The Rights Of Man

HARRIET HARMAN HAS DAMAGED ANTI-MALE FEMINISM THIS WEEK BUT MUCH MORE NEEDED

Like so many things in life, the best laid plans of mice and (wo)men can often go seriously awry and this week may be a turning point in turning the tide back of anti-male feminism.

It will take a lot but now the cat is out of the bag, people, especially those supine male politicians who just sit there and take it like a a bunch of hen-pecked husbands, should have the confidence to challenge it. No man or woman taking on the legion of  - diversity officers, council officials, the Fawcett Society, the Equalities Commission and all those how actively support extra help for women over men -  should be scared no longer.

Just to recap, Harriet Harman was in charge of the Government this week as Gordon Brown is on holiday, and rubbing her hands with glee and after months of planning with her "sista's", she would use the window to plunge the knife in the backs of men. Who would stop her, such is male-bashing such an accepted part of modern Britain.

Firstly, she attacked men in the boardroom and said that men could not be trusted to run things by themselves and that Labour should always have a woman in one of the top the two roles. This was met by a tirade from John Prescott (former Deputy Leader) who can be quite effective when let off the leash, said she should shut up. The redoubtable Ann Widdecombe (Tory MP) also joined in. Infamously Harman then said if Lehman Brothers had been Lehman Sisters, it would not have caused so much trouble. 

Then there was battle over shelved new rape laws, the national curriculum issue and then feistely says she is no shrinking violet as she tours the TV studios.

The whole incident has led to acres (literally) of newsprint but generally speaking she has been met with ridicule (only The Guardian and the pathetically laughable Times - must have had an anti-male feminist running the Leader Columns this week) especially from female commentators (Some anonymous female Labour politicians said her rampant feminism was like the Taliban!). Those men have written about her have tended to mock her but the implications of what she says and does are too serious for mockery.

So in terms of what has happened, clearly the power went to her head and bearing in mind the likely Labour defeat at the next General Election, she knew it was her last chance to make a stand with the burning flag of anti-male feminism. This week, with other politicians on holiday, she had the place to herself and she did more harm than good to her cause. Great.

Her anti-male extremism (too many people did not take her seriously last summer when she said if he she was PM, every man would rush to the airport) and the extremism of others has been exposed publicly but the policies in practice remain unchanged. So much much more needs to be done on the policy front where armies of diversity officers and others are putting the pieces of her anti-male policies in actual place on a minute by minute basis.

Editors Note - There have been so many articles on the issue this week (see Google News), so I have chosen the ones I like:-

Sun 1, Daily Mail - Steve Richards, BBC 1, Spectator - Rod Liddle, Daily Mash satire, Telegraph, Telegraph 2, Telegraph - Liz Hunt.

MINISTER FOR MEN PETITION

The site has just been sent notice of this e-petition

SELECT COMMITTEE REVIEWS INTO EQUALITIES COMMISSION

Sometimes in life it is better to judge a person by their enemies and certainly this is the case in terms of the continuing furore about Trevor Phillips, the Chairman of the Equalities Commission.

Certainly, there is much to be said to be said for the criticism from the National Audit Office about their Annual Accounts (how can they moan about anyone else if they cannot even do this role with a £70 million budget employing 410 staff - 63% of whom are women). However, what a lot of the other criticism has been about is that the Commission has not paid a significant enough amount of attention to each person's hobby horse.

Whilst this site is rightly no friend of the Equalities Commission considering its 'conspiracy of silence' (also more generally) on men and male discrimination, it is worth looking at some of the criticism and who has been covering it.

Of course, it has been wall to wall coverage in the equality  movement's house newspaper The Guardian, where there has been 12 stories on the subject in the last week alone (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12). To and fro the articles have gone, but not one has criticised him for doing nothing for men.

Other significant articles are here:- Daniel Hannan MEP, Daily Telegraph, BBC, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph 2, Independent , Iain Dale.

In some ways it has been hilarious to watch all the world of the politically correct descend into hysteria, certainly with the Ashes rained off today it has been an amusing sideline trawling through the articles. Although, as pointed out, the backlash could be worse for men.

Amongst all of the hullabaloo, it is important not to lose sight that there will now be a two Select Committee investigations into the goings-on by the Communities and Local Government Select Committee and the Joint Human Rights Committee.

Whilst these have been announced to the media, there does not seem to be any press notices or calls for evidence. Whenever, there is a call for evidence, it is time to put in submissions about the conspiracy of silence on men.

EQUALITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND ITS CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE ON MEN

In a cracking article at the weekend and following the resignation of another director at the Equalities Commission (see previous post), David Green of think tank Civitas wrote in the Telegraph that Trevor Phillips was a victim of a campaign because he did not believe in multi-culturalism and the victim group mentality at play.

It has always been a conundrum for this site because the site it is about creating an environment where men and women receive support as individuals not because of gender, though of course, each gender has unique issues to contend with. However, as we have had 30 years (at least) of an anti-male culture it was natural for a site like this to want for men the same rights and treatment as women. We do not want more, or special treatment, we want the same treatment. What David Green's article shows how easily it is for representatives of one group or t'other to falls into the trap of wanting more, that is, positive action. We have to be careful.

