The Rights Of Man

GENDER BIAS AGAINST MALES HIGHER THAN BIAS AGAINST FEMALES, IN SOME JOBS

By Megan Jones

Back in March, the website accountingweb.com reported on a UK study that found male job applicants in the fields of accounting and computer analysis were experienced greater bias than female applicants. The study tested out over 400 jobs, sending two fake applications, one from someone named Emma and the other from a job candidate named Phillip.

The applications – which listed the same age and level of experience and qualifications – were sent to employers and companies seeking to hire accountants, computer analysts, engineers and secretaries. Accountingweb.com, via The Guardian, reports that “men were up to four times as likely as women to suffer bias when seeking jobs in accountancy and computer programming. Men were also four times less likely than women to be hired for secretary positions, while women were “half as likely” to get the engineering jobs, according to accountingweb.com.  

In response to the study’s findings, some analysts believe that employers who hired women are practicing what is called “stealth affirmative action,” though there is no law that requires employers to modify their hiring practices according to affirmative action in the

UK

. Others have responded by saying that while men should not be discriminated against, women still bear the brunt of the majority of workplace discrimination.

In either case, gender discrimination is unfair. The news article also referenced a study from Rutgers University graduate students and published in the Psychology of Women Quarterly, which found that men who acted ambitious and like they really wanted to succeed in their careers were viewed as favorable candidates, while women who acted in the same way were considered less than desirable in terms of social skills and likability. This finding led those in the study to feel less passionate about hiring women who acted ambitious.

It is unclear exactly why the employers in the first study favored women over men in three out of four industries. And while computer science and accounting are still traditionally male-dominated fields, especially in upper management, a stealth affirmative action initiative can’t be a conclusive answer, as it does not apply to the field of engineering, at least according to the study.

This post was contributed by Megan Jones, who writes about the bachelors degree. She welcomes your feedback at Meg.Jones0310 at gmail.com

BBC RADIO SCOTLAND - DOCUMENTARY ON THE PLIGHT OF MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

In March, BBC Radio Scotland produced a first class documentary on male victims of domestic violence victims. It was called Give Me A Voice.

It is back on tonight (9th July) at 22:05 GMT and should be available for another seven days via Iplayer etc

Click Here

HARMAN CAUGHT OUT AGAIN ABOUT WHO IS LOSING OUT IN THE RECESSION

A few days after Harriet Harman, the UK's Minister for Women, Leader of the House of Commons and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, received a letter from the UK's statistics watchdog about peddling untruths about the gender pay gap, the Government's own Equalities and Human Rights Commission proves her wrong about the recession.

Ms Harman had previously proclaimed this year that women were the biggest sufferers in the recession only to be proved wrong by the Office of National Statistics.

This time, the Equalities Commissioned issued a report on the recession showing that male unemployment in the Uk had increased by 2.4% (to 8.1%) and female unemployment by 1.4% (to 6.4%).

On four key issues now, Harman has been caught peddling distortions on jobs, depression, domestic violence and the gender pay gap. On each occasion the intention is to state that the plight of women is worse than the plight of men and to allow her to pursue her pro-female anti-male agenda.

Truly shameful.

HIDDEN TABOO OF MALE VICTIMS OF FORCED MARRIAGE REVEALED

By Adrian Ashby and The Editor

In new guidance produced by the UK Department of Children Schools and Families on the prevalence of forced marriage within Britain's Asian community has revealed that 20% of victims are male.

The figures (see page 26 of the guidance) show that during 2008 there were 1,325 known cases out of 7,750.

In many ways, this is a similar position to the one that male victims of domestic violence find themselves in. It is under-reported and nearly all of the information provided is aimed at female victims.The stereotype is that only females can be victims and men cannot be.

 Though the Forced Marriage Unit and the excellent Karma Nirvana charity help men, it is clear from the figures that nothing much is being done on the ground in local councils to help. 

This can be seen by the sample of four council's involved in the research which shows that a mere 4% of victims they report are male but the Forced Marriage Unit reported 14% and Karma Nirvana reported 43% (the guidance has produced an estimate of 20% taking into account these statistics). It shows that nationally based support systems show a higher prevalence than those on the ground, which means local council's once again are ignoring male victims in their community and are in breach of the Gender Equality Duty.

Almost a re- run of the process by which Erin Pizzey’s pioneering work setting up refuges  was subverted by an ideology which refuses to recognise the need for support for a substantial number of men. Once again a pioneering woman, Jasvindher Sanghera of Karma Nirvana, responding to real human problems, shows up the prejudice of those who should be supporting people in need in their communities.

Thee one difference though is that whereas in the case of male victims of domestic violence, the perpetrators are nearly always female, in forced marriages, because of the patriarchal nature of Asian communities, it is likely that the men being forced into marriage are being forced by other men (male family members) within their community.

