The Rights Of Man

EYES STARTING TO OPEN OVER THE PRACTICAL IMPACT OF HARMAN'S EQUALITY BILL

Now that our favourite Government Minister, Harriet Harman, has got her Equalities Bill (link) up and running in the UK Parliament, the practical impact of its policy to stop men from being treated as equals in the workplace is starting to be shown.

It is not helped of course, that she is now off the leash and gone into full-on male-bashing mode. You see, she blames maleness, for the collapse of the banks and as now so many are nationalised she wants to use the pro-women laws in the Bill to, as the Daily Mail put it, 'put women in charge of the banks'. No problem in theory with having women (or anyone) in charge of banks so long as they are suitably qualified.

But Harman's Law is not about this, it is about letting someone from one gender (women) being able to leapfrog above other people (men) up the career ladder solely based on gender. Just how fair it is for a man who has dedicated himself to a career to then be denied that opportunity because he is a man? It is wrong and morally so.

Also having been found out to be misleading everyone with her previous campaign saying the recession affected the employment of women more than men, she has turned her attack more generally. She said "because women generally remained homemakers, the recession caused them to fear not only for their own jobs, but also for their husband's, for their children's futures, and for elderly relatives. We have to worry more than men and we are definitely worrying more about the recession than men are."

There is not single shred of evidence to base this on and if she thinks that men are not worried to the same extent (or more) than women then she is just wrong. Patronisingly and desperately wrong.

Harriet Harman will do anything she possible can to attack at men. Why does she dislike us so much?

Other coverage is here:- Daily Mail, This is Money, Express, Telegraph

MEDIA CONDEMNATION FOR HARMAN' S EQUALITIES BILL

A week since the ironically named Equalities Bill was published and covered here (link and previous links here, here and here), there seems to be universal condemnation (especially from women) on a number of issues. The additional coverage is listed at the bottom but the issues are:-

(1) It is anti-male and unashamedly so;

(2) It is anti-business;

(3) The gender pay gap is down to lifestyle choice and not down to discrimination.

Harman's colleagues in the UK Government, which seems to be rotting further each day, seemed to be able to resist her when she put this forward. It is interesting to note none of them seemed to be rushing to support her publicly. Is it because they are embarrassed, do they support it or they so in hock to the anti-male PC brigade to say anything?

What will the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats do? Will there be enough labour MPs who could help to vote it down like they did on this week's Gurkha Bill.

There is no way any sensible person could possibly vote for this swingeing anti-male legislation surely? Thank the Lord the laughable Fawcett Society do not run Parliament, they don't think it goes far enough! (link)

Progress will be analysed as it wends its way through Parliament.

Further Coverage:-

Express 1, Express 2, Express 3, Express 4, Express 5, Express 6

Mail 1, Mail 2, Melanie Phillips Mail 3, Edwina Currie Mail 4

Telegraph 1, Charles Moore Telegraph 2, Telegraph 3, Telegraph 4,

Minette Marrin Times 1

Guardian 1, Guardian 2

CALL FOR A MINISTER FOR MEN

This site's most popular ever post (link) was two years ago when a Minister for Men manifesto was published (see left).

This week, Mark Brooks, posted an article on the hugely popular independent Conservative web-site, Conservative Home, outlining why one is needed. It sparked off a fair old debate.

HARMAN'S EQUALITIES BILL MEANS OPEN SEASON ON MEN AND THEIR LIVELIHOODS

Harriet Harman introduced the Equalities Bill (link, link, briefing) into the UK's House of Commons today.

The main areas of concern and ones raised on this site a number of times is around the gender pay gap (employment section) and the positive action (link) proposals (no such thing as positive action as it means negative action for someone else).

With male unemployment higher than female unemployment (link, link) pressure on businesses and a willful abuse of the gender pay gap statistics, what in reality Harman has done is declare an employment war on men.

Her intentions are clear.

Companies will be forced to publish their gender pay statistics and this is with the sole intention of shaming employers, no matter what rational explanation.

British Aerospace (BAE) for example, said at the weekend that they have a large gender pay gap because their highest paid employees are engineers who are predominately male. They have female engineers but fewer of them so their gender pay gap will be large but this is not down to discrimination especially when they want more female engineers. BAE, according to Harman and her acolytes though, want to place BAE in the stocks and put them through some grotesque Stalinesque show trial.

She said "You have got to believe that either women are 20 per cent less intelligent, less hard-working, less committed to their job, less experienced, less qualified, or you have got to believe that there is structural pay discrimination. We believe there is structural pay discrimination."

