The Rights Of Man

HARMAN DECLARES WAR ON MEN

In the death throes of this nasty anti-male Labour Government, before they are  unceremoniously booted out, they have officially declared war on men.

After the publication and announcement this week by Harriet Harman (the enemy of men) of the Equalities Bill (Bill - Debate), following on from the abolition of fatherhood (here) , no sane man can ever vote Labour (worse even the Liberal Democrats support it all as well).

It is anti-men in its intent, its action and in it prescription. It is dangerous not just to men but to society as a whole. As Philip Davies MP states, "how can the party that introduced anti-discrimination laws now reintroduce discrimination into the workplace."

There are so many angles to look to at this from, so I will restrict it to just a few.

Langauge

Trawling through the annoucement and the interviews, it is clear, in the politically correct food chain, men are the plankton.

Every example quoted, all the phraseology and all the emotion is based on that men are the masters of the universe and are still subjecting women. It is straight out of the Marxist feminist doctrine that all men are bastards.

Such across the board, sweeping generalisations ignore the fact that we are individuals and our gender is secondary. Not every man receives better pay than every single a woman, not every man has more opportunities in life than a woman. These are dangerous assumptions.

It is very rich that Harman, who went to posh girls-only public school, St Paul's (here)  believes she and the rest of the female population have less opportunity in life than a working class boy from a council estate in her Peckham constituency.

Positive Action

One of the great lies and weasel phrases of the politically correct is the term "positive action".

There is no such thing, it is a phrase used by the politically correct to put a positive gloss on discrimination against men.

By its very nature, positive action means negative action for somebody else. It means that positive action is just plain old discrimination.

Effects on Men

The most concerning part of the proposed Bill is that when faced with people of equal qualifications and equal ability, employers can discriminate. This will be 99.9999 times out of 100 against men.

In the politically atmosphere of language and debate, employers will feel they would have to select/promote a woman and this new law will only to apply to women. There is no why they will discriminate in favour of a man. They would be hung drawn and quartered if they did and if a complaint was made to the supine anti-male Equalities and Human Rioghts Commission, they would support a woman, whatever the evidence. In addition, the way the Bill is being discussed shows that it is aimed at women and not men. Men will be discriminated against on the basis of the gender not on their ability.

Furthermore, in areas where men are under-represented - education, social services, HR for example, do you think that the authorities will actively discriminate in favour of men. No chance.

In addition, the assumption is made that every man has had more advantages in life than every women. How iniqitous would be for a man from the Peckham council estate to have lost out in this politically correct box-ticking to a girl who went to St Pauls.

Effect on Women.

There are two effects:-

Firstly, for talented, qualified women, an air of suspicion already exists that many have got their position solely because they are a woman. For many women, this is completely unfair because it suggests they have not got the talent to succeed. As the BBC's Mark Easton pointed out this week (link) ; women run 700,000 companies; they now sit on 78 of the FTSE-100's boardrooms; they are more female millionaires than male millionaire's between 18-44 (47,000 women / 38,000 men).

The second effect is of course that it ignores the fact that men and women do not live in isolation from each other. If a man loses out to "positive action", then that will have an effect on his daughters, wife/partner, sister, mother and any female friends.

Gender Pay Gap Myth

The main argument used by Harman to justify the Bill is that there is a gender pay gap, 13% overall but 40% for full time workers.

It has been rehearsed many times on this site and elsewhere (link) but the gender pay gap is a lie and a myth. A clear mis-use of statitics by the politiaclly correct to justify their hatred of men. It does not exist for women who are doing the same job, with the same degree of talent, experience working for the same company where they add the same value. It occurs becuase men tend not to take career breaks to bring up children, a choice that many women want. In addition, men take on more dangerous, dirty work so are likely to be paid more for it. 

What has Labour done for men? 

Nothing, of course. If Harman and Labour were interested in helping men, they would have tackled a number of issues such as:-

The biased family court system

The educational underachievement of boys

The fact that three times as many men commit suicide than women

The lack of treatment for male cancers

The lack of support for male domestic abuse victims.

Conclusion

As stated in the beginning, this piece could have flowed for tens of thousand more words.

The foundation stone of the modern United Kingdom has been based on meritiocracy and liberty, where people succeed based on their talents and abilities. Harman and Labour have abandoned this, they want men to be consigned to the dustbin of humanity.

They want all men in chains and this Equalities Bill will mean exactly that.

Links to some of debates on the Equality Bill can be found here:-

Daily Mail 1; Daily Mail 2; Telegraph 1; Telegraph 2; Telegraph 3; Telegraph 4; Telegraph 5; Telegraph 6; BBC; Times

 

EVEN STOCK MARKET HAS TOO MANY MEN

Whether it is because of an over-tetchiness but the recent report stating that stock markets were volatile because there were too many testosterone-filled men working in them just seems to be another reason for a bout of male bashing (link), (link), (link).