 

So the usual stereotype that only women can be victims has been proved here, as in the case of domestic violence, to be wrong. When will this Government stop putting domestic violence and now forced marriages under the remit of Stopping Violence against Women and Children and instead place it under the remit of Stopping Violence Against Everyone.

 

HEROIC VICTORY IN MIDDLESBROUGH, HARTLEPOOL AND SOUTH TYNESIDE - BUT WHY DID THEY HAVE TO FIGHT

This week, 300 heroic men won a test case at an employment tribunal in the North Eastern councils they work (Middlesbrough, Hartlepool and SouthTyneside). This has implications for 12,000 men across the UK.

The case was based on the fact that men and women working for these three councils had previously taken a case against these councils where they were not given bonuses for similar graded jobs to jobs mainly carried out by men (such as gardeners and refuse collectors).

However, whilst these women were rightly awarded a financial settlement or received tribunal awards after winning their case, the three council's employing these men refused to make payments to the men or change their terms and conditions. Pure unadulterated discrimination.

That meant they continued to receive not only less than other men, but also less than the women.

The men then lodged sex discrimination cases in addition to their equal pay claims. The tribunal upheld this, but the council's scandalously appealed, and lost.

The situation is well set out in the BBC and Teesside Gazette.

This test case, was a landmark victory for these men not just because of the decision but also because of what the Judge and lawyers said about it on the BBC:-

 Mr Justice Underhill said: "It would be surprising and unsatisfactory if the [Equal Pay] Act offered no remedy to men in a situation like the present. The case where men and women do the same job but receive different rates of pay is the paradigm of the kind of situation which the Act was intended to prevent, how would it seem if the roles were reversed and the 'piggyback' claimants were not men but women?"

Lawyers involved, from the Cloister Chambers, have described it as a landmark ruling which will have a bearing on many other cases, and could cost councils hundreds of millions of pounds.

After the ruling, Yvette Genn, a barrister who specialises in equal pay law with the chambers Cloisters, said: “This is an important decision as it demonstrates that equal pay laws can be applied not only by women who compare themselves with men, but also by men who are comparing themselves with better paid men.

“Even though women historically have received lower pay than their male counterparts, it is too often forgotten that the law applies equally to men as it does to women.”

It crucially shows that equalities legislation can be used by men and with decent legal teams they can win. The Judge alludes to the hypocrisy of discrimination against men because he is basically saying if it was the other way round, then there would be no dispute and that he would not have to make a decision as it would unlikely to have to go to court for a settlement to be reached. A sound judge.

The key issue though is why did the councils not pay up in the first place when the women won their case and why did the three council's could automatically assume that it was OK for them to pay just the women concerned and not automatically extend it to these 300 men.

They did so, because firstly they felt they could get away with it but importantly because they felt these men did not matter because they were men. These three councils clearly do not believe in equality and it is shameful that public authorities feel that it is right and proper to discriminate against them.

What about the male councillors on these local authorities, what did they do about this, did they think it was OK that male workers working for them were discriminated against?

These men are heroes whilst the male councillors and male senior executives who appealed this decision have behaved disgracefully, they are traitors.

Other Media Coverage - The Times, Personnel Today, People Management, Daily Mail

MEN NEED NOT APPLY: HAVE YOUR SAY ON CLAUSES 152 AND 153 IN EQUALITY BILL

By Adrian  Ashby

As part of the passage of the Equality Bill the parliamentary committee looking at the Bill invites evidence and comments. It does this through invited oral evidence sessions and written submissions. This is during June and July. A glance at the invitees for the oral sessions shows a line up of the usual representatives of the equality industry.

However anyone can submit written evidence to the committee. I’m sure few will know about this opportunity. Chapter 2 "Positive Action" should be commented on as it is the first two clauses (152 and 153) that will actually result in discrimination against men in getting jobs or promotions.

I hope readers individually, or through organisations, will make their views known to the committee as they are amending the Bill. The links below tell you how to do this.

Equality and Diversity Forum

Government Equalities Office

These clauses once enacted as currently drafted will effectively mean quotas in employment and promotions.

Editors Note

The Equalities Bill is one of the most anti-male pieces of legislation ever as the intention (even though hundreds of thousands of men are losing their jobs) is to discriminate against men. This has been well documented on the site (1 and 2) . An example of this in practice and with more to come to make this legal.

 

 

 

LEICESTER COUNCIL SHOWS HOW TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MEN AND BOYS

If it is not women-only hours for swimming baths, women-only courses, awards and everything else, this site has been alerted to the fact that Leicester Council's Highfields Library offers a women-only session on Tuesday's between 1pm and 3pm. In addition, on the same day it offers women-only drop in sessions.

