The Rights Of Man

2010 - ANOTHER BAD YEAR AND ANOTHER BAD GOVERNMENT FOR BRITISH MEN

When the coalition government came together (also with lots of new MP's) there was some hope that the prospects for equality for men would improve after 13 years of a proudly anti-male Labour government with Deputy Leader, Harriet Harman, proudly proclaiming her anti-male credentials.

When the coalition government came to power, there were a number of positive things it outlined. Family law reform (still pending), anonymity for rape defendants unless found guilty and a commitment not to implement the controversial 'positive' discrimination sections of the Equality Act specifically designed to undermine the employment chances of men. Plus there was a general feeling that there would no longer be the harsh anti-male tone of the previous Government.

There were still troubling issues such as the fact that there was again a Minister for Women but no Minister for Men (how can a government state it believes in equality and have a Minister for one gender and not for the other, if it has to them at all). It also talked about equality in the boardroom (now going ahead), continuing with pension age discrimination and also nothing on men's health or education.

So what has happened, well its worse than we feared:

(1) The government performed a heinous u-turn on anonymity for rape defendants.

(2) The controversial section (section 159) of the Equality Act was implemented (on the link see latest news on 2nd December 2010) and hidden in the small print on its announcement on its Equality Strategy (see 8 below). This pernicious part of the Act was substantially covered on this site (1 and 2 ) and the u-tunr was covered in the Telegraph, Daily Mail, Metro, Daily Telegraph 2, Daily Telegraph 3

(3) Still no Minister for Men

(4) The government adopted the End Violence against Women & Girls strategy which has meant that male victims of rape and domestic abuse do not feature in government, police or local authority plans in tackling rape or domestic abuse. The outcome can be seen by the way the government handled its trials on 'stop' orders which were framed at female victims (thereby setting the tone for the way the police will handle the issue) or its Christmas campaign. For an example of how it percolates through the system, see a response the ManKind Initiative recently received from the Equalities Commission.

(5) Its continuing and deliberate misinterpretation of the gender pay gap, even though we now know younger women earn more than younger men. Plus resurrecting the issue that there are not enough women in the boardroom (1 and 2) and stating it has an aspiration to ensure 50% of appointees to public bodies are female.

Lord Mervyn Davies who is leading the taskforce looking at the female make up of boardroom has already declared "let's put women first for 2011". I kid you not. With this and the Equality Act, men are being shut out, make no mistake. Academies for female executives, board internships and now the 30% club.

Equality should mean the best people, now basing people on their gender but that is now what is happening and in many circumstances men (and of course that means their wife/partner or daughter as well) will lose out because good men will be held back to allow a woman with less skill to take their place. How can this be equality, gender is irrelevant.

Can Lord Mervyn Davies hand on heart say that a black boy from a run-down council estate attending a sink school has more chance of being on a board of a FTSE-100 company that a white girl living in Knightsbridge and going to a private school. Davies thinks so. 

(6) No action on boy's education, men's health (Prostate Cancer society article shows why) or suicide (80% of young people committing suicide are men).

(7) No one in Parliament (including the 232 new MP's - 35% of the total) and certainly no one in the Government is standing up for men and men's issues. It means the anti-male feminists in all parties are again riding roughshod over the true meaning of equality and doing all the can to marginalise men. 

(8) And finally - the coup de grace - the government's shiny new Equality Strategy - Building a Fairer Britain. At no stage (except fleetingly on Caribean boys)  does it ever mention men and boys or the isuses facing them. None of them in this post are ever mentioned. Nothing on education, higher rates of unemployment, health, suicide - just example after example on issues affecting women.

The Equality Strategy published this month, makes it completley clear - this governement is no better and no more interested than the last in tackling issues that affect men & boys (and consequently their mothers, sisters, daughters and wives/partners/girlfriends).

It actually wants to make things worse not just by the overt discrimination (see 1, 2,3,4 and 5 above) but the covert discrimination of discrimination by omission. And with Parliamentary terms lasting five years now, we have over four years of this to go.

There have been a few advances, equality of pesnion age, a family review still pending (who know what the result will be) and Mirko Fischer's BA win. Plus some organisations seem to be pushing more and more (Men's Network, ManKind Initiative, Prostate Cancer Society, Families Need Fathers, Parity, False Allegations Support Organisation, Men's Health Forum amongst others) and they will need to be encouraged by us all to continue.

However, looking back, the hopes at the beginning of the year have proved unfounded and it is clear that things have got worse in 2010 for men and boys.

