Harriet Harman, the feminist Minister for Women and Equality in the UK has been recommended by the Office Of National Statistics to present “gender wage gap” statistics differently in this report in order to give the figures in a fairer light. There is more evidence that her use of statistics are causing consternation in Whitehall. Previously to this, Ms. Harman has claimed that ”on average women are paid 22.6% per hour less than men”. However, this figure is based on total hours worked by both sexes - but does take into account the actual amount of hours worked by women.

From the Office Of National Statistics report (emphasis mine) ;- 

The measure for all employees showed a pay difference of 22.5 percent in favour of men and the pay difference for full-timers was 12.8 per cent in April 2008. When looking at part-time employees, the difference was -3.5 per cent, meaning that part-time men were paid less on average than part-time women.

However, Ms. Harman’s own Equality and Human Rights Commission continues unabated with their own investigation on how best to provide the figures for public consumption.

Why not read the report and judge for yourself?

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/paygap1109.pdf

From The Guardian :-

The New Dudes are drunk, faithless, feckless and dark. But are they dangerous modern misogynists? Or desperate for female attention?

..Could it be our (women’s) fault? We asked for the New Man (feminised, housebroken), and then when we got him, we mocked him for being a sap. It’s almost as though men are saying: “You women keep trying to invent new kinds of men. Well, here are the men we invent, left to our own devices.” That said, for all the bluster, what a bumbling shower this dick power mob seems. Many don’t even seem to understand their own woman-hating credo. Here’s a clue, guys: if you despise certain people, ignore them. As it is, while feminism is generally accepted to be all about women, masculinism turns out to be… all about women, too.

The feminists haven’t worked this one out yet, have they..? You may immediately notice the standard feminist modus opperandi – the stunning avoidance of self-criticism, the gratuitous Shaming Language..

You may also wish to read The Marriage Strike – It’s Because You Have A Small Penis on this blog, which was posted back in February 4th 2008 where I originally commented..

 ..Thanks to feminism, marriage has become a financially and emotionally unviable proposition for modern men.

Let’s leave the feminists to think about this a bit longer shall we? I am sure that they will get there in the end.. unless they read Mens Rights blogs of course!

One of the more pervasive aspects of feminism is an absolute refusal to critically exmamine its own ideology, and an abolute insistence on maintaining and propagating its own dogma.

Recently, this has taken a bizarre twist in the manifestation of several feminist ‘churches’. Read these links at your own peril!

http://www.womanthouartgod.com

http://www.cybelians.com

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

From The D.C. Writeup;-

Feminists everywhere, rejoice! Your day has finally come! The groundwork laid by the Suffragettes, sown by the bra-burning flower womyn of the 60s, fertilized by the sexual liberation of the 70s, and watered by Roe v. Wade has finally borne fruit! The glass ceiling is shattered! Women are finally in a position to … sexually harass other women? Women are finally in a position to … find their husbands (or fathers … or brothers) without jobs?

In two honest-to-goodness, not-making-this-stuff-up stories this week, the USA Today and the legal blog Above the Law have covered two stories that should make feminists cringe, not rejoice. But rejoice is exactly what they’re doing.

In a story that makes normal people blush, but has made some bloggers a little *ahem* hot-and-bothered, a Delaware law firm has been hit with a sexual harassment suit after they failed to deal with creatively titled “girl-on-girl sexual harassment.” In this case, a female partner allegedly sexually harassed a female associate in the firm, telling her sexually explicit things that I don’t really feel comfortable repeating here. Some commentators admitted that this illustrates that “women can be just as creepy as men” and “just as capable of creating a threatening work environment” at the same time. Others have used the story to show that career women are finally in a position to “break from the stereotypical harassment situation of a female victim going up against an old boys’ network.” Depicting this story as a boon for the women’s movement disgusts me.

The other story is less perverse, but no less disheartening. In a banner week for feminists, the USA Today also reports that the recession has hit men the hardest, where of the 6.4 million jobs lost this year, 26% of those jobs were lost by women and a whopping 74% of those jobs were lost by men. The story cites to the fact that a lot of the jobs “typically” performed by men, such as construction and manufacturing, are part of industries hardest hit by the recession, whereas “women’s jobs,” like health care, education and local government, are being laid off less (some even seeing growth) and are receiving the most stimulus money.

