The Rights Of Man

HARMAN IS CAUGHT AGAIN DELIBERATELY DISTORTING THE TRUTH - GENDER PAY GAP

In Orwellian/New Labour/PC industry double-speak the mantra is 'if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.' Never more so, when it comes to perpetuating untruths by the Marxist anti-male feminists who continue to tell untruths about how discriminated against women are vis a vis men.

This site has already highlighted on three occasions this year, where such myths have been destroyed by the media, professors or statisticians (Recession and Depression, Recession and Jobs, Domestic Violence), now this time it is the deliberate misuse of the statistics on the Gender Pay Gap.

Sir Michael Scholar who heads up the UK's independent Statistical Authority gave Harriet Harman an official warning last week after he had previously protested about the her misuse of the gender pay gap statistics.

He said her office had been warned that including part-time workers in her calculations could be misleading but pressed ahead. They claimed that women were paid 23 per cent less, but Sir Michael says 12.8 per cent would be a more accurate figure.

Her and her acolytes in the Government, the laughably named Equalities Commission and the Fawcett Society do not care about the misuse of this or any other statistics so long as it positions women in a unfavourable light with regard to men.

The reason is that it acts as the lever to get more support for women at the cost of men and this can be seen by the Equalities Bill. That is the reality of the lies they use, they are not casual lies, they are lies used to justify more discrimination against men and more special treatment for women. Their lies trun into public policy.

What is so terrible about this propaganda war is that often the media just accepts what they say (though they are now being questioned more) but also that they won't accept the truth.

Harman and her acolytes continued to use this statistic in full knowledge that they should not. In addition, even when this latest issue was uncovered, the anti-male Equalities Commission (taxpayer funded and of course, they are public officials) said the statistical watchdog was wrong. They said "women representing over three-quarters of the part-time workforce, we believe this figure gives the fullest picture of the country's gender pay gap."

It proves that they are willing to peddle untruths so long as they can claim more victories in their war on men.

Coverage is here:- Daily Mail with readers comments, BBC, Mark Easton BBC, Independent, Daily Telegraph

DISAPPOINTINGLY ONLY WOMEN STAND UP AGAINST THE CAROLINE FLINT'S WINDOW DRESSING CHARGE

One of the great disappointments in the fight for male equality and against male gender and sexual discrimination is the lack of men, in public positions of power, with any balls to challenge what is so obviously going on in Britain today.

It has been commented upon before that those in public life who are speaking up for men are women (Amanda Platell, Erin Pizzey, Melanie Phillips and others).

Another example is the issue (covered here) about former Government Minister, Caroline Flint, and her resignation where she accused Gordon Brown of only wanting women in the Cabinet as window dressing.

The only people found in the national papers stating that her position was ridiculous are women (Liz Hunt and Melanie McDonagh).

Where are the men saying that her childish accusation was wrong and that the last thing you can accuse this Government of is not promoting women over men (link)?

Their silence on these issues lets down their fellow men.

This is worth reading on the Flint saga as well - Daily Mail

COMPARE THE HYSTERIA OF THE GENDER PAY GAP WITH THE SILENCE ON THE GENDER EDUCATION GAP

Figures and analysis published by the Higher Education Policy Institute  shows that whilst 49% of girls are going onto university only 38% of men are.

The Gender Education Gap has been much commented upon on this site as all indicators show that at least two generations of boys have performed worse than girls, so much so, that GCSE/A-level results are seven years behind those of girls.

In addition, the site has long stated that a big part of the problem has been the feminisation of education which stemmed from the scrapping of exam based O-levels in 1998 with course-based GCSEs, more suited to female learning.

This point was made by the Institute's Bahram Bekhradnia in an article in The Guardian who said the exams are the "most likely cause" of an achievement gap between the sexes that starts at school but carries on into adulthood. The result is that men are less likely to go to university and less likely to do well when they get there.

However, the silence is deafening from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission who run to the cameras or the press to profess their anger about any statistic which may suggest that women are behind men on some issues. Also where is the Government who Gordon Brown said was if it was not about fairness, then it stood for nothing.

