The Rights Of Man

GOVERNMENT ADMITS EQUALITY DOES NOT INCLUDE MEN

When the government came in, one of its key themes was to look at government departments and quangos and see who should stay, who should go and whether some should be merged or subsumed. The Government's ironically called Equalities Department was one of them and was to be subsumed into the Home Office.

The new equality pages on the Home Office website make it clear what the government means by equality though. It says:

We lead on issues relating to women, sexual orientation and transgender equality matters; we have responsibility across government for equality strategy and legislation. 

Basically, the Home Office who lead on equality for the whole governmemnt now admit that equality does not relate to men (or boys).

I know this site keeps on saying it but the government are admitting it and they see no shame in doing so. Obviously, with the same people running the equalities section of the Home Office who were running the equalities department there is no surprise but it is the lack of shame that just is eye watering.

On the same section is the annual report of the equalities department. Not light reading but worth noting that the abolished Women's National Commission  cost £500,000 per year (no such thing as a men's national commission) and 65% of its employees are women - fancy that.

Posted by Skimmington 

FRIENDS LIFE REPORT PROVES THE ANTI-MALE MARXISTS FEMINIST PROPAGANDA TO BE FALSE

Thank you to everyone for putting names forward for the heroes section. I will get to work on it in August.

One of the themes of the website has been the issue where anti-male and anti-equality organisations like the 30 per cent club, the Fawcett Society, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and others have been campaigning to block men from taking places in the boardroom which should be the preserve of women. A situation which goes against meritocracy where the best people irrelevant of gender should be in the boardroom.

These organisations put the lack of women in boardrooms solely down to sexual discrimination against women and barriers erected by men. They find it difficult when women like Dr Catherine Hakim put it down to women making choices when they want to become mothers and also how they (and the family unit) want to bring their children up.

Sure things can be made easier but often it is around the edges, women (and some men of course) do not want the 9-5 hard focused lifestyle and bring their children up. Some prefer to let the man take this strain while they take the strain of bringing up children, It is called teamwork and the family - something anathema to feminists the world over. They don't understand what real normal women want.

The reason for bringing the issue up is that this week the Friends Life Provident issued one of its 2020 reports on women and the workplace. One of the key areas in the thrifty thirties section which highlighted three areas which completely debunk the Marxist theories of the anti-male feminists which they use to attack men:

(1) Is gender itself a barrier? A quarter of working women think that it is. 24% of working women agree that “I feel that my gender is sometimes a hindrance to my progress at work”; 51% disagree. Surprisingly, this increases to 32% agreement among those in their 30s.

Commentary  - So one in four (presume the missing 24% said don't know) women do not believe that gender is sometimes a hindrance.

(2) The same proportion (24%) of working women agree that “I would like to see the industry I work in become less male orientated”. Agreement here varies widely by sector, from 37% of women working in the primary/ manufacturing/construction/distribution sector, 28% in financial services/legal/consulting and in civil service/local government, to 18% of women working in arts/leisure/ recreation or in healthcare and just 10% of women working in education.

Commentary - it does not mention in what way but shows again that three in four working women do not view their workplace as being male orientated.

(3) 53% of working women agree that “By the end of this decade, women will still struggle much more than men to secure senior roles in the workplace” (only 30% of men agree). Why is this? Simply, motherhood remains the biggest barrier, the biggest pillar holding up the glass ceiling:

Commentary - But the 30 per cent Club, the Fawcett Society etc say its discrimination by men (not discimination by nature).

What this research shows is that when real normal women getting on with their lives away from the politically driven anti-male world of modern-day feminism are asked, they do not agree with the Fawcett Society, the BBC, The Guardian, the 30% club and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. When real women talk about barriers they are practical issues  - they do not resort to the tactics of attacking and diminishing their husbands/partners and sons like these groups do.

Posted by Skimmington

 

BRITISH SCHOOLS ARE NOT TAKING BOY'S UNDERACHIEVEMENT SERIOUSLY

One of our regular readers pointed out new research commissioned by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission about how schools were supporting the public sector equality duty and what practices they were carrying out. It is a long document (192 pages and the Commission response was thankfully 28).

While its conclusions state that 75% of schools were able to provide a positive example of how the duty had had a positive impact on boys, only 13% had actually either changed the curriculum to help boys or taken another action to improve boy's learning (chart on page 77).

In addition, contributed to measurable outcomes, schools were most likely to say they had ensured that clubs/activities/subjects/sports are open to both boys and girls (19%).

While there are clear problems in the education of boys, it seems that ensuring equality in being involved in clubs is more important. The underlying message is that improving boys attainment is not on the top of the equality agenda within schools when clearly it is the most important education issue.

