Equality supremo Harman admits new law will lead to discrimination against men

PLANS to give businesses the power to discriminate in favour of women and ethnic minorities have provoked a furore among both businesses and equality campaigners.
Harriet Harman, the Equalities Secretary, yesterday unveiled proposals to tackle the gender pay gap and outlaw discrimination against consumers on the grounds of age.
~o0o~

The evidence continues to roll in. The dripping tap of feminism is becoming a lake.. men everywhere, are you taking notice yet?

From The Times;-

‘This week, as you may have heard, four thin women will be overpaid, oversexed and overbalancing on their expensive shoes on the silver screen. The calorie-free cinematic confection that will be the Sex and the City movie may well go unwatched by me, but I see no harm in it. It is, after all, only a story. What I do squirm at is the idea that these women represent liberated womanhood. I thought that there was a little more to it than that. Is Carrie Bradshaw a feminist? Come to that, am I?’

~o0o~

More confusion from yet another woman who mistakes a piece of fictional entertainment about clothing and promiscuity as a life creed!

Feminism is full of confusing and contradictory messages, such as ‘gender is a social construct’  (zoologists may disagree) , ’sexual power equals social power’ (which many take as the central message of ‘Sex And The City’) and ’statistically, men oppress women by..’ (who is conducting the study, and under what conditions?) .

However, one telling fact about feminism is a complete unwillingness to critically examine or allow examination of these ideas.

Why?

Surely not because the goal of feminism is demonisation and marginalisation of men at the expense of openness?

Feminism purports to concern itself only with equality - but in reality propagates mistrust, tension and hatred between the sexes.

From the Daily Mail ;-

‘She’s revered as a trail-blazing feminist and author Alice Walker touched the lives of a generation of women. A champion of women’s rights, she has always argued that motherhood is a form of servitude. But one woman didn’t buy in to Alice’s beliefs  -  her daughter, Rebecca, 38.

Here the writer describes what it was like to grow up as the daughter of a cultural icon, and why she feels so blessed to be the sort of woman 64-year-old Alice despises  -  a mother.

The other day I was vacuuming when my son came bounding into the room. ‘Mummy, Mummy, let me help,’ he cried. His little hands were grabbing me around the knees and his huge brown eyes were looking up at me. I was overwhelmed by a huge surge of happiness.

I love the way his head nestles in the crook of my neck. I love the way his face falls into a mask of eager concentration when I help him learn the alphabet. But most of all, I simply love hearing his little voice calling: ‘Mummy, Mummy.’

It reminds me of just how blessed I am. The truth is that I very nearly missed out on becoming a mother  -  thanks to being brought up by a rabid feminist who thought motherhood was about the worst thing that could happen to a woman.

You see, my mum taught me that children enslave women. I grew up believing that children are millstones around your neck, and the idea that motherhood can make you blissfully happy is a complete fairytale.

In fact, having a child has been the most rewarding experience of my life. Far from ‘enslaving’ me, three-and-a-half-year-old Tenzin has opened my world. My only regret is that I discovered the joys of motherhood so late  -  I have been trying for a second child for two years, but so far with no luck.

I was raised to believe that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. But I strongly feel children need two parents and the thought of raising Tenzin without my partner, Glen, 52, would be terrifying.

As the child of divorced parents, I know only too well the painful consequences of being brought up in those circumstances. Feminism has much to answer for denigrating men and encouraging women to seek independence whatever the cost to their families.

My mother’s feminist principles coloured every aspect of my life. As a little girl, I wasn’t even allowed to play with dolls or stuffed toys in case they brought out a maternal instinct. It was drummed into me that being a mother, raising children and running a home were a form of slavery. Having a career, travelling the world and being independent were what really mattered according to her.

I love my mother very much, but I haven’t seen her or spoken to her since I became pregnant. She has never seen my son  -  her only grandchild. My crime? Daring to question her ideology.

Well, so be it. My mother may be revered by women around the world  -  goodness knows, many even have shrines to her. But I honestly believe it’s time to puncture the myth and to reveal what life was really like to grow up as a child of the feminist revolution.