The Government, the Equalities Commission, The Minister for Equalities (Harriett Harman) and the Fawcett Society have dominated the airwaves for years on the gender pay gap and the new equalities bill. They cannot shout loud enough but there is nothing on the fact that boys are languishing behind girls at education. It only matters if it is the other way round.

Their silence is deafening and shows how sexist against boys/men these organisations truly are. If girls were underperforming boys in the same way, you would never hear the end of it.

Other coverage - The Guardian, BBC, The Times 1, Times 2, Daily Telegraph

WHY CAROLINE FLINT'S 'WINDOW DRESSING' RESIGNATION IS HYPOCRISY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER

Peering through the political chaos and carnage in the UK over the last few days, one issue stood out - the reason why Caroline Flint resigned as a member of the Government.

When James Purnell resigned on Thursday she issued a statement the following day saying she backed Brown. When, during the reshuffle, she didn't get the post she wanted or wasn't promoted to being a full Cabinet Member, she resigned and in her resignation letter said:- "Several of the women attending Cabinet – myself included – have been treated by you as little more than female window dressing."

Two issues stand out.

Firstly, because Ms Flint did not get what she wanted (a promotion) instead of looking at it because Brown did not think she was good enough (though God knows what goes through Brown's mind), she accuses him of sexism, when he clearly is not (except against men). She waves the Ali G "Is it cos I black [insert - women]" excuse as an entitlement card. She just looks stupid and hypocritical as she waves the "I am a woman therefore I must have what I want". She does a good job mind in undermining the anti-male feminists (Fawcett Society, Harman et al) as it exposes their transparent and illogical arguments. 

Secondly, looking at the window dressing issue itself. The problem is that when you have gender quota's, all-women shortlists, positive action (no such thing, remember) or anything where women are promoted because they are women and not because of their ability, then it is window dressing.

That's what all-women shortlist operated by Labour are all about, it is not about having the best person for the job.

Brown has to have a certain number of women in his Cabinet/Government, else he gets attacked by anti-male Feminists. Organisiations like The Fawcett Society, the Equalities Commission, The Guardian/BBC and others would hang him or any political leader out to dry.

It is therefore extremely hypocritical of Flint and any other person/organisation who supports all-women shortlists and quota's etc to accuse Brown of window dressing when it is they who created the need to have the window-dressing in the first place.

WHITSUN COVERAGE ROUND-UP

The past two weeks have been busy in terms of anti-male issues or debunking anti-male myths. Listed below is the some of the coverage.

The Times (Sue Palmer) - Who's to blame for the lost boys?

The Sunday Times (India Knight) - Having it all is a myth, girls

Daily Telegraph (David Green) - The Gender Pay Gap Does Not Exist

Daily Mail (Petronella Wyatt) - Man Flu? It we women who are the sickly sex

BBC - Fathers Cool on Parental Leave

ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY: ADVERTISING DOUBLE-STANDARDS AUTHORITY MORE LIKE! By ANDREW DAVIDSON

 

The UK's Advertising Standards Authority this week ruled that an advert depicting men as simple, lazy and incapable is acceptable. They said it did not cause ‘widespread offence’ even after 700 complaints.

The Daily Mail reported on the ruling concerning Homepride Ltd who are responsible for the advert for Oven Pride oven cleaner. The advert shows a man having a childish outburst after being told by a pregnant woman to clean the oven. He is then shown with a simplistic, contented expression while performing the task. This is closely followed by the tagline "Even a man can do it."

Homepride cite increaced sales to justify the acceptability of the advert and claim it was a comment on "natural gender differences". Whatever these "natural" gender differences are they do not specify. Perhaps they could make an advertisement commenting on "natural racial differences" to clarify the point. Homepride also invite women through their website to send in suggestions as to how they would "train" the man.

The ASA has a history of banning adverts it deems portray women in a negative light. Adverts portraying women as overtly consumer-driven, materialistic, vain, weak and sexualised have all been banned in recent years. However, adverts which portray men in negative ways are not banned, indeed those which which show violent physical abuse or suffering of men frequently inflicted or observed by women (often shown laughing at the man) have all been broadcast.

