The Rights Of Man

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

 

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

CANCER RESEARCH UK STOOPS EVER LOWER IN ITS SEXISM AGAINST MEN

A great many people concerned with equality (not to mention cancer) have been deeply disturbed by the conduct of Cancer Research UK and their sexist Race for Life. I'm sure I don't' have to tell you that the race is a female only event where men are banned from taking part. We're not talking about mere segregation here with separate events for the two genders at the same time, it's a completely blatant exclusion of 49% of the population.

Until recently CRUK also ran a half hearted attempt at involving men called "Run for Moore" but quite frankly it was doomed from the start given the institutionalised sexism which runs throughout the organisation and the fact the event was clearly an afterthought rather than anything CRUK ever had any commitment to. This year the inevitable has happened and CRUK have abandoned any pretence of trying to involve men by giving up on Run for Moore completely.

If we had a more enlightened attitude to gender equality in this country then Race For Life would have long ago been declared illegal. Events in other countries aimed at appealing to women or focusing on mostly female cancers generally do not bother being so petty as to ban men. Regrettably one of Harriet Harman's last acts before finally getting kicked out of office was to sneak in explicit legalisation of Race for Life misandry in the "Equality" Bill, though such legislation is at least an acknowledgement that CRUK were previously on extremely shaky ground indeed with regards to their treatment of men over the last 15 years.

Not only is CRUK's sexist in it's fundraising activities of course, it also fails to fund research into male cancer sufficiently, instead spending far more money on female only conditions. There is now increasingly widespread awareness that our society's obsession with breast cancer is having a hugely detrimental effect on all other cancer suffers and it's now fair to say that men and pretty much anyone suffering from any less fashionable form of the disease is now effectively a second class citizen.

So many other people are doing so much great work in taking CRUK to task over their sexism and this has previously meant I've not bothered writing anything new about the organisation as quite frankly I didn't have much to add to my previous piece. Regrettably they have now stooped to a new low and spurred me into writing once again.

Incredibly CRUK have begun a campaign of objectifying men on their website as a way of promoting their sexist Race for Life events. Visitors to the website (mostly women of course) are invited to meet CRUK's "Race for Life hotties"  in the organisation's "E-male" app where they get to choose who they wish to perform for them. Women then gets to personalise the sex object of their choice with CRUK kindly inviting them to take ownership of him and "make him yours".  Visitors then finally get to see a video of "their" "hottie" stripping off his shirt and going topless (note I won't be linking to the content as I do not wish to promote sexism nor the charity concerned).

Now I want to make it clear I'm not some some prudish, anti-sex "Object" style fanatic here. I don't have any problem with sex or nudity and we live in a free society where men are woman are quite rightly able to parade around half naked and do whatever they wish with their bodies for whatever reason.  Sex sells and I accept that.

The CRUK campaign is certainly at the very worst end of the scale in terms of bad taste and the double standards of a lack of female "hotties" arguably makes things even worse. However the real reason such content is so objectionable is because it's a part of the wider campaign of genuinely harmful sexism and exclusion by a genuinely discriminatory organisation who really should be helping everyone. We're not talking about some random inconsequential top shelf magazine printing questionable content. CRUK is a hugely influential and powerful organisation, it's the UK's biggest cancer charity supposed to be responsible for finding cures for diseases that kill millions and helping countless cancer sufferers.

As we noted above CRUK has deliberately excluded men from it's biggest events for well over a decade now. It's then refuses to give sufficient funding to male cancers and ultimately fails to engage with men and get the interested in the issue of cancer, despite themselves admitting men are the biggest suffers of the disease and have the worst outcomes by some distance. CRUK now adds to its sexism by parading topless men all over it's website in something akin to a Nevada brothel style line up.

This isn't first such objectification of men by CRUK either, the organisation has history here as you can see from this breast cancer "awareness" video (warning it's even more tasteless than the Race for Life "hotties" videos ). Once again there is no corresponding video where a male figure of authority molests a semi nude female in the name of prostate cancer awareness.

These videos sum up the philosophy of CRUK and its Race for Life and shows just how sexist the charity has now become. Divisive environments only concerned with one gender or openly hostile the other no only alienate the other half the population, but can makes issues such as objectification more acceptable and therefore more likely. How on earth can men become concerned with cancer when all the messages about the subject in our society are delivered in bold pink writing accompanied blatantly sexist women-only rules and topless men presented as sex objects? Respected author Brian Clegg tells us that just because Race for Life is for a good cause, it doesn't' justify discrimination. Similarly, it doesn't justify tasteless objectification of those CRUK is already discriminating against in all their work either.

