The Rights Of Man

EYES STARTING TO OPEN OVER THE PRACTICAL IMPACT OF HARMAN'S EQUALITY BILL

Now that our favourite Government Minister, Harriet Harman, has got her Equalities Bill (link) up and running in the UK Parliament, the practical impact of its policy to stop men from being treated as equals in the workplace is starting to be shown.

It is not helped of course, that she is now off the leash and gone into full-on male-bashing mode. You see, she blames maleness, for the collapse of the banks and as now so many are nationalised she wants to use the pro-women laws in the Bill to, as the Daily Mail put it, 'put women in charge of the banks'. No problem in theory with having women (or anyone) in charge of banks so long as they are suitably qualified.

But Harman's Law is not about this, it is about letting someone from one gender (women) being able to leapfrog above other people (men) up the career ladder solely based on gender. Just how fair it is for a man who has dedicated himself to a career to then be denied that opportunity because he is a man? It is wrong and morally so.

Also having been found out to be misleading everyone with her previous campaign saying the recession affected the employment of women more than men, she has turned her attack more generally. She said "because women generally remained homemakers, the recession caused them to fear not only for their own jobs, but also for their husband's, for their children's futures, and for elderly relatives. We have to worry more than men and we are definitely worrying more about the recession than men are."

There is not single shred of evidence to base this on and if she thinks that men are not worried to the same extent (or more) than women then she is just wrong. Patronisingly and desperately wrong.

Harriet Harman will do anything she possible can to attack at men. Why does she dislike us so much?

Other coverage is here:- Daily Mail, This is Money, Express, Telegraph

NUMBERS OF VIOLENT WOMEN SOAR - MUST BE A LINK TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

The UK Government published figures this week that showed a total of 88,139 women and girls were arrested for violence against the person last year - the equivalent of 241 arrests a day.

It was up from 87,140 in 2006/07 and more than doubled the 37,100 arrested in 1999/00.

The story was covered in The Telegraph. This issue was covered on the site last year(link), and surely with this number of women being arrested for violence some of it will also be happening in the home. If some women get violent after drinking too much, why would this not happen in the home.

The reason for raising it is that any naysayers who say that men cannot be victims or are in such a minority that they are not worth bothering about, are wrong.

CALL FOR A MINISTER FOR MEN

This site's most popular ever post (link) was two years ago when a Minister for Men manifesto was published (see left).

This week, Mark Brooks, posted an article on the hugely popular independent Conservative web-site, Conservative Home, outlining why one is needed. It sparked off a fair old debate.

HARMAN'S EQUALITIES BILL MEANS OPEN SEASON ON MEN AND THEIR LIVELIHOODS

Harriet Harman introduced the Equalities Bill (link, link, briefing) into the UK's House of Commons today.

The main areas of concern and ones raised on this site a number of times is around the gender pay gap (employment section) and the positive action (link) proposals (no such thing as positive action as it means negative action for someone else).

With male unemployment higher than female unemployment (link, link) pressure on businesses and a willful abuse of the gender pay gap statistics, what in reality Harman has done is declare an employment war on men.

Her intentions are clear.

Companies will be forced to publish their gender pay statistics and this is with the sole intention of shaming employers, no matter what rational explanation.

British Aerospace (BAE) for example, said at the weekend that they have a large gender pay gap because their highest paid employees are engineers who are predominately male. They have female engineers but fewer of them so their gender pay gap will be large but this is not down to discrimination especially when they want more female engineers. BAE, according to Harman and her acolytes though, want to place BAE in the stocks and put them through some grotesque Stalinesque show trial.

She said "You have got to believe that either women are 20 per cent less intelligent, less hard-working, less committed to their job, less experienced, less qualified, or you have got to believe that there is structural pay discrimination. We believe there is structural pay discrimination."

 No one as ever said this, it is down to lifestyle choices and career decisions. 

The other issue is that the positive action issues are clearly designed to discriminate against men. The legislation will be gender neutral but its interpretation by the courts, lawyers and HR staff will not be. The intention of the bill is clear - it is discriminate against men.

