[