My parents met and fell in love in Mississippi during the civil rights movement. Dad [Mel Leventhal], was the brilliant lawyer son of a Jewish family who had fled the Holocaust. Mum was the impoverished eighth child of sharecroppers from Georgia. When they married in 1967, inter-racial weddings were still illegal in some states.

My early childhood was very happy although my parents were terribly busy, encouraging me to grow up fast. I was only one when I was sent off to nursery school. I’m told they even made me walk down the street to the school.

When I was eight, my parents divorced. From then on I was shuttled between two worlds  -  my father’s very conservative, traditional, wealthy, white suburban community in New York, and my mother’s avant garde multi-racial community in California. I spent two years with each parent  -  a bizarre way of doing things.

Ironically, my mother regards herself as a hugely maternal woman. Believing that women are suppressed, she has campaigned for their rights around the world and set up organisations to aid women abandoned in Africa  -  offering herself up as a mother figure.

But, while she has taken care of daughters all over the world and is hugely revered for her public work and service, my childhood tells a very different story. I came very low down in her priorities  -  after work, political integrity, self-fulfilment, friendships, spiritual life, fame and travel.

My mother would always do what she wanted  -  for example taking off to Greece for two months in the summer, leaving me with relatives when I was a teenager. Is that independent, or just plain selfish?

I was 16 when I found a now-famous poem she wrote comparing me to various calamities that struck and impeded the lives of other women writers. Virginia Woolf was mentally ill and the Brontes died prematurely. My mother had me  -  a ‘delightful distraction’, but a calamity nevertheless. I found that a huge shock and very upsetting.

According to the strident feminist ideology of the Seventies, women were sisters first, and my mother chose to see me as a sister rather than a daughter. From the age of 13, I spent days at a time alone while my mother retreated to her writing studio  -  some 100 miles away. I was left with money to buy my own meals and lived on a diet of fast food.

A neighbour, not much older than me, was deputised to look after me. I never complained. I saw it as my job to protect my mother and never distract her from her writing. It never crossed my mind to say that I needed some time and attention from her.

When I was beaten up at school  -  accused of being a snob because I had lighter skin than my black classmates  -  I always told my mother that everything was fine, that I had won the fight. I didn’t want to worry her.

But the truth was I was very lonely and, with my mother’s knowledge, started having sex at 13. I guess it was a relief for my mother as it meant I was less demanding. And she felt that being sexually active was empowering for me because it meant I was in control of my body.

Now I simply cannot understand how she could have been so permissive. I barely want my son to leave the house on a play-date, let alone start sleeping around while barely out of junior school.

A good mother is attentive, sets boundaries and makes the world safe for her child. But my mother did none of those things.

Although I was on the Pill  -  something I had arranged at 13, visiting the doctor with my best friend  -  I fell pregnant at 14. I organised an abortion myself. Now I shudder at the memory. I was only a little girl. I don’t remember my mother being shocked or upset. She tried to be supportive, accompanying me with her boyfriend.

Although I believe that an abortion was the right decision for me then, the aftermath haunted me for decades. It ate away at my self-confidence and, until I had Tenzin, I was terrified that I’d never be able to have a baby because of what I had done to the child I had destroyed. For feminists to say that abortion carries no consequences is simply wrong.

As a child, I was terribly confused, because while I was being fed a strong feminist message, I actually yearned for a traditional mother. My father’s second wife, Judy, was a loving, maternal homemaker with five children she doted on.

There was always food in the fridge and she did all the things my mother didn’t, such as attending their school events, taking endless photos and telling her children at every opportunity how wonderful they were.

My mother was the polar opposite. She never came to a single school event, she didn’t buy me any clothes, she didn’t even help me buy my first bra  -  a friend was paid to go shopping with me. If I needed help with homework I asked my boyfriend’s mother.

Moving between the two homes was terrible. At my father’s home I felt much more taken care of. But, if I told my mother that I’d had a good time with Judy, she’d look bereft  -  making me feel I was choosing this white, privileged woman above her. I was made to feel that I had to choose one set of ideals above the other.

