Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Men discriminated against from cradle to grave according to Dominic Raab MP

447 replies

JustineMumsnet · 24/01/2011 11:19

Writing in an article on Politics Home, Dominic Raab MP for Esher and Walton has written:

"It is almost taboo for a man to question the assertion that the rapidly dwindling pay gap is the result of discrimination, rather than genuine choice. The debate has been consumed by the prejudice it seeks to purge."

"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. "

Then there is the more subtle sexism. Men caused the banking crisis. Men earn more because they are more assertive in pay negotiations. One FT commentator recently complained that: ?High-flying women are programmed to go for high-flying men. Most men aren?t attracted to women who are more successful than they are.? Can you imagine the outrage if such trite generalisations were made about women, or other minorities? Feminists are now amongst the most obnoxious bigots."

"You can?t have it both ways. Either you believe in equality or you don?t. If you buy into the whole Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus theory of gender difference ? with all its pseudo science - you can?t then complain about inequalities of outcome that flow both ways from those essentially sexist distinctions."

What do you think MNetters?

OP posts:
JohnathonRocks · 13/02/2011 12:11

I stand corrected, ONE out of the EIGHT replies actually bothered to address the point I was making while SEVEN of the either relied on bigotry.

And they have the audacity to call me ignorant? LOL

JohnathonRocks · 13/02/2011 12:13

Hence my earlier point... I judge feminism by it's actions, not it's claims.

The KKK can claim to be supporting racial equality... while promoting white-only clubs and petitioning against black-only clubs, or demanding laws that give whites a step-up and propaganda to label all blacks as rapists...

Claims of feminism and the actions are worlds apart.

vesuvia · 13/02/2011 12:24

JohnathonRocks, based on the evidence of your actions, i.e. your posts on this feminism thread, you do not appear to be here to seriously debate issues relevant to feminism.

Rhadegunde · 13/02/2011 12:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JohnathonRocks · 13/02/2011 12:55

Vesuvia, so pointing out the 'bad' areas of feminism is 'not serious'? OK...
Rhadegund, my point from word go has been that feminists rely on 'selective equality' (they want equality ONLY when it benefits women)... the typical reply I get to that point is that it's called feminism as a reflection that it's female based so of course it will focus on females... thus confirming that it is NOT about true equality.

How is the quote out of context?

Prolesworth · 13/02/2011 13:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

HandDivedScallopsrgreat · 13/02/2011 13:04

"they want equality ONLY when it benefits women" And your point is? If we want equality it is because we don't have it at the moment i.e. men are superior in some way in that area (difficult to argue without specific examples). Why is that fair?

Of course it focuses on women. The balance of power is in the favour of men. In order for that to change you have to focus on the gender that being oppressed. Just as you do with racial issues you look at the rights of and attitudes towards those being oppressed.

And you haven't pointed out the "bad" side of feminism. You've pointed out some "bad" things, perhaps (examples again would be good!) but they don't seem to apply to feminism.

And comparing feminism to the KKK - nice, classy!

vesuvia · 13/02/2011 13:55

JohnathonRocks wrote - "so pointing out the 'bad' areas of feminism is 'not serious'? OK...
and
"Why should anyone support such a hateful & bigoted movement?"

What do you expect us to say?

Something along the lines of
"People should support such a hateful and bigoted movement because x, y, z ..." perhaps?

No thanks.

I suggest you read a book about feminism, for example, "The Equality Illusion" by Kat Banyard.

Omg20 · 13/02/2011 14:29

I think what johnathon is trying to say is that some of the laws etc that have been brought in due to feminist protest that clearly put women on top of men instead of equal. So called "positive discrimination". I think he just went about it in the wrong way. Some of the points that dominic raab put foward are valid concerns. Like the obvious inequality in the nhs and life span.

The best example of this I can think of is the hpv vaccine which I was quite angry about myself as I cannot get it on the nhs if I want it I have to pay a private doctor £000s.(which i can simply not afford.) Even though it is offered to girls free on the nhs. So then my health and well being depends on a decision that a girl made to have or not to have the jab. I could get various cancers etc from this.

www.nhs.uk/Conditions/HPV-vaccination/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Also the whole article wasn't posted in the op so here it is:

"Last week Nick Clegg made a valiant effort to address the pervasive challenge for modern working parents, striving to find the right career-family balance - including announcing a more flexible system of maternity-paternity leave. It is one of the most relevant issues for young families in Britain. The coalition would do well to grasp it in place of Labour?s outdated and obsolete ?equality and diversity? agenda.

