The Rights Of Man

SEXISM AND DISHONESTY IN THE GREEN PARTY MANIFESTO

From reading the newspapers, watching the tv of even visiting this blog one might get the impression that in politics, misandry is something at which only the Labour Party truly excels. However, one look at the Green Party's manifesto shows just how widespread and acceptable discrimination against men is in our society.

A particular concern of the Green Party appears to be the gender pay gap. Now don't get me wrong, women do earn slightly less than men, but it's almost all about choice - there aren't any women doing the same job as men for less money. Men work longer hours, less sociable shifts, do more dangerous and unpleasant tasks and even travel much further to work than women. And it's not just more hours that men put in - they're forced to put more years in at work too, with women getting to retire a full five years earlier than men. Rather than pointing out this direct discrimination and making it campaign issue, the Green's prefer to focus only on it's financial consequences which, just as with the pay gap, is less money as a result of doing less work. 

It's already illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender in employment and pay, yet the Greens also want to "enforce penalties against employers who continue to implement unequal pay". In other words, if your happen to be an employer who's male employees are more talented and experienced than the females, then you're going to be in trouble if you reward such talent and hard work through say bonuses, commission and promotions. The Green's really don't seem to appreciate or encourage success, all they want is equal outcomes and the same pay for less work.

The most despicable part of the Green's manifesto is the dishonesty in terms of the figures they use to justify their polices on pay gaps. The only statistics on the issue are in their statement that "the pay gap per hour between men and women remains as high as 38% for part-time workers". Now any reasonable person would assume the party here is stating that part time women get paid 38% less than their male colleagues also working part-time. However, this is absolutely false, what Caroline Lucas and her colleagues have done in reality is to compare part time women's wages with those of full-time men! They're comparing apple with oranges and not even admitting it either! Given that Harriet Harman attempted use a 23% figure for the pay gap was officially deemed to be misleading, then I'd say the Green's preferred measure is nothing short of a lie.

Given the party's obsession with the pay gap anyone would think the Green's just wanted women to be promoted and paid extra because of their gender and didn't care in the slightest about minor details such as actually being competent or the best person for the job. However, we don't need to speculate as to their position here, as they gone on to actually admitt eh truth of the matter. The Green's manifesto states that they "require 40% of board members of larger companies to be female within five years." Thus the party not only wants to artificially raise women's earnings, they also want to force our most important and best companies to get rid of some of their best staff, instead filling the positions based of a person's genitalia. I'm sure we do need more women in business, but just as with politics any so called "positive" discrimination is certain to be a disaster and actually harm not just the economy, but the prospects of women themselves in the longer term. I suppose the resulting reduction in GDP as a result of this policy would at least help to cut carbon emissions if nothing else, perhaps that's the purpose of the policy?

In the Labour Party manifesto we saw a commitment to sexism in terms of domestic violence policy, yet the Green Party's publication is arguable worse still. Not only dot hey use dishonest terminology such as "violence against women" when referring to domestic violence, they even state a policy of "providing funding for Women’s Refuges" and really seem to be pretending that domestic violence is a gender issue. Official figures show us that 40% of victims of domestic violence are men yet Caroline Lucas seems to believe that only women suffer domestic violence, and even if men suffer, they certainly aren't worthy of obtaining shelter and safety from their abuser as that's for women only. Interestingly, Lucas is not just ignoring heterosexual male victims here, but also homosexuals too - a group suffering more domestic violence than any other. You would have though that she might at least be sensitive to their needs given the demographics of her constituency.

So what about the positives of the Green Party's manifesto? There's a brief mention of paternity leave, which is far from unique these days. To be honest, the only real sentence of any genuine merit regarding discrimination against men is a recognition that poorer men suffer from low life expectancy, though there was no actual indication of how the Green's are going to tackle such an issue.

