The Rights Of Man

VERY FEW WOMEN BELIEVE THEY ARE BEING DENIED PROMOTIONS - NEAR PARITY WITH MEN WHICH WON'T LAST LONG

Just before Christmas, one of our regular readers ('Groan') kindly pointed out the findings of the 2009-10 Citizenship Survey which had been sneaked out in the week before Christmas. Produced by the Department for Communities and Local Government, the 123 page report was entitled "Race, Religion and Equalities."

Paragraph 5.57 states "one per cent of people who had looked for work cited gender as a reason for being discriminated against when refused a job; and two per cent of employees cited gender as a factor in being discriminated against regarding a promotion.

"Males and females were equally likely to cite gender as a reason for discrimination in relation to being refused a job (in both cases 1%), while female employees were slightly more likely than male employees to cite gender as a reason for discrimination regarding promotion (2% of females compared with 1% of males)"

The key statitistics from this show three things.

Promotion - boardroom discrimination

Firstly, the anti-male Marxists feminists who bitterly complain against discrimination against women from the gender pay gap to promotion to boards and such like are out of step with what women actually think. Only 2% of women believe they are denied a promotion (1% men) because of their gender and 1% refused for a job because of their gender. 

Organisations like the 30% Club, Fawcett Society, Lynne Featherstone MP, and all the others are wrong when they say it is a disgrace that women are being discriminated against because women themselves do not believe so.

This organisations live in a fantasy world of male hatred where white fat upper middle class men are keeping the 'sisters' in the kitchen and on the shop floor. Women disagree with the 30% Club, Featherstone and everyone else who says it is a scandal.

These groups do not speak for women, they speak for female privilige for (upper) middle class women at the expense of men.

Equality Act

We know the Conservative Government had initial reservations about sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act (2010) which allows employers to discriminate against people when it comes to training, filling jobs and promotions, however, they ended up putting it into law on 1 April 2011.

It means that while 1% of men and 2% of women claim they are being denied a promotion because of their gender, I would expect this to be reversed over the next five years and that there be a clear gap emerging and perhaps 5% of men claiming they are being denied a promotion because of their gender.

This will not only affect those men themselves but will also affect their wives/girlfriends, daughters, mothers etc, so this discriminations affects women as much as it does the individual man.

Sample Size

Following on from the above, the numbers of 1% and 2% are very small and could be classed as insignificant. Perhaps a lot of that is down to the fact there still remains broadly a gender split in the work roles that men and women undertake. Without wanting to be too broadbrush about it but it is hard for a male car mechanic to say he is being denied a promotion because he is a man when there are so few female mechanics. Likewise, a female primary school teacher may not be able to say she has been denied a promotion when there are so few male primary school teachers.

It means that while the figure on paper looks small, it's signifcance should not be under-estimated.

In conclusion, this report undermines those anti-male Marxist feminists who with every breath they take say that women are discriminated in the workplace, when women themselves say they are not. Secondly, the Equality Act 2010, will I predict, see a gap created where more men feel discrimated than women in work.

It is shame this report was buried but it is essential research nonetheless (thank you to 'Groan' for highlighting it).

Posted by Skimmington 

OFFICIAL SILENCE ON GENDER PAY GAP FOR YOUNG MEN

Really sorry everyone for a lack of recent posts - work.

Last week, the Office of National Statistics  published the latest gender pay gap figures. The median gap is now 9.1% and helped by women's wages increasing by 1.9% as opposed to 0.9% for men. The gap for part-time workers favours women (-4.3%).

A subject well covered for years on this site.

Anlaysing the figures more deeply there is clear evidence of the way the figures are manipulated half truths and myths are spread by organisations such as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the Guardian and the Fawcett Society  as well as government equalities department and a number of MP's.

Figures on Page 19 show that men between 22 and 29 earn 3.6% less than women an issue that has been a trend for some time now and is clearly due to the educational underachievement and the continuation, despite the clear evidence now, of the need for positive discrimination for women. The gap which starts the other way we all now is done to lifestyle choice where many men as part of the family unit decide to take time off work to bring up their children.

