Well said, been making this case for years. Perfect day for it too, all these people wanting to complain about the sports pundits but where are they when stereotypes of men are shown in tv adverts and shows as incompetent idiots?

There are some fair, if blindingly obvious, points amidst all the feminist bashing. The kind of points that feminists have been making for years in fact. I give this a 3.5/10.

I give Dominic's piece 10/10.

Really? I'd give it 1/10.

I give Dominic's piece 9.5/10.

Only 9.5? Presumably you docked half a point because he failed to call for the return of ducking stools and scold's bridles?

Presumably you gave 1/10 because you are one of those nincompoops who think that anyone who criticises feminism wants to enslave women.

Typical leftist shaming language from a no-brain.

yep, 9.5 for me, too

Feminist bashing? After personally enduring about 40 years of hysterical, illogical, prejudiced and bigotted male bashing, I think I could have understood if he'd resorted to feminist bashing. Instead he did that very rare thing in modern politics: argued from a non feminist point of view. I suppose to some of the thought police out there, the idea that men can have a valid opinion is some kind of a thought crime.

An end to bigotry - that's political correctness gone mad. Where would the tory party be without bigotry, prejudice and servility?

It is possible to address inequality issues without insulting the other gender. I'm shocked that my concern that I am likely to be paid 10% less than a man for the same work means that I'm a bigot and that the solution would be to keep me out of work altogether!

Notsure of your point here.. who is recommending keeping women out of work altogether?? I agree that we can progress without insulting each other, indeed one might call that a definition of progress in itself.

The gender pay gap isn't a comparison of men and women in the same jobs, which is a common misconception. It is an overall comparison which does not adjust for time in work. When you adjust for the fact that women take more time out of work on average than men, the gap shrinks markedly. Furthermore comparing men and women in the same jobs shows no gap empirically. Also you seem confused over a link between a meaningless average and probability theory.

K - your comment makes no sense. As mentioned in another reply, the gender pay gap represents the average (or median) annualised income of men relative to women. It does not differentiate by job description, rank or industry. 

Studies show that there is only a minor pay differential once adjusting for the 3 factors above. In some cases it skews positively towards women, in others, positively towards men.

As Raab said (and you seemed to miss on reading the article), it's a function of job choice, not a function of gender bias (based on facts from sources like the ONS). Though Harman and the feminist bandwagon is often hesitant to educate the population of such matters, since facts would undermine their cause

Try reading the article K before you comment, as all the points you make refer to a different article from the one above. Either that or you're wilfully misinterpreting what he said.

As Thomas Sowell pointed out, if business owners could really get away with paying a woman less than a man for precisely the same job and conditions, what business sense would it make to hire men at all?  They would cost more for the same amount of output.  And yet they hire men, so the situation has to be more complex than simply "a woman gets paid less than a man."  The problem with using statistics to "prove" a point is that if the groups being described are overly broad, so many variables come into play that the comparisons become useless or even misleading: "All Women In The Workplace vs. All Men In The Workplace" as compared to "Female Engineers, Aged 25-30, With No Interruptions In Seniority Due To Childbearing vs. Male Engineers, Aged 25-30, With No Interruptions In Seniority Due To Childbearing."  And, yes, I know that men can't bear children, but if I had left that obvious point off, someone would have been certain to dismiss the entire thing on that basis.

As the saying goes, "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics." 

B- Not bad, but nettle, class, and race free. Whack it up on C.H. - watch the red Tories scweam in howwor.

Well this MP doesn't appear to know very much about feminism. Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus? Eh? I had no idea that was a feminist text. If we're all equal now, how come my daughter is probably going to earn less than my son, even though her A Level results are better? The equality bandwagon as Dominic Raab calls it, never pitted men and women against each other, it asserted that the world should be organised for the benefit of the whole human race, not just the half of it that I happen to belong to. I never wanted my daughter to have to adapt to a man's world; I wanted the world to be designed for her and my son equally, so that both could flourish as I love them both the same. Unfortunately the world is still organised so that my son and I can operate in it much easier with better pensions than my wife and my daughter. And I don't think that's fair.

@Harry

Maybe you should google the "scum manifesto" because you clearly know nothing about feminism.

Oh dear Charles, as everyone who knows about feminism knows, the Scum manifesto was a satire. 

And if you think one satire represents feminism, that is because you WANT to believe that. Feminism is about both halves of humanity structuring society for both their benefit, because we are the same species and our needs and interests are symbiotic.  People who believe that feminism is about hating men, are simply angry about the prospect of losing their privilege and it's always been my belief that they are projecting.  I was too, at first.  But I love and value the women in my life too much, to want to cling on to my un-earned privilege and to pretend that the only ideas which challenge that, are simply about hatred of men.

"angry about the prospect of losing their privilege"

 

What privilege exactly?

Your probably lucky enough to have a wife who would never leave you but if you weren't so lucky and she went, you'd soon discover how disadvantaged your wife is relative to yourself if she decided to take you to the cleaners and stop you seeing the children you love. With regards pay, the stats tell a different story, so you are just misinformed. And regarding your daughter doing better at school, you should be aware that the education system has been stacked against boys for years. Why do you think it is that girls do much better than boys nowadays? Its because they teach the sort of facts girls are interested in, in a way girls can learn best by and then judge them on course work rather than exams. All of which favours girls. Open your eyes man.

I'm really intrigued, what sort of facts are girls interested in Martin?

Raab makes a good point when he says that you should consider all the factors, not just focus on pay.  Probability says your daughter has a greater chance of being paid less, but it also says your son has a greater chance of falling behind at school, working longer hours in a job he dislikes, dying of preventable illness, and getting jailed.  I think the point isn't that women aren't discriminated against, the point is that gender stereotypes and differences in policy are a problem to both sexes.  One of the few solutions he mentions (allowing couples to make choices about maternity/paternity leave) hardly seems like a slap in the face of feminism.  Those that oppose it are likely to be business owners, who'll ironically be dismissed as Tories, for opposing the views of a man being dismissed as a Tory...

Harry, I challenge you prove that your daughter will earn less in salary and benefits than your son should they perform the same job, for the same employer, and work the same number of days in their career.

Empirical evidence and common sense indicates that differences in total salaries that accrue to individuals over time the span of a career arise from personal levels of performance and choices made in the span of a career - not upon the basis of gender.

More women than men can and do make the conscious choice to stay at home whether to raise children or for other reasons, and so during that period do not accrue salaries while the man remains in the workplace and does accrue salaries.

The fact is men and women are treated equally by the workplace - the inequalities are created by the men and women themselves based upon their choices within that workplace and outside that workplace.

Clearly you've put a lot of consideration into this well thought through argument. A couple of questions though. Firstly, could you point me to the evidence behind your points about women earning less because they choose to (presumably you've seen some research that shows that women prefer less well-paid jobs and also volunteer to take lower pay when they do do the same job as men - it would be really great to see that evidence). Secondly, is David Cameron happy and in concurrence with your views? I'd guess he is given that you are writing in your capacity as a representative of his party, but he sometimes talks as if he has some sympathy with feminists, so it would be good to be clear.

Hey Katherine,

I have to say thats a really snide approach to adopt.

Well said Carl; it struck me the same way so you've saved me the time and trouble of making the same point. At least it would have saved me the time if I hadn't bothered to thank you :)

I'm going to deliberately ignore your sarcasm and agree it is a well thought through argument indeed. His figures are referenced and as for what David 'the Chameleon' Cameron thinks, well that's anyone's guess.

Women CHOOSE to do easier jobs,  they CHOOSE to work fewer hours and they CHOOSE  educational courses that lead to less lucrative employment.

All you have to do is post a message on Mumsnet giving the impression that you are even slightly accepting or tolerant of a flaw in your male partner to find out what obnoxious bigots many feminists can be – with a degree of hair-trigger aggression which they would condemn in any man.

You need to man-up.

What an empty-headed comment.

Why thank you John you intellectual bigot.

Now Now Andrew.

Let's not start name-calling like spoilt little children.

 

stercus cuique suum bene olet

So much easier to woman down :-).  How does this sound?

