for the first time since January."

So there is a fall in unemployment and a rise in those claiming Jobseekers allowance from both genders. As the BBC highlighted, the female figure is the highest since 1996. So what is the significance considering there are 400,000 more unemployed men and that the number of men claiming job seekers allowance is 994,000 compared to 474,000 women. In addition, of the 670,000  young people who are unemployed, 61% are male.

So what you may say. Well the press' ever growing obsession of ignoring men and focusing on women meaNS the unemployment stories suddenly focus on the plight of women.

Here are a few - Telegraph , Daily Mail and of course The Guardian.

There is no comment that there are far more men who unemployed than woman. Unemployment is a tragedy for all concerned but to pick out women as a special cases shows that the men who have suffered during the recession are expendable. No comments are made about them.

Posted by Skimmington

PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITY DUTY AND SECTION 159 GUIDANCE NOW AVAILABLE TO HELP MEN FIGHT FOR EQUALITY

One of the strongest weapons for men who are seeking equality is to rely on the equality rules which while are aimed at being used by women to drive more special treatment can also be used to benefit men. Equality legislation covers both genders but often its application does not.

The classic case where PARITY fought for equal treatment with regard to state retirement ages and then sponsored cases such as John Taylor's fight for equal eligibility of Winter Fuel Payments (the wikipedia site tells the story with some great links) shows how to turn equality laws upon those who think equality should not include equality for men.

Back in 2007 we commented on the gender equality duty  and the opportunity it gave men to ensure statutory agencies investigated their needs, ensured they supplied services for them and also that they were non discriminatory. As we know, the government, councils, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission have ignored this when it comes to men. However, the power is there and it is up to men to use it.

The same is now in the case of the Public Sector Equality Duty and the infamous Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010. Helpfully the government and the Equalities Commission provide guidance on how to use them.

The Public Sector Equality Duty came into force on 5th April 2011. It is a souped up version of the Gender Equality Duty and means that as well as gender, statutory agencies have to ensure that everyone (race, gender, sexuality, disability etc) are treated the same. The key thing is that the agency (lets say a council) has to research the needs of the groups (known as protected groups) and then ensure it can meet their needs on a proportionate basis.

For example, a council has to investigate the numbers and the needs of both female and male victims of domestic abuse and then supply proportianate and relevant services to support them. As statistics state one in three victims are male, then one in three refuge/safe house spaces should be for men (it could be less if refuges are not so relevent for men but there has to be some spaces for them!). They must also ensure campaigns are aimed at female and male victims. 

Guidance on the Public Sector Equality Duty is on the Equalities and Human Right Commission website and should be read by all MRA's in the UK. 

The Equality Act 2010 has come into force  which combines all previous equalities legislation into one piece of legislation. Guidance is also available on the Equalities and Human Rights Commission website.   

The most insidious part of the Act is Section 159 (discussion can be found here, here, here, here and here which allows employers to take positive action to promote people or employ them over and above equally qualified candidates. Guidance is published in a quick guide for employees and one for employers.

Both the Public Sector Equality Duty and Section 159 of the Equality Act are designed to ensure that men remain second class citizens. But they are available to ensure that equality means equality for men too. It is not just about 'keep your friends closer and your enemies closer' it is about knowing how you can use these to support men and your cause against the anti-male state we live under.

Posted by Skimmington

Editors note - an example of a feminist fundamentalist victory in this field can be seen here

MEDIA FAILS TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE WHEN IT COMES TO SEXISM AGAINST MEN

As I pen this piece the top story on the BBC news website is about a Salford teenager who's been quoted £33,000 to insure his Vauxhall Corsa. This case came to light as a result of an earlier Daily Express article citing a different male teen, Daniel Grey, quoted £24,000 to insure his eleven year old Volvo.

Less wealthy young men faced with such an exorbitant cost of motoring either are priced off our roads or are forced to break the law, either by pretending the car belongs to their parents or by having no insurance whatsoever. And of course if they get caught uninsured or are found to have lied then any future premium rise once again creating a vicious circle of higher costs upon higher costs not to mention criminal convictions. Not only has ever media report on the matter failed to illustrate the above hardships endured by young men but they also fail to mention that such pricing is sexist and to become illegal. The media is so often keen to link even remotely related stories yet this golden rule doesn't' ever appear to apply stories about discrimination against men even when there is blatant sexism which has been proven illegal at the highest possible level. Just imagine if female or ethnic minorities had been the victims here, there'd be numerous piece int eh Guardian and articles full of over the top quotes from misandricc Labour Party MPs or Fawcett Society gender feminists. The only half decent coverage is from the Daily Mail who do at least note that young men are being "priced off the roads".