The key thing is the policy response. As well as the continuation of the positive discrimination courses and training for women when they are already doing better than men under 29, is the fact that the usual suspects mentioned before, ignore the fact that younger women earn more than younger men. It is almost as though this figure does not exist. They continue therefore to call for more special treatment for women but also do not even mention the boys figure and therefore are not prepared to do anything about it.

As we know the cause is a function of boys underachievement, so you would expect there to be a positive policy response to this but instead there is silence. This silence is discriminatory and other example of the discrimination men face in Britain.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission does not mention it and the Home Office in this quote from the Press Association still welcome it and want to challenge gender stereotypes for girls even though girls are earning more than boys!! The unions do not care about men either bearing in mind Brendan Barber's quote. The Government's Equalities Department don't care they are used to it.

The only real analysis of this comes in the Telegrpah which predicts that women's pay will overtake men's by 2020 which will be true and the Daily Mail covers this as the main issue. Jill Kirby makes the point that Dr Catherine Hakim has often made -

A family expert and author of The Price of Parenthood, Kirby said "the pay gap between the sexes had ‘nothing to do with discrimination’. It is the fact that women become less committed to the workplace at the point in their lives when they have children. They want to spend more time with their children, and regard lower pay as a trade-off for family time. The pay gap we should be worrying about is the one that shows young men in their 20s falling behind."

Another issue is the fact that considering men who work longer and in more dangerous jobs which comes with a premium (an issue the anti-male feminists never mention), then if this was taken out it would be expect the overall gap would be even smaller overall and larger at the 22-29 age level.

What can be seen is that the betrayal of an education system not suited to boys has now fed through to pay and the silence of those who supposedly believe in equality is sickeningly quiet.

Posted by Skimmington

DELOITTE ADD TO CHORUS WANTING TO END MERITOCRACY IN BRITAIN'S BOARDROOMS

The 30% Club, the anti-male group who want preferential treatment for women to be placed on the boards of major companies, despite the fact that younger women earn more and therefore more will be on boards soon, were joined by Deloitte this week. An issue covered extensively before

They joined the carnival of anti-male groups desperate to get headlines for their company and the easy win is to go in for man-bashing. Their report said 20% of FTSE-100 companies had no women on their board, and many had not set equality target sdemanded by the government specifically designed to promote women over men to tick a box.

The key issue from Deloitte, the 30% club and those who fall behind this issue, is the fact that nowhere do they mention talent or give examples where more talented women have been denied a place on a board by less talented men - a clear case of discrimination. But that argument is never made, it is all about the statistics. And from companies like Deloitte and organisations like the 30% Club that is rather pathetic. Deloitte claim to provide a quality service, but their research is shallow and panders to the anti-male carnival.

Two trends are emerging from all of this:

Firstly, there is now clear impetus on this issue and men will face the double whammy of underachievement in getting into professions and being out-competed because their exam grades will be lower.

Secondly, years ago men were easy targets for man bashing adverts normally by trashy consumer brands and while this trend has continued unabated, it is now being joined by allegedly more 'respectable' organisations like Deloitte.

They don't use low grade advertising, they use shallow research to bash men like this report. And why do they do it? They need column inches so they are in the papers more than their commercial rivals (Ernst & Young, PwC etc) and an easy win for organisations is to go in for pro-women, anti-male research because it is so acceptable these days and the newspapers are more than happy to print it without question.

Posted by Skimmington

Media coverage - Independent graphic, Independent, Guardian, Telegraph, BBC, Telegraph, Telegraph

 

GENDER PAY GAP AND THE INDEPENDENT'S INTERNAL CONFLICT

Many of you rightly pointed out (see comments) to Monday's Independent front page  about the gender pay gap being in favour of women for people between 22 and 29 - a story we commented about at the end of last year.

There are as ever two areas to review - firstly the comments section (the Independent piece had 298 comments) which gives those who truly want equality for men and women a voice across the UK.

The second piece is really around the comments and this is where you see the institutional antipathy of men especially by those who 'claim' to believe in equality.

Exhibit 1: Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union

She said: "I am pleased that young females are now earning more but we still have a lot of work to do before we bridge the pay gap between men and women in higher education, especially at professorial level."

So Ms Hunt is happy females are earning more than men, but does not say that we should now look at why men are underperforming (we know why - fewer education grades) and do something about that.

