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?

I sort of, against my will, find this complaint about women not setting up shelters for men quite funny. I mean, if I set up a shelter for overworked donkeys, it is in no way an implication that e.g. racehorses never have any problems. It is just that the thing that I'm setting up, happens to be for a different animal.

Also, quite seriously, if men have been beaten up by women, wouldn't they feel more comfortable in a refuge set up and run by other men?

Quite obviously, when men like this talk about "having absolutely no input into whether a woman gets pregnant [or stays pregnant] or not", what they mean is, women USED to have NO autonomy over whether they got or stayed pregnant. Since rape was generally blamed on the woman (how things have changed...), sex in marriage was compulsory, and male doctors wouldn't generally provide contraception or abortions to women.

So now both men and women have an input, it's all a bit much for our friend here.

" I can't understand why a company must pay her for her choice (remember, men have no input on this issue) to get pregnant, meaning other employees pick up where she left off."

Men really have no input on whether they have children? Really? They don't put their penis into a vagina and ejaculate? All these women "choosing" to have children don't have husbands/partners who have also chosen to have children? All these millions of women obviously conceive via a sperm donor and none of the men in their life have any say in the matter whatsoever.

In the cases of an unwanted pregnancy, again in the vast majority of cases women and men decide together what to do about the situation. On the very rare occasions they don't agree then yes the woman will get to decide. The man has still had an input (after all he was there at the conception), however, his opinion post-conception may well be ignored . I know that is hard to come to terms with, that a man may not have the final word but it is her body after all.

If her company shouldn't pay for her choice, who should?

The state? Her husband? A combination of all three?

Or let me guess - just the woman herself? Because after all, it's just her choice isn't it, no man has had an input into it and no man is ever going to benefit from another human being/ consumer on the planet.

In that case, we should all stop having children. And having sex. The planet would grind ot a halt.

Except er, men wouldn't let us. There'd be mass rape.

With regards to refuge and support services for male domestic abuse victims.

There are refuges for men, not many, but the number is slowly growing (especially as this is a crime area that is growing each year).

Sadly, in the past, when money has been set aside for refuge or support services for male victims of domestic abuse this has seen criticism from female charities.

When the M.A.L.E. support line was first set up, there was criticism from a tiny number of female groups, which I found most disappointing.

Anyway, I agree, there is no point complaining about the inequality that men DO receive in certain areas (like domestic abuse). If people like the PP feel so strongly, they need to get out there and do something about it.

My older brother was a victim of physical, emotional and verbal abuse from his ex-wife, an issue I was ignorant about until then. He was shocked by how little help was available for him, but instead of complaining about it, he took positive action. He's now an advisor for a male domestic abuse charity.

There are women out there who DO campaign on behalf of men, including in the area of domestic abuse, I'm one of them. However, women have to want to do that, and in my case I want to do it after witnessing what my brother went through.

Some women just want to help other women though. There is nothing wrong with that.

How many men are actively working to stop violence against women, compared to how many women are working to stop violence against men?

And yet how many criticise feminists for not working to stop violence against men?

Hatterbox: "Some women just want to help other women though." That's not really true though is it? I for one, support other things including charities and movements for children/cancer/sport. Plus feminism doesn't "just" want to help women. It is it's primary focus but it will also make lives better for men too. And example being maternity pay (allowing working women to take time off to look after children whilst still bringing some money into the household). That benefits men too.

Stopping male violence would also benefit men.

Oh yes i think it's positive too.

But my point is that so many of the whiney-arse MRA's complain about women helping women, when actually, I bet you more women help men than men do. (Caveat: I have no idea if this is true.)

Rhadegunde - you are probably right! It was meant to be positive. I think I focused on the "just" a bit too much!

My point wasn't meant to be seen as negative, far from it.

There are women who opt just to focus on the cause of fighting for rights for women. It doesn't mean they don't care (for want of a better word) about the areas where men don't have equality (and there are areas where this applies, whether people want to acknowledge it not), it's just they don't feel the need to have an active involvement.

There are feminist causes, like maternity pay, which do have benefit to men as a consequence, but that's what it is, a consequence, not a motivation.

That's actually what I was meaning to imply, admittedly worded badly, so to reword it; the motivation for most feminists is rights for women and there is nothing wrong with that.

NB: There are some of us who are motivated by rights for both genders, and there is nothing wrong with that either, even if I was once accused of betraying my own gender!

You seem far too reasonable Hatterbox, shame on you

Whereas you don't seem reasonable at all invision, so well done.

Oh my god have just discovered that someone I know is working for this utter tool. Wonder if he agrees with him.

Which utter tool - there have been so many. Raab or an MRA poster?

The former. Although who knows, they could be one and the same!