Posted by Skimmington 

FAIRNESS IN FAMILIES INDEX - THE FATHERHOOD INSTITUTE'S REPORT IGNORES FAMILY CHOICE AND THE POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR FATHERS

The Fatherhood Institute is an organisation that is hard to pin down in terms of what it stands for and whether it's definition of equality on fathers and mothers is based on coercion or choice.

It does great things like attacking politicians who just slag off dads  because it is all their fault and to encourage government policy to include fathers (the current family law review is absolutely crucial) but then produces a report last week - the Fairness in Families Index (FiFI) - that seems to say that Britain is down the league table last week (18th of 21).

This would not necessarily be a problem but it is the basis that it makes such an issue that is troubling as would be the unintended consequences of even more efforts to allegedly 'even' up the playing field. This would lead to even more discrimination against men and fathers than we have already.

The ranking is based on ten factors including the number of men in the part-time workforce, % of women in senior positions, % of women in Parliament and the gender pay gap, the amount of time spent caring for a child per gender, amongst other things. Basically, the lower down the figure, the lower the fairness score.

The problems with this are many fold.

Firstly, it by effectively suggesting that fathers and mothers should not choose their domestic arrangements when they have children unless it fits with variables in the Fairness in Families Index.

The Institute is basically stating that if a couple decide that the man as part of the family unit should be the one (if they have to choose of course) to work longer hours, or be an MP, be in a senior position, to invest more of his time in building a career etc , whilst his wife/partner chooses to spend more time bringing up their children then this a bad and unequal thing. If it does not fit the Index criteria then it is a bad thing.

Part of the genetic make up of men and women is that many women when they have children want to spend time bringing them up in their early years at least (thereby reducing their work) while the man works full time and does all he can to ensure the household is financially OK. Of course, and rightly, it happens the other way around or that both men and women work equally as hard and bring up the children.

To the Fatherhood Institute, their interest is in stereotypes and not about individual household choice. The reason there are less women in Parliament is because less want to be politicians and also it makes no difference to how 'man-friendly' family policy is (We had 13 years of an anti-male Labour Government and this government is no better!). Just because there are less women in senior positions or there is a gender pay gap (the biggest myth ever perpetrated to undermine men is to suggest the gap is due to discrimination) does not men there is not fairness in families if the father and mother make a mature decision about it.

It is almost as if the Fatherhood Institutes's view of family fairness is about circumventing mature and rational decisions made by the father and mother. They rae saying they want more women in management positions because it is fairer to the family, but that may not be what mothers and fathers in each individual family want for their family unit.

The second issue is of course our old chestnut - equality in the UK means that some people are more equal than others as well as the unintended consequences of the changes to 'even' things up are for fathers.

It counts as a fairness negative that there are not enough women in Parliament, in senior positions and too many work part-time (has the Fatherhood Institute asked those mothers working part time if this is something they and their husbands/partners are happy about?).

So to change things more quickly than they are already would mean more positive discrimination to get more women into Parliament and into senior positions. This means positive discrimination/action (do not be fooled by those who believe that positive action is different to positive discrimination - the latter is the outcome of the former). This means more all-women shortlists and gender quotas. To get more women into part time roles does this mean not employing men in full time roles (and switching topart time) or stopping women from choosing to work part time? 

All these would help improve the position of the UK in the Fairness in Families Index (FiFI) but to ensure this happens would mean discriminating against fathers and their families because it would make it harder for a father to be a MP, or be in senior position or work full time. Is this what the Fatherhood Institute want?

And of course, is this in the best interest of the family, the children and the mother. Of course not, but according to the Fatherhood Institute's index it would be.

In summary, the Fairness in Families Index is a PR wheeze looking for a headline and to give some sort of credibility to the Fatherhood Institute. But actually its definition of what is fair and what the policy response would need to be to make it even more fairer would damage fathers and their families.

The Fatherhood Institute needs to think a lot deeper about what it does and what it stands for.

Posted by Skimmington 

   

YVETTE COOPER' S COMPREHENSIVE RANT FORGETS THE MEN WHO SUFFERED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR CUTS

A few months ago Yvette Cooper, one of Labour anti-male emissaries, launched an amazingly economically illiterate rant against the Budget and here we go again as she is big news in the Guardian, who of course slavishly lap it all up.

This time Yvette Cooper says that the Comprehensive Spending Review is the "biggest reversal of women's opportunites and economic independence since WW1' . There was also an article in the Guardian about the Fawcett Society's campaign to sue the Government!