Putting those musing aside, what is happening at the Commission and what is revealed by those who are leaving, is the absence of a voice for men. The battles for gender equality ignores 50% of the population as this can be played out by the ignorance of the Commission on a number of areas especially boys' education, domestic violence, male cancers, the family courts (the list could go on).

In a previous example, If you compare the elbow grease put in by the Commission on issues such as the gender pay gap and the map of gaps with their silence on those issues where men need help, it is frightening.

As mentioned in the previous post, Phillips and others have tentatively commented (on black and white boys' education and parental leave) on male subjects but there has been a backlash, obviously internally.

These are the barriers we men face, the inner sanctum of the Commission is anti-male, let no one forget this. Not one of the Commissioners (see Annual Report page 19), whether still there or not, represented a male perspective at all.

NEW ATTACK ON MEN IN THE CITY

The UK Parliament's Treasury Select Committee announced yesterday that it is calling for evidence about sexism in the City. Just like the recent report by the Equalities Commission on the supposed Gender Pay Gap which was used as a public flogging exercise against men, this is just the same.

Again, supine men in the City will stand back and take (only Sir Stuart Rose has complained about it) he fall because they scared of the equalities industry.

Media Coverage

EQUALITIES COMMISSION RESIGNATIONS AND TURMOIL - WHAT DIFFERENCE TO MALE EQUALITY

The last week or so has been enjoyable, not just because we are 1-0 up in the Ashes, but also there has been the 'equally' enjoyable sideline of watching the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (the quango formed in 2007 that took the race relations, 'equal opportunities', and disabled commissions under its wing) disintegrate before our eyes.

To recap, back in April the site reported the resignation of then Chief Executive Nicola Brewer and then this month we have seen three more board resignations, the National Audit Office condemning the Commission for hiring back people as consultants  (at public expense in a recession, of course) after it had just made them redundant and Sir Trevor Phillips, its Chief Executive, being reappointed for another three years by every man's favourite Government Minister, Harriet Harman.

It is a real conundrum as to whether this ia good thing or not.

On the one hand, this turmoil may make it easier for a Conservative Government to abolish it (it has promised to abolish quango's and this would fit the £70 million bill it costs) and also may mean it seizes up and grinds to a halt.

On the other hand, the Commission (including when the 'Equal Opportunities Commission' was a separate oprganisation) has done nothing for male equality. In fact it has made matters worse. Firstly, despite all the evidence to the contrary, it slavishly pursues an agenda on issues such as the gender pay gap, all-women shortlists, the Equalities Bill and many others are simply anti-male in their intent. It does not hide this.

In addition, it purposely ignores clear issues where men are being discriminated against and not supported. Clear examples are in the under-achievement of boys at school, the lack of support for male cancers, the lack of support for male victims of domestic violence (it supports the Government's strategy to end violence against women and children - but forgets men!) and so forth. It made no comment on the recent council workers case.

Would this turmoil actually change anything and if Phillips was to resign would it then be taken over by other who are even more rampantly anti-male and ignorant that equality also includes men?

Phillips has touched upon in the past the problems facing white working class and black boys and also former Chief executive Nicola Brewer was heavily criticised (probably led to her going) for calling for more paternity leave for men. There was no follow through in terms of action.

The concern is that it is unlikely to be abolished (a Conservative Government dare not) and that the Commission will be taken over by people even worse than those running it now. He has kept a lid on the worst excesses and once the genie in the bottle goes, men across the country will face the full force of the anti-male politically correct 'equalities' establishment.

The view here is that Phillips should remain and that the hope that a Conservative Government will take issues facing men and boys more seriously allowing the Commission to follow a more balanced agenda. Under the present Government and their intense dislike of men, this is not possible, and if Phillips goes, it may be even more anti-male than it is now.

A real Hobson's choice if ever there was one.

Media Coverage (new Google News is great) - Here

CRUCIAL EQUALITY BILL CLAUSE 153 WIDE OPEN TO ANTI-MALE JOB RECRUITMENT

As previously commented upon, the Equality Bill will allow companies and public authorities to discriminate against candidates of equal merit when considering offering people a job base on whether they are 'under-represented'. We all know what that means in the real world - discrimination against men.

A crucial part of the debate took place on 30th June 2009 when there was a debate in the House of Commons' Committee Stage on the crucial clauses - 152 and 153 (clauses near the bottom).

Mark Harper MP (Cons) put down an amendment on clause 153 because it was too vague and too open to 'interpretation'.

The crucial point is that the clause says  

(a) A is as qualified as B to be recruited or promoted.

What Harper said was that the wording should be ‘equally qualified to’ because the current clause in the Bill meant it narrow the remit where positive action could take place. Leading businesses and also the Law Society said it would this would provide a narrower meaning.

He also wanted clause 191 amended which will stop a Minister from making provisions and amendments based on what he/she thinks but on a basis where they can demonstrate.