See the book, The Woman Racket: The new science explaining how the sexes relate at work, at play and in society. Imprint Academic 2008. By Steve Moxon

If there is discrimination against women, it is mostly in high flying jobs now... what is on offer to young men in Britain?. There are many media comments, jokes in situation comedies doing down men. The media gives plenty of information about women's health issues & discusses funding of female health prevention. When in the soaps do male chracters have to deal common male 'plumbing' issues? Can you name a major soap character who has had to deal with a testicular cancer scare or other related issues? Men die younger than women. If it was the other way round, it would be men's fault. On the employment front, look at the number of men now teaching. In many schools, they are not wanted. In a mostly female school staffroom, a female superior felt able to comment favourably on my toilet aim. Imagine a comment the other way round! Start asking men about their experiences. They say little because no one is listening.

This diatribe seems to deliberately miss the point of feminism completely. The "men are from mars, women are from venus" approach is thoroughly sexist and deplored by feminists. Perhaps you might try reading "Sex and Gender" by Archer and Lloyd, a thorough debunking of the whole gender difference mythology which works against men and women's interests. However, to leap from recognising that instances of sexism against men exist to supposing that there are no issues of sexism against women that require a response is perverse, as well as unsupported by evidence. Both require attention and movement towards their resolution.

I do agree that sexism both ways still happens.. and in serious ways, not just the odd comment.. Would you not agree though that the 'man bashing' made popular by so many adverts and Ms Harman is a poor way of achieving female equality and there are double standards when it comes to sexism?

Lucy's comment is scientifically illiterate. The sexes are profoundly different. The male in every species functions as the 'genetc filter' to combat tne accumulation of gene replication error, The female does not so function, This leads to not just sex-differential but truly sex-dichotomous behaviour; notably fierce male intra-sexual competition for status, which is the measure of male genetic quality for sexual selection purposes. Female 'mate-value' by complete contrast, is fertility -- in human terms, youth/beauty. This will soon become understood in  mainstream discussion and the absurd political-correctness fascism that dominates our culture currently will collapse.

.

I must say, calling for us all to "ditch[ing] outdated gender warfare" while troting out all the hoary old gender stereotypes goes a long way to undermine your argument. As for actually trying to make society more equitable? Well, paint me red and call me Patsy, feminists have been arguing for that for a very long time.

Feminism has got nothing to do with equality.

http://www.angryharry.com/esEqualityNotAchievable.htm

It really gives me genuine hope and optimism that someone willing to tell the truth is actually in Parliament. A really good and well thought out piece. You have missed some key issues though. No mention of our education system failing boys and no mention of the (mostly) disgraceful services of male vicitms of domestic violence. I look forward to future posts on such issues. Also, it's important to acknowledge there are some decent feminists out there, it's just that the bigoted ones all tend to get into positions of power/influence and tend to make the most noise. BTW Any chance you could ask Cameron to appoint you the UK's first ever Minister for Men?

Well said Dominic. Feminism is one of the most disgusting ideologies imaginable. Fortunately, there is now a whole movement rising up against it; e.g. see www.angryharry.com

You don't seem to understand the topic you are discussing. Perhaps a little education before typing out silly messages and making a fool of yourself with Eddie.

I've been saying for years that the only way women will get true equality in the workplace is for all legislation to be as gender blind as possible. I formed my gender views in the in the 80s and was taught men and women were equal. And when I start interacting with the state as an adult, I find out they aren't ! It's no wonder some employers will be more cautious hiring a young woman than a young man. Maybe 20-30 years after we have true equality in the maternity-paternity laws, society will have changed enough that men not only will be entitled to take 9 months off on maternity allowance, but may actually get 3-6 months paid by the employer and there actually be a significant number of men that *use* the time off.

I'm not sure whether or not I agree with this argument, but MSN's content today does illustrate the point well: http://is.gd/7rEehD

MSN is the most biassed media outlet I've seen since I mistakenly though the Independent was independent. If it's not trashy non news it's liberal propaganda parading as news.. so glad the BBC would never do such a thing.. cough cough.

At last someone in parliament has something of a grip on the gender issue and an insight into the institutionalised discrimination against men after decades of unquestioned feminism. To see some of the worst bigotry of feminism take a look at http://antimisandry.com/feminist-misandry/feminist-quotes-20106.html A mention of the routine and daily discrimination against men in the family courts would be welcome though. As Simon Baron-Cohen puts it in his book 'The Essential Difference', 'the family law courts typically assume that the better parent will be the mother, but they are wrong to prejudge the case.'

I have a few thoughts:

-I do agree with Richard that some stats like 'gender pay gap' can be misleading, the GPG looks too hard at the end 'facts' and not hard enough at the causes.  Achieving genuine equality of opportunity is the top of the mountain for most societies - arguably, then it's up to women (and men) to take advantage of it and if they don't then this does not immediately mean the cause must be sexism alone.  The maternity/paternity disparity is an obvious example of a potential cause of the GPG and inequality of opp - an egregious bit of sexism against men that's enforced by our own statute book! (I appreciate that this is hopefully going to change).

- There are less grave examples of sexism against men, but sexism nonetheless: Cooking/cleaning adverts are allowed to portray men as incapable of basic household chores.  Depressingly they manage a double whammy - perpetuating sexist archetypes - against both men and women.  Men: are too dumb to do these household jobs. Women: Really it's your job, you're more suited to it but on the odd occasion you can expect your man to do it...with the right products.  On your birthday. Maybe.

- James T: It's easy to pluck out some extreme 'feminist' quotes from Solanas, A. Dworkin et al and lazily use them as an argument that feminism is likely to be irrational and sexist or even dangerous misandry.  I agree with some of Raab's points re double standards but this does not mean there is no place for feminism. Feminism OR true equality is a false dichotomy.  'Proper' Feminism is not gender-biased - it is fairness in equal measures for both sexes without insidious sexism creeping in because we have become too PC, too mealy mouthed a society to keep a grip on true equality.

This is not just a matter of "picking out" a few quotes from nut cases. Many of these women were/are hugely respected leaders of the radical feminst movement. Their opinions are still cherished and promoted today. One idiot on here sad the SCUM manifesto was just satire. Solanis, who produced it, was presumably being satirical when she shot two men then was she? She is a man-hating lunatic but her work is still taught in wymins studies groups all over the US.

What these quotes reveal is that feminism is less to do with "equality" and more to do with the imposition of Cultural Marxism in the countries it infects. Greer herself has said so.

I am so glad we are starting to see some MPs like Raab stand up and discuss the elephant in the room. There has been a raw deal for men for ages. Just consider the facts: 1. Pay - women get paid c.1% more than men in their 20s-30s (source: ONS). The aggregate pay gap is driven by lifestyle / family choices. Within industries, by equivalent rank, pays are broadly similar. Women tend to select more 'secure' jobs that expectantly (since they carry less employment risk) pay less. Men that go to uni get paid more than women that do because of career choice. But more women go to uni, which drives the 1%. 2. In education - girls significantly outperform boys at GCSE, marginally outperform at A-levels and 57% of all uni places are taken by women. I'd have no problem with this if the education system were balanced. But it's not. Over the last 20 years, in particular, there has been significant investment in identifying and changing the system towards 'female friendly' education paradigms. There has not been an equivalent consideration for boys. Consider the abolition of phonic learning, in spite of the fact it was shown to massively help boys. The reduction in school enforceability of discipline. Reduction of structured teaching towards discursive approaches. Shifts to coursework. De-emphasis of competition in academic achievement 3. In employment - companies can hire a woman over an equally qualified man to combat (apparently endemic) discrimination. But see point (1) above to decide whether there is a real issue here anymore. Anecdotally, none of my successful female friends have ever experienced career-based discrimination. And they work in male-dominated institutions like strategy consultancies, investment banks, law firms 4. Domestic violence - men are the victims of 40% of REPORTED domestic violence cases. 5. In the law - the government is piloting 'go orders' which permit a woman to have police evict a man from his home if she accuses him (without evidence) of having hit her. No opposite option for men. Also, under laws passed in 2010, judges must now take into consideration guidance that effectively says a woman should be treated less harshly than men for committing the same crime. 6. In the media - as anyone who watches TV or reads the paper will know - Men are consistently made to look feckless or stupid (cf. adverts like Feminax, Boots, or shows like 'take me out', 'tool academy'. Would equivalent broadcasts with gender role reversals ever be permitted?). Consider the hell that was reaped on Prof. Larry Summers for his tentative comments on women in mathematics (that ultimately led to him having to leave his job) - vs. the comments from Christine LaGarde, that 'women make better politicians than men' (without any facts) or Harriet Harman when asked for her opinions on men, famously saying 'there's not enough planes in the UK to fly them all out'. No issue was taken with those comments. 7. Fathers rights are the most obvious and obnoxious example of the systemic bias. Women get sole custody in 70% of cases. Men only get it in 10%. There are minimal avenues for fathers to enforce court-ordered access rights to their children for those that are feckless mothers There will be some amongst this group who may choose to deride being sensitive to such issues - But don't tell me that you think your son or any boy growing up in this environment is going to end up a better person than if these issues were addressed

With reference to the statement: " the UK has some of the toughest discrimination laws in the world" It is stange this is not applied to the action of the past and present governments stance on the issue of Frozen Pensions applied to pensioners living in some countries oversea's and not others.