If anything, the Green Party appears to view men as a problem, for example emphasising how so much crime is committed by young males. They propose tackling this by raising the criminal age of responsibility, opening some youth centres and improving literacy in prisons. Don't' get me wrong, these are commendable actions, but it's far too little and far too late and misses the point entirely. Young men need a relationship with both their parents and a decent and fair education system if they are to succeed in life and be an asset to our communities. They should be taught to read by good teachers in primary schools and by their mothers and fathers and grandparents, not in a dingy prison cell.

I find it somewhat bizarre that a document with no less that fourteen specific LGBTI related policies pretends issues pertaining to half the population don't really exist. There certainly wasn't anything in the manifesto on the gender education gap, nor male suicide, false allegations nor the most important issue of all, that of family breakdown. Even on the odd occasion the party stumbles across a key equality issue they offer no real solutions.

I can remember a time when the Green Party was a genuinely forward thinking, fair, honest and progressive party which was genuinely a force for good and brought real change in UK politics. However, parts of their manifesto are now so sexist and discriminatory they could easily have been written by Julie BIndel. If the party truly is committed to "work to ensure respect for everyone whatever their ethnicity or gender" then I'd suggest they could make a start by re-writing their manifesto, removing both the lies and the discriminatory polices.

SHAMEFUL SILENCE ON GENDER EDUCATION GAP

Figures released by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills today showed that 51% of girls now enter higher education compared to 40% of boys. A gender education gap of 11%.

There is not a peep from the Government, the Conservatives or any other party about the gender education gap. Nothing from the laughably entitled 'Equalities' and Human Rights Commission.

Nothing, just silence.

Far more girls are entering the professions and boys are continually behind at all levels of education, nothing either is said on that

Compare it to the constant hullabaloo (and myth making) over the gender pay gap (12% for full time workers) even though it has been proven that the pay gap is due mainly to many women taking time out of the workplace to bring up a family.

No proper research, no proper thought as to why this gender education gap is happening and no policies that could help to boost boys education (rightly of course not to the detriment of girls' education) are ever expounded.

Can you imagine, if the genders were reversed and that far fewer girls were entering university than boys,  - we would never hear the end of it. But because it is boys, the figures just float by without comment. It shows inherently and culturally how much boys and men don't matter to the establishment in this country, they are the disposable sex -a culture explained very well by Conservative MP Paul Goodman yesterday.

It really is a tragedy that politicians and the establishment pay no attention to this matter when attention would be paid if the genders were switched. No explanation is ever given as to why this is the case.

It is sexism by silence. 

Posted by Skimmington

WILL 2010 BE THE YEAR OF EQUALITY FOR BRITISH MEN?

As a new year starts, it is worth reviewing the events of the past year and look forward to 2010 to see what hope there is for male equality in 2010.

2009 was a mixed bag. We had the awfulness of the Equalities Bill trundling through Parliament allowing men to be discriminated in the workplace and the recession taking its toll in increasing male unemployment (and the associated depression), particularly damaging for young men who cannot get on the job ladder and hampered by their lack of academic achievement at all levels compared to women. The Coalition on Men and Boys produced an awful paper that basically said that men are bad and are to blame for everything that affects them.

We had the continuing and wilful ignorance of male issues from the Labour Government and its acolytes at the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. In fact, both organisations did all they could spin the myths that women were more affected by the recession, that the Gender Pay Gap was leading to more discrimination against women and the refusal to accept that men are also affected by domestic violence.

On the other hand, there has been a greater awareness of the issues affecting men. The Men's Health Forum continue their good work (with others in the prostate cancer field), Families Need Fathers have opened up new centres with a growing recognition of the bias of the family courts and the ManKind Initiative speaking with more authority on the plight of male victims of domestic violence. The NPSCC also produced some authoritative work showing that abuse at home affected boys as well as girls highlighting that mothers were as involved in this than just fathers.

We also have seen what I would call an epidemic in the numbers of women falsely accusing men of rape, a concern for the men accused as well as those poor women who are attacked.  