Take the gender pay gap. The fascinating thing is just how sexist its champions have become. The government?s decision to abandon mandatory gender pay audits, under Labour?s Equality Act, sparked a wave of soul-searching ? almost exclusively by women. It is almost taboo for a man to question the assertion that the rapidly dwindling pay gap is the result of discrimination, rather than genuine choice. The debate has been consumed by the prejudice it seeks to purge.

Yet, research shows the pay gap has halved since the 1970s. Office of National Statistics data in December showed that, since 1997, the difference between full-time median earnings has fallen from 17% to 10% - and the shrinkage is accelerating. So much for the Equality and Human Right?s Commission?s claim last October that progress is ?grinding to a halt?.

Look further at the data available. According to research for the Institute for Economic Affairs, women in their twenties earn 1% less than men, single women a shade more. Gay men earn more than straight men, lesbian women more than heterosexual women. Does that sound like a society riddled with discrimination? In fact, the gender pay gap also reflects the higher numbers of women in work in Britain compared to other European countries. Keeping women out of work is one of the easiest ways to bridge the gap: Swaziland and Sir Lanka have the lowest pay gaps. Meanwhile, pay is just one of the terms of employment. Men work longer hours, enjoy their jobs less, commute further and are more likely to get the sack.

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.

Then there is the more subtle sexism. Men caused the banking crisis. Men earn more because they are more assertive in pay negotiations. One FT commentator recently complained that: ?High-flying women are programmed to go for high-flying men. Most men aren?t attracted to women who are more successful than they are.? Can you imagine the outrage if such trite generalisations were made about women, or other minorities? Feminists are now amongst the most obnoxious bigots.

You can?t have it both ways. Either you believe in equality or you don?t. If you buy into the whole Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus theory of gender difference ? with all its pseudo science - you can?t then complain about inequalities of outcome that flow both ways from those essentially sexist distinctions.

Britain?s not perfect, and we will never eradicate all human prejudice. But, we have reached a stage where the differences between men and women in our society are less reflective of overt discrimination, and more their common challenge of trying to find the right way to earn a decent quality of life for their family, whilst sparing some time to enjoy it. That means taking a consistent approach to equality, ditching outdated gender warfare and finding practical solutions to the challenges couples go through together.

In some cases, it will beg more questions than it answers: the surge in career-minded women landing top jobs has reduced social mobility, because so many are middle-class. In other areas, we might be pleasantly surprised. Making maternity leave transferable (without increasing it, to avoid extra burdens on business) would give men greater equality, and free up women to share their career-family compromises with their other halves ? if they choose. The phenomenon of young couples on middle incomes both doing a four day week, to save on childcare, looks set to rise. It makes economic, as well as egalitarian, sense.

Likewise, family-friendly policies could help exhausted families struggling to strike a sensible work-life balance. Critics mocked the idea of transferable tax allowances for couples as socially regressive and financially insignificant. Yet, transferable tax allowances for parents with children under five would support women who choose to stay home, when their children are young, while helping them save for childcare, if and when they choose return to work. A little tax relief would go a long way.

Young British couples are tired of the equality bandwagon, dreamt up in the 1960s, pitting men and women against each other. We need consistent equality for men and women, an end to ?soft? feminist bigotry and support for hard-working families trying to juggle competing priorities in their hectic daily lives. Maybe it?s time men started burning their briefs, to put an end once and for all to what Emmeline Pankhurst used to call ?the double standard of sex morals.?"

www.politicshome.com/uk/article/21098/dominic_raab_we_must_end_feminist_bigotry.html

HerBeX · 13/02/2011 14:32

"Feminism is hostile to men. It defends women who abuse men & children, it promotes superior rights for women at the cost of men & children, it has gone out of it's way to marginalize and mock male abuse victims, etc. etc."