Instead of raising the concern that perhaps these women are now going to have to work two jobs to support their family or considering the psychological effects this may have on men (and the negative impact these statistics may have on women because of their husbands’ unemployed status), feminists see this as a good thing. The President of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (as a side note – is there an Institute for Men’s Policy Research?) actually stated, “It was a long historical slog to get to this point.” Another woman, who wrote a book often used in feminist study classes entitled Creating Rosie the Riveter, was cited as saying that “the image that the man has to be the breadwinner has changed.”

So congratulations, feminists, you now have equality. But equality at what expense?

This is really another example of people who are trying to “help” or trying to “represent the voiceless” completely losing touch with reality. Is having the equal opportunity to harass another human being really a boon for the feminist movement? Is having males lose more jobs than females really the equal opportunity that the Suffragettes imagined? Neither of these stories are good situations for anyone. These are things you wouldn’t wish on humanity in general, let alone on an entire gender. They shouldn’t be seen as a boon to the women’s equality movement, they should be seen for exactly what they are: tragic events that affect and damage everyone together. That’s equality.

More here..

http://www.thedcwriteup.com/2009/10/for-feminism-a-pair-of-pyrrhic-victories/

~0Oo~

“How will the family unit be destroyed? …[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.”

Roxanne Dunbar (1969) Female Liberation As The Basis For Social Revolution

“Sexual harassment law is very important. But I think it would be a mistake if the sexual harassment law movement is the only way in which feminism is known in the media.”

Judith Butler (2001) LOLApress Magazine No. 2

Visit virtually any college campus and you will find “women’s studies” classes that wave the flag of victimization and promote gender warfare. They are filled with hippie-generation professors who seek to convince female students that having children is beneath them, that men are the enemy, that their fulfillment lies in wallowing in self-pity. Students are pressured to attend male-bashing plays like “The Vagina Monologues.” Oppressors of femininity also control much of the programming geared toward young women. Witness MTV and the prime-time lineup where women are taught that the only way to advance in the world is to dominate and manipulate men through “sexual power.”

More here;-

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/28/hagelin-fight-campus-feminist-follies/

ATLANTA, September 15, 2009—The abuse of campus sexual harassment policies to punish dissenting professors has hit a new low at East Georgia College (EGC) in Swainsboro. Professor Thomas Thibeault made the mistake of pointing out—at a sexual harassment training seminar—that the school’s sexual harassment policy contained no protection for the falsely accused. Two days later, in a Kafkaesque irony, Thibeault was fired by the college president for sexual harassment without notice, without knowing his accuser or the charges against him, and without a hearing.

More here;-

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/995/DHHarvardSummerscolumn031605.htm

~o0o~

“Feminist education – the feminist classroom – is and should be a place where there is a sense of struggle, where there is visible acknowledgement of the union of theory and practice, where we work together as teachers and students to overcome the estrangement and alienation that have become so much the norm in the contemporary university.”
bell hooks (1989) Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black Sheba, London, p.51

“Feminism recognizes education both as a site for struggle and as a tool for change-making.”
Linda Briskin & Rebecca Coulter (1992), Feminist Pedagogy: Challenging the Normative, Canadian Journal of Education 17/3, p. 249.

More quotes evidential of socio-political indoctrination in education here;-

http://pers-www.wlv.ac.uk/~le1810/fpq.htm

Quite simply, “ad hominem” is a debating technique where one makes a personal attack on the character or credibility of the speaker instead of addressing arguments that are presented, such as these.

In other words.. a “cheap shot”!

Here’s a great example of a person making “ad hominem” personal attacks in place of evaluation or discourse.

http://mrashavecooties.blogspot.com/

Enjoy!

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

Factory2590 explains why some MRAs choose to remain anonymous..

See more of his great YouTube videos here.

http://www.youtube.com/user/factory2590

Details continue to emerge about the now-suspended Hofstra student’s fake allegations that she was the victim of a gang rape in a dorm bathroom. Her new boyfriend speaks with the NY Post, giving a possible (disturbing) suggested motive for why Danmell Ndonye lied: Apparently she may have wanted to protect her reputation with him and others, even if it meant accusing five other men of rape.

More here..

http://gothamist.com/2009/09/18/details_about_hofstra_students_fake.php

From independent.ie ;-

I am a heterosexual man of a certain age, which obviously means one thing: I do not frequent shopping centres or shopping malls. The single exception I allow, because it is both open air and near to my home, is my annual trip to the Kildare Village.