The bill says that companies can choose one person above another because of their gender when the two candidates are equally qualified. Quota's will also be introduced for companies bidding for public sector wo.

Firstly, it is virtually impossible for two candidates to be equally qualified especially after interview and any other testing. It is mischievous to suggest differently.

Secondly, in the current climate with more men on the dole queue they could be denied a job solely on the basis of their gender. This is discrimination.

Lastly, if a man is discriminated against (and could be from a working class background and studiously made his way up the ladder), it will not just be him who loses out, it could be his daughter, his wife/girlfriend and mother. That will go down well as those women will be equally discriminated against but it is being done in their name.

The Bill, if it passes, and it is likely to, is open season on men and will enshrine discrimination in law against them. Don't anyone think differently

It is the culmination of three decades of anti-male propaganda and male bashing. The nightmare is coming true.

Media Coverage so far (Daily Mail 1 plus debate, Melanie Phillips, BBC, Metro, Telegraph) and more will emerge over the week.

KEVIN MYERS EXPOSES IRELAND'S NATIONAL WOMEN'S COUNCIL

Although this site is mainly about the UK, it is useful to see what is going on elsewhere, especially across the Irish Sea. Kevin Myers in a very perceptive article in Ireland's Independent newspaper has an exposed Ireland's National Women's Council where he explains how they wanted the Irish Government to put women and children first in their budget. Read the article here.

With the UK Government's Budget due on Wednesday 22nd April, watch with interest how the Equalities Commission, Fawcett Society and others, repeat the trick. With the Labour Government so far behind in the polls, this could be the last Labour budget and these organisations will do all they can to pressurise the Government to help women but not help men, when of course, they should be helping both.

DID THIS MEDIA COMPANY BREAK THE SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT?

There was an article in the UK's Daily Mail this week (link), where Samantha Brick set up a media company that only employed women. It went bankrupt but her aim was "...to achieve my Utopian dream - a female- only company with happy, harmonious workers benefiting from an absence of men. "

One issue that was not picked up was whether setting up this media company with such a recruitment policy actually broke the  Sex Discrimination Act (1975) (link). The Act does allow for gender-only discrimination but only in specific circumstances, normally around issues of vulnerable people or where there is an obvious reason.

However, a media company would not fit into that category. As far as can be seen the policy of only recruiting women broke the Act and therefore was operating illegally. Any man who applied for a job with this company and was turned down because of his gender would have won a case in the civil courts.

Because it was a woman-only company, it is not challenged but if it was a male-only company then this point would have been made, such is the double standards.

The question is, how many other companies out there that purposely only recruit women and not men? And are proud of it!

MESSAGE IS GETTING THROUGH TO COUNCILS ON HELPING MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE

Thank you to readers for sending through the stories in the Telegraph (link) and Observer (link) about UK council's using the Gender Equality Duty (link) to try to achieve refuge provision for male victims in their communities.

The complaints by Women's Aid on funding problems because they have to include men for the first time may seem rich to some but they make an important point.

Firstly, female victims do need support so the issue is that is it right to ask an organisation and its refuges to take in men or set up male services?

I would think not, it is better to have organisations in local communities specifically geared to helping men. This could include support and advice from current refuge providers such as Women's Aid but there is more to it than just putting a roof over a man's head, especially if children are involved. There has to be special care aimed at male victims who suffer additionally from the social unacceptance and lack of recognition.

In addition, council's need to make sure they provide specific informational campaigns for men and have specialist training in helping male victims.

As council's have neglected male victims in their communities for decades, it is a bit of sledgehammer to crack a nut to force a women's charity down this path. It would be better if the council's took a step back and assessed what they need to do to specifically meet the needs of male victims, either setting up their own organisations, asking housing association's to set up specific refuges for men (some already do) or asking other charities/organisations that already help male victims.

There is also a risk of igniting a  'gender war' (yes I know there is one already) by trying to take away services for female victims and giving them to male victims. No reasonable man wants to see services cut for women, what we need is extra funding and attention on helping male victims, who after all, account for 40% of the victims in the UK.

Setting this aside though, at least things are changing even if it still seems glacial.        