From the Barrs Irn Bru advert showing a man rupturing his groin doing the splits to the after two women throw ice cubes on the floor while he is doing a humiliating 'courtship dance', to numerous assaults and abuses of men in car adverts, including one where a man is thrown through a plate glass window,  have all been broadcast.

This begs the question, has the ASA been infiltrated by people with their own amti-male agenda? Men are now effectively second class citiznes in terms of representation in the media and this encourages the acceptability of violence and humiliation towards men, particularly in the home. Were the man to do these acts now broadcast across the nation, he would be arrested by the local Domestic Violence Unit and charged with criminal offences!

Have you seen an advert that portrays men in a negative light? Ask yourself "If that was a woman, would they broadcast it?". If the answer is 'no' - complain (link).

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. " - Edmund Burke

EDITORS NOTE - PLACE COMMENTS ON THE HOMEPRIDE SITE WHERE THEY WANT WOMEN TO SAY HOW THEY CAN TRAIN THEIR MAN AND SEE IF THEY PUBLISH THEM.

 

WHO IS STILL PEDDLING THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MYTHS EXPOSED BY RADIO 4's MORE OR LESS?

A short post was published yesterday outlined how BBC Radio 4's More or Less programme destroyed/decimated the myth that has been used for over a decade that "Domestic violence kills more women between 15 and 44 than anything else."

As the programme outlined (hopefully a more permanent link) this was from a News at Ten feature that stated this as the bald truth and one in which other journalists and bodies such as the Government regularly trot out. A Frank Fisher asked the programme to investigate its veracity and lo and behold the Office of National Statistics and the chief statistician from the World Health Organisation disowned it.

The most telling parts are about 1min 45 in but also at the end where academic Sylvia Walby who produces the statistical analysis on domestic violence figures for the Government/Home Office and is gender neutral (she with others always use the 1 in 6 men and 1 in 4 women will be victims in their lifetime) was asked by Tim Harford, the presenter:-

TH: Some of the people that we've talked to in the course of doing this piece have suggested that we shouldn't be questioning this rogue statistic; even though we know it isn't true, we shouldn't be questioning it because we know domestic violence is such a serious problem. Do you have sympathy with that view?

SW: I understand the view. It is difficult to be critical of something on such an important area. But I think we've gone beyond the basics. Everybody now knows that domestic violence is a serious problem, and now we need to know exactly the scale and shape of that problem. So we do need to be querying the figures and we do need to be improving them. And that means collecting new and better data.

Listening to Sylvia on the programme you could tell (she makes a sigh) that she knows the figure is also not true and she is an expert in analysing the official statistics on the subject. So if the ONS, the WHO and Sylvia Walby do not support this figure, who does?

However, look again at Tim Harford's question.

What it shows is that Marxist anti-male feminists are using Orwellian Double-speak. They admit the figure is wrong but that does not mean that it should not be treated as fact and to challenge it puts you in the wrong, such is the PC Britain we live in.

So who are these people who told Tim Harford that the truth does not matter and that facts should not be questioned. It wasn't the Government because Tim would have said so (that would be story in itself), could it be either or both of the two leading charities that support female victims, or who else?

It is obviously people who have too much to lose to if the truth got out and someone who thrives on male-bashing (if it is the biggest killer, then those doing the killing are men)

As Big Brother would say YOU DECIDE.

 

ANOTHER ANTI-MALE MYTH DESTROYED: THIS TIME ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Been busy last few days but did not want regular readers to miss the destruction of a myth used by the Government and others that says the most common cause of death of women between their 20's to 44 was through domestic violence. It is used as a means to scaremonger about how violent all us men are.

It was on BBC Radio 4's 'More or Less' and may be only available online for a few more days. The link is here.

Will update this post later

FAWCETT SOCIETY DO NOT BELIEVE IN EQUAL AND BLIND JUSTICE

Sometimes one never knows how to start a post and a good example of this is in reviewing this weeks tirade by the pro-women anti-male Fawcett Society over their report Engendering Justice where they accuse the whole British justice system of being institutionally sexist.