Without having to repeat so much before but firstly where were the politicians defending and speaking out for men who were the big losers in the recession and redundancies affecting the private sector. They were nowhere to be found.

In fact, a great point about the anti-male hypocrisy of politicians and others who speak out about how the budget and Comprehensive Spending Review was made in the Guardian article about the Fawcett Society.

In the comments section, someone said why so-called equality campaigners are not complaining against the decision to stop a grant to Sheffield Forgemasters even though that will cost men's jobs. Nothing from Cooper, Flint or Harman. 

Secondly, job cuts that affect  women also affect the men in their lives as they do not live in isolation.

And this undermines Yvette Cooper. She says using House of Commons research that women are hit harder from the cuts because 70% of tax credits are paid to mothers as is 94% of child benefit. Of course, if the mother has a son - he suffers as well. And of course if the  mother has a partner/husband sharing her life then he suffers as well. Just because the mother receives the money, doesn't mean he doesn'nt suffer as well. 

The fact that this stuff gets airtime without being questioned shows how the media just print it without a challenge or thought. Yvette Cooper's claims are laughable, they do not stack up and shows the feminst seperatist movement in all its red-clawed hatred of men all dressed up in the name of equality.

Posted by Skimmington

 

CONSERVATIVES FAIL TO IMPLEMENT MOST PERNICIOUS ANTI-MALE PARTS OF EQUALITIES ACT

This week saw the implementation of the Equalities Act which essentially merges all of the myriad pieces of equalities legalisation in the UK (including the Sexual Discrimination Act) plus add a few more issues. This was a Labour Government Act of Parliament, not a Coalition Government one.

Two of the most pernicious anti-male parts of the Act were that companies with more than 250 employees would have to publish the gap between average pay for male and female employees, and, companies would be allowed to 'positively' discriminate against employees or potential employees if one group was supposedly under-represented.

Gender Pay Gap

The gender pay gap issue is one of the most Orwellian examples of the misuse of statistics in the Western World as oft explained on the site as the statistics are spun to suggest women get paid less than men for doing the same job. That is a lie and people like Ceri Goddard, Chief Executive of our friends at the Fawcett Society (misleadingly described by the BBC as an organisation campaigning for gender equality) who said that "rowing back on the requirement for big business to take action on any differences between the pay of men and women employees is tantamount to endorising the shocking pay gap". The BBC published this but had no one telling her she is talking nonsense. However, the Government has said it will force companies to implement this in 2013.

The problem is the gender pay gap is another weapon for people like Goddard, Harman and all the anti-male people who infest our country who just want to attack men and beat us up. The gender pay gap is a myth.

'Positive' Discrimination

The Labour Government had brought in clauses to the Equalities Act that would allow companies to discriminate in favour of someone's protected group (race, gender, disability etc)  were under-represented at that company. For example, a company with more male employees could give a job to a female if a man and a woman applying were equally qualified. The Conservatives, when in opposition, opposed the wide ranging definition and to be honest opposed the whole concept. This has been well covered on the site.

It was confirmed by the BBC that this had not been implemented and was not going to be the now Conservative/Liberal Democrat Government.

That is really good news as the intention behind the Act was always to give more employment opportunities to women at the cost of opportunities to men, even though more men are unemployed.

Opportunities

It is not all doom and gloom though. There remains opportunities for men who are dicriminated against. All public authorities currently have to comply with the gender equality duty to ensure that their services meet the needs of both men and women. This is wrapped up now into a Single Equality Duty (comes into force in April 2011). Whenever a man is not being served by his council, police force, Government, NHS or any other statutory body on the basis of him being a man, that body is breaking the Act.

Summary

It is good news overall that the Coalition Government has put the brakes on the most offending pieces of legalisation but it is worth keeping a keen eye on it. In fact, it would have been better if parts the Act had been repealed because if a Labour Government ever got elected again, they would bring the clauses in the Act straight back in (it would literally be at a stroke of a pen). I can hear Harman making a note in her diary right now.

Posted by Skimmington

  

 

 

OFF WITH HIS HEAD AT THE TOWER OF LONDON: JUSTICE AT LAST

This week has been one where more stories come to light that debunk the continual and purposeful myths that only men are perpetrators of domestic abuse or stalking.

We have had the story in papers again about evil Tracie Andrews and also the awful ordeal that Dr Jan Falkowski had to endure and the ludicrously poor sentences the offenders received. There is now a National Stalking Helpline which it makes clear will support men and women which means men suffering from being stalked have a place of expertise to go and get help from.