 No one as ever said this, it is down to lifestyle choices and career decisions. 

The other issue is that the positive action issues are clearly designed to discriminate against men. The legislation will be gender neutral but its interpretation by the courts, lawyers and HR staff will not be. The intention of the bill is clear - it is discriminate against men.

The bill says that companies can choose one person above another because of their gender when the two candidates are equally qualified. Quota's will also be introduced for companies bidding for public sector wo.

Firstly, it is virtually impossible for two candidates to be equally qualified especially after interview and any other testing. It is mischievous to suggest differently.

Secondly, in the current climate with more men on the dole queue they could be denied a job solely on the basis of their gender. This is discrimination.

Lastly, if a man is discriminated against (and could be from a working class background and studiously made his way up the ladder), it will not just be him who loses out, it could be his daughter, his wife/girlfriend and mother. That will go down well as those women will be equally discriminated against but it is being done in their name.

The Bill, if it passes, and it is likely to, is open season on men and will enshrine discrimination in law against them. Don't anyone think differently

It is the culmination of three decades of anti-male propaganda and male bashing. The nightmare is coming true.

Media Coverage so far (Daily Mail 1 plus debate, Melanie Phillips, BBC, Metro, Telegraph) and more will emerge over the week.

EQUALITIES COMMISSION TURMOIL NEEDS TO CLOSELY WATCHED

The beady eyes of the media have started to look into what is happening at the UK's Equalities and Human Rights Commission (link) which was established in October 2007 as the Equal Opportunities Commission, Race Commission and Disabilities Commission merged.

The Commission is pivotal (link) not in dealing with discrimination cases but also, just like the Equal Opportunities Commission, in pushing a pro-female agenda which often is discriminatory against men or just ignores the needs of men altogether. Hardly any pronouncements or studies are produced into looking health or domestic violence issues, though from time to time it has made pronouncements about boys education and fathers rights, it never really follows these up in the same way it does for women (see yesterday's report).

It is therefore vital for all those wanting equality for men to monitor what it does and says especially as to whether it truly believes in equality and will actively enforce the Gender Equality Duty in helping men obtain the public services they are entitled to.

The media's digging has revealed that:-

Huge turmoil in the way that it is runs including high profile resignations such as the Chief Executive Nicola Brewer and bitter infighting. All revealed in gory detail in The Independent. Other coverage can be found here (Guardian, The Times, Guardian2, Daily Mail).

Salaries soar by 25% in two years with the Conservatives accusing the Commission of "abusing taxpayers" (The Sun). The Sun also revealed it costs £22.7 million more than the previous three bodies (now £70 million). It employs 514 people.

A Freedom of Information request (link) by a SJS Jackson shows that two in every three employees  are female (66% women - 34% men). Under the old Equal Opportunities Commission the figures were 85% women and 15% men and it is likely that the proportions working on gender issues are the same.

What these stories show is that an internecine turf war is going on within the Commission, which is not uncommon considering three distinct bodies merged together.

Whatever happens, pressure needs to be maintained to make sure they remember that equality also means equality for men. The fear is that if the ultra PC brigade win, there will be even less attention on men and more calls for more bias against them. The report on the City's Gender Pay Gap is one such example of this happening.

THE WAR ON THE CITY'S GENDER PAY GAP IGNITES THE DISCRIMINATION CHARGE

In February, the site commented that the review led by the Equalities Commission into the City of London's pay gap was nothing more than showtrial designed as a ruse to attack men (link). The way the initial findings have been skewed by the Commission and others show that prediction to be prescient.

The initials findings (link) show that pay gaps in the City reach up to 60% and the quotes from Trevor Phillips scream " The figures we’re releasing today are shocking and indicate just how serious the pay gap has become in the financial sector, with women concentrated in lower paid, lower skilled roles and few able to make it to the top. The truth is that however you look at the numbers, women do not have equal status or equal rewards."

Never one to miss out on a bit of male bashing, Harriet Harman, minister for women and equality, said in the Guardian (link) that the inquiry "proves that the finance sector is a breeding ground for discrimination and unfairness" and promised "tough new measures" in the equality bill.

Except it doesn't...

What the research from the National Institute of Social and Economic Research (link) shows is that

• Twice as many men have degrees than women (39% to 20%)
• There are more women than men in admin/secretarial jobs
• Men undertake more unpaid overtime than women
• Working conditions are less family friendly than on in other professions

Whilst it shows that for many women, the attractiveness of the City is not as high as that for for men, but that does not mean there is sexual or gender discrimination. There is no proof that a women with the same skills, experience, working the same hours, in the same job with the same company earns less than a man.