When I hit my 20s and first felt a longing to be a mother, I was totally confused. I could feel my biological clock ticking, but I felt if I listened to it, I would be betraying my mother and all she had taught me.

I tried to push it to the back of my mind, but over the next ten years the longing became more intense, and when I met Glen, a teacher, at a seminar five years ago, I knew I had found the man I wanted to have a baby with. Gentle, kind and hugely supportive, he is, as I knew he would be, the most wonderful father.

Although I knew what my mother felt about babies, I still hoped that when I told her I was pregnant, she would be excited for me.

Instead, when I called her one morning in the spring of 2004, while I was at one of her homes housesitting, and told her my news and that I’d never been happier, she went very quiet. All she could say was that she was shocked. Then she asked if I could check on her garden. I put the phone down and sobbed  -  she had deliberately withheld her approval with the intention of hurting me. What loving mother would do that?

Worse was to follow. My mother took umbrage at an interview in which I’d mentioned that my parents didn’t protect or look out for me. She sent me an e-mail, threatening to undermine my reputation as a writer. I couldn’t believe she could be so hurtful  -  particularly when I was pregnant.

Devastated, I asked her to apologise and acknowledge how much she’d hurt me over the years with neglect, withholding affection and resenting me for things I had no control over  -  the fact that I am mixed-race, that I have a wealthy, white, professional father and that I was born at all.

But she wouldn’t back down. Instead, she wrote me a letter saying that our relationship had been inconsequential for years and that she was no longer interested in being my mother. She even signed the letter with her first name, rather than ‘Mom’.

That was a month before Tenzin’s birth in December 2004, and I have had no contact with my mother since. She didn’t even get in touch when he was rushed into the special care baby unit after he was born suffering breathing difficulties.

And I have since heard that my mother has cut me out of her will in favour of one of my cousins. I feel terribly sad  -  my mother is missing such a great opportunity to be close to her family. But I’m also relieved. Unlike most mothers, mine has never taken any pride in my achievements. She has always had a strange competitiveness that led her to undermine me at almost every turn.

When I got into Yale  -  a huge achievement  -  she asked why on earth I wanted to be educated at such a male bastion. Whenever I published anything, she wanted to write her version  -  trying to eclipse mine. When I wrote my memoir, Black, White And Jewish, my mother insisted on publishing her version. She finds it impossible to step out of the limelight, which is extremely ironic in light of her view that all women are sisters and should support one another.

It’s been almost four years since I have had any contact with my mother, but it’s for the best  -  not only for my self-protection but for my son’s well-being. I’ve done all I can to be a loyal, loving daughter, but I can no longer have this poisonous relationship destroy my life.

I know many women are shocked by my views. They expect the daughter of Alice Walker to deliver a very different message. Yes, feminism has undoubtedly given women opportunities. It’s helped open the doors for us at schools, universities and in the workplace. But what about the problems it’s caused for my contemporaries?

The ease with which people can get divorced these days doesn’t take into account the toll on children. That’s all part of the unfinished business of feminism.

Then there is the issue of not having children. Even now, I meet women in their 30s who are ambivalent about having a family. They say things like: ‘I’d like a child. If it happens, it happens.’ I tell them: ‘Go home and get on with it because your window of opportunity is very small.’ As I know only too well.

Then I meet women in their 40s who are devastated because they spent two decades working on a PhD or becoming a partner in a law firm, and they missed out on having a family. Thanks to the feminist movement, they discounted their biological clocks. They’ve missed the opportunity and they’re bereft.

Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating.

But far from taking responsibility for any of this, the leaders of the women’s movement close ranks against anyone who dares to question them  -  as I have learned to my cost. I don’t want to hurt my mother, but I cannot stay silent. I believe feminism is an experiment, and all experiments need to be assessed on their results. Then, when you see huge mistakes have been paid, you need to make alterations.

I hope that my mother and I will be reconciled one day. Tenzin deserves to have a grandmother. But I am just so relieved that my viewpoint is no longer so utterly coloured by my mother’s.