The crucial part of the debate centred on an example (column 605) where Harper gives an example between people being 'as equally qualified' to do a job which is different to their ability to be 'qualified to' do a job (hard to follow I know). The difference is that two candidates could have an equal degree but there could be a difference in their aptitude.

His amendment would have narrowed the remit in law. He has particular experience in this as a number of his constituents were involved in one of the UK's most scandalous examples of anti-male discrimination ever perpetrated in the UK (Gloucestershire Police 2006).

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the amendment did not gain support from either the Labour Government or the Liberal Democrats. Harper withdrew the amendment.

What it means though now is that even though organisation have raised their concern about the interpretation of 'as qualified as', it leaves it wide open for abuse and wide open for the systematic discrimination of men in employment. Just at a time when more and more men are losing their jobs.

 

Note 1

Look at the attendance list for evidence gathering at this meeting - any group missing?

Note 2

Look at the debate (column 604) where it is mentioned that Equalities and Human Rights Commission use the fact that primary schools could take positive action to recruit a male teacher because they have so few. The thinnest of fig-leafs and blatantly used as a smokescreen for the Bill's real intention. 

Note 3

Not sure why the text layout changed but it still readable (I hope)

UK HONOURS SYSTEM NOW RIGGED AGAINST MEN

The Sunday Telegraph reported  (also here and here) last Sunday that "The Cabinet Office, which oversees the honours process, has told Whitehall departments submitting nominations to ensure that their lists include more female and non-white candidates." It reported for example, that half of local government candidates to be awarded an honour must be women and that all Government departments had received the same order.

The UK Government in a number of posts in the Telegraph blog pages (see above) have said awards are still made on merit but that's not the point if men are 'weeded out' in the first place.

Firstly, the tone is clearly set, colour and gender are clearly more important than merit and by virtue of making nomination based on gender, there will be some men who are more qualified/deserving of an award who will not be put forward in the first place to be considered.

Secondly, for those women who deserve an award, and are there thousands, this policy will mean that some people will look at their award as being second class because 'you only received it because you were a woman'.

The clear point though is that in the UK this is another example where men are discriminated against by this Government. Any 'positive action' in favour of women discriminates against men so that men who are more qualified are passed over in favour of women who ar eless qualified. That is discrimination and in this case, some men who deserve to be considered for an honour will be overlooked solely because of their gender.

That's is what meant by equality in Britain?

NO TIME OFF MOTHERS - IS THIS WHAT THE FAWCETT SOCIETY WANTS?

By Adrian Ashby

 

In a variation on the “gender pay gap” the Guardian (and a few other others) trumpets the 22% penalty for mothers in a report by the Fawcett Society. In addition, the Guardian refers to a recent research report by Vanessa Gash of the Cathie Marsh Ventre that compares the situation in six european countries. This report itself paints an interesting picture, and one suggesting some uncomfortable choices for the gender equality industry.

The countries considered are Finland, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. The first three have a labour market with a very small part time segment while the other three have a large part time segment.

Unsurprisingly

Finland

and

Denmark

have very little “penalty”. However the reasons for this are; that mothers returning to work, work full time and they do this having had very short maternity leave. In effect mothers are out of the workforce for a very short time and return quickly to their full time job. Next is

France

with comparatively generous leave (up to 3 years)  but the same pattern that once in the workforce mothers work full time. Finally there are Netherlands Germany and the

UK

with varying degrees of  maternity leave (but all much longer than

Finland

and

Denmark

) and a wide array of part time working. Surprise surprise it is these countries which have the “penalty”. Interestingly in all countries women crowd into employment in the public sector.

So in practice it seems if you take little time out and work full time you carry on earning! You will also keep up with women without children, go past men without children and earn just a little less than men with children. However if you take longer periods of time out and return to part time work you pay a “penalty”. Far from an evil patriarchal plot it seems simple practicalities are at issue. If the goal is equal pay then part time work should be the exception and maternity leave needs to be very much shorter indeed!.

(The previous CEO of the Equalities Commission was seen off for suggesting that the extension of maternity leave and “flexible working” was a feminist own goal- seems she was right.) 

In separate reported research the surprising discovery was made that successful female bosses are “bossy” just like male bosses. So just maybe the role of boss requires certain character traits irrespective of who fulfils that role. After all the majority of men aren’t bosses either!

STORIES ROUND UP

As ever, the stories and issues have come thick and fast so here are some that were too important to miss:-

The Guardian (Lee Elliot Major) - Why Boys Can't Keep Up With The Girls

Daily Telegraph (Melanie McDonagh) - Maybe Men Are Now The Underdog Sex

Sunday Times (Sarah Baxter) - Women Are Victors In The ManCession

The Guardian (Sarah Boseley) - The Future Is Female

The Independent (Richard Garner) - University Women Beating Men At Almost Everything

Scotland on Sunday (Dani Garavelli) - Let Our Boys Be Boys

Daily Express (Anil Dawar) - Outrage At White Men Prevented From Being PCs