However, it does again prove that men and women are different and have different motivations in life, which as ever, undermines those who think that differences in employment patterns and wages is down to sexual discrimination.

The report by John Coates at Cambridge University, and Professor Joe Herbert, a neuroscientist, set out to study the brains of City traders to discover what makes them tick.

It's conclusion was more women and older people were needed on trading floors to stop volatility.More 'positive action' no doubt.

As ever, they misunderstand that no matter who works on a trading floor they are complex, challenging and competitive environments with long long hours. By there very nature they are volatile and no matter who worked there, it would not change. This just seemed an excuse to run an anti-male story.

 

MALE POLITICAL DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN SPAIN

One of the most disturbing aspects in the war on men has been the use of gender quotas to disenfranchise men as individuals from the political system. It is the complete reversal of the situation till the 1920's when women did not have the vote and could not stand for Parliament. Now men are being actively stopped and being denied promotion.

The Labour Government brought in all-women shortlists in 1997 and even for the coming General Election have used them in 27 seats so far. They introduced a Minister for Women but have steadfastly refused to bring in a Minister for Men. Now we have the Spanish Government bringing in effectively gender quotas for its Cabinet.

In Spain (link), nine of the seventeen Cabinet members are women. Prime Minister Zapatero, had also passed a law making it compulsory for electoral lists and even company boards to have at least 40% women (link). He is "very proud that there are women ministers than men". Not a problem of course, if the nine women are amongst the best people he can get but he does not say this or prove that it is nothing but a political gesture.

Times columnist, Mary Ann Sieghart chips in with a commentray on how we need more women in the UK Cabinet (link) without any evidence that gender is more important than ability. She is roundly derided in the debate at the end of her commentary.

Both Spain and the UK Labour Party are quite unashamedly clear about their objectives.

It is not about ability or equality of opportunity but equaility of outcomes. Instead of tackling the reason why there are few women in politics whcih is essentially a supply side issue and that they choose not to be a politician (there is no sexual discriminiation in being selected as a canddiate or winning a seat), they sexually discriminate against men by blocking them from political positions including even standing.

This promotion of gender quotas for political positions is very serious for men who want to enter politics because they want to improve their community and their country. No longer will people be judged on their skill, talent and commitment. Their fitness for political office is judged on their position in the politically correct league table and men of course are always rock bottom.

Meritocracy and universal suffrage, the guiding principles of 20th century Western Democracy, have been thrown out of the window. Gender is more important than ability in the 21st Century.

This is comparable to the time when women were denied a vote and not allowed to stand for Parliament. It's turned 360 degrees.

USA ADVERTISING INDUSTRY'S BACKLASH AGAINST PORTRAYING "MEN AS FOOLS"

The American advertising industry woke up some years ago to how "men as idiots" was self defeating from a sales point of view but alaos importantly from a social/moral point of view.

This article from Advertising Age explains (link).

Let us hope the advertising idiots in the UK at MFI, Littlewoods LX Direct and others featured on this site wake up.

NATIONAL LITERACY TRUST MISSES THE POINT ON HELP FOR BOYS READING

Whether the story is true as the only major reference on the National Literacy Trust's web-site is this interesting report (link), the Telegraph reported (link) that the Trust is concerned that the focus on boys in the classroom 'may risk girls falling behind'.

Their report clearly explains that only 76% of 11 year old boys reach the required level as opposed to 85% of girls. It also states two recent initiatives such as Books for Boys and also the Reader's Champion initiative aimed at helping boys.

The concern goes right to the heart of the whole special treatment/politcal correctness issue and where all people are pigeon-holed on the criteria of whether they are male or female (and on race etc) and then treated the same. The essential issue that we are all different individuals and nowadays this is the secondary focus when it should be the primary focus.

The reason that boys need specific help on reading is that the education system has largely ignored the needs of boys for far too long. The Trust's research show boys outweigh girls heavily when it comes to reading factual content (manuals/newspapers/non-fiction/action graphic novels) whilst girls outweigh boys on social networking, magazines and poetry.

Where the cry for more help for boys comes from is that more effort has to be made to provide the content and teaching that is proven to help boys. But this should not be and in recent years never has been at the expense of girls. Rightly, if girls need extra tuition, Reader's Champions and specific book lists for girls then that should not be a problem. They are individuals first, girls second.

The Trust's complaint misses the point. The help given to boys is simply about tailoring the educational system to their needs and if some girls are falling behind then it should meet their requirements as well. From my schooldays, Boy's wanted to learn about war not Jane Eyre, but all we got was Jane Eyre.

The Trust worries about girls at risk of falling behind because of the focus on boys.  That is understandable but it needs to be clear that it does not want help for boys stopped but that help for non-reading girls is also focused upon.

Any criticism of targeting help for boys must not be made out as if they are receiving special treatment when they are not, they are just getting the targeted education they need.

