The Rights Of Man

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.

STORIES ROUND-UP

Below are some links to stories found but not yet covered over the past few weeks. Still some more to write up (thak you everyone for sending issues over).

Daily Mail (Liz Hull): Myth of 'Mr Useless'

The Independent (Susie Mesure): March of the new Feminists

Diamond Car Company: Women-only garages (which would be illegal by the way)

Daily Mail (Luke Salkeld): Women who cried rape 8 times spared jail

The Observer (Richard Reeves): Hard for dads as well as working mothers

HULL UNIVERSITY STUDENT'S UNION ABOLISHED MEN'S OFFICER POSITION BY UNDERHAND TACTICS

Earlier this week my research let me down as I had said that Hull University Student's Union had a Men's Officer.

Unfortunately, it was abolished in June as set out in the minutes (Minute 259b)

The minutes speak volumes about the mindset of anti-male feminists and the fact they will stop at nothing to abolish male representation on campuses and do down men. 

The President of the Student Union put down a motion to abolish the position and VP Scar (presume the Vice President of Scarborough Student's Union) said not only was there a need for the position (he is right if there is a Women's Officer) but that there had been a referendum in 2007 on it and the students (including sane female students) had voted to keep it. 12 other SU's have these positions, like to know where they are?

However, using extraordinary powers to make decisions when the summer term had ended, the SU Executive voted to abolish it without a referendum. VP Scar lost 5 votes to 1 (the others voting with the President being obvious cowards).

What it says clearly is that the anti-male feminists like those at Hull University will stop at nothing, even by using sneaky unconstitutional means to attack men and service provision for them.

The decision is bad enough but the manner of it  says all you need to know.

UNDERMINING MEN IS THE ULTIMATE AIM OF CALLS TO ACCEPT THE END OF THE TWO-PARENT FAMILY

I said in a recent post that I was speechless but I am not when it came to the speech made by Dr Katherine Rake the new Head of the Government funded (ie - by you and me) Family and Parenting Institute. After all, she was previously Chief Executive of the Fawcett Society, an organisation that not indulges in male bashing but also ignores the mainstream concerns of normal women, instead concentrating on bashing their husbands, sons, brothers and fathers and politicising debates about gender. The Fawcett Society does not speak for normal women.

The commentary in the Daily Telegraph shows the difference between the defeatism of those on the left and the recognition of those mainstream people who want to reverse the decline in the nuclear family.

Context is important because of what it says about the role of fathers in the lives of their children.

By accepting that the two-parent family is dead, is as David Willetts the Conservative Shadow in this area, ignores the aspirations of normal people and of course as Iain Duncan Smith would I am sure conclude, exacerbates the problems some children face being separated from their father/male role model (or mother in some cases).

But it is the wider issue as well as to accept that the two parent family is dead means it makes it easier to continue the trend of father bashing, commentators saying fathers are not important and therefore why is it a problem if they cannot get access to their children or what happens to men. Katherine Rake is trying to set the terms of the debate not just on families but also on the role of fatherhood and men. A debate she has to lose.

Her record at the Fawcett Society would suggest fathers, like men, are not important.

Interesting to see what happens to her if the Conservatives win in 2010?

Editors Note

Excellent response from Jill Kirby at the Centre of Policy Studies

ONE RULE FOR FEMALE TEACHERS, ANOTHER RULE FOR MALE TEACHERS

I still cannot believe what I have just read in The Guardian's Comment is Free section by Barbara Ellen.

You really do wonder how those who belive in equality can say that a female teacher sleeping with a male pupil is not as bad as the other way around. As George Orwell once wrote, "Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others."

Hattip: Groan

ONLY ANTI-MALE FEMINISTS CAN OPPOSE MALE GROUPS AND SOCIETIES AT UNIVERSITY

The biggest and widest breeding ground for the anti-male feminism that drives UK public policy is our universities. They always have been the intellectual heartbeat of the country and many who are indoctrinated at university go on to dominate both politics and the civil service/public sector. Often there is an incubation period, where they join the public sector and then have to wait to rise to gain power.

Over the past 30 years or so, the plethora of women's officers, women's societies and other such organisations have been the norm at every student union. This means that even where there is a university that does have a gender studies department there is a ready and able place to stir up anti-male feeling on every campus.

The reason for raising this is the recent debate has been the small growth of men's societies on some campuses. The papers covered this week that both Oxford and Manchester universities have inaugurated such societies though others have or have had them. Ben Wild who set up MENS in Manchester has an excellent article in the Guardian (comments worth reading as well). These are a welcome antidote especially as many members are actually women, you know, the one that actually like men, appreciate their role in society and their life, those who may have brothers and certainly have fathers and certainly do not agree with the nonsense spouted by the anti-male feminists. 

There are others mens groups on campus. Kent University has one or certainly had one - an attempt to abolish was made here - see page 9) as does Hull University, Lampeter, De Montford, Southampton and I think the University of London.

Of course, this is all good news and if there is to be equality then if there is a women's officer then there should be a men's officer.