In addition, many women choose to work in the relatively lower paid public sector than men and the Commission does not prove that there are any barriers to entry for any women wanting to work in the same way as men. In addition, of course, many women want to take time off to look after children.

The City may not be family friendly which means for some it is not women-friendly but that does not mean there is active discrimination. It also does not mean as Trevor Phillips contends that women do not have equal status.

The headlines and comments from politicians and the Commission has to recognise that and also have they asked women if they would like to work in the City?

The showtrial is gathering pace and the outcome is just another stick to beat the City with. And as Harman says, there will be tough measures in the forthcoming Equalities Bill, which means more positive discrimination (no such thing as positive discrimination means negative discrimination for someone else), which therefore means that some men will be denied a chance to work in the City, soley because of their gender.

KEVIN MYERS EXPOSES IRELAND'S NATIONAL WOMEN'S COUNCIL

Although this site is mainly about the UK, it is useful to see what is going on elsewhere, especially across the Irish Sea. Kevin Myers in a very perceptive article in Ireland's Independent newspaper has an exposed Ireland's National Women's Council where he explains how they wanted the Irish Government to put women and children first in their budget. Read the article here.

With the UK Government's Budget due on Wednesday 22nd April, watch with interest how the Equalities Commission, Fawcett Society and others, repeat the trick. With the Labour Government so far behind in the polls, this could be the last Labour budget and these organisations will do all they can to pressurise the Government to help women but not help men, when of course, they should be helping both.

DID THIS MEDIA COMPANY BREAK THE SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT?

There was an article in the UK's Daily Mail this week (link), where Samantha Brick set up a media company that only employed women. It went bankrupt but her aim was "...to achieve my Utopian dream - a female- only company with happy, harmonious workers benefiting from an absence of men. "

One issue that was not picked up was whether setting up this media company with such a recruitment policy actually broke the  Sex Discrimination Act (1975) (link). The Act does allow for gender-only discrimination but only in specific circumstances, normally around issues of vulnerable people or where there is an obvious reason.

However, a media company would not fit into that category. As far as can be seen the policy of only recruiting women broke the Act and therefore was operating illegally. Any man who applied for a job with this company and was turned down because of his gender would have won a case in the civil courts.

Because it was a woman-only company, it is not challenged but if it was a male-only company then this point would have been made, such is the double standards.

The question is, how many other companies out there that purposely only recruit women and not men? And are proud of it!

MESSAGE IS GETTING THROUGH TO COUNCILS ON HELPING MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE

Thank you to readers for sending through the stories in the Telegraph (link) and Observer (link) about UK council's using the Gender Equality Duty (link) to try to achieve refuge provision for male victims in their communities.

The complaints by Women's Aid on funding problems because they have to include men for the first time may seem rich to some but they make an important point.

Firstly, female victims do need support so the issue is that is it right to ask an organisation and its refuges to take in men or set up male services?

I would think not, it is better to have organisations in local communities specifically geared to helping men. This could include support and advice from current refuge providers such as Women's Aid but there is more to it than just putting a roof over a man's head, especially if children are involved. There has to be special care aimed at male victims who suffer additionally from the social unacceptance and lack of recognition.

In addition, council's need to make sure they provide specific informational campaigns for men and have specialist training in helping male victims.

As council's have neglected male victims in their communities for decades, it is a bit of sledgehammer to crack a nut to force a women's charity down this path. It would be better if the council's took a step back and assessed what they need to do to specifically meet the needs of male victims, either setting up their own organisations, asking housing association's to set up specific refuges for men (some already do) or asking other charities/organisations that already help male victims.

There is also a risk of igniting a  'gender war' (yes I know there is one already) by trying to take away services for female victims and giving them to male victims. No reasonable man wants to see services cut for women, what we need is extra funding and attention on helping male victims, who after all, account for 40% of the victims in the UK.

Setting this aside though, at least things are changing even if it still seems glacial.        

EQUALITIES COMMISSION MAKES CASE FOR INCREASING SUPPORT FOR INCREASING PATERNITY LEAVE

The UK's Equalities and Human Rights Commission made the case this week for increasing paternity leave for men, though it has catches (link). It is part of their campaign to de-genderise parental care.

It has not been reviewed fully so welcome any thoughts or comments.

It does seem somewhat patronising describing for instance 'By supporting men to be good fathers' as if they are not good fathers already, just because some continue to work through a child's first year.

At least there is some recognition of the value of fathers, now that is a radical change!