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

[JustineMumsnet]

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?

But you lied about HH's books JR2. She is a mother, she lives with the father of her children. It's highly unlikely that she holds the view that all fathers everywhere have no value to their children. You have taken that quote out of context in order to present HH as a rabid loon, which is what MRA's like yourself do all the time. We're used to it, we're tired of it, and we don't see the need to take it seriously.

HTH.

I would recommend Lundy Bancroft "Why does he do that" as a real low-down on Domestic Violence rather than the crap you're talking about it JR2, but you won't want to read it because he doesn't substantiate your pathetic figures and MRA claims.

Men who say that women are equally responsible for DV are mysogynist liars.

oh and jonathanrocks, do you think that the reason there are so few black people in parliament, running companies, more likely to be homeless, more likely to be victims of crime etc., is because they are not stepping up to the plate?

Or are you one of those people who are horrified by racism but think sexism is perfectly OK?

JohnathonRocks2 wrote -

"Did any one of you take issue with that?
No?
Oh... so it's only bad when a man speaks against an ideology (i.e. not 'women') of blaming and hating on men... but when that ideology of hating & blaming men (i.e. half the planet's population) is running rampant, you're all blind to it - Amazing!
How is the above 'aggressive'?"

Your post was building up to your own rhetorical question that no feminists anywhere, including on this board, had ever challenged Harriet Harman. You could not possibly know one way or the other. Your uninformed answer to your own question was then insulting to feminists.

Then you went on to compare feminism to the Ku Klux Klan!

How do you think all of that scores on the "how to win friends and influence people" scale?

You ask "How is the above 'aggressive'?"

Do we really need to spell it out for you?

he didn't only take the quote out of context, it said something completely different from what he claimed:

'Even in her book she claimed fathers are of no value at all'

"It cannot therefore be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion."The Family Way: Harman, H

if he can't tell the difference between those two statements he's probably a bit dim for Mumsnet.

You really know it's a winning argument when a YouTube clip is cited :)

JohnathonRocks - "When I see feminists pushing for equal accountability of women under the law, rather than just preferential treatment under the law, then perhaps I'll start to be convinced that feminism is about equality"

The difficulties that feminists would have in pushing to do away with inequalities that men have forced onto other men include issues of time and energy. Feminists are rather busy at the moment, currently engaged full-time in fighting a political struggle for women's equality on two fronts. First, obtaining rights that men already have that women don't already have. Second, fighting a rear-guard action to prevent anti-feminist men removing the rights women have recently won.

If feminists did have the opportunity and power to remove all that you, JohnathonRocks2, regard as inequality against men, at a stroke making men and women truly equal in the eyes of the law then perhaps, just perhaps you'll start to be convinced that feminism is about equality.

Do you demand that of every other political movement?

Why have you raised the bar so high compared to what people realistically expect from all political parties that have ever existed?

I suspect that enough will never be enough for you, JohnathonRocks2, as far as feminism is concerned.

Actually I don't care if some ghastly MRA who doesn't know how to apostrophise correctly thinks feminism is about equality or not.

Someone like him is not here to debate, discuss, explore or learn. He's here to tell us we're all wrong and he's right. He obviously hates women, expressing the view that the reason we are disadvantaged is because we're lazy or incompetent (because why else wouldn't we step up to the plate?) makes clear his contempt for us along with his tone.

I just don't feel any obligation whatsoever to be polite or courteous to someone like that.

I agree absolutely HerBex.

on another note, I wonder if ever, when the moon is blue, I will meet an MRA who doesn't misquote Harriet Harman.
it's amazing how she is like this witch hate-figure for them that completely overstates the amount of power she has ever had and the extremeness of her pronouncements (which weren't that extreme at all).
it's like, they needed someone to blame, and at a certain moment she was the only one with her head above the parapet, so she has been arbitrarily adopted as a kind of scapegoat for the MRAs. If I was her I would actually be quite worried about my personal safety because there are some very loony people out there who really hate her.

sethstarkaddersmackerel wrote - "Harriet Harman. it's amazing how she is like this witch hate-figure for them".

Yes, that echoes what I said earlier on this thread. I think she is the only feminist most British MRA's have ever heard of.

Privilege. Not being privileged. It's a concept link explaining it here

Everyone posting here has it

"Almost everyone who is reading this had some form of privilege. If you are a member of three marginalized groups, in ill health, and poor, you're still able to access and use the internet, both demonstrating and conferring privilege." (from the link)

Omg20 wrote - "To get a tv in my house I had to take a loan out for a £1000 tv over 4 years. yes 4."