What has been astounding, but of course, not at all surprising has been the usual backlash. The National Union of Students (a body meant to represent all students including men) does not have a men's officer and Olivia Bailey, NUS national women's officer, said in the Guardian: "Discrimination against men on the basis of gender is so unusual as to be non-existent, so what exactly will a men's society do? To suggest that men need a specific space to be 'men' is ludicrous, when everywhere you turn you will find male-dominated spaces," she added. What planet??

Rumour has it that the Fawcett Society and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission are involved in a recruitment tug-of-war to employ her because she is so on-message for those two organisations.

What is so sickening is the fact that the NUS and Ms Olivia Bailey are so anti-male, they even publish a document called "I will win the arguments". The documents sets out the themes to be used to secure women's representatives on campus student unions and openly admits what should be said to stop men's representatives from being established. Just reading this scandalous document you can taste the anti-male vitriol.

It should be dismissed as the absurd but in today's anti-male Britain this document will be circulated to all student unions plus their women's officers so that everything can be done to stop men's officers and men's societies from being established.

This author and anyone who uses its argument does not believes in equality - they are anti-male feminists and they will be all working in senior positions in the public sector within a decade. Let no one be fooled.

Other good articles - one great from Jenni Murray (Daily Mail), one recent and one old

GOVERNMENT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INITIATIVE PURPOSELY IGNORES MALE VICTIMS

The sickest irony of the Government's initiatives (including a ready reckoner, more to come in a later post) announced this week (entitled the Together We Can End Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy) is that it came in the same week as Jane Andrews who horrifically murdered her boyfriend had absconded briefly, a female teacher is jailed for having sex with a pupil and the Scotsman reported an increase in male victims in Scotland. 

What is clear (as if we did not know anyway) is that the Government is purposely and wilfully ignoring male victims. They do not even try to hide it as they have made it clear that the initiatives such as bringing education on domestic violence into schools is only to end domestic violence against women and girls not against men and boys as well. So men get told not to hit women, rightly so, but girls are not told to not to hit men. That is the true meaning of equality in the UK.

The deliberate decision to only use the "1 in 4 women will be a victim in their lifetime" figure and "two women per fortnight are murdered by a partner and or ex-partner" figure whilst ignoring the male figures of 1 in 6 men and two men per fortnight is shameful when the figures are from the same research. Sexism by omission.

Also, because so many people keep complaining to the BBC that when they publicise a DV story they only talk about it from a female victim perspective, Bill Turnbull, a presenter on BBC Breakfast, asked the Government Minister Alan Campbell MP about men on Wednesday. Attorney General Vera Baird repeats this on Women's Hour.

He asked him "Why does this initiative not include men because whenever we run a story like this, if men are not included, we get lots of complaints.". The Minister pathetically said "we decided that our priority was just on Women and Girls". Turnbull pushed him and Campbell basically said that as there were more female victims, this is where the priority was. Shameful, truly shameful and truly sexist.

If you are a male victim of domestic violence, this Government has made it clear, it does not care about you.

CALLING ALL DISCRIMINATED MEN - RESPOND TO THE EQUALITIES COMMISSION CONSULTATION

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission, one of the many organisations that says it believes in equality so long as that does not include men, is calling for evidence in its triennial review.

Not only can you fill in a questionnaire, there is the opportunity to have a face to face conversation with the Commission.

I would urge any readers to reply, I may just send them the link to this web-site...

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS WEEK - WILL MEN BE INCLUDED?

Wednesday is Domestic Violence Awareness Week and this is the real litmus test on whether the Government and councils/police who tend to run local events include highlighting the issue of male victims within their campaigning. Once the week has finished this site will look at who has and who hasn't.

Certainly, from a Government perspective the Guardian revealed that male victims are not going to get a look in and this campaign in South Wales shows how some police forces purposely ignore male victims. But to be fair others like York do include men.

If anyone sees examples of where male victims have or have not been included, then please email the links through.

ACPO REPORT IGNORES MALE VICTIMS BUT IS IT THEIR FAULT?

What is so worryingly predictable (issues of common law aside) about the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) recommendations to the Home Office was the lack of mention about male victims of domestic violence.

The proposals (5th down and beware may slow your computer) formed the ACPO response to the violence against Women and Girls strategy, a long-running Government consultation that completely and purposely ignores male victims of domestic violence and rape because those people don't matter. New powers were asked for such as a 'right to know' about violent men when a woman takes a new partner and a new criminal offence based on a body of evidence rather than a specific crime.

 Of course, any new powers will have to be applied to both female and male perpetrators and whilst the response only referred to women, what was noticeable was the gender neutral quotes given by Chief Constable Brian Moore who is in charge of this area for ACPO. The Guardian, Telegraph, BBC, Daily Mail (with debate) and others in their usual 'balanced' way only spun it about being against male perpetrators but Brian Moore seemed careful to avoid gender stereotyping too much (he does just mention women in the Telegraph). The politicians were happy of course just to mention female victims.

One wonders though that if the Government had asked ACPO to look at this not under the guise of Violence Against Women and CHildren but just under violence against people ina domestic relationship, whether the report would have mentioned men or would have been gender neutral. The impression is that with glacial recognition that men can also be victims, it may be the case that it would have been. Perhaps I am being too optimistic...

Pity of course, the Equalities Commission have no shame in just talking about female victims.