The anti-male Equalities and Human Rights Commission continues to purposely turn a blind eye on the issue and barely mention boys in their report. We all know if it was girls who were falling behind at school, the Commission would be churning out reams of reports on that subject alone and Trevor Phillips (its Chairman) would never be off the airwaves.

The scandal of the neglect of boys education (and here) shames this country and the silence on the issue is a victory for the metropolitan anti-male elite including the majority of those at the top of the education establishment (not all) who are quite happy to continue to sweep it under the carpet.

Posted by Skimmington

 Editor's note - Mayor of London Boris Johnson scheme is noteworthy.

HISTORY OF THE CAMPAIGN FOR EQUAL STATE PENSION AGES

Later this year Parity will effectively be celebrating its 25th anniversary and John Taylor kindly sent over the history of the Campaign for Equal State Pension Ages (CESPA) which latterly became Parity. It is a fascinating read. Please read it here - Download History of CESPA _Parity. 

One of the key lessons is the fact that discriminated men should use equality laws to fight for equality. We saw what happened with British Airways and Eversheds last year when men went to the law.

The campaign by CESPA which supported and gave encouragement to men to ensure they received equality when it came to state pensions age (coming eventually) and a raft of other equality issues linked to retirement (especially bus passes and winter fuel payments). Without these men, this discrimination would still be occurring.

Posted by Skimmington

Editiors note - the story of this brave lad (Chris Whitehead) shows why putting your head above the parapet is important.

BELIEVERS IN EQUALITY - TELL THE GOVERNMENT TO SCRAP THE EQUALITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

In theory the Equalities and Human Rights Commission should promote equality but as we know they have absolutely no interest in equality if that means equality for men too. It is basically a front organisation for people who want men to continue to be second class citizens, all at the taxpayers expense.

This can be seen time and again when it pursues no policies or campaigns to support equality for men in healthcare, education, domestic abuse, depression, the family courts and employment. All too readily it will take on campaigns for eqaulity in parliament, the gender pay gap and domestic abuse but only when it comes to women. It is part of the network of anti-male organisations that infest the British state.

By purposely ignoring issues relating to ensuring men have equality (the covert discrimination by omission) on key issues where there is clear discrimination and then only promoting issues affecting women - the body has done no favours to men. When did you hear a campaign by the Commission on boys education?  

Rather than promote equality, it only does so if you are a woman. If you are a man it is not interested, therefore it is better that it is scrapped. It is un-reformable because of the people who work there and that it props up the whole anti-male system in this country. It is the mother ship (or sister ship). If it is scrapped, then at least there will be more of a level playing field and there will no longer the level of anti-male propaganda pumped out by this body at our (taxpayers) expense as well as the purposeful ignorance of key issues.

In Janaury the site reported it was likely to be forced to make massive cuts and now the government has launched a consultation.

Please let the Government know why this awful organisation has to be scrapped. True believers in equality from men and women would support this.

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage - Daily Mail, Daily Mail 2,

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

WHY NO CALL FOR GENDER QUOTAS TO FIGHT THE RADIATION AT FUKUSHIMA?

Watching the story unfold of those brave 180 men (Fukushima 50) fighting the leaks at the nuclear power station in Japan, I suddenly realised that I have no seen calls from the UN Women's Committee, the UK Government's Minister for Women or Harman, the Fawcett Society, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, The Guardian etc about the lack of women involved.

Where is the call to impose a gender quota or an 'A' List or positive action? 

Where is the PR campaign about this awful discrimination at the nuclear plant because there are no women amongst the '50' (all reports say they are only men, so please do not complain if a few are female)?

Many of us would not want women there but we are not allowed to say that. However the silence of the feminist fundamentalists shows not only do they not want women there either but it also highlights their hypocrisy because according to their orthodoxy they should be calling for equality and quotas. 

Society as a whole recognises that men do these types of job and that is the way of nature. Society also recognises that those who do these types of job get paid more. Normal men and women call that fair, feminist fundamentalists call it discrimination. 

The silence of the feminist fundamentalists shows they want gender quotas when it suits them, when it doesn't, they say nothing.

Let's all ensure our thoughts are with those brave men and their families.

Posted by Skimmington  

THE DISGRACE THAT BRITISH MEN HAVE TO RELY ON EUROPEAN JUSTICE FOR EQUALITY

One of the many conclusions coming from today's European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgment on making sure insurance is gender-neutral shows that men have to rely on unelected judges in Europe to get equality.The other is the silence from the self-named 'equality' Industry.

While on balance the decision means there will be equality for men in terms of paying for car insurance (there could even be a cut) and there could be a loss in terms of pension annuities, at least gender equality is being applied.