The stigma of false allegations and the wreckage they cause has also been laid bare. Mark Sanders-Crook, a Beefeater at the Tower of London, was sacked last year (and here) because of bullying and harassment allegations made by a female Beefeater.

At the time, Mr Sanders-Crook said that he was sacked because "because I am a man, because of political correctness" and that he planned to appeal and launch a claim for unfair dismissal.

The Tower of London said that the complaints about him had been "investigated extremely thoroughly"So much so that this week it was announced that he has been cleared, given a formal apology  and awarded damages by the Tower of London for false dismissal (This is London, Guardian, Independent, The Sun and Telegraph .

Here we have another classic story in the pantheon of men being ruined by false allegations and accusations.

A trigger-happy politically-correct anti-male employer like the Tower of London who because of their warped sense of equality feel it is easier to just sack a man when accused in this way because it is the easiest option to take and everyone in society 'accepts' that all men harass women and it is therefore a no brainer and no one would be surprised by this action.

The fact of course that the person making the false allegations against Mr Sanders-Crooks, happened to be the first female Beefeater meant he just had to go. The Sistas would demand it, they smell the blood of a cornered man from 10 miles away.

What sticks in the throat and is worth coming back to is what was said by the Tower of London in November 2009 when he was sacked: "We expect our staff to demonstrate our commitment to diversity and maintaining a supportive working environment".

That does not apply at the Tower of London if a male employee is falsely accused.

Posted by Skimmington

AUGUST ARTICLE SUMMARY

Been away so sorry for the lack of posts, anyhow, here are a few issues that have come up lately which should be shared:

General

Men's Hour - BBC Radio 5

Men's Matters - Express FM (scroll down)

Daily Telegraph - Feminism, forget it, sisters (by Neil Lydon)

The Spectator - The death of the male working class (by Fraser Nelson)

Domestic Abuse

Northern Echo - Women jailed for stab attack on ex-boyfriend

Dorset Echo - Weymouth councillor on assault charge (oh the irony)

Irish Times - Hypocrisy over ability to be hypocrites (by Padriag O'Moran)

Medical News Today - Counsellors struggle to treat male victims

The Herald - Male abuse victims face extra barriers

Scotsman - Male victim tells of decade of abuse

Scotsman - Council accused of ignoring male victims

False accusations

Daily Telegraph - Britons trapped in false rape sting

Daily Record - Boxer's son released

BBC Dorset - Warning after Bournemouth woman jailed

Scotsman - Father wrongly accused in flawed abuse inquiry

BBC Norfolk - False rape mother is jailed

If Caroline Flint & Co say there isn't a problem, why is it that every week a woman is jailed for making false accusations!

Employment

Daily Mail - Work experience at Foreign Office: Not if you're a white middle class male

Daily Telegraph - Debt 'Men are new underclass'

Mixed-sex wards and health

Daily Telegraph - Government announced the end of mixed sex wards

An issue raised some timeago as the last Government promised it way back in 1997!

Pfizer - Man MOT

This is a brilliant initiative by Pfizer

Education

European Union - Study into gender inequality in education

Why is the EU having to do this when the UK Government should have done it years ago, but even Gove, the new Education Minister is not bothering. 

Politics

BBC - Harman wants half of Shadow Cabinet to be women

 

 

UPDATE: EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN

As things have been really busy the past four months or so, the next week few weeks will see interspersed with the usual commentary a list of articles on similar topics which then can be discussed.

Preferably it is better to have some commentary in the posts themselves but time is of the essence and it is better that the articles etc are shared rather than being overlooked because of time then not at all.

The first ones are on some employment related issues (not including the Equality Act which will be dealt with at a later date).

Useless Jobless Men by Camila Cavendish (The Times)

Debt - Men are emerging as the new underclass (Daily Telegraph)

Equality payout for female cleaners in Birminghamby Jamie Doward (The Observer)

The issue with the above is whether or not it also applies to male cleaners as well as female cleaners as well as other types of similar jobs wher ethe issue was apllied for females. If you remember this was an issue from last year where the sexist councils of Middlesbrough, Hartleppol and South Tyneside had to be taken to court so that men could be granted equal treatment.

South Tyneside were going to appeal. Love to find out if this decision also applied to male cleaners and whetehr South Tyneside appealed or not?