Wow! This is one inspiring article. I never expected to see an MP brave enough to say what the men in this country have been saying for years. You are absolutely correct on all points but have neglected to mention the sad state of men's health and the huge discrepencies in NHS spending on women's health compared to men's health. That is another blatant area of discrimination.

Mr Raab is quite right. When commentators describe someone as being "maternal" it is a compliment. However they will use "paternalistic" as a generally derogatory term. This reflects the negative stereotypes about men which are currently present.

Funny that men always trot out paternity leave laws as an example of sexism towards men, when it is blatantly the opposite. Women being expected to undertake the vast majority of child-rearing is exactly the reason women are more vulnerable to poverty than men. Feminists - actual feminists, not those conjured up in the depths of Mr Raab's imagination, have been campaigning for equality in maternity/paternity leave for years. I also find it highly amusing that the best men can come up with in these comments as examples of sexism (towards men) is advertisements, soap operas, magazines & comedy. Poor things. When two women a week are killed by their (male) domestic partner or ex-partner, a quarter of women are victims of domestic violence, a quarter of women will experience rape or attempted rape, and 90% of lone parents are women, I think it is appropriate that "boys being educationally disadvantaged" (when they will go on to earn 15%-55% than women, depending on the sector they work in), or "every man in Coronation Street is a terrible male stereotype" or "there are loads of TV shows/magazines for women!" (most of which are completely misogynist, might I add) are shoved a few notches down the list of priorities. And to address the comment about poor services for male victims of domestic violence – I always hear men come up with this gem in discussions about “feminism”. Facilities for female victims of domestic violence are almost exclusively organised and funded by women, usually victims themselves. Those that receive any government funding are currently facing cuts of up to 100%. If you are so appalled by domestic violence towards men, I suggest that you do what women have done and continue to do, and organise something to the benefit of this cause yourself.

@LP

"When two women a week are killed by their (male) domestic partner or ex-partner, a quarter of women are victims of domestic violence, a quarter of women will experience rape or attempted rape, and 90% of lone parents are women, "

There are more MEN victims of domestic violence than women.

http://tinyurl.com/62lupl7

As for the rape figures, they are bogus.

http://tinyurl.com/yk6bsm4

 

 

NO

NO THEY'RE NOT

AND NO THERE AREN'T.

Wake up, you stupendous moron.

Yes they are.

And calling me names will get you nowhere.

I'm not intimidated by people like you.

Does it really, really matter if there are more or less male victims?

There are victims, and they need help just as much, but they don't get as much. These are hard facts, indisputable.

If you actually read the 'article' you've linked to, you little moron, you'd realise that NEITHER raw numbers NOR Harry's arbitrarily manipulated and extrapolated figures show men are more likely victims of domestic violence than women.

 

Learn to read, sexist bigot. And yeah, I'm a male.

Learn to read, sexist bigot. And yeah, I'm a male

Right. Sure you are.

I think that more people in all political shades stand out against feminist bigotry. For those who are criticizing the audacity for anyone to stand against feminism, let me tell you I see the affect of pro-fem sexism by actually going out to see it. Drugged up mothers gaining custody of kids because they are mothers; young men with no family ties begging and trying to exist in hovels. Teenage boys constantly bed wetting in reaction to the abuse from their mothers; girls suffering from alcohol poisoning because everyone is afraid to introduce any discipline into thir lives; fathers in despair at not being able to see their children because of the legal system's impotence to take action against women. In Portsmouth alone up to 9,000 people use the homelessness day centre - the vast majority are men. Will feminists start fighting for true justice that also includes men? I think not.

At last! Reading this was like hearing my numbers in the lottery draw. Anyone who cannot see this as a positive is very sadly wrong. Fathers have no rights to their children (rarely given custody, frequently denied access for no real reason, forced to pay maintenance without access or parental responsibility, are given no choice as to when they wish to have a child, have no help with mothers who ignore court orders), boys are marginalised in state schools (girls are year on year increasingly outperforming boys in state schools, while private boys-only schools outperform everyone), male victims of domestic violence are ridiculed and often blamed for their partner's abuse, false accusations of dv and rape (and the clearly gender-biased laws encouraging them them) are rife and cause destruction of a man's life, men die younger than women yet much more is spent on women's healthcare, affirmative action still exists limiting job opportunities for men, women are becoming increasingly violent (prosecutions for violence by females have trebled in the last five years) yet men are still given stiffer sentences for the exact same crime. Who said the only examples of discrimination that men use are tv shows etc? These are very real issues and only a bigot would not accept that they are or somehow try to denigrate them. All of the things I listed are easily searchable on google...

No doubt the women voters of Esher and Walton will bear their MP's views in mind at the next election.

Why would they do that? Is sticking up for men who are victims somehow a reason for women not to vote for him?

I'm not quite sure what Dominic Raab is objecting to. I don't know of any feminists who argue that women are from one planet and men are from another, or who are engaged in 'gender warfare'. The gender pay gap data that you refer to shows very clearly that it is the process of becoming a mother that impacts enormously on women's equality - it does not impact on fathers at all. That is a very serious problem which you airily sweep under the rug with a glib reference to 'geniune choice'. How much genuine choice do mothers have with regards to whether they work and how much? All the feminists I know are engaging with these questions, not because they want a female master race, or because they want all mothers to work, or because they hate men - they are engaging with these questions and campaigning for solutions because gender inequality has adverse effects for women AND men, mothers AND fathers. You caricature and misrepresent the very group that you should be allying yourself with.

I think it is quite clear that he is objecting to the discrimination of men, why the confusion?

I suppose what is confusing for me is that Raab seems to both want equality between the sexes and to want to blame feminists (who also incidentally want equality between the sexes) for the fact that we do not live in an equal society.  Its confusing because the good points he makes about transferable parental leave (which I and many many feminists support) are obscured by the bewildering feminist bashing he goes for.  Perhaps he's hoping to rile up some gynowarrior faction so he can say "aha!  i told you so!"

I think you need to be clear about what he is saying. He isn't blaming feminists for the fact that we don't live in an equal society. There are obviously many factors that contribute to this. What he is saying is that misguided extreme feminism has contributed greatly to the discrimination that men, as one group, do face. Where did these problems come from, if not feminism? Like I wrote in my earlier post, these problems are real, and deserve discussion. Nobody deserves discrimination.

I bet I know where you work, the Ministry for Dodgy Statistics, right?