Talking of the Fawcett Societys it's incredibly blinkered of feminists to complain about women receiving a few percent less in wages compared to men (for entirely different work of course) without looking at other types of income/expenditure related sexism. For Jake Redshaw to drive to his part time job in a warehouse he's looking at spending £5,700 in insurance (the lowest price) even before he's thought about road tax, fuel or maintenance (or buying a vehicle). If Daniel is lucky enough to have a job then he fairs even worse facing a minimum payment of £12,00 for insurance.

Below are the remaining articles covering all the coverage of the story. Not one mentions sexism, the wider consequences of such pricing or even what the prices might have been for a female driver. In fact the only mention of gender is a quote for Jake's mother telling us what a risk young male drivers are as if they're all part of some homogenous group all equally incapable of driving safely.

Daily Express

Manchester Evening News

Daily Mirror

ARTICLES UPDATE

Just a quick update on some recent and varied articles of interest on male equality issues. Health warning - some may make your blood boil!

Channel 5 News - Shocking rise in male victims of domestic violence

The Sun - Dads in despair (Antonella Lazzeri)

Daily Telegraph - It's babies not discrimination that hold women back (Jemima Lewis)

Daily Telegraph - Mother's horror as court takes children after 15 minutes hearing (Nick Britten)

Office for National Statistics - Suicide statistics show three times as many men still commit suicide than women

Daily Mail - Jailed the solidiers cheating wife who made false rape claim

The Guardian - What is the nicest thing a man can do for a woman - shout at a bigot (Suzanne Moore)

The Independent - Men blew it (Janet Street-Porter)

Daily Mail - Escape from your husband and duck your duties as a mother (Daniel Bates)

 

THE END OF MERITOCRACY AND EQUALITY FOR MEN IN BRITAIN'S WORKPLACES

The publication this week of Lord Davies of Abersoch's government backed report on getting more women into British boardrooms means the end of meritocracy and equality in Britain's Boardroom. An issue this site has been covering for some time. No longer will talent, qulaifictaions or dedication matter, your gender is all that counts.

If you are a man - your only chance of getting onto a board is if the female quota has been fulfilled. If it has not you can be the best business person in the world, but you still won't get on. That is the end of meritocracy and equality for men in the Britain's companies.

The report states that UK listed companies in the FTSE 100 should be aiming for a minimum of 25% female board member representation by 2015. Davies recommends that FTSE 350 companies should be setting their own, challenging targets and expects that many will achieve a much higher figure than this minimum. 

The explicit threat is that if the recommendations are not met British companies will be forced to do it and have quotas like those in Norway (40% of boards have to be women).

The issues it raises are clear - as stated there will be no such as meritocracy, gender is all that matters. Secondly, it is clear this government is as anti-male as the last one and is doing all it can to undermine and attack men.

This boardroom issue is basically another tactic to berate and undermine men to ensure they remain viewed by the metropolitan elite as second class citizens who are to be blamed for everything.

The report is very explicit in saying that the reason there are not as many women on a board as men is down to discrimination by men. But there is no evidence of this, and reports like those by Catherine Hakim  and the Institute of Leadership and Management (covered in the Daily Mail) have clearly shown that not all capable women want to be on the board. Some because they haven't got the drive, some want to stay at home and bring up a family, some  make other lifestyle choices and some just do not want all the hassle that comes with it.

Davies and others complain of Groupthink but all the clamour to support this is Groupthink of the worst kind. If you don't agree you are cast to the margins. Plus there is no evidence to suggest that more gender balanced boards are more successful.

Many very successful women also work in the public sector which is not affected by this. Theresa May  (Minister for Women) spins by saying that 51% of the population are women therefore implying that this should be reflected on boards in the private sector. But twice as many women (40%) work in the public sector than men so one of the reason there are less women on private sector boards is actually because they employ fewer. There is less of a pool to choose from. 

This fact is worth looking into more because it has not been taken into account because it does not play to the distorted picture Davies, May and others are spinning.

With the Government bringing in the measures of the last Government to ensure there is discrimination in getting a job (section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 which the government had campaigned against when in opposition) and now ensuring talented men will hit a quota ceiling there is no equality for men at either end of the job scale.

With educational standards far behind those of girls, men being stopped from getting into work or getting to the top and with young men now earning less than girls all because the government and the state actively discriminate men and boys, it is now clear:

British men are second class citizens by Order of the Government

Posted by Skimmington 

Media Coverage - BBC#1, BBC#2, Daily Mail#1, FT#1, Guardian #1, Guardian #2, FT#2 (Catherine Hakim quote), Independent#1, FT#3, Daily Mail#2 

DOMINIC RAAB MP STANDS FIRM

Unlike Christopher Blunt MP and other Ministers in the Justice team whose knees buckled against the onslaught of the anti-male feminists, Dominic Raab is holding his line that men get a raw deal and that there is a lot of feminist bigotry in the UK.