None of that is true, it is just unevidenced assertion based on a hatred of what some mysogynists think feminism is.

Why should we address your points, when they are just not worth addressing?

It is like a white person going on to a website which promotes the rights of Muslims in the UK and saying: "Islam is all about hatred, you promote the rights of mumslims above anyone else, you don't believe in equality for other religions and you want to bomb us all".

Why would you expect anyone to take you seriously or want to engage with you?

Seriously? Why?

HerBeX · 13/02/2011 14:34

omg there is no such thing as positive discrimination laws in the uk, positive discrimination is illegal.

HerBeX · 13/02/2011 14:35

And Jonathon isn't trying to say whatever it was you claim he's trying to say. He's just trying to say that feminism is a Bad Thing and of course we're not going to accept that.

JohnathonRocks · 13/02/2011 14:35

OK, recently - an English law went under review. It was to reword the crime of rape to include women. Currently, women cannot be found guilty of rape as rape requires penetration. IF it had gone ahead, women would have equality with men and be able to take equal responsibility for their crimes (instead of the current method of giving women a slap on the wrist and referring to it as 'sexual assault' or 'an affair').

Guess which groups got their knickers in a twist and decided that having equality with men was a bad idea all of a sudden? Guess which group claimed that men (but of course) would abuse this change in law with false allegations (as if no woman in history has done so against men)?

Can you guess?

Of course you can - proof that feminists do NOT want equality - they want preferential treatment and equality only on the condition it benefits women.

HandDivedScallopsrgreat · 13/02/2011 14:44

"the current method of giving women a slap on the wrist and referring to it as 'sexual assault' or 'an affair'" Sexual assult carries the same sentence as rape so referring to it as a "slap on the wrist" is inaccurate. And since when has anyone referred to any crime as "an affair". What crimes are these that women aren't taking responsiblity for?

Omg20 · 13/02/2011 14:46

I can give you an example of positive discrimination and that is womens only lists for mp seats. There are many other examples of positive discrimination in the workplace for instance. Employers choose people for roles based on gender, race, religion etc instead of you suitability to the role or qualifications and experience.

Omg20 · 13/02/2011 14:52

Recently I applied for a job and did not get it after attending interview. I was told at a later date that they were looking for a women.

chibi · 13/02/2011 14:56

that is sooooo true

going by current trends, we could have a female majority in parliament in another few hundred years

go on, guess how many women are in parliament now

quick, someone do something!!!

chibi · 13/02/2011 14:57

or maybe you just weren't good enough

terrifying, and yet strangely plausible...

Omg20 · 13/02/2011 14:59

It doesn't matter when we will have a majority women parliament. It is the fact that positive discrimination is used. Instead of qualification/experience/suitability etc.

HerBeX · 13/02/2011 15:00

"It is almost taboo for a man to question the assertion that the rapidly dwindling pay gap is the result of discrimination, rather than genuine choice.

No it fucking isn't. We are constantly being told that the reason for the pay gap, is women's personal choices to go part time, to downshift, not to go for promotion, because they can't negotiate etc. What a load of bollocks that it's taboo to question discrimination, on the contrary, it's almost become taboo to assert that the pay gaps is due to good old fashioned sexism, not because women want to be paid less than men.

"Yet, research shows the pay gap has halved since the 1970s. Office of National Statistics data in December showed that, since 1997, the difference between full-time median earnings has fallen from 17% to 10% - and the shrinkage is accelerating. So much for the Equality and Human Right?s Commission?s claim last October that progress is ?grinding to a halt?." a) there is still a 10% pay gap b) he has deliberately ommitted part time work data from the figures, which shows a different story.

"Look further at the data available. According to research for the Institute for Economic Affairs, women in their twenties earn 1% less than men, single women a shade more." Yes and then they have babies and watch their market value plummet.

"Men work longer hours, enjoy their jobs less, commute further and are more likely to get the sack."

They only work longer paid hours - they don't do more hours work in the home. Women work fewer hours because they are going home to do the second shift at home. They're more likely to commute further, because the nursery or school doesn't phone them up to collect the kid when he or she is sick. This means they can concentrate more on their career and earn more. They're more likely to get the sack because they are less likely to follow rules than women are. We're supposed to apologise for that?

