Deborah Hargreaves, the chair of the High Pay Commission, told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme that a closed shop of executives were driving up pay.

“I think it is very hard to justify these sorts of pay increases,” Hargreaves said.

“When you think the average pay is going up 1% or 2%, it’s not even meeting price rises. These pay packages have become so complex that executives don’t even understand it themselves. We have got a closed shop here and someone needs to break it open.”

The prime minister indicated some sympathy with this view, and went further by saying that increasing the number of women in boardrooms would help drive down pay levels.

“At the moment I think there is too much of a closed circle of people made available to be non-executives. By opening this up, by increasing the number of women in our boards – I think that would have a beneficial effect.”

If we hold as true the assertions that;-

1. Most boards are closed environments
2. These environments are dominated by men
3. Women work for less pay
4. Introducing women to these environments would save money

It follows that David Cameron percieves that sexual discrimination is commonplace in the UK (despite being illegal).

It also follows that he has not acted upon this, despite being elected to do so.

As routine sexual discrimination is tolerated in the UK, it also follows that any company would be able to hire women only.

Following the last point, this company would gain a financial advantage over competitors due to less spending on wages.

It futher follows that David Cameron would favour being replaced by a woman, as this would add value to British civil service in the form of saved money.

Anyone see any holes in this logic..?

Think carefully now – if you are in the UK, you are paying David Cameron £142,000 Per Annum for it.

Let’s take the movie “Alexandra’s Project”, and look at the related wikipedia page.

Now let’s look at the same page with the genders reversed.

What do you think?

From “Feminism? Forget it, sisters” by Neil Lyndon, Daily Telegraph 6th August 2010 ;-

Many of those men had lived alone, learnt to cook and run a home before they lived with women; and some of them – me included – have looked after children alone after marriages failed. More than 300,000 men in this country are the sole parents of children, fully responsible for every element of their domestic lives. Are they to be told – as Fay Weldon declared with majestic stupidity last year – that they are congenitally incapable of picking up a sock?

Google images: “Saleswoman”

Google Images: “Salesman”

If you have the stomach for it, type “misandry” into Google, and take a gander at what you’re rewarded with. The internet is chock full of self-righteous misogynists who think us “female supremacists” just need to “have some sense fucked into us” (because nothing inspires faith in your concept that sex equality already exists like your reinforcement of rape culture, and the idea that us little ladies just need a good deep dicking to set us straight).

A fine example of a straw man argument if ever I saw one! Without references, the blogger states that supporters of mens rights also advocate rape. The blogger fails to show how she reached this argument, and this ‘gap’ in reasoning is formally known as a non sequitur . After this the blogger continues in fine style;-

Yes, men are the victims of domestic violence, and yes, men get raped. As acknowledged at the start of my last post, ten percent of rape victims are male. But you know what that leaves? 90 percent who are female. Should that ten percent get ignored, should their crimes not be prosecuted? Of course not. But focusing on so few while so many suffer is not going to in any way affect the long-term problem.

Let’s imagine for a moment that the blogger is using verifiable sources for this statistic (she does not). The blogger argues that most victims are female, and also that this fact would legitimise a gynocentric focus with regard to victim support. However, this is an appeal to popularity – should we likewise ignore hunger in a small  Third World country in order to buy extra pizza for the larger population at home? The blogger continues.

How many television shows feature a conventionally unattractive, rude, obese women with her Chippendale-double husband? It’s not an insult to men that they’re told they can be as slovenly, ill-mannered, and lazy as they wish and still expect a beautiful, capable wife. It’s a statement on how we, as women, should have low standards because we should be grateful for any and all male attention that is granted to us.

However, this argument confuses a sequence of events . Advertisers tailor their products to appeal to a target audience, and will soon change if that audience does not enjoy that product. The Stupid Dad advertising phenomenon is most often designed to appeal to an audience who buy domestic products, and it is a recognised fact that most homemakers are still female . Therefore, this phenomenon is dictated by females, rather than dictated to them.

So, what can men do when confronted by this kind of faulty reasoning? It might be tempting to assail bloggers such as the one above, but I would suggest that it is better to become acquainted with some knowledge of logical fallacies . This would equip you to disassemble arguments such as the ones above, in the same way that I have.

After all.. feminists are stupid. Throw logic at them!

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

Some selected quotes;-

DAMMIT WHY ARE WOMEN ALWAYS TRYING TO MAKE ME STOP WATCHING TV, GET A JOB, AND PAY CHILD SUPPORT. YOU ARE INFRINGING ON MY MALE RIGHT TO BE A DEPENDENT SLOB.

so pretty much the entire website is “WITHOUT THE GENDER BINARY LIFE IS SCARY AND I HAVE TO FOCUS ON BEING INTELLIGENT AND FAIR, OH GOD NOT THAT”

I’m so mad I can’t find that cat macro that says “ya’ll don’t know what it’s like…being male middle class and white.

( Nowhere on this site do I disclose my ethnicity or social status. This is to prevent ad hominem arguments like this one. E.F. )

Whoever wrote this has very little knowledge of feminism AND is terribly afraid of women at the same time. Pathetic.

I think that after being verbally brutalized for trying to help people understand my feelings about sexism that it’s good to know that there’s a website where they can research how to do it in advance.

You’d better hope he’s gay. Else he’d fail logic yet again, having to sleep with the sex that represses him so. On second thought, I don’t want him in my sexual orientation.

Oh, the poor poor repressed men. How you’ve suffered through the centuries, what with being castrated all the time and having no power.

Get back in your cribs and suck on your binkie, little boys.

Ugh, what a bunch of wankers.

 

They’re whiny, impotent little douches that can’t deal with women on any level except as mute sex toys in their porn-based fantasies. And probably can’t deal with any part of society outside of their parent’s basement, to be frank.

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

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!

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.