I am my own woman and I have discovered what really matters  -  a happy family. ‘

“It is going to have the same effect as the Pill in the 1960s - it is liberation for women.”

Full article here.

Did you ever notice that the feminist definitions of ‘liberation’, ‘empowerment’ and ‘having it all’ always involve moral and physical separation of the sexes with a strong emphasis on the demonisation of men?

~o0o~

‘Feminists have long criticized marriage as a place of oppression, danger, and drudgery for women.’

-Barbara Findlen, “Is Marriage the Answer? Ms Magazine, May - June, 1995

From the Mail On Sunday;-

‘Well, it has been another terrific week for fully-grown women making an exhibition of themselves. There was Amy Winehouse, heading to a police station in tears, a ridiculous bow in her unwashed hair, mascara streaking down her pasty face.

There was former Popstars winner Suzanne Shaw tumbling out of a nightclub looking the worse for wear. There was Hillary Clinton, thinking she had a hope in hell against someone young, male and virile.

There was poor Katie Holmes, reportedly ensnared by a bizarre eating ritual.

But it was the normally sane, sober-suited and serene 35-year-old mother of two Gwyneth Paltrow at the London premiere of her new film, wearing a mini skirt and wobbling bare-legged in the latest in a succession of 7in stilettos, that made me type, Carrie Bradshaw-like, this rhetorical question into my laptop: Why do rich, clever, powerful women regress into weak little girls?

If you are a man, let me enlighten you. High heels hurt. They torture the balls of your feet and cramp your toes. They over-develop the muscles in your calves and throw out your back.

They mean you baulk, like tragic Grand National horse McKelvey at Becher’sBrook, when faced withsteps, cobbles and walking in general. They make you tired, whiny and fractious.

They encourage children on the bus to give up their seat because they think you are disabled. They force you to cling on to the arm of a man, any man, to stay upright. They are, thanks, of course, to the brainwashing cult of Sex And The City, ruinously expensive.

But, most importantly, they strip women of any vestige of power, dignity, common sense or sanity.

Feminist writer Polly Toynbee argued recently that concern about appearance harms the brain function of women. She reported findings that girls waiting to try on a swimsuit performed less well at maths than girls waiting to try on a jumper.

Why? Because when women, even tiny ones (in my support group for anorexics I have a new member aged eight), think about their naked bodies, they feel overwhelmingly negative, which dents confidence.

Toynbee cited a new trend called the ‘girlification’ of women. It is reinforced by the half-dressed trollops who masquerade as icons, such as the members of Girls Aloud, who would surely feel more at home plying their trade on the streets of Ipswich.

She claims it is the reason that women are still hopelessly marginalised, that those in their 40s still earn 20 per cent less than male counterparts, that the UK has the largest pay gap in Europe and that 90 per cent of top EU company board members are still men.

A skinny, big-eyed woman wobbling in giant shoes smacks creepily of a little girl raiding Mummy’s closet. The little girl can’t walk properly, or get away, and neither can we. But why, why, why do we need women to be preserved as defenceless, self-doubting infants?

It is hugely important to the economy in these turbulent times to ensure we keep on shopping (straight men, as we all know, never bother to buy anything).

The pink pound is no longer spent by gay men; having abandoned hedonism for civil partnerships, they have swapped the frivolous, ‘feminine’ consumerism they briefly bought into for investing in sensible, tangible things, like mid-20th Century furniture and arable land.

No, the pink pound is now exclusively female. And I don’t just mean we spend it in the girls’ sections of M&S and Primark, awash as they are withsickly pink tat, adorned with fluff and sequins.

Designer fashion – the current crop of giant bags, baby dolls, floral playsuits, the list goes on and on – might not be pink, but it is equally infantilising.

Whenever I see yet another pair of bondage shoe-boots costing £500, it is as if some man is patting me on the head, saying, ‘Don’t you worry your pretty head about a thing’, and it makes me wild that women are still stupid enough to buy this stuff.

But buy it we do, because we want to be loved.