The basic premise is that too many women are being sent to prison and the reason for this is that the legal system is run as an old boys club because there are so few women working within it.

To be fair, they do raise worrying statistics about the level of self-harming amongst females in prison and of course, they are certain issues like this that show the prison system should improve.

However, the subtext behind all of it is that they want women to be treated more leniently than men for crimes they commit. The reason this is said is that nowhere in the report does it say that male criminals receive lighter sentences than women for the same crime.

In fact, it can be said that the opposite is true as a very early post on this site showed. Also far more community sentences are handed out to women than men in Crown courts (12,575 - men : 30,617 women) which suggests that with a prison population of 40,911 men : 3,123 women at face value judges are more likely to pass a community sentence than they would for a man. Though of course, the actual severity of the cases would need to be looked at and more men committing worse crimes (overall) than women.

The Fawcett Society have closed ears when it comes to increasing female violence (link).

The issue of childcare and child support is raised, however, this shows the inconsistency of organisations such as the Fawcett Society. On the one hand they do all they can to denigrate the family and proclaim that men are not needed (full stop) but then complain that women do not have people to look after the kids when they go to court or in prison. If they did not denigrate men so much then perhaps they might pause to think that perhaps the father could help.

Lastly, on the issue of the lack of women in senior positions in the legal system, they, like all proponents of the gender employment war, do not ask the simple questions. They don't ask whether women want a career in the senior ranks nor do they look at the progress being made. For example, there has been percentage increases in the number of police officers at every level since they did their previous research (First Report 03/04) and also a big increase in the number of High Court Judges (10% now: 5.7% in 03/04). In fact, the number of female applicants for QC positions have a success rate of 55% against a male success rate of 40%.

These things take time, but of course, the Fawcett Society does not do time (even though 63% of people signing up to the Law Society are now women) and with the disaster of the Equality Bill soon to be upon us they will be leveraging this to ensure that female candidates leapfrog male candidates for every position going. The legal system will be another target for the pro-women/anti-male witch-hunt.

In conclusion, the British justice system is supposedly blind (hence the blindfolded scales of justice) and that both men and women are treated the same whether plaintiffs or defendants. What the Fawcett Society are really saying is that they want to blind to slip whenever a women is accused of a crime and for the eyes to tip them the wink.

PS read this hysterical rant in the Guardian at your peril (you have been warned!) and she is slaughtered in the comments section.

PSPS Here is an example of the type of justice the Fawcett Society is talking about.

IRISH JOURNALIST KEVIN MYERS NEEDS OUR SUPPORT

Back in April, the site highlighted a very articulate article in Ireland's Independent newspaper by Kevin Myers. This article created a new term - lifeboat feminism.

He also has wrote this month an even more perceptive article about the silence from Irish women's domestic violence charities over a case involving a male victim. This of course is no different here, as can be seen the silence from organisation's like Women's Aid and Respect to the case raised by Ian McNicholl in The Sun last week (link). Women's Aid said The Sun's use of Government statistics was selective.

The issue is raised because Kevin has circulated an e-mail where he says:-

2009/5/7 Kevin Myers writes:

Sorry to add to your burdens, and I am extremely grateful for your support, but I have just learnt that a major e-mail campaign against me is being organised on this issue

If you wish, I would be grateful if you would contact your like-minded friends – and their like-minded friends, and theirs also, and so on - and ask them to publicly agree with me at  [email protected]

Your choice, naturally 

The story was covered on Mens-Links.Net.

What this shows and in many ways to it reminiscent of how the current Government acts. If anyone has criticism, instead of looking at why they make criticism and whether it is legitimate, they instead personally criticise the critic and in some cases try to destroy them.

With so many vested interests and anti-male feminists who rely on public funding thinking they have such high status, anyone who threatens to undermine them or object to them is vilified and a witch hunt ensues. This type of Stalinist behaviour can be seen in Kevin's case.

He has had the balls to say what so many people think (male and female - just ask Erin Pizzey) and now he is a victim of hatred from people who we are supposed to think are nice.

Please write and support Kevin, we cannot afford for him to be a casualty in the war on men.