This is where you really do see the antipathy about men - sit on hands.

Exhibit 2:The Independent's leader 

This is a classic example of the conflict between those who believe in equality for both genders and the fear they have of the backlash for saying so. The leader says the gap is both welcome and unwelcome. It cannot be both.

Why does it not just say it is unwelcome if they gap is to widen which it surmises (like this site has) rather than trying to couch it that it is welcome. There is clear tension in their thinking - their emotional brain has been brainwashed by the anti-male feminists (the gap is welcome) while their reason/logic part of the brain is, er, logical (which is why they say it unwelcome).

 Posted by Skimmington

NEWS UPDATE

Just a few from the last few weeks where there has been a fair amount of issues to cover

Daily Telegraph:  Quotas won't help the battle of the sexes (Dominic Raab MP and Priti Patel MP)

Press Association:  Scottish government's definition of domestic abuse should change (Prof Brian Dempsey). Also featured on Scottish TV.

Daily Telegraph: No male teachers at 4,500 primary schools (Graham Paton). Just like on this issue the governement do nothing. Other coverage - The Sun and BBC.

Daily Telegraph: A male teacher can never replace a missing father (Katherine Birbalsingh)

Daily Telegraph: Abortion reform - a modest proposal gone awry (Christine Odone). Feminism and death threats. 

Scottish Government: Social attitudes survey 2010 (published Aug 2011). The Scottish government doesn't believe equality applies to men  - Figure 6.1 onwards. And 79% think just interviewing a women for a job is wrong - would be great to see gender breakdown of the way different genders answered that.

BBC - Margaret Moran MP faces 21 charges. One of the old Labour Government's most prominent men-haters could go to prison - what a shame.

Posted by Skimmington

THE CHARTERED WOMANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

Sorry for lack of posts this week - been away working - and that matters because according to the anti-male Chartered Management Institute I will have been ensuring that male executives get paid more than female executives.

The big story from the CMI this week was that it would take up to 98 years before female executives in Britain get paid the same as male executives. This is despite the fact that female junior executives get paid more than junior male executives.

The CMI claim older female executives get paid less than male executives for doing the same job. They offer no proof that it is the same job with the same hours and that all managers who are compared are doing it with the same talent. They claim they have produced a report on this but it is not published on their website so cannot be corroborated. So they cannot say it is for the same job without actually offering public proof.

Secondly, they applaud the fact that junior female executuives are getting paid more than male exectuives - so if the CMI were being fair and equal they would be now campaigning to stop the gender pay gap against junior male exuectives. Of course, they say nothing because they are only interested in facts that play out a pro-women, anti-male narrative.

Thirdly, it is clear that the research does not add up because you cannot on the one hand say it will take women up to 98 years to close the gap when junior female executives are getting paid more than their male equivalent. How can that be the case - its mickey mouse research. Melanie McDonagh in the Standardscoffs and points out the CMI said last year it would take 57 years, so suddenly it grew by 41 years, in one year!

This is what happens in the world of anti-male spin:

The CMI's spin monkeys want to get the CMI in the newspapers. So they commission this annual research with the brief to paint as bleak a picture as possible for women. They know the anti-male parts of the media will lap it up. The research gives a broad range of years so they use the one that is the most extreme - 98 years. The larger the figure, the larger the headline.

The media of course, being stretched for resources simply go along with the story and do not challenge the research or ask them to prove the 'same job' issue. They also do not challenge the issues that cause the gender pay gap (largely choosing motherhood). While the press release talks about both and leads on the gap between junior executives the spinners would have briefed the media on the 98 year figure as that guarantees more coverage.

You do wonder why any man would want to be a member of this group when it has been hijacked into making anti-male statements and research. Even to the point where their head of policy states "yet again, that businesses are contributing to the persistent gender pay gap and alienating top female employees by continuing to pay men and women unequally. This kind of bad management is damaging UK businesses and must be addressed."

Surely this organisation should be called the Chartered Womanagement Institute - it seems much more appropriate.

Posted by Skimmington   

Media coverage - BBC Today, BBC (read the comments), Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph (on the paygap between junors) and the Guardian.