"Men work longer hours, die earlier, but retire later than women." They don't work longer hours, women do - at home and at wrok. Women also do more exercise, eat better and keep themselves fitter and are less likely to smoke and drink too much than men. And again, we're supposed to apologise for the fact that we look after ourselves better?

"anti-male discrimination in rights of maternity/paternity leave" - when did Dominic Raab last go on a demo demandign paternity rights?

"dozens of court orders requiring access rights had been flouted by his ex-wife." What are the courts doing about the much greater numbers of men who regularly fail to turn up for contact visits or the 3/5 of non-resident parents, 90% of whom are men, who don't pay a penny in maintenance?

"Then there is the more subtle sexism. Men caused the banking crisis" - Well who the fuck was running the fucking banks? A bunch of women? How many women ran the banks or were in senior decision making positions? And that staemetn has been made in regard to the fact that although the financial crisis was caused by bankers, most of whom are men, the effects will mainly be borne by women - 72% of the budget cuts affect women disproportionately.

"Men earn more because they are more assertive in pay negotiations." When women are assertive, in pay negotioations or anything else, they are seen as aggressive bitches and don't get the pay rise.

One FT commentator recently complained that: ?High-flying women are programmed to go for high-flying men. Most men aren?t attracted to women who are more successful than they are.? Can you imagine the outrage if such trite generalisations were made about women, or other minorities? What? That first statemetn is about women.

"Feminists are now amongst the most obnoxious bigots." Because he knows loads of them, obviously. Hmm

"You can?t have it both ways. Either you believe in equality or you don?t. If you buy into the whole Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus theory of gender difference ? with all its pseudo science - you can?t then complain about inequalities of outcome that flow both ways from those essentially sexist distinctions." This is a load of incoherent nonsense because that rubbish book isn't even feminist, it's like me quoting Adam Smith to back up a point I'm making about Marxism. It's irrelevant and ignorant.

"We have reached a stage where the differences between men and women in our society are less reflective of overt discrimination" The joy of being privileged, is that you don't notice the discrimination suffered by the group of which you're not a member

"the surge in career-minded women landing top jobs has reduced social mobility, because so many are middle-class" So they should apologise to working class men for taking their jobs

"Yet, transferable tax allowances for parents with children under five would support women who choose to stay home, when their children are young, while helping them save for childcare, if and when they choose return to work" What about men who want to stay home with their children? Whose discriminating against men now?

"Young British couples are tired of the equality bandwagon, dreamt up in the 1960s, pitting men and women against each other." What he means is, mysogynists are tired of women demanding equality and it's not equality that pits men and women against each other, it's male privilge and female under-privilege.

Omg20 · 13/02/2011 15:02

chibi the employer told my wife that, himself. He said that he would be willing to take me on in a new job opportunity that he had posted and that I should reapply a few months later because they were looking for a women to fill the previous role.

chibi · 13/02/2011 15:03

why are you assuming that the women are not qualified or suitable?

do you think they compose these shortlists by just asking, quick, who do we know with a vulva, and then take it from there?

in any case people still have to vote that candidate in, no?

and nothing prevents any man as running as an independent

so what is the problem?

at any rate, it makes a change from the traditional all-white-male-shortlists in operation until v recently

HerBeX · 13/02/2011 15:04

OMG positive discrimination is used all the time for men.

Tehy are chosen as candidates purely and simply because they are men. Not because they are better qualified.

And as for rape being penetration - of course it is. Having your body penetrated, is a different experience from any other sexual assault. Men can be raped, but only if it involves penetration. I think if we are going to keep the offence of rape at all, then it does need to acknowledge the difference between penetration of an orifice and any other type of assault.

Try being penetrated against your will JR and then say it was the same as any other assault.

chibi · 13/02/2011 15:05

sweetie, if he really wanted to hire you, he would have

that is mostly how employment works

in this country there are no laws which state, 'this job must be filled by a woman/man/bug-eyed alien'

you do know that, right?

Omg20 · 13/02/2011 15:05

Come on herbex instead of looking at the things you think are wrong how about the issue I highlighted that is true and is worrying.
As I said i don't agree with everything that he puts across but some are valid concerns.