On a side issue, it is always bemusing to see people complaining about special treatment for boys/men when all there is ever is (apart from these targeted education schemes) is special treatment for women, whether they need it or not and no mention is ever made as to whether men need it.

   

THE TIMES AND THE SUN IGNORE MALE DOMESTIC ABUSE VICTIMS

Just when so many of the UK's media have been featuring the plight of male victims - others carry on ignoring the fact that 40% of victims are male.

The Times (link) stated on 14th April 2008 - "Thousands of women are at risk of assault because new laws to curb domestic violence have backfired, deterring victims from seeking help,The Times has learnt." It gives a grudging reference to men - "But battered wives, and sometimes husbands." It's not enough, it should battered wives and husbands.

The Sun (link) was worse, it ran a headline on 15th April 2008 - "Why does dad hurt mummy" and then solely publishes Women's Aid and Refuge's phone numbers - no mention of ManKind, Men's Aid, MALE Advice Line or Dyn Wales.

Again, it grudgingly refers  "too many women and children- and some men - are suffering in silence".

The Sun then selectively just refers to the female victim statistics. Utter bias.

Men's Aid also state that the BBC ran the story but only with females mentioned (link) but whilst this site has not seen these/heard these features, Steve Moxon (author of The Women Racket) has written to complain to the BBC.

JACQUI SMITH, HOME SECRETARY STILL IGNORES MALE DOMESTIC ABUSE VICTIMS

Despite the fact that

• the Home Secretary's own Department's British Crime Survey (link - Page 80) states that 40% of men are victims of domestic abuse and that as many men as women are victims of severe force (1.7% and 1.8% respectively);
• the fact that they laughably claim that their policies on domestic abuse are gender neutral as seen by their response to this petition (link)(see future post);
• some parts of the media are changing their tune (see future post);

SHE STILL IGNORES MALE VICTIMS.

In an Government announcement (link) she announced a new wave of specialist domestic violence courts to support victims of domestic abuse. An extra 30 new Specialist Domestic Violence Courts (SDVC) brings the total number of dedicated domestic violence courts across England and Wales to 98.

She is quoted as stating ""We have made good progress on domestic violence over the last ten years but we know there is more to do and I want to reassure women everywhere that keeping them safe from harm is a top government priority."

Does the Government do this on purpose?

Do they do it to wind-up male victims and their friends and families?

Are they just forgetful?

Or are they just institutionally sexist against men?

THE BRIGHTON ARGUS SHOWS ITS IGNORANCE OVER DOMESTIC ABUSE

One of the many complaints from those operating in the sector helping male domestic abuse victims is the ignorance of their plight in the media and the gender discrimination in the reporting. Though media reporting in some quaters has improved with regular features on male victims, other media carry on the distortion.

As well known, two in every five victims are men but some media insist, when running stories on the issue, of just referring to females being vcitims and that men are wife-beaters.

The Brighton Argus has recenly done just that. They run a story on domestic violence courts under the headline "New Court System To Ensnare Wife Beaters" (link).

Well Done Brighton Argus for your balanced reporting!

SAD TALE OF A MALE DOMESTIC ABUSE VICTIM : SOUTHERN ECHO

The Southern Echo ran a piece outlining the sad tale of a male domestic abuse victim. Please follow the link here (link).

MALE SUICIDE RATES STILL THREE TIMES HIGHER THAN FEMALE SUICIDE RATES

Recently it had been mentioned that when a male member of the now defunct Equal Opportunities Commission had been asked why there was no Minister for Men, he depressingly but unsurprisingly said there was no reason to have one.

The recent figures (published Jan 2008) by the Office of National Statistics (link) and (link) on male suicide rates clearly show one of innumerable reasons why there should be a Minister for Men and why more attention needs to be given to the sad tales behind the figures.

In 2006, there were 5,554 suicides in the UK and three quarters of these were men. 4,196 men committed suicide (17.4 per 100,000) whilst for women the figures were 1,358 (5.3 per 100,000)

In addition, whilst the rates of suicide for men between 15-44 and 75+ have fallen, those for men 45-74 has actually increased. The figures from the Office of National Statistics are below:-

According to CALM, who help and run a helpline for depressed men (link), one hundred thousand years of life are lost each year as a result of British men killing themselves. This of course, does not just affect the men themselves, it also affects their friends and families, of course many of whom are women.

The issue comes back again to the lack of help and support for depressed men from statutory agencies and the general anti-male, pro-women attitude by the state which means that many men are feeling scened class and are actually being treated as second class. There is no real help aimed at depressed men and certainly a Minister for Men would bring this into focus.

One key issue that often drives depression and suicide is when the economy turns and men start to lose their jobs thereby finding it harder to provide for their family or even get onto the job ladder. This also brings into sharp focus all the extra help that women receive in the workplace.

If the economy does turn in the next 18 months, then this may increase the male rates of suicide. The figures on the chart above show that male suicide rates were high in the early 90's, the time of the last recession.