High heels can never be ironic, for the same reason Sex And The City was never a satire: they both render women pathetic, cash poor, empty-headed – when your feet are killing you, you think of nothing else – man-chasers.

Not in a Jane Austen way (after all, Emma, Lizzie, Anne et al were nothing if not pragmatic manipulators) but in a way that means we now dress as though we are about to hang upside down, hairless, faux pre-pubescent legs wrapped around a pole. And that, surely, is not good.’

~o0o~

This is the danger of brainwashing half the population of the western hemisphere into believing myths of oppression that legitimise freedom of action without conscience or responsibility, as propagated by feminism.

After a brief regurgitation of the wage gap myth, the author explains how women are now oppressing themselves in their choice of clothing!

This is despite the fact that ‘lipstick feminists’ consider the right to dress seductively as (social rather than sexual) empowerment!

The one thing notably missing here amongst all this talk of ‘oppression’ and empowerment is discussion of behavioral responsibility , something that feminists prefer to sweep aside!

Perhaps straight men who ‘never buy anything’ should boycott the Mail On Sunday until Liz Jones discontinues her misandric generalisations, and directly challenges feminist cognitive dissonance with regard to the ‘clothing as oppression / empowerment’ dilemma that feminism has created!

  • Does the MRM hate women?

No! Women are great. It’s feminism that is causing the problems between men and women.

Absolutely not. Rape is a vile and disgusting crime. What we care about is the ‘feminisation of victimisation’ - male rape victims have a right to support too. Feminists often like to play that point down or ignore it completely.

  • Do MRAs think that women should not have the same rights to work as men, and for equal pay?

Of course they should! But do you see many female construction workers? No, but you shouldn’t take that to be automatic evidence that women are oppressed in the construction employment market. Many women choose not to do work which calls for hard physical labour, often under dangerous conditions and to the detriment of family life - which is often better paid. Unfortunately, feminists miss these points when they compile statistics which show that women are consistently working more hours for less money than men. Ladies, if you want to go out there and build some roads, we’re only too happy to have the dinner ready for you when you get home!

(For more on this point, read ‘Why women don’t want top jobs, by a feminist’ )

Well, there are a few myths dispelled for you. However, there are plenty of ’sources’ out there who will propagate anti Men’s Rights hysteria  present alternative points of view.

Here’s one I found today.. http://adonismirror.com/ 

So, why do I publicise this site?

Why not? ‘Sunlight is the best disinfectant’ - bring it on, for all to see!

Feminism purports to concern itself only with equality - but in reality propagates mistrust, tension and hatred between the sexes.

This card is given out to women only in a location close to myself. It is publicising a female only domestic violence support organisation.

  • WHY is the abusive person a man?
  • WHY does this organisation only support females?
  • WHY does this organisation feel the need to educate women about definitions of mental abuse such as not being ‘cheerful’?
  • The wording in full;-

    ‘Mr Right

    A Non-Abusive Man:

    Is cheerful

    Consistent

    Supportive

    Tells you you look good

    Tells you you’re competent

    Uses your name

    Trusts you

    Trusts your judgement

    Welcomes your friends and family

    Encourages you to be independent

    Supports your learning, career etc

    Admits to being wrong

    Is a responsible parent

    Is an equal parent

    Does his share of the housework

    Shares financial responsibility

    Accepts that you have a right to say ‘no’ to sex

    Takes responsibility for his own well-being and happiness

    In short..

    Behaves like a reasonable human being

    Mr. Wrong

    An Abusive Man:

    Shouts

    Sulks

    Smashes things

    Glares

    Calls you names

    Makes you feel ugly and useless

    Cuts you off from your friends

    Stops you working

    Never admits he is wrong

    Turns the children against you

    Uses the children to control you

    Never does the share of the housework

    Never looks after the children

    Expects sex on demand

    Controls the money

    Threatens or wheedles you to get his own way

    Seduces your friends/sister/anyone

    Expects you to be responsible for his well-being

    Blames you drink, drugs etc.’

     

    From The Daily Mail ;-

    ‘A man who lost his job after being falsely accused of a horrific sex crime has been found hanged in a shed.