ANOTHER VOICE OF SUPPORT FOR ABOLISHING THE 'EQUALITIES' AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

One of the advantages of not having an anti-male PC Labour government (this isn't a party political point!) is that it allows a freer debate on issues without always being howled down as 'fascists' (as in my university days!) therefore allowing a much wider debate on things.

The think tank Civitas has always been radical which is why this site has always included some of their publications (see bottom right side bar). Last week, they published a pamphlet by Jon Gower Davies called Small Corroding Words (press release) which called for the abolition of Equalities and Human Rights Commission, a policy I believe in because it is anti-male and is infested with too many people sharing that view (it was hoped the coalition government may abolish it).

I have to read the pamphlet it yet (it is on order) but certainly the press release sets out clearly some of the problems that chime well with the site.

There is the issue of Assuming the Worse, where Civitas state the commission believes that any inequality is due to unfairness in Britain without looking at what is responsible for it. As we know, the critics of the gender pay gap lie about it by claiming it is down to discrimination in Britain when sensible people (including the vast majority of women) know it is about lifestyle choice. Anyone reading Catherine Hakim or John Shackleton knows that.

A Double Bind example can be seen with women where the Commission calls for more women to be in the boardroom by using quotas (discrimination in the workplace) but forget most women of a boardroom age have husbands/partners trying to get in the baordroom so want them to be stopped from making it (less income for the family unit including any wife/girlfriend/daughter).  

The other issue I have is the complete ignorance by the Commission at looking at issues affecting men - suicide, unemployment, education, domestic abuse, family courts etc - and what causes the inequality.

At least with issues affecting women, they recognise them, even if they don't look at the causes and just lump it all in as discrimination. With men, they don't even get recognised.

Posted by Skimmington

The pick of the media coverage - Daily Express.

NEWS UPDATE

A few articles from the last week or so:

Daily Mail: Battles of the sexes: Men start to share housework (Claire Ellicott)

Daily Mail: Mother wins right to more compensation from ex-husband's crash compensation

Daily Mail:  Liz McColgan charged with beating up her husband (James Beatson) - Let's see if this just gets buried unlike Rihanna etc

Men's Health Forum: Blue September

Home Office: Break the glass ceiling - More berating of business to encourage them to discriminate against men with some very dubious figures (Recent figures show that companies with more women on their boards were found to out-perform their rivals with a 42 per cent higher return in sales, 66 per cent higher return on invested capital and 53 per cent higher return on equity.)

Swedish news in English: Men allege sexual discrimination at Swedish police academy

The Guardian: Feminism is back (Lizzie Davies) - Amazing how people can write and believe this

Huddersfield Examiner: Woman making false rape claim jailed 

Posted by Skimmington 

THE SCANDALOUS GOVERNMENT HYPOCRISY OVER THE GENDER EDUCATION GAP

This week the government published the SATs results (officially known as Key Stage 2) for primary school children which test their ability to read, write and add up at 11, just before they go to secondary school.

While the headline figure shows that one in three don't make the grade (level 4), the report also highlights:

There is still a worrying number of children performing at a very low level. One in 10 boys leave primary school with the reading age of a seven-year-old and one in 14 boys leave with the writing age of a seven-year-old.

The government minister (Nick Gibb) said: "We are determined to raise standards of reading. There will always be some children for whom reading is a struggle. However, we can and must do much better for the one in 10 boys who at the age of eleven can read no better than a seven-year-old."

The results in detail are:

• English 81% (86% for girls, 77% for boys)
• Reading 84% (87% for girls, 80% for boys)
• Writing 75% (81% for girls, 68% for boys)
• Mathematics 80% (80% for girls, 80% for boys).

This shows there is a clear gender education gap in English, reading and writing (not Maths) and whilst at least this government recognises it, it is doing absolutely nothing to remedy it. It says it is an issue and then walks away.

As shown, many schools are not bothered and also we know that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the Government's joke Equalities Department are not interested.

But more so when do you see the Department for Education running a massive study into why it is happening and then bring in policies to remedy it?

The government is bothered about the alleged gender pay gap and the alleged gender boardroom gap but does absolutely nothing to tackle the gender education gap.

It proves beyond all doubt that men and boys remain firmly second class citizens in the UK and it is a situation the government is quite happy with.

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