Dear Mr Raab, thank you for putting yourself forward as an example of one of the worst consequences of the feminist movement - one of the bleating 'new' men wishing to be treated as a girl. To be fare, I was brought up in the same 80s ideological environment as you, with weird and wonderful ideas about gender roles, but life has taught me different. Gender sameness may work up to the point of having children, but there it ends, at least until men start giving birth. Maternity leave was introduced for the benefit of the child, who needs ONE main carer to ensure healthy emotional development (for up to age 3yrs, not 9mths); it should not be used as a battleground for gender equality. Mother should always be the primary carer of a baby, as she already has a nine month relationship with the child - not rocket science, not gender politics, just plain common sense and biology. We should probably get rid of the pc nonsense of talking about parents as if they were two interchangable entities. A child has a mother and a father, both with clearly distinct roles. As a friend of mine put it: Mother looks after the baby, and father looks after the mother, to make sure she can look after the baby. Fathers have plenty of time to spend with their children as they get older. Family, a married couple with children, should obviously be treated as one economic unit with a tax allowance taking account of the number of children, as both parents are, home or away, working for the same goal - best possible life for their children. As for maternity pay, it should not be your wife's employer's responsibility to pay for your children at all. Having a child is not an illness, it is a lifestyle choice and thus the chooser's to pay for. Of course, we can choose to encourage higher birthrates by e.g. increasing child benefit, but that money needs to come from general taxes, not from randomly selected employers. About men's longer working hours, healthcare etc. - finding a work-life balance is a collection of choices each one of us has to make for ourselves, so pull yourselves together boys - mummy's not responsible for you anymore. Anyway,women are too busy with real life responsibilities to hang around gossiping or playing politics in the office, so they get the same job done in less time. Maybe ONS should measure outcomes rather than input. Yes, smart women do choose better off men, exactly because they are not stupid. Motherhood is a 24/7 responsibility for 20 years - you do not want to have to carry the man as well. Unfortunately, many of my generation got brainwashed into 'accepting men's weakness', mostly them shirking financial responsibility for their family, and are now getting fed up with it - hence the public stabs at men and their intelligence. British courts have exactly the right approach to the care of children after divorce - mother is the primary carer of a child if she is available. A father doing anything less than wholeheartedly supporting the mother is putting the children in an emotionally impossible situation, and it is best he stays away. Want to do something for your children - go to work, pay the maintenance and save for uni, wedding presents and grandchildren. Life goes on after divorce, and all of your responsibilities toward your children are exactly the same. I am quite horrified to read this kind of drivel from a Conservative MP. What happened to individual responsibility and small government? All I can hear is a left wing plea for government or someone else to run my life for me, I just want to have fun.

Yowch.  The 'clearly defined roles' you speak of - how does that work out in the case of a single parent, a gay couple, families with more than two parents or stepfamilies?  What about a woman who wants to return to work and a man who wants to stay at home?  Seems to me that 'clearly defined' is actually 'messily negotiated' a lot of the time... 

Do we want to assume that the best fathers can do is to put bread on the table?  Can't we be more imaginative than that?

'Yowch'? That's it? Tracey, if a man had written this you would have launched an acerbic assault of vitriol at him. Instead you gently pose a series of soft counter-questions and end with a lame "Can't we be more imaginative than that?"

Unbelievable

What planet do you live on?

"the bleating 'new' men wishing to be treated as a girl"

Do you mean the men who want equality? I don't know how he is being asked to be treated like a girl, whatever treated like a girl is supposed to mean.

"About men's longer working hours, healthcare etc. - finding a work-life balance is a collection of choices each one of us has to make for ourselves, so pull yourselves together boys - mummy's not responsible for you anymore."

What the hell does your point have to do with the disparity we see in men's healthcare? Ridiculous.

"British courts have exactly the right approach to the care of children after divorce - mother is the primary carer of a child if she is available. A father doing anything less than wholeheartedly supporting the mother is putting the children in an emotionally impossible situation, and it is best he stays away. Want to do something for your children - go to work, pay the maintenance and save for uni, wedding presents and grandchildren."

Is this really what you believe? The world isn't full of princesses falling over each other to be the best mother in the world. So because the alcoholic, crack addled mother who 'pops' out to have sex with a new man every week leaving the baby alone, or is violent and abusive toward her children, or who is too feckless to run a home efficiently and lets her children live in squalor, is available - it is in the best interest of the child to be with her? And if the father objects to her behaviour he should just leave her to it? Come on now, really.

"Fathers have plenty of time to spend with their children as they get older."

Have you even experienced a family break-up with children involved? Inevitably, the female gets pretty much everything including who gets visitation rights. Sorry but it's just not fair.

Me, for one am glad that an article like this has been written. Let's just hope it doesn't disappear into the ether.

If we lived in a society where women weren't expected to raise the children and give up their careers, this wouldn't be an issue. Men generally seem happy to allow the status quo while the marriages are in tact and they can enjoy free child care. When they get divorced and the children remain primarily cared for by the mother - suddenly it's a problem.

Please realise that the discrimination men suffer here is a small off-shoot of the vast discrimination and role-stereotyping women suffer. And men are happy to allow, until it's affecting them.

"Please realise that the discrimination men suffer here is a small off-shoot of the vast discrimination and role-stereotyping women suffer. And men are happy to allow, until it's affecting them."

DEMONSTRABLE NONSENSE

Western men die some five years earlier than women. They suffer more from nearly every medical disease and ailment that there is. And yet, far more money is spent by governments on women's health than on men's health.

Men are also nowadays educationally disadvantaged significantly compared to women; with the curriculum, the teaching methods and the resources being designed to cater far more for women and girls than for men and boys.

Men make up 80% of the homeless. There are more of them in social service care-homes as boys. They are many times more likely to be wrongfully arrested, wrongfully imprisoned, mugged, assaulted or murdered. They are 5 times more likely to lose their children when families break down, 4 times more likely to lose their homes, 4 times more likely to commit suicide, 20 times more likely to be killed or injured at work, 20 times more likely to be imprisoned, and, probably, more than 100 times more likely to be demeaned, denigrated and ridiculed by the mainstream media.

Men also pay much more in taxes than women but receive far less in benefits from the government.

In other words, when compared to women, men are significantly disadvantaged when it comes to their health, their lifespans, their homes, their children, their education, their families, the tax burden, the law, the benefit system, and even when it comes to their own personal safety. 

They are nowadays also being heavily discriminated against in the work place.

How is it possible, therefore, that women are being 'oppressed' more than men?

In what areas?

Where?

 

 

Oh please, do stop now. Equal should mean equal not more than in any scenario. Men are not universal victims just as women are not. I in the past had a very raw deal off my ex financially, physically and emotionally but I don't claim all men are the same because they are not.

At last. We need someone to correct this total in-balance. This total and utter discrimination against men means I lost touch with my daughter at the age of 3 and only managed to get back in touch when she was 17, at her choice. 14 years of a parents bond that has been lost. I think the way males are treated in the UK is simply disgusting and unfair. I hope you do make high government, and soon. I'd certainly vote for you. Please don't drop this issue. It's important... very important. Not just for men, but for everybody.

Having read a lot of the comments I have mixed feelings. I feel optimistic that many men seem to have realised that fairness should be extended to them as well. But this is tempered by my pessimism at the female response. Most of the women either do not see the problem or ridicule men who raise the issue. This is disappointing to say the least because it seems to me that men have been very helpful to women over the years in fighting for their causes and yet I see no reciprocation of understanding.

The point being, whatever 'stereotyping' or minor social unfairness men may suffer, it doesn't compare. I'm afraid it truly doesn't. 2 women a week die from domestic violence. The male equivalent is very, very small. UK rape conviction rates are under 6%; that affects men in negligble quantities. Women earn less than men (27%) 90% of eating disorders are suffered by women - because we're the ones raised under phenomenal psychological pressure to conform to impossible aesthetic ideals. This goes on and on.

The real point here is that inequality and gender stereotyping is overwhelmingly worse in its consequences for women than for men. But it also has a knock-on effect, a kind of aftershock, for men. Gender stereotyping's bad for everyone. But it's worse for women. And it needs to be addressed as such.

Where do you get your statistics from? They are all wrong. A short, simple internet search shows this. I can't comment on the eating disorders but I fail to see how that is  because of women being discriminated against by men.

Women are 'overwhelmingly worse off'? Check your statistics again, please. Who is worse off isn't even the issue, it is addressing clear and obvious forms of discrimination that are wrong.

Why is something being done on a government level to stop discrimination of a different group to that which you belong such a bad thing? I don't oppose the discussion of rights for any group that are the clear victims of discrimination, why would you?

Unless you hate the group that wants equality that is, or feel that they are somehow inferior or undeserving.

2 women a week die from domestic violence, and probably 200 to car accidents. Yet women are "worse off" because of sexism.

Of the 2 women who are killed, 1 man is also killed. Yet what we are not told is that two more men commit suicide, because they are trapped in abusive relationships because they simply have nowhere to turn.

Over the centuries, millions of men were forced to die in military warfare. Millions have been forced by their own government to kill people who are probably no better than they were, but were just on different sides. And if they miraculously "survived" (at least physically), they often had to live in a state of shellshock because of the literal hell on earth they suffered. This is something very few, if any women can relate to.

Thousands of men walk our streets daily without food and shelter. If they were women, they would have someone to provide those things for them, because many men still see it as their role to provide it. But they don't have that [female] privilege. These men are forced into the straits of poverty, wherein they often must steal in order to survive.