SHAMEFUL 'UNIVERSITY' REPORT UNDERMINES BOYS AND BRITISH MEDIA LAP IT UP

A story produced by the University of Ulster came out yesterday (link) that said that sisters spread happiness while brothers breed distress. These so-called academics quizzed a mere 571 people aged 17 to 25 about their lives and found those who grew up with sisters were more likely to be happy and balanced.

This was covered throughout the UK media (BBC, GMTV, Times, Independent, Telegraph, Mail)

There are a number of specific issues:-

Firstly, the sample size is small (only 579) and because of the myriad of ways that families are constructed (for example, two sisters with one brother or one sister and two brothers etc) these conclusions cannot be drawn. In addition, the research is not quantitative or objective, it is based on   the subjective opinions of those surveyed.

Each family is unique - will have different incomes, make up, parental attitudes, geography etc so you cannot draw these types of general conclusions without understanding each family's background.

Plus of course, with the discrimination that boys face especially poor schooling because the education system is geared towards girls plus the problems many boys face if they have no male role models (especially if there is no father in the home because of the family court system), this would also need to be taken into account.

What is concerning is that because this has been produced by 'experts' at a 'university', it is given plenty of coverage by the media even though it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There is no quote from anyone anywhere in the coverage that challenges this so all the UK media have done is taken the spin from the university (who make it as sensationalist as possible to get the coverage) and rehashed it unthinkingly. Not one journalist has stepped back for a minute and thought about challenging it.

It also means that it is now too easy for every brother in the land to be labelled and stigmatised as a problem - someone who causes distress. And of course, the generalist nature of it all means that the report is basically stating all sisters are good, when as outlined in this debate on the BBC (link), it is not true.

What this 'university' and the so-called 'experts' are doing is saying girls=good, boys=bad, and the media, because it is socially acceptable to attack boys/men, play along with it. Shocking but alas, not surprising. 

Could you imagine the coverage if their research said it was sisters who caused distressed? It would be very little, if any.

GOVERNMENT CONTINUES ITS CAMPAIGN OF IGNORING MALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE

The UK Government announced (link) last week that it was introducing a further 18 specialist domestic violence courts into the UK.

However, as the court system is supposedly meant to be gender neutral, one would think that the Government's announcement would also be gender-neutral especially as two in every five victims, according to the Government's own figures (link), are male. Such naivety.

Firstly, spot the picture of a woman, no picture of a male victim.

Also note the comments by Home Office Minister Alan Campbell and Baroness Scotland, they are clearly only aimed at female victims.

Baroness Scotland says "'Improving the safety of women experiencing domestic violence and the support that they are given is a key priority for the government." It should say "improving the safety of women and men experiencing domestic violence."

Just another example of the ongoing bias of the present Government who continue to ignore male victims of domestic violence.

WHEN WILL THE GOVERNMENT CHANGE LAW TO STOP MEN BEING NAMED AND SHAMED UNTIL FOUND GUILTY

The case last week where Peter Bacon was acquitted of rape (link, link, link) continues to highlight the problem faced by men who are falsely accused. It means that whilst he was innocent, the stigma of his name being made public means he will never escape from it, it is on the Internet forever.

As he said himself, his name has been dragged through the mud and he questioned why his alleged ‘victim’ received automatic lifelong anonymity, while he was named as an accused rapist.

In a statement read by his solicitor, he said: ‘This case seriously calls into question the lack of anonymity for people like Peter who have been wrongfully accused of rape, and who are ultimately acquitted.

Whilst there is the issue about the false accusation itself, at least a dozen years after the issue was raised nothing still has been done on securing the anonymity of the accused. Rightly, the accuser should not be named before the jury's decision but the accused should not be either. If he is found guilty then rightly he should then be named but he is not guilty as the systme stands an innocent man's reputation is ruined.

The Government simply do not seem interested in bringing in this change which suggests they are happy for innocent men to be named and shamed forever. This blatantly unfair and wrong law should not continue.

Some previous posts on this subject are here (link, link, link, link, link, link)

UPDATE - Another story of a false accusation where the man was named (link)

An article in The Times (link)