He has been further interviewed on the BBC (see also blog) and Evening Standard  (the journalist Pippa Crerar says that women get paid 10% less than men for doing the same job - an assertion that is completely and utterly incorrect) and there has been further coverage in papers like the Daily Mail (423 comments in their comments section!) and Daily Express.

The BBC says Mr Raab defends his comments, why should he defend them? When Harman, May or Featherstone make their anti-male comments, do the BBC ask them to defend their views?? No, the BBC just accepts them.

As Jon said in yesterday's post, we should individually write to him via http://www.dominicraab.com/contact_dom.html and thank him for raising this issue and for standing firm.

Posted by Skimmington

AT LAST, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT STANDS UP FOR MEN AND BOYS: DOMINIC RAAB MP

At last an MP in the House of Commons has stood up for men in this country and said that equality means equality for men and boys too.

Dominic Raab MP has certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons in his first class article on the Politics Home website where he declares that "We must end feminist bigotry".

He also declares that:

"From the cradle to the grave, men are getting a raw deal."

"Meanwhile, young boys are educationally disadvantaged compared to girls, and divorced or separated fathers are systematically ignored by the courts"

" Maybe it’s time men started burning their briefs, to put an end once and for all to what Emmeline Pankhurst used to call ‘the double standard of sex morals."

At long long last we have a British Member of Parliament not only making the case that equality applies to men and boys too but also pointing out the facts about the gender discrimination gap which is used as a way to berate men and ask for special favours for women. His attack on soft discrimination beloved by Harman, May and Featherstone is spot on.

He also raises general issues about male employment, education and family law and also makes the valid point that feminists, especially the extremists like Harman et al, intensely dislike in that men and women like each other and are inter-dependent. Attack men and you are attacking their mothers, sisters, daughters, wives, partners, or girlfriends.

Has he been reading this site, we ask ourselves?

As you would expect, especially when the idiots Andy Gray and Richard Keys put the cause back, it is not long before the usual anti-male suspects line up to attack Dominic Raab.

Harman says "Women still earn 20 per cent less than men, domestic violence claims the lives of women every week and women bear the brunt of poverty in the developing world." And a new campaigner, Nia Griffith, the shadow business minister, called on Mr Raab to "get real and stop being so self-pitying”.

We have all been waiting for years for just one MP to raise the issue about male inequality and that equality means equality for men and boys too.

In Dominic Raab MP, perhaps we have now found someone who will stand up in parliament and speak up for men and boys, as well as their mothers,  sisters, daughters, wives, partners, or girlfriends. Let us all hope he sticks to it, all of the above are hoping he does.

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage - Daily Telegraph, Evening Standard (plus comments), Daily Mail

 

BOARDROOM GENDER QUOTAS TO STOP MEN SUCCEEDING STILL ON THE AGENDA

Just a quick post but after yesterday saying the coalition government were offering a glimmer of hope on family law, they could be taking the hope away again with the Daily Mail story that they intend to ensure there are gender quotas in the boardroom. Does this mean the stories in the Independent and Guardianat New Year were premature?

This  site has talked often about the fact that this will lead to discrimination against men because some men will not be permitted into the boardroom because they may have to make way for a less qualified/talented women to ensure the quota is met. Previous posts include these (1, 2, 3) and the arguments still stand. It is pure sexism and has now happened in France.

It also comes the day after that the unemployment figures (page 6) show that there were 450,000 unemployed male 18-24 years olds and 300,000 unemployed females of the same age.

Men can't get onto the employment ladder and eventaully with quotas it will be harder for them to get to the top of it.

Posted by Skimmington 

Ps In the comments section of the Daily Mail piece, this sums it all up from one reader:

So you work hard and are good at what you do - but if you're a man, you can't get a job on the board because the quota dictates it has to be a woman. Seems a bit...sexist to me. Or does sexism only work one way?

NEW BOOK - CATHERINE HAKIM ON FEMINIST MYTHS AND MAGIC MEDICINE

Dr Catherine Hakimis one of this site's heroines because she is never fails to stand her ground and challenging the myths of the feminists. She is certainly up there with people like Erin Pizzey.

This week she launched via the Centre for Policy Studies think tank, her latest publication - Feminist Myths and Magic Medicine. This challenges the whole concept of the gender pay gap (an issue this site constantly refers to as a stick to beat men with and give special treatment to women/girls over men/boys), those who say employement differences are to patriachal discrimination and that there are no differences in the outlooks of men and women in the workplace

What is even better is that it is free to download from their site.

 
 

What has also been so great is the fact that it has put the issue in the public eye and generated reams of coverage and discussion including Daily Mail, Daily Mail 2, Daily Telegraph, Daily Telegraph 2, Daily Mail 3, Daily Telegraph 3, Daily Telegraph 4, Daily Mail 4 (nothing in the Guardian!)

Posted by Skimmington