The TRIAL conviction rate for rape (this does not include the % of plea bargains) is 6%, but you assume that all or most of rape complaints are 100% truthful. Many are blatantly true, yet many are outright lies, while most of them are simply he said/she said, and we'll never know what the truth is. And while men who are proven to rape women receive harsh sentences, women who lie about being raped are rarely punished at all.

Yes women suffer from eating disorders because they are expected to be unrealistically healthy. And men die from violence because they are expected to be tough. Women are not the only ones singled out here.

For every women's issue there is a men's issue. So please, refrain from the "women have it worse" refrain.

I can't express enough gratitude to you for finally highlighting the sameful discrimination that white, middle-class male Tory MPs have endured for years. Let's make the madness end. PS you are a horrendous, horrendous human being.

Oh Dear Me

There you go again.

Calling people nasty names and trying to demonise them all the time.

Tut Tut.

 

A well argued article. However, there is danger that language selection (e.g. "bigotry") and the one-sided nature of the examples (which, I guess, is to balance exactly that tendency in many articles arguing the opposite point of view), means that the debate will miss the most important points. It is not a question of whether men or women have it better, or are more 'wronged' than the other. This simply leads to lists of 'facts' being launched at the other side as if this will somehow win the argument. "Women earn less." "Men have a lower life expectancy." "Women are more likely to be the victims of domestic violence." "Men are more likely to be portrayed as incompetent in adverts." It is this selective approach to argument that makes many gender-related articles appear very one-sided and intellectually unsatisfying. The issue is whether our legal system, and other institutions, are adequate (which is what one should be asking for any social issue). In the context of the current debate, are anti-discrimination laws sufficient, or is more needed (dare I utter the words, positive discrimination, quotas, lists...)? Going back to the issue of the gender pay gap, the author argues that what remains of the gap is likely related to career and life choices. Given the available statistics, discussed in the article and in other comments, such a position does not seem unreasonable for the economy in general. Nevertheless, there may well be areas where discrimination still exists (e.g. in football, as suggested by the disgraceful comments by Sky Sports' commentators, etc.), and this should be addressed (either through enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, or more actively). Quoting 'evidence' such as the 20% pay gap (as Harriet Harman did yesterday in response to this article), without important caveats and contextual information, is misleading and unhelpful. It certainly does not address the nuances of the debate. It would be good to hear a balanced debate, which is not selective in the evidence it quotes in support of pre-held beliefs and other generalisations. This article goes some way in starting such a discussion, but is in danger of swinging the pendulum too far the other way.

I have read with interest all the comments as I was extremely interested in the debate that Dominic Raab has reignited. At the age of 49 I have experienced a great deal in the way of the gender difference and unfairness of being a woman. I am pleased that, if nothing else, the debate will hopefully provoke change. From my experience, I would say that now, it is not whether you are a man or woman, it is the life you choose. Unfortunately, not all of us are privileged enough to be able to choose as we don't all start at the same point in life. Some of us are born 'further back' and our struggle, whether it is for part of our life or all of our life, is to get just to the point where we can choose. Women can earn as much as a man and a man can now care for a child. It is not whether we are man or woman it is the circumstances we are born into and the situations and how we deal with them along the way that determine what job we have and how much we get paid. I would, however, add that, again in my experience, men seem to be afforded more 'help' if they are left 'holding the baby' whereas a woman is just expected to be able to cope. Whilst I understand that men are usually not given custody of children in a marital breakdown, perhaps they ought to look not at the unfairness of that but at the fact that as most men are usually not such good parents, men are seen with caution as a good carer. Also, with regard to men dying earlier, I understand that men simply choose not to visit the doctor when they are unwell. I think this could be seen as irresponsible. A mother, on the other hand, needs to look after herself otherwise who looks after her children? In other words, men are men's worst enemy when it comes to a good track record for caring for children and looking after themselves. I believe that a person who does a job should be paid for the job they do and the pay should not be dependent on gender, race or creed. Perhaps a revision of the employment and, in particular, interviewing process needs to be addressed. Why does an employer need to know whether you are a man, woman, what age you are, where you were born, to know if you can perform a job? I think the issue is only a symptom and the cause needs to be addressed. We should be working towards an education system where boys are allowed to be male. Where each and every child is encouraged to develop into the person they are, rather than having to fit into the boxes that make teaching and life easier. Children should be encouraged to fulfil their chosen career in life. If people are encouraged to be more fulfilled they would have less cause for complaint with what others have.

Great article. I am from the hard left, where the 'all-women-are-vitims' mentality is prevalent. One reason why I have different views on this is - unlike the vast majority of the left - I come from a genuinely poor and working class background. It really shows the poverty of the intellectual thinking of the left that they are unable to see this issue sensibly. I do not believe you have to become a rapid pro-capitalist simply because you call a spade a spade. One day, soon hopefully, the left will grow up and be anti-capitalist as well as pro-equality, and see that middle class women have dominated this area of feminist thinking for way too long.

There are two threads running through this article, as far as I can see. The aspect of this article that makes sense is an assertion that gender equality means establishing equal rights for both sexes, and rejecting assumptions about people based on sex. I agree entirely with this. Equal parental leave is an excellent example. The second thread seems to be that feminists who campaign for women to have equal rights with men are at fault for not campaigning on issues which are detrimental or unfair to men. This is rubbish. First, people can campaign on issues that they think are important and on which they feel they have something to contribute, without implying that other issues are not important. If the author objects to women campaigning on issues which negatively affect women just because they are not paying as much attention to issues that affect men, this is ridiculous. The response should be to start campaigning on the issues he thinks are important, not criticizing feminist campaigners for their work. If he thinks that feminists are actively promoting states of affairs which have an unfair effect on men, he should identify the types of feminist activism he has in mind. Every feminist I can think of would wholeheartedly agree that gender equality means treating men and women with as diverse individuals deserving of equal respect. The 'feminist bigots' the author seems to have in mind are, I would argue, figments of his petty imagination.

Congratulations Mr Raab for saying what must have been obvious for years. In education it is not just male pupils who are falling behind, male teachers are also being unjustly treated. Playing the numbers game in promoting staff is a signifcant cause of male teachers becoming as infrequent as sitings of the Himalayan Yeti. In the cause of pay equality no account is taken of female staff who, quite reasonably take time off or job-share for family committments. When promotions are made ineperienced females can be promoted over males with unbroken expereince of their profession. Good for PC statistics but not for the pupils or male staff retention!

A few days ago, Conservative MP Dominic Raab went after feminism in the most extraordinarily explicit terms anyone has used in decades. He states that men get the shaft at work, feminists are “bigots” (!), the wage gap is a myth, and the feminist attack on men must be stopped. His statements could have come straight out of The Spearhead or Angry Harry, sites I’d assume he has some familiarity with. Although I’m sure many readers have already seen the comment Raab made, much of it is worth repeating. Coming from a politician, the following passage is jaw-droppingly frank:

While we have some of the toughest anti-discrimination laws in the world, we are blind to some of the most flagrant discrimination – against men. From the cradle to the grave, men are getting a raw deal. Men work longer hours, die earlier, but retire later than women. That won’t be fixed for another seven years. One reason women are left ‘holding the baby’ is anti-male discrimination in rights of maternity/paternity leave – which Clegg wants to tackle. Then there are ‘pre-nups’, recording the wishes of partners before they get married. Those wishes were serially ignored in this country, until last year – when one was enforced in favour of a woman, loaded German heiress Katrin Radmacher. Meanwhile, young boys are educationally disadvantaged compared to girls, and divorced or separated fathers are systematically ignored by the courts. A father turned up to one of my constituency surgeries, complaining that dozens of court orders requiring access rights had been flouted by his ex-wife. He asked me to write to Ministers, not because he harboured any hope of changing the situation, but so he could show his children he had tried everything when they reach adulthood.

At nearly 37, Raab is right in the transitional generation that grew up in the wake of feminist changes to society. I should know — he’s only about a half year older than me. For men of this age, it started from birth. Naturally, they went after the children first, so the feminist juggernaut forged resolutely on just a step in front of us our entire lives. For us, male privilege sounds like a cruel joke — it’s never existed. As small children, we were subjected to gender neutral toys and propaganda (e.g. “Free To Be, You and Me”), girls were favored throughout grade school, and just when we started to come of age the most draconian anti-father laws in human history were put in place. It doesn’t surprise me in the least to see that the first male politician to confront feminism head-on comes from this generation.