Why did you have to spend £1000 on a TV?

Omg20 - that is the whole point, saying you have 'male privilege' is completely different from saying 'you are privileged'.

some groups are privileged. Individuals within a more privileged group may be less privileged than individuals within a less privileged group. Thus a man may well have had a harder time of it than a whole bunch of women. No-one is saying that is not the case, either in general or in relation to you.

the point is, take a woman who has had those experiences and she will also have had a whole bunch of extra shit to deal with.

FGS, do you think there aren't women who earn tiny wages? Men on average earn more than women, you know. Do you think there aren't women who have been threatened with violence, had to cope with awful things in their families? Sure there are a few women in positions of political power, but if you think it is more than a tiny minority then frankly you need your head examined.

OMG you hven't understood the concept of privilege.

I repeate, if you are male you have male privilege. Bullshit that a female going through your experiences would have been able to access help, what sort of wonderful rescuing knights on white chargers do you think we have access to? A black man going through your experiences would hve had to counter racism on top of all the other shit, you have white privilege. A person with a disability would have had to put up with the exclusion and prejudice disability confers - you have able-bodied privilege. Unless you are gay, you have heterosexual privilege.

D'you see?

And as for getting bitter about teenage girls having access to hairdressers... words fail me.

I wanted to do Ancient Greek but I couldn't because I was a girl.
I also didn't get to do Metalwork (would have been a waste of time though) and Woodwork (v useful).

I think both sexes can agree that sexist curriculums are shit.

Incidentally I do agree to some extent that the UK education system currently favours the skills that girls have been conditioned to have by that age. I would have hated it though, and probably failed just like boys do. It disturbs me immensely when people propose, as a solution, different teaching for girls and boys, and the problem is at the moment that those making the most noise about the inequity are those who have a vested interest because they are promoting gender-based differentiation; this would just entrench gender stereotyping which would damage non-stereotypical kids of both sexes. I would be interested on what your view is on this.

You didn't read my post abuot privilege at all did you OMG?

I explained very clearly what privilege I have - educational, white, heterosexual, able bodied. This doesn't mean I am privileged. It means I am a member of certain privileged groups, while being a member of certain other under privileged groups (woman, low income etc.)

People get their knickers in a twist about that word. I said we weren't talking the same language, didn't I? But I did try to translate, I hope the subsequent explanations clarify the meaning of this political term (not personal one), for you.

Are we arguing for why feminism should exist again?

Go and watch the news or something, or read a paper (hint, not the daily mail). Or mosey on over here and have a good old read.

I often wonder which of feminism's achievements these showers are so cross about. We could have a quiz! (yippee!)

Is it:

a) women's right to vote
b) women being allowed to own property
c) women being protected (in theory) from beatings by their husbands
d) the network of help and refuges for women and children fleeing from vilence
e) equal pay legislation
f) the right to obtain contraception and abortion for free
g) the legal right to live free from rape or other sexual violence
h) the right of a woman to freely choose her sexual partner(s)
i) the right to paid time off while she gives birth and recovers from giving birth
j) all of the above?

And the second part of the quiz goes like this:

If these rights hadn't existed in your time, say you were born a century or two earlier, would you have joined the struggle to obtain these rights? Would you have joined the women's suffrage movement for example? Marched? Written letters? Persuaded, argued and lobbied? Talked to your friends down the pub about how women deserved the vote?

If YES then congratulations, you are a feminist and can now join the fun.

If NO then why sould we listen to you now? It should be obvious to every woman who their friends are on this issue, and they're not the people who would have been quite happy to leave women without these rights and protections.

JohnathonRocks' criticism of Mumsnet feminists in general and this thread in particular, along with reaction to his post, is now available to view at antimisandry.com/feminist-flipside/mumsnet-discusses-dominic-raab-mp-37777.html

It starts "I was looking up something quite different but stumbled upon a site called 'mumsnet'. Now, remember, this site is purporting to be a website for mothers, NOT feminists. Yet, this thread I encountered seemed full of feminist propaganda..."

I don't know where he gets the idea that mothers can't be feminists.

rofl.
didn't he notice it was in the feminism topic?
presumably he would be equally confused by all the threads about horses in the horse section and computers in the Geeky Stuff section.