Sacked lawyer wins sex discrimination case (Yorkshire Evening Post)

Unemployment rate far higher for male graduates than female graduates (Higher Education Policy Institute) and Guardian article

Work experience at the Foreign Office? Not if you are a white middle class male by Brendan Carlin (Daily Mail)

Have we missed any employment related discrimination stories?

Posted by Skimmington

MALE BOSSES COME OUT ON TOP SAY WOMEN

Last week on of our regular readers and contributors (called Groan) pointed out in the comments section on one of the posts about research from UKjobs.net which shows that men make the best bosses and that this is a view held by men and women. This was highlighted this time last year in other research when the site questioned how Harman and Co would react to these traitorous women.

Now as you know this site is not anti-women, but I have to say as another week of work beckons, it did make me smile and wanted to ensure it was shared more widely.

Read the coverage here: Daily Mail (read the comments), Daily Telegraph and Express plus of course the laughable Barbara Ellen in the Guardian.  

Posted by Skimmington

Hattip: Groan

COALITION'S NEW PUBLIC BODY ASPIRATION HEAPS ON MORE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN

As each day goes by the Coalition Government is exhibiting more and more of the Marxist feminist anti-male traits of its predecessor. As set out here it is backtracking on equality issues all the time extinguishing any hope that men will no longer be treated as second class citizens.

Last week, the Coalition Government announced that it had aspirations on the following:

1. By the end of the Parliament at least half of all new appointees being made to the boards of public bodies will be women

2.Business Minister Edward Davey and Lynne Featherstone, Minister for Equalities, have today announced that Lord Davies of Abersoch will develop a business strategy to increase the number of women on the boards of listed companies in the UK (covered here and here).

As this site and any one who believes in equality knows, positive action means negative action for someone else and that someone else is always men. This is what makes the Equality Act anything but about equality, when employers can discriminate against people because of their gender (the powers not yet taken by the Governement - interesting)

This of course is no difference to what Harman, Flint, the Fawcett Society and the Equalities Commission wanted before the election. Plus Ca Change.

The Government has tried to couch the policy on public bodies by stating that it will be based on merit. But we all know what happens in the real world of politics behind closed doors.

Good men will be weeded out at the selection process, subtle pressure put on public bodies to meet their target, even non-subtle targets (you'll lose funding if you don't appoint a woman), retiring men being replaced automatically by a women and of course there will be the full blown pressure put on public bodies to toe the line. Now this aspiration has been made, Harman will not let them forget it.

This is not an aspiration, in the real body politic world this is a hard and fast policy and woe betide any public body not meeting it. Because in reality if you have an aspiration you will do all you can to achieve it and if it looks like it is not working you will move heaven and earth to do so, and blow the issues of meritocracy or legality. Has any Government not wanted to meet an aspiration and gear policy both overtly and covertly towards meeting it? Never.

This aspiration is a policy and it is the end of meritocracy. All that matters is your gender, your ability is irrelevant.

Posted by Skimmington

Media Coverage - Telegraph, Independent, Independent

ANOTHER ANTI-MALE MYTH IS UNDERMINED - HOUSEWORK AND CHILDCARE

One of the stars who stands up for men (and women) and brings an injection of academic common sense and realism in the fight for equality and honest debate is Dr Catherine Hakim at the LSE. She really lays into the myth-making of the feminists.

She has been outspoken before on the Equality Act and speaks sense on the gender pay gap.

This week she published a report in Renewal (press release and report), a journal for social democracy, where she said that:

"Feminists are wrong to claim that men should do a larger share of the housework and childcare because on average, men and women already do the same number of hours of productive work. In fact, if we consider the hours spent doing both paid work and unpaid household, care and voluntary work together, men already do more than their fair share..."

and also as keen by this case, she says that:

"Furthermore, there is evidence that men are beginning to demand the same options and choices as women, with more claims of sex discrimination from men. Policy makers need to be aiming for gender-neutral policies that cater for all three main lifestyle choices..."

The importance of this report cannot be said enough.

Not just because it shatters another of the anti-male myths used by feminists to beat down men by suggesting they are slackers leaving women to work and then do all the housework while they skive off down the pub, it also highlights the choice that women make. This is the cause of the gender pay gap not discrimination which is what Flint, Harman and the Fawcett Society think.

Lastly, what is great about this report is that it is written by a women.

It shouldn't matter of course but if it had been written by a man, the report would have been ignored, condemned and patronised with the "he would say that would't he?" nonsense.

Posted by Skimmington

Media Coverage - Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph plus Neil Lyndon in the Telegraph