Such a powerful statement from a politician can only come from a position of moral strength, and it must have a good deal of support, because the feminist response has been defensive — something we never would have seen in the 90s, when they were in full attack mode.

In The Guardian, which appears to have become the feminist mouthpiece for the UK, Laurie Penny responds by calling Mr. Raab’s assertions “myths,” and attempts to do some damage control. She denies that feminists have made men’s lives worse, argues that “equality” legislation strengthens ordinary families, and tries to avoid the issue of women’s choices and decisions in regards to the so-called “wage gap.” Much of her response is a recapitulation of the standard feminist strategy of dissimulation and projection:

Raab is absolutely correct to suggest that many are “fed up of men and women being pitted against each other in an outdated battle of the sexes”. Unfortunately, his insistence that working men’s problems are the fault of feminism seems set to stir up yet more bitterness between men and women in the workplace: a classic strategy of divide and rule. Convincing ordinary people that women are making gains at the expense of men, or vice versa, distracts us all from the truth – that more than ever under this government’s austerity programme, it is the rich who are making gains at the expense of the poor.

Those not in the know – and their numbers are fewer every day – might not see that the above passage contains a couple whoppers, such as the suggestion that it isn’t feminists who are inciting war between the sexes for their own benefit, but rather those selfish, greedy patriarchs who refuse to raise taxes even higher for the benefit of the “poor.” What a load. Feminists know well that social services are geared to remove money from men and put it in the hands of women, often those with high-paid government and nonprofit positions. Gender warmongering is an integral part of this process — loaded DV and sexual harassment stats have been a huge source of funds for female bureaucrats and professional activists, and they have led to laws that quite clearly oppress men and advantage women both in the home and the workplace.

Raab’s salvo against feminism was impressive and heartening, but it wasn’t the first shot fired back at the feminists. At the grassroots level, men have been on the front lines for decades. The first few were a lonely crew, but the voices that were once drowned out by the crowd are growing in strength, and more and more men are coming into the light. If it weren’t for this growing awareness among men that they are suffering under an unjust regime, and an increasing willingness to express it, Raab wouldn’t have had the support that allowed him to take such a resolute stand against feminist excesses. Our efforts truly are beginning to pay off, and this is just the beginning.

Ref:

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/01/26/young-british-mp-puts-feminists-on-the-defensive/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheSpearhead+%28The+Spearhead%29

Why We Need A Men’s Movement by Featured Guest on January 22, 2011 By Gorbachev There’s a lot of talk in the Manosphere about how evil feminism is and that not one drop of Feminist talk can ever be allowed a positive spin. The manosphere often demonizes women, out of resentment at the hypocrisy of feminist ideology, or the refusal of feminism to acknowledge consequences. For example, many feminist writers (both men and women) refuse to admit that false rape accusations are far more common than they like to think, and that their effects are utterly devastating on the men affected. The lives of countless men are destroyed every year in what amounts to an irrational Moral Panic being cruelly manipulated by selfish individuals – in these cases, women. Male resentment and anger is the inevitable result. Does this make feminism evil? Or does it tell us that feminists are in willing denial, and are acting out of pure self-interest? We see it as hypocrisy, self-assured righteous indignation and cognitive dissonance, all grounded in narrow, exclusive self-interest exercised at the expense of others. But this is part of basic human nature. It’s not unique to feminism. The initial goals of feminism weren’t contrary to fundamentally male interests. It’s possible to be pro-equality without being anti-male, or even anti-family. But in this climate of ideological absolutism, it becomes hard to separate reason from rhetoric, and self-interest from the public good. Liberals and left-leaning feminists are past masters at demonizing their enemies to the point of dismissing every concern they don’t like; anyone who reads the MSM knows this is true. But anti-feminists and the right are guilty of exactly the same tactics, though at the moment the left is ascendant. Narcissism is the fundamental source. The “Public Good” is rarely a factor on either side. Feminism is A Trade Union Movement Like every union, feminism only serves the narrow (perceived) interests of its members. Teachers’ unions regularly claim to be interested in the “education of students”, but their actual actions and policy demands belie the mostly private nature of their concerns. They rarely focus on raising education standards and making the system and teachers accountable to their students. It’s telling that the only solution to every single problem they identify is More Money for the System. Whenever benchmarks are introduced, tests floated, evaluations considered, for either students or teachers, the outcry from union ideologues is always fierce and unrelenting. In exactly the same way, feminism is very defensive about attacks on the effects of its political programs. If there’s something wrong, even if this there is a grave threat to the public good, it’s shunted aside and ignored. Studies that deny the existence of the threat are bought and paid for. Medical Associations are unions for doctors. Bar Associations are unions for lawyers. Police unions are only incidentally interested in public security; their key interests are the interests and security of their membership. Expecting feminism to represent the best interests of society is the same as expecting public sector unions to advocate for fiscal responsibility. Feminist Hypocrisy ? As for feminism being a monolithic evil, this is also demonstrably not the case. Feminist ideology is often in conflict. - There’s a sharp division between Lesbian and straight women. The abolitionist/anti-pornography/pro-sex-regulation feminists are almost always straight. The liberals are more reliably lesbian or lesbian-identified. - Anti-marriage and “men are evil” feminists are usually “political” lesbians, or those with specific axes to grind, or single-issue interests, or ideologically socialist. - Actual bona-fide lesbians live in a separate world and don’t see any need for men at all, personally or socially. Their writing often doesn’t even concern itself with the key issues that bother heterosexual women. These women inhabit different worlds. Lesbian politics often support obviously anti-male policies because men are irrelevant to them, and they don’t care how men are affected. The truth is that they have little to say to straight women, because straight women are interested in the health of male society. Straight women like men, and interact with men on an intimate level. What both agree on is that women always need more power, regardless of the amount of power they already have. - Sexual-libertarian feminists want less social/legal control over sexuality, resulting in a free-wheeling, Sex Is Always Good “hook-up” culture, filled with consequence-free sex and the elimination of the concept of “slut”. Eventhe very concept of monogamy comes in for ridicule. In effect, these women are more prototypically “male” in their “variety-is-life” outlook than men ever were. - Sexual-Moralist feminists take a different approach, seeing this freewheeling sexual liberation as serving male interests. Women, they think, have different interests. Sex for its own sake is not a goal for these women. These feminists don’t see sexually open women as Liberated – they see them as Deluded Sluts, no matter how they sugar-coat the label for feminist solidarity. The fact is that their outlook on sex and relationships bears no relationship to the feminists who advocate for sexual liberation. They have nothing to say to each other. Their views on social policy are in direct opposition. These groups of feminists may have blurry boundaries, but their distinct interests are the reasons for the apparent hypocrisies. That said, they don’t so much consciously contradict each other, as speak past each other. Manipulating Moral Panics Our society regularly goes through phases of Moral Panic. There have been many. Witch hunts, Miscegenation, incest, racial hygiene, Prohibition, McCarthysim, Spanking Children, Satanic Abuse, Drugs, Pedophilia, Drugs and Date Rape, Workplace Harrassment, Moral panics are easily manipulated by those with political agendas. While there were genuine communists in dangerous positions of power in the early 1950’s, many non-communists were threatened and extorted during the McCarthy years into complying with policies or giving up opportunities. The same was true in the Soviet Union, but there, the victims were called “counter-revolutionaries”. Much the same attitudes are now displayed towards “Conservatives” or “Liberals”. An example of a moral panic manipulated by all sides, while those affected just go about their lives, is Prostitution. Straight and married women are the biggest advocates for eliminating prostitution and sex work. They mask this as a concern for the women involved, but on examination, the truth becomes clear very quickly, as sex-worker activists point out: It’s really about controlling the sexuality of their own men, and it’s not about the health and security of sex workers at all. Laura Augustin is a highly engaging writer who catalogues this rank female hypocrisy extensively. Many feminist activists use the force of Moral Panicsl. Irrational Anti-Date-Rape Crusaders use twisted and exaggerated claims and false statistics as a rule of thumb. Anti-Pornography activists have more in common with the prohibitionists of the 1920’s than they do with other feminists. Then there’s Socialism and Collectivist ideology, as well as Anti-Capitalism. These movements don’t fundamentally care about feminism; feminism or anti-racism, or any other isms. These are just tools for the Revolution. Left-wing activists use movements like feminism to help advocate for their own revolutionary ideas. Cuba, China, and the Soviet Union all betrayed the related movements that helped foist “moral dictatorships” on the people. Reality makes the Rules: Finance and Feminism When it comes to the public sector, harsh budget realities will ultimately decide issues for unions. Facing national bankruptcy, and the inability to collect more taxes, it’s no longer tenable to maintain an artificially bloated public sector. Had we had honest debate before, and had the unions not been so exclusively self-interested, we might not have reached this precipice. . Reality has a way of imposing discipline on ideology. Our financial bankruptcy is equally the fault of the public and our leaders for enabling union demands. We should have had the courage to force through reform, despite public-sector opposition, before we reached this tipping point. Now, we all face the consequences. This “correction” will claim many victims. Biology doesn’t play ideological games. Biology is what it is. It doesn’t care about “fair”. Its mechanisms don’t conform to the Human-Ideology-Of-The-Moment. The screaming, the rage, the railing, the Marches, the Protests, the angry bloggers or the activist legislation; at the end of the day it can’t change human nature. Even when we deny that there is a human nature. Human nature still exists, and we still need to do the things we need to do. A natural consequence of feminism is the declining number of babies. Having and raising children is a difficult and onerous task. It requires social support and certain social structures to make it bearable and attractive. Take these away, and there’s no incentive to have children. The predictable result of feminism is that fewer and fewer women end up having babies. We therefore have a left-wing that advocated for mass, open immigration of unfamiliar cultures. The irony is that these immigrants have beliefs that are diametrically opposed to the goals of feminism. Feminism, by semi-unintentionally denying the critical imperative to reproduce, has doomed western societies, something no-one predicted or wanted. It wasn’t deliberate. But for feminists to admit this now, or to admit that this has far-reaching and profound implications for Western societies, would be to admit that there are consequences to their movement that can’t be controlled. But the “correction” will come – whether we like it or not. Just as budget shortfalls sound the death-knell of massive public bureaucracies, demographics will have damning effects on feminist movements. All of this was predictable, but it wasn’t necessarily deliberate. Union! We need A Men’s movement There is one correction we can engage ourselves. “Men” are the only obviously identifiable collective in American society that does not have its own movement. In effect, while other interests have advocates – anti-racism activism, women, children’s rights, Teachers, white racists, black separatists, Christian fundamentalists, Muslims – men have none. When issues affect us, we can’t muster collective responses. We need a clearing-house, an umbrella under which we can debate the issues that matter to us. Feminists argue that a men’s movement is unnecessary. My question is: Why do we care what feminists think? Men told women then a feminist movement was unnecessary in the 1880′s, as well. They created one anyway. Nobody gives you rights. Nobody gives you the right to make collective demands. Nobody grants you permission to want something. Other interests will oppose us. “Strikebreakers” will intimidate us, and the Powers that Be may send out their goons, but the fundamental issues remain in place and unless we’re prepared to act collectively, unless we’re prepared to respect our issues enough to protect ourselves, and advocate for change, we can’t expect to be respected by anyone else. Do we want father’s rights? Do we want fair family courts? Do we want equal opportunity in the workplace? Do we want freedom from harassment claims? Do we want to live in fear of false rape accusations? Do we want power over our own lives? Women are able to manipulate moral panics to their advantage. There’s one moral panic we can immediately use to our advantage, before feminism neuters it. Even women are now calling for men to take a greater role in their families and yet it’s women who have largely pushed men out of the family unit. Radical feminism had a core goal of destroying the Husband-Wife family unit, and it has almost achieved this in some segments of our population. But we can turn the tables. If women can manipulate a moral manic for their own advantage, we can certainly manipulate this new moral panic it for the advantage of our families and ourselves. There are other moral panics that can work in our favor. We must exploit them. Don’t Worry About Disagreement We should expect a lot of division within our own ranks. Feminists have to deal with severe factionalism themselves, and internal feminist debates often become bitter and acrimonious. We can’t shy away from the same discussions. And we can’t expect to agree. I can already sense where factions will likely emerge. That said, just like feminists, we can all probably agree on general goals, even when we demand different policy decisions. Ultimately, the only way to be free is to free ourselves. If we believe we have rights, rights to raise our children, rights to fair divorce settlements, rights to sexual freedom, rights to workplace opportunity fairness – then we need to take those rights. Nobody is going to give them to us. And there is power in numbers. Share Post: * Digg * Reddit * StumbleUpon * Twitter Tagged as: disagreement, factionalism, men's rights, moral panics Ref: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/01/22/why-we-need-a-mens-movement/