But does 2010 bring any hope?

The only answer that can be offered is that it may do and this is dependent in large measure to the result of the General Election.

The odds are that it looks like a hung Parliament or a small Conservative majority. Whatever happens, as long as Labour, the most anti-male Government in the history of the United Kingdom, are turfed out then that has to be something positive. In addition, this will tend to allow a change in the mindset of the civil service and other public servants to one based on genuine equality not on Labour's and the Equalities Commission's Animal Farm meaning of Equality ("everyone is equal but some are more equal than otehrs") .

We can hope that the recession ends and that men (and women) can find themselves back in work. We can hope that family law reforms such as a presumption fo share parenting come to fruition and that the needs of men in education, health and domestic violence find themselves higher up the political agenda. The need for a Minister for Men (if there is to be the continuation of a Minister for Women) should be at the very least the first step (this site will be updating its manifesto this month).

We really do need some politicians especially female politicians (they are mothers, sisters and wives to men) taking the lead on this. With so many new politicians coming into Parliament whoever wins, let us hope so.

There is a risk of course that David Cameron as part of his touchy feely positioning continues to only concentrate on the needs of women and not on men. He has not made a good start with the threat of using All-Women short lists.

Whatever happens, groups wanting genuine equality for men will continue to fight and express their views, we hope that in 2010, politicians and public servants actually make the changes necessary. We just have to keep going and hope that the plight of British Men starts to receive the recognition needed. Now that would be EQUALITY.

EQUALITIES COMMISSION HAS NO SHAME IN LOBBYING GOVERNMENT ON 'EQUALITIES' BILL

Looking back in a few years time when people question why men have been marginalised in the workforce, then they would be best to look at the who was pushing the Equalities Bill (still wending its way through Parliament) and why they were doing it.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission, a public sector body paid wholly by us taxpayers, has been putting its full weight behind the Bill. This page shows how deep and often their lobbying has been. Rather than let the Government and others do its bidding and arguing, it unashamedly uses taxpayers money to lobby the Government when it is already part of the Government.

As set out before, this Bill is the most dangerous Act of Parliament ever passed because it simply will be used either covertly or overtly to discriminate against men. It is the intention behind the BIll.

Editors Note- The Daily Telegraph reports that Bill will only affect a few companies regarding the gender pay gap. In the long run though, once the inch has been taken the mile seems a whole lot nearer.

Hattip: Groan

EQUALITY BILL (ACT) - GOVERNMENT SHOWS CLEARLY IT WILL DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MEN

The Equality Bill (previous posts 1, 2 , 3 and 4) is the most dangerous anti-male Act (when it is passed) ever to pass through Parliament. It was unmasked this week by the Conservatives (Hansard - Column 1123) for its anti-male intent.

Just to recap, the Equality Bill introduces the concept that where two candidates for a position are equally qualified, the employer can choose one person over another if they feel it will improve the diversity of their workforce (The Equalities Commission pathetically try to justify it by using the one area - male primary school teachers - where men could benefit. An obvious ruse to try and hide its anti-male intent).

The problems arise with regard to the definition of equal in the Bill and also how this will be used, as it will inevitably be, to stop men from being promoted or taken on if there are  'too many ' men in the workplace already. Although it can only be used if the man and women were equal, such is the pressure to employ more women in senior positions and the like, this threshold will not be used. If a man is better than the woman (qualifications, better interviewee etc ) but there are few women in an organisation then it is likely she will be employed.

Employers will be under pressure especially if they report a gender pay gap (not a real one where men and women doing the same job get paid differently, the alleged one where there is a difference between men and women's pay but because they are doing different jobs in a company) across the organisation. The law gives a nod and wink to it and it will lead to discrimination as men are denied a position on merit. It is sexist in intent and implementation. 