Without getting into the argument about whether the ECJ should be interfering in UK affairs (that and giving prisoners the vote - an ECHR decision - are arguments for other sites) the clearest argument that the doom mongers, the insurers and others have not been able to answer is the fact that insurers cannot discriminate against race so why can they with gender? There is no answer from them.

Also what can be seen from the many comments in the debates at the end of media articles is the growing ferment of anger men have towards the place in modern society as second class citizens. You can read their joy in the comments sections of newspapers and the BBC about the fact that it proves equality applies to them and allows them to cock a snook to the equalities industry that loathes them so much.

It is also a defeat for the anti-male lobby, like this and the last government, the Guardian/BBC, the Fawcett Society, the Equalities Commission and others like them that who believe women should enjoy special privilege, are untouchable and equality can only be on their terms.

This Cake and Eat It Brigade want equality but only so long as women can keep their perks and extra entitlements like cheaper insurance and early retirement.

Coming back to my opening piece - if the judges had made a pro-women judgment then Theresa May (Minister for Women), Lynne Featherstone (Equalities Minister), Harman/Flint, Equalities Commission etc would have been singing from the rooftops. As it is seen as a pro-man judgment, there is complete silence. Such unsurprising hypocrisy.

The second point is that it is shameful that men have to go through to ECJ on Strasbourg to obtain equality.

The only reason men now have free bus passes, winter fuel allowance etc at the same age as a women is because of the ECJ and the work of Parity. The same is the case for the coming equality in state pension age, a discrimination that men will have suffered for 70 years by the time there is equality in 2018. And now we have equality on insurance.

The shameful fact is that in Britain, men can rely only on European judges to fight their corner for equality. All because British politicians are too weak, too anti-male and too afraid of the anti-male special favours feminist lobby.

Posted by Skimmington 

Media coverage - BBC, Conservative Home, FT, Guardian#1, Daily Mail , Guardian#2,

GOVERNMENT NEWSLETTER FOR WOMEN, NOT EVEN A CHIP WRAPPER FOR MEN

Lats month the site revealed that the Government's oxymoronically called Government Equalities Office would be sending newsletters to women's groups about what it was doing on women's issues. This was part of its ongoing dialogue with such groups espcially as the Women's National Commission had been scrapped. It has a special page dedicated to women's engagement.

The site questioned why it was not speaking to the plethora of men's support groups in the same way. Surely a Goverment with a Minister for Women but not one for men would not act in such a way!

The government has just issued its first newsletter for women and women's groups (it also has a violence aginst women and girls newsletter).

This is another clear case of the covert form of discrimination that men face in the UK: discrimination by ommission. What is clear is again the government don't want to know about men - on an almost daily basis they do something that proves it beyond doubt.

Posted by Skimmington

 

DOMESTIC ABUSE PROGRESS FOR MALE VICTIMS AT A LOCAL LEVEL

Last week the site recounted the fact that the Guardian seemed shocked and aghast that there were services available to male victims of domestic abuse. Many in the media also still forget that men exist as the questions about cuts in domestic abuse services seem to forget what crumb-like resoruces for men are likely to be cut (probably the first in the queue) or even forget to make the point that there is barely anything to cut.

This Channel 4 News article is a case in point and as we know with the Ending Violence against Women and Girls strategy the government not even remotely interested in supporting male victims of domestic abuse and their continual campaigns that conveniently forget about men. This is despite the fact that as shown in a new updated 15 key facts briefing about male victims from the ManKind Initiative one in three victims continue to be male - these are from the Government's own updated British Crime Survey. I see ManKind also wrote to Dominic Raab MP.

At a local level though (ignoring West Yorkshire Police), there is a far more police, council and other grass roots recognition.

Cheshire police launched a campaign this week (This is Cheshire), East Berkshire Women's Aid says it helps two men per week, Bradford police are urging more to come forward and in Hartlepool the council is looking into it. In Merseyside there is recognition from the police as well.

This not only helps to put pressure on councils to ensure there are local services but also that the police take a more objective and fairer look at the subject. It all helps in changing police attitudes.

Much of this will driven by the fact that more men are coming forward, there are more violent women and the role of the Public Sector Equality Duty - the new powerful aid in ensuring there is male equality in the UK (more in a later post).

Also thanks must go to MRA's and organisations (The ManKind Initiative, Dyn, Abused Men in Scotland, Men's Network and others) that continually campaign for male victims to ensure they are not forgotten. It is only because of this combination and focused effort that things are gradually turning - albeit at an oil tanker-like speed.

While at a national level, the government ignore male victims at least there are green shoots at a local level.

Posted by Skimmington