Fantastic stuff Dominic!! Well said!!!

Absolutely agree with the broad strokes - because I'm a feminist if that word describes a woman who wants genuine equality. I'd argue on some of the detail but generally double standards do not create the even playing field we're after. It is on this basis that I question the wisdom of all female shortlists for MPs. Unless the real issues are addressed - i.e. that young women often put a family first and that older women are generally seen as no option for a role with status. This short-term distortion will not help to bring about genuine equality in the long term.

Thanks for this - absolutely spot on. More of this please.

Looking at the comments here from most women proves once again something I learned back in the 80's. Women are totally devoid of any empathy for men, period.  It is impossible to discuss these issues with women. There is something missing in their psyches or brains which make it impossible for them to fully understand men are human, too, and can suffer.

Every single problem the dearies (a sarcastic term I invented many years ago to describe the view women have of themselves in comparison with men) mentioned here, the governments both of the US and UK have expensive programs to try to cope with. Yet, because no system works 100% of the time, that means according to the dearies there is evil discrimination against women. Wahhh! Wahhh!

Every problem men mentioned that men have, there is no program, and no plan to have such program. And, any man who even mentions men having any problems, or suggests such programs, is called every shaming name in the English language.

Even the most ignorant ante-bellum African slave knew to go to Canada if possible.  Yet, millions of men sit in the US and UK in dire straits because of the attack on men. Mexico, not Canada, is the answer, so why are you still there?  My niece in Mexico City knows a lot of Brits. Not the entire two million your census bureau can't find, but a lot.

 

This hoax about women making less than men for the same work has been around for decades. This sort of thing happens because most men feel it is unacceptable to call women, LIARS! So, women lie. In the early 90's, some wimp wrote a guest column in the local newspaper in my small Midwestern US city, whining how women nationally were making less than men for the same work. I fired in a response. I said I was not going to challenge him to show evidence for discrimination on the national basis. I was challenging him to show ONE case in our city of 100,000 where a woman was doing the same exact job with the same responsibilities, working the same hours a week, and with the same seniority as a man, who made ONE CENT LESS than the man. After I mailed the column, I got nervous. I had been a thorn in the side of the local man-haters for nearly a generation, and if they could make me look stupid, they would. And, all it would take would be one woman making less than a man same job, etc., in our city of 100,000. The column was printed. No example was found, which is what I had assumed would be the case. So, the man-haters simply kept their mouths shut for 3 months, their usual response to being shown as liars, and then went back to whining about women getting less money for the same job. I am not going to supply sources on this. Over 20 years, we supplied sources, and the dearies don't care. They just continue with the same old lies.

It is time that men realised how serious the attack on them has been. They have lost their (British) legal right to be innocent until proved guilty and they can be sent to prison without proof beyond reasonable doubt. They can now be removed from thieir homes for 48 hours on the basis of a mere allegation. Someone has commented that there is no limit to social justice, but there is. When one sex or minority gets privileges in law, the legal rights of the rest are diminshed (See Dominic's comments about the treatment of fathers in the courts).

Some of the ladies seem to get their arguments a bit mixed up. I think it was Rita who made points about the difference once a woman has a child. That is the whole point. There can be no identical equality. We cannot change human biology. The idea that the sexes can be made identically equal is pure Maxism. Use your eyes and ears. The sex discrimination laws are an attempt to enforce an impossibility and are bound to result in injustice.

Sorry about the typo in my previous comment. The word should be Marxism not Maxism. It is strange, but I used that word when talking to a friend, who is an indefatigable campaigner on men's issues, and he objected and used the word "Fascist" instead. But whatever Fascism means, they are certainly not equality fanatics. What is more two ladies, Simone de Beauvoir and Germaine Greer, noted for their Feminist contributions, were Far Left sympathisers. But the idea that men and women could be identically equal and have identical abilities has Marxist connotations. The comic side of it is that the British Tory Party passed its own Sex Discrimination Act in 1986 (under Margaret Thatcher) and George Bush. a few years ago, was hoping to export "Women's Lib" to Arabia. If it is not labelled "communist" even the USA does not see it for what it is, men as the bloated capitalists and women as the down-trodden workers. Orwell was right, but 1984 was 1975, the year of Labour's SDA, and the communism has mutated. It did not die with the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is screwing up Britsh society right now.