Not only is this in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act, it shows how ignorant Leicester Council is.

A few weeks ago, a report by the Higher Education Policy Institute highlighted the barriers faced by boys in education and that more needed to be done to break these down. In addition, sites like Books for Boys highlight the need to get more boys reading as they are a long way behind girls in English subjects.

So what does Leicester Council do to help boys read, it turfs them out of the library every Tuesday.

This needs a complaint to the Equalities Commission and the Council.

LEYTON MAN ATTACKS LACK OF HELP FOR MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

This week's Waltham Forest Guardian features an article on David Hyatt who said that not enough was being done to help male victims.

He spoke about the two of the main problems - he was too embarrassed to report it and when in a separate incident, his then ex-partner attacked him on a bus, the police arrested him. The latter is of no surprise.

An all too common experience but that at least are becoming publicised more.

SHOCKING RESEARCH ON THE UK'S PROSTATE POSTCODE LOTTERY

The first rate campaigning group Prostate Cancer - Charter for Action issued a worrying study to coincide with Men's Health Week.

The headline statistic showed that at least 96 of

England

’s 529 parliamentary constituencies (1 in 6) have a death rate from prostate cancer more than 25% above the

England

average (25 deaths per 100,000 population) with men in Tottenham almost five times more likely to die of prostate cancer than men in South East Cambridgeshire.

 

The charity is calling for:-

• Fewer men are diagnosed with prostate cancer once it has already spread

• More accurate information is made available to all patients

• The provision of clinical nurse specialists is increased

What is also appalling is the way, as revealed by the group, that the NHS (paid by us humble taxpayers) in many areas is refusing to implement the prostate care guidance by NICE who have control on what treatments and guidance should be available.

 

The two key issues really are that firstly this release was issued at the same time as the Cancer Research story that said men having a stiff upper lip is harming their health, whilst this, in many way smore important story/scandal only received good coverage in the Daily Telegraph. The reason seems to be that because the Cancer Research story showed men in a negative light, it got good coverage. Because the Prostate story was about the failure of the state, Government and the NHS to help men, it was not as important/not newsworthy enough/who cares?

 

Secondly, even with the political support the Charter group have, nothing seems to be changing with regard to helping men avoid this terrible disease that claims 10,000 lives per year. The hue and cry would be (rightly) deafening if the Government and NHS were dragging their heels on such an issue if it affected women, but because men are the disposable unimportant sex, silence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHY THE GENDER PAY GAP IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS WOMEN BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST

By Adrian Ashby 

 

The row over the misuse of the Office of  National Statistics information highlights the dishonesty in the whole policy with regard to the “Gender Pay Gap”. Constantly presented as about women paid less than men for the same work it generates a feeling that women are treated unfairly in terms of pay.

 

Yet the Equal Opportunities Commission Reports produced in the early part of this decade identified little difference in pay rates for the same sorts of job. In fact the key factors were identified as time out of work and the popularity of part time work in a comparatively narrow range of occupations.

This drove the EOC to support “flexible working” and encouragement for young women to consider other occupational choices.  

 

Of course at that point the debate becomes about the issues for mothers (and fathers) rather than all women. As there was found to be little “gap” for childless women partnered or not.

The other issue is then what drives the choices of occupation made by men and women?

 

The Office of National Statistics has published regional figures. There are some interesting patterns.

For instance the pay “gap”is very small in regions that have suffered the collapse of  “men’s” occupations (mining, heavy manufacturing etc.). In those same areas, such as Wales or Northern Ireland the more prominent role for public sector employment (mainly female) means that as the recession hits private industry the “gap” is getting  very small indeed.

A feature rarely commented on is that men are also more concentrated in low earning occupations working full time hours. This matches with the figures that part time men are paid less than part time women.

 

The men are much more likely to be in low skilled P/T work while the figure for women includes the many professional women who choose to work part time, for instance the new GP contract precipitated a dramatic increase in female doctors working part time.

 

In general women are concentrated in the public sector and have a narrower distribution of pay rates. There are of course men at the heady heights of the now discredited banking industry but many more in “dirty” jobs that pay little. In other words there is a much wider distribution. Portering, cleansing, labouring, delivering and so on tend to be both low paid and invisible but also men’s work.

 

Though the fact that full time male workers statistically work ten more hours per week than women is often taken to indicate preferences of men in management or professions. However a more accurate analysis of statistics  would note that this is more often a reflection of low paid workers keen to earn more through overtime.

 

Of course the reality for most people is that choices and trade offs have to be made. Often these are made by couples and families. The patterns frequently change over the life courses of both men and women. Occupational segregation is an issue though the statistics show that the “female” occupations have been becoming more female over the same time many “male” occupations have become less male, so here again it isn’t a simple issue.