The Conservatives raised crucial concerns in Parliament about the specific wording in the clause on this issue. The clause says "as qualified" but the Conservatives want "equally qualified". As John Penrose MP, the Conservative leading on this issue states, the former leads to an interpretation of "positive discrimination" and the latter "positive action". We could debate for hours on whether there is a difference in reality but positive discrimination certainly means allowing less able people to jump ahead of more able people because of their gender.

The issue with "as qualified" as John Penrose highlights is that if two people meet a minimum threshold then the discrimination can take place, but if they are equally qualified then it means they have to be as good as each other exactly.

For example, two engineers have the same minimum qualifications (they have the same bits of paper) but the man has 15 years experience and the female 5 years. Under the Labour proposal (and other things being equal such as interview performance) company x could use the Equality Act to give her the job but under the Conservative proposal they could not because the man has more experience.

It is all technical but it is crucial and Penrose did an excellent job in explaining it.

However, Attorney General Vera Baird MP (a pal of Harman's) refused to budge and the Conservative amendment was rejected.

The issue though is that the Conservative amendment was completely reasonable and in keeping with the ethos of the Bill (the Bill is anti-male but if it is going to be passed it was better that the Conservative amendment was included thereby making it clear what the law is and making it easier for a man to sue an employer for discrimination when being overlooked for a position because he is a man).

The fact that the Labour Government with Harman and Baird in full anti-male mode meant this amendment was turned down and shows their real intent. They want to discriminate against men in the workplace, it was always their intention. They want to make it harder for men to make a living. It is sexist and will deliberately damage the life and employment chances of men for decades and decades to come.

Newspaper coverage - Daily Mail (plus 189 comments in the debate) and Daily Telegraph.

ABUSE OF GENDER PAY GAP STATISTICS CHALLENGED AGAIN

A week ago this site highlighted the fact that despite previous guidance from Sir Michael Scholar from the UK Statistical Authority to the Government that using the gender pay gap figure of 23% was wrong, the Women and Work Commission went ahead anyway.

Even though the media cover the story when Sir Michael originally queried it, the media, who do not fact check or connect things up, they still unquestioningly used the 23% figure again.

Now the row has blown up again with another letter(see 7th August) sent by Sir Michael, this time to Baroness Prosser.

The whole episode is covered by Mark Easton at the BBC.

One question remains though, does Sir Michael read this blog, so picking up on the issue that was previously raised on this site about the Women and Work Commission!

WOMENS' COMMISSION GENDER PAY GAP MYTHS - SLAVISHLY LAPPED UP BY MEDIA

A 56 page report called Shaping a Fairer Future by the Women and Work Commission (no Men and Work Commission exists, of course) run by the UK Government's 'Equalities' Office.

The report essentially state that the gender pay gap is down to gender stereotyping in career choices promoted by schools.

Yet, as pointed out so many times on this site, there is a gender pay gap overall but:-

• Lifestyle choice (ie taking years out to bring up a family) is the biggest explanation of the gender pay gap as explained by the Office of National Statistics report in 2008
• Women and men earn the same wage until they reach their 30's (see above for reason) so it is not down to school career stereotyping
• Single women earn more than single men
• In landmark research by the Daily Telegraph, they showed that far more women are entering the professions than men.
• There is no evidence that women get paid less than men due to discrimination.

 An additional point worth looking at is the fact that in June, the Government were slammed by the UK Statistical Authority for using the figure of 23% for describing the gender pay gap instead of the more accurate 12%, yet the report still uses 23%. They ignore the truth.

The deliberate and sexist lack of intellectual rigour in reports like this just keep coming and one of the problems is that th British media, which as each year goes by, lacks serious depth, never challenges them. They just spew out the copy verbatim without looking at the above points, the evidence or points by academics.

In the myriad of articles, there is not one challenge to it in the news reporting or an alternative voice. The only article is by Jill Kirby of the Centre for Policy Studies in the Telegraph

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

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)