My guess is that the extreme left, which includes the feminists, have too strong a whole on British institutions to bring about any meaningful change. Even though we in the US are poorly positioned to make any meaningful assessment of the future in Europe, I still would hazard to guess that the self-destructive trends in your society will continue until you hit the brick wall of Sharia Law.

As the mother of 3 sons, I say it's bloody well about time we stopped exalting girls and crushing boys. In my opinion, strong, healthy and effective men are more important now than ever before. Women don't need an extra hand anymore. If a woman can't compete in the marketplace, it's her own fault and she should quit whining and find something to do at which she's competent.

Being feminist and all, we of course have more important things to do (like bra-burning). But this guy seems to have a genuine grievance. So we’ll take some time out to address this seriously. No-one should have to feel they’re helpless to affect their treatment, like obnoxious bigots are running your life for you. But here’s the rub. Raab has either mischaracterised or misunderstood feminism. The point is: you don’t have to be anti-man, to be pro-woman. Newsflash, I know. Think about it –why on earth would I have to say I want my son to get bad grades in school, in order to say I want my daughter to get good grades. This isn’t Sophie’s Choice, however much Raab wants us to believe it is. Which begs the question: why does he insist on the anti-man/pro-woman model? We wrote a blog about it: http://pleasedonotfeedthefeminists.com/2011/01/29/are-feminists-obnoxious-bigots-dominic-raab/

Dear Mr Raab, I applaud your courage and I admire your bravery in saying the ‘unsayable’. I would like to write from my own experiences. I am forty nine and for much of my life I have been aware of the sexism to which you refer. I have two children, one boy and one girl. I don’t want my son growing up in a society where he is made to feel inferior because he is a man. The rhetoric and media messages I have received had, for years left me feeling that I should feel shameful for being a man. I felt a constant pressure to atone for the sins of the generations before me. For years I listened to clichés about men being unemotional, uncaring, irresponsible, inconsiderate, foolish, aggressive and at times, evil. It was only when I changed my career from working in the media to becoming a therapist that I discovered that much of this was untrue, or rather that these attributes were, on the whole, shared equally between the sexes. I work as a therapist and even here I found a general acceptance that men are inferior. As an example, in my recent Training on Domestic Abuse the literature clearly has a bias when it refers to the perpetrator as ‘He’ and the victim as ‘She’. The facilitator began by claiming that a significant percentage of victims were women, but no mentioned of men as victims of Domestic Abuse. In my weekend employment, I work with detainees at a city centre police station. I have come across more male victims of Domestic Abuse than female victims. If a woman seeks practical or therapeutic support, then she has numerous agencies and shelters to assist her. If you are a man over 25, then you are quite simply on your own. I regularly see Therapeutic Groups which are specifically for women. I see cinema, Gym timetables and night clubs which state that they are ‘Women Only’ and at the same time I hear men’s social clubs vilified for being sexist and outdated. Should Andy Grey have been dismissed from his employment for a sexist remark made in public? After the incident there was much debate as to whether it was right or wrong. I think it is both; people have a right to speak their mind in private and equally, people have a right to be offended. Being offended doesn’t make someone right. If we can tolerate blatant sexism in the media (an example is Loose Women on TV), then surely we can tolerate an offensive remark made in private. Take Nicole Scherzinger – Poison Pop Video; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9joqPp3peLg At 2.50mins into the video it shows Nicole first punching a man in the face, then kicking him in the face. If Society wants equality let’s not celebrate violence or any prejudice against either sex. I applaud the strides Feminism has made in enhancing equality for women, but feminism is now in danger of becoming the new Fascism. Thank you for highlighting this ongoing and ever increasing problem. I hope this trend can be reversed by highlighting it publically.

I will not "burn my briefs" because that would make me look as stupid as the bra burners. I will go on fighting the gender war because its real and it has to be fought against. You have shown great courage in speaking out and men everywhere salute you for it but, this is a dirty fight men did not start and until politicians put our money where their mouth is, the feminists will go on dominating and the outrageous hate against men will continue. For over 50 years MRA's have warned about the femnist Marxist agenda and politicians have done nothing. It is hard for us to believe they are serious now. Start removing funding from feminist projects. Reveal the REAL truth about domestic violence instead of faux domestic abuse figures feminists cook up in their advocacy "research." Start supporting male victims of abuse. Deal with the gyno-centric health service policies. Attack the boys bad, girls good culture in Schools. End the BBC Marxist bias they pour into all of their programming (it is supposed to be illegal for them to do it. So enforce it!). Tackle the staggering hatred poured out at men in Adverstising, media reports,retail markets (such as boys are stupid throw rocks at them T-Shirts sold to young girls). Strat letting men's groups discuss Domestic Abuse and fund them to the same level as womens groups. Start a debate on feminism and allow the lies being told by them to be exposed (Such as the great Superbowl Sunday Domestic Abuse Scam -- Google it). Give men a voice and listen to what you hear instead of filtering it all through feminist ideology. It's time to end this crap but politicians seem to lack the guts. Present company excluded. Go look at the man, woman, myth web site. Then the voice for men web site. Either help or get out fo the way because men are getting angry and we are NOT going to shut up.

It's time to connect with single women and men seeking women in our singles chat rooms. You can also use live web video and audio instant messaging. Become a part of a free dating service with millions of dating personals, a community of singles dating looking for great dates, interested in meeting new friends online dating

We know you have a lot of sports shoes, and many are valuable, you must feel very troublesome to take care of these shoes. In fact, you only need to spend a little effort can make your shoes in top form. mbt shoes australia care following a few tips to teach you the knowledge and proper care of your shoes, and extend the life of mbt shoes australia sale. Dust and other debris can easily embed the leather, so your MBT Barabara Shoes or boots in the shoe before the need to clean. Shoes cloth shoes and shoe brush can easily remove dust and debris above. In order to effectively shoe, the best to shoe laces untied before the first. This is a clean tongue and the best way to avoid the lace dyeing. In order to use shoe polish to achieve the best results, first with a shoe brush or soft cloth to polish evenly in the shoes and boots, when the shoe is almost drying time with natural bristles horse can be very simple and polished bright. Attention to the different colors of shoe polish and shoe polish when applied separately to use a different brush and shoe cloth, it is very important if you want a more convenient way, we recommend that you use shoe polish. Simply remove the upper dust, and then evenly coated with this liquid shoe polish on the shoes. MBT shoes maroon shoes, shoe polish formula to restore the color, and dry immediately after the glossy, does not require additional polishing. If you need more moisture and convenient leather and shoe polish, then we suggest you try to use Free Run shoes rub milk, its formulation in a short time to shine shoes, and nourish the leather, the design is also very easy to use. More professional leather shoes care is to use tin shoe wax, because it contains the most abundant wax and grease, it has the best light, waterproof, mildew role. Shoe wax is the world's most popular shoe wax, has been 100 years of history. KIWI shoe care products to use to help your shoes completely waterproof, avoid the water, mud, dust, dirt caused by snow or salt. Read the introduction, we must understand some of the knowledge, it is applied to the life of the go!

Certainly he made aWoolrich Arcticname for himself at Lesbos as a kitbaroedos-i.e., a com-poserwoolrich arctic parkaand singer of musical lyrics. Having killed a man in a brawl, he was exiled, and found it convenient to accept an woolrich parka invitation from Sparta. There, it seems, he lived the remainder of his days,teaching woolrich arctic capmusic and training choruses. We are told that he ended his life at a drinking party: while he was singing-perhaps that extra note which he had added at the top of thewoolrich arctic parka ukscale-one of his auditors threw a fig at him; which,woolrich arctic parka womenentering his mouth and his windpipe, choked him to death in the very ecstasy of song.’Woolrich Arctic,woolrich arctic parka,woolrich parka,woolrich arctic cap,woolrich arctic parkas,woolrich arctic parka uk,woolrich arctic parka women,woolrich arctic parka men,WoolrichOutlet,woolrichcoats,woolrichjackets,woolrich london,woolrich clothing,woolrich sale

Did you know about Freelance writing job service? I wanted to tell that your ideas connecting to this good post is supreme! Thank you very much for creating it!