    Ian Adams, 51, was suspended and then sacked from his job at a local IKEA store after his employers received a letter saying he had raped a woman and her two children.

    The writer claimed to be a journalist on a local newspaper, but the name and address in the letter were false and the author has never been traced.

    Police confirmed that Mr Adams, from Highams Park East, London, had never been arrested or convicted of a sexual offence or had any complaints made against him.

    Mr Adams’ life went downhill as he struggled to recover from the accusations.

    He failed to get his job back after being sacked in January. His drinking led to problems with his partner and he spent the last few nights of his life sleeping in a storage shed at the bottom of the block of flats in which he lived.

    A neighbour, who did not wish to be named, said: “If it wasn’t for that letter he would still be here, I am sure of it.

    “He was happy and full of himself when he was working, he was more or less dancing on his way to work. But he went from working all day to doing nothing.

    “He went down and down, poor chap, and we should have seen the warning signs.”

    Another neighbour, Darren Lupton, 34, said: “He was doing well, he was off the drink for a long time when he had the job, but when he lost it he was devastated.”

    Mr Adams worked for a contractor named Symonds employed by IKEA to collect trolleys. Both Symonds and Ikea appeared to blame one another for the loss of his employment. Ikea claimed that it had only suspended him from the premises until Symonds had carried out an investigation, while Symonds claimed that it had no choice but to let him go because Ikea would not let him work on its premises. ‘

    ~o0o~

    ‘All men are rapists and that’s all they are.’

    -Marilyn French in People, February 20, 1983

    ‘Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience.’

    -Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52.

    From http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article3671857.ece ;-

    ‘A senior judge will deliver an outspoken attack on the Government today, declaring that “all of society’s social ills” can be traced to breakdown of the family.

    Mr Justice Coleridge, a Family Division judge, will give warning of an epidemic of family failures, claiming that children born into broken homes are turning increasingly to drink, drugs and crime. He will argue that the collapse of the family is as potent a threat to the country as terrorism, crime, drugs or binge drinking.

    In his speech to family lawyers, the judge will say that there has been a collapse of one of the building blocks of society, and that in urban areas family life is “in meltdown or completely unrecognisable”. He will lay the blame at the “neglect” of successive governments.

    The judge, who is in charge of family courts across southwest England, will say: “In some of the more heavily populated urban areas of the country, family life is, quite frankly, in meltdown or completely unrecognisable. In some areas of the country, even including the more urban parts of the sleepy West in which I operate, family life in the old sense no longer exists. So I suggest that the general collapse of ordinary family life, because of the breakdown of families, in this country is on a scale, depth and“ breadth which few of us could have imagined even a decade ago.”

    The judge has presided over cases of divorce, children in care and family break-up for eight years. Last year he supervised attempts in the courtroom to negotiate a voluntary divorce settlement between Heather Mills and Sir Paul McCartney.

    He will argue that he is not criticising single parents. “I am not saying every broken family produces dysfunctional children, but I am saying that almost every dysfunctional child is the product of a broken family,” he says. “And what is government doing to recognise and face up to the emerging situation? What is it doing to halt the decline or even reverse it? The answer is very little, and nothing like enough. It is fiddling whilst Rome burns.”

    The judge will give his speech to lawyers from Resolution, formerly the Solicitors’ Family Law Association, in Brighton.’

    ~o0o~

    Feminism is a disease on modern western society. All of the above can be traced back to the planned destruction and alienation of fatherhood and traditional family values by feminism.

    Parental alienation, divorce training schools masquerading as female-only DV centres, ‘family courts’ that are for anything but the family..

    These are the weapons of division that this hateful female supremacist movement has insidiously unleashed upon western society resulting in family breakdown, gang culture and widespread social decay.

    This system has only existed because MEN HAVE TOLERATED IT.

    It is time to say ‘ENOUGH’ TO FEMINISM.

    ‘Each suburban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for groceries, matched slipcover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffered Cub Scouts and Brownies, lay beside her husband at night — she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question — “Is this all?’

    - Betty Friedan, feminist divisionist hate monger