I spent a happy hour there a year ago, most of it in the women’s underwear shop, Wolford, watching a video of German models on a catwalk, sporting not very much. And the really lovely thing about these models was the antediluvian amplitude of their bodies: breasts you would have ordered by the truckloads, large helpings of bottoms that would cause healthy men to yodel with joy, and jolly bellies that you would have happily commissioned a seamstress to make them into a very large mattress, and taken home.

That was 2008. 2009, and in my most recent visit to Wolford — my last — the buxom Teutonic mannequins were gone, and in their stead was a video of the usual gaunt skeletons tottering down the catwalk. A healthy and joyous celebration of female sexual carnality had been replaced by a death walk. Meanwhile, outside the shop, waddling down paths and gorging in the restaurants, were the new generation of Irish women: prosperous, upper middle-class and, for fully one quarter of them, massively obese. Not fat. Not overweight. Not corpulent. But massively obese. From their arms swing great folds of fat, like huge water-filled balloons. Their bellies are so vast that their owners could not have seen even their toes in years. And their bottoms constitute such an orotund object, with such a colossal circumference, that an entire school of carpentry is going to have to be invented to cope with their seating requirements.

Now, three forces arrived roughly simultaneously in western society. They were, one, feminism; two obesity; and three, anorexia. I note the coincidence: I do not say two and three are necessarily attributable to one. I am also aware of the predictable response of feminist columnists (and God, I can name them now) on this subject is to sneer: Ha! Kevin Myers wants us back at the sink, children at our knees, in the bad old days when foreplay merely meant: “Brace yourself Bridget.”

Of course, dismissing questions that are inconvenient, by a stereotyping and an ad hominem caricature of the questioner, is the standard rhetorical ploy of feminists. Yet not even the most sneering feminist can deny that when men created the cultural female iconic imagery of western civilisation (that is, through the middle ages up to the mid-1970s), from Botticelli to Rubens and to Hefner, women generally did not suffer from eating disorders. In that visual universe, women were clearly sex objects and the female form was worshipped. During this era, women might sometimes have been overweight or malnourished, but there were not the chronic conditions we now know as obesity and anorexia.

Since the political and cultural victory of feminism brought women a virtual monopoly over female image creation, by women of women for women, through American Vogue, Harper’s Bazaar, and Vanity Fair, the twin plagues of death by starvation and death by over-eating have swept through the female sex. So: is there a causal relationship between the attainment of untrammelled editorial authority by a handful of powerful women, and the semi-voluntary victimhood by others?

Certainly, women’s editors have dogmatically used stick-insects as models. Their companions in this project are either other women, or homosexual men. Heterosexual men are almost entirely outside this power loop. Yet feminists still blame the traditional male “patriarchy” for the obesity/anorexia pandemic that is destroying both the bodies and lives of so many women. This is in such conflict with both logic, and all available evidence, that it simply proves how human unreason can triumph, enabling self-pitying feminists to blame their women’s woes on some mythic, still all-powerful, male chauvinist juju.

Okay. But why are one quarter of middle-class, middle aged Irishwomen obese to the point of immobility? Does the fascistic image-making of the obergruppenfuhrers of women’s magazines cause ordinary women to despair of looking like a woman at all? Do they indulge instead in the endorphin-releasing pleasures of gorging themselves? Meanwhile, their daughters are possibly immured in either of the twin purgatories of anorexia or obesity, from which a healthy, lifelong escape is almost as likely as it is from Devil’s Island.

Anorexia and obesity arrived at around the same time as feminism, and possibly on the same train. So is the unadulterated image-making power of influential women over the perception of women’s bodies a primary reason why so many dislike themselves physically? Women editors clearly prefer the unattainably epicene, the gaunt, and the chic, deathbed look, to the triumphantly alive.

Which begs the larger questions: do such powerful women actually hate real women?

And is unconscious misogyny amongst female fashionistas the real reason that so many relatively low-ranking women, even middle-class ones, are so profoundly and so desperately and, most of all, so fatly unhappy?

Original article here..

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/anorexia-and-obesity-arrived-at-the-same-time-as-feminism-and-possibly–on-the-same-train-1888826.html