On a more positive note these videos do at least further prove all along what we've all suspected about CRUK. If it were in any doubt before, it's safe to say we're now clearly at a stage where the organisation is a lost cause. Please do not donate to such sexist organsiaitons instead support one of the many far better, charities and unfashionable causes out there who survive on tiny budgets without demeaning or discriminating against anyone.

by John Kimble

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 

ARTICLE UPDATE

Here are a few articles that have not been covered so far but may be of interest.

The Guardian - Welfare Reform Bill will trap women in their violent hell (Lisa Ansell)

The Observer - Review threatens companies with disclosure over number of women they interview (Andrew Clark) plus UK lags behind Nordic nations.

Daily Telegraph - Young women face £1,000 increase in car insurance (David Williams)

The Guardian - Paying the price for equality (Rupert Jones)

Daily Mail - One in three female offenders are thugs (Sarah Harris)

Warminster TImes - £80 fine for false rape claim 

Aberdeen Press and Journal - False rape claim woman faces jail

NPR (USA) - Love doesn't have to hurt (Michel Martin) About an appalling Pepsi Superbowl advert 

BBC Berkshire - Woman cautioned over false rape claim

Daily Mail - Female Chaplain sentenced over false rape claim 

The Independent - Boardroom quotas (Margareta Pagano)

Daily Telegraph - Lady golfers unhappy about law to end sex discrimination (Adam Lusher) 

Posted by Skimmington 

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 

EDUCATION FAILURE FOR BOYS FEEDS THROUGH TO GENDER PAY GAP - AS WE ALWAYS KNEW IT WOULD

As often commented here (1, 2 , 3) the gender pay gap has literally been a stick to beat men for decades and is whipped out whenever anyone challenges the anti-male feminists about their hatred of men.

Whenever they raise the 'gap issue' it is always on the basis of discrimination against women even though there is no proof and there has never been that systematically a women with the same talent, skill, years of experience, adding the same value and undertaking the same job at the same company has ever been discriminated.

Never any mention of women taking career breaks to bring up children because they and their husband/partner have made an adult and mature decision to do so, or the fact that many women choose the job security/regular hours of the public sector over the private sector. The latter being able to pay higher wages. 

The issue of career breaks is anathema to modern-day anti-male feminists who see women who want to stay at home and bring up their children as old-fashioned and victims of old skool (sic) patriarchy. There is no better explanation of why the misuse of the gender pay gap is wrong then this pamphlet.

All the arguments anti-male feminists trot out is that "Men get paid x% more than women". Their misuse of statistics would shame a five year old.

The latest ONS gender pay gap figures showed that for full-time employees it fell from 12.2% to 10.2%. For part-time employees (dominated by women) it is now -4% (i.e. part-time women get paid more than part-time men) and overall, the gap is 19.8% down from 22%. The median full-time figure is the one ONS rightly uses.

When the figures came out there were general comments (BBC, Telegraph, Telegraph 2, The Guardian). Some business leaders questioned why with the gap narrowing the government needed to bring in equality laws.

Still just because the gap is closing does not mean the anti-male feminists will stop. The government's 'equalities' department said it was still committed to "taking measures to end discrimination in the workplace" - bring on the gender pay audits and positive discrimination! How is this liberal and how is this conservative?

The crucial statistic which highlights decades of educational failure is the one regarding the wages of young men and women.

The figures showed (page 8) that women aged 22-29 earned more than men of the same age. Full-time it was 2.1% and at 1.9% for part-time. This was highlighted in articles in the Daily Mail  and The Independent, whilst our old friend Barbara Ellen ranted away.

What this shows is that the gender education gap (1 and 2) is now filtering through to employment as this site and others have always said it would. The move from exam-based O-levels to course based GCSE's, the feminisation of the education system (no male teachers and dumbed down curriculum) and the continual demonisation of boys is as expected leading to lower employment choices and chances for men when they enter the workplace. The Daily Telegraph research of two years ago highlighted this clearly.

But there is just silence from the government on this, Michael Gove (the education secrertary) says nothing to address it whilst Theresa May and equalities minister and hieress, Lynne Featherstone, says we want even more rules to help women.

The new figures show clearly the effect of poor educational attainment of boys yet there is just silence on it and even though there is now clear and unequivocal proof of its effects. 

As well as this of course is the fact that if suddenly a figure moved from being pro-female (like a +ve gender pay gap figure) to being negative (like a -ve gender pay gap figure) then there would be acres of comment from politicians but there is just silence.

Dr Catherine Hakim (1 and 2) is a voice that stands out in this field and her forthcoming report "Feminist Myths and Magic Medicine" will be a joy to read.

Posted by Skimmington

Additional info: here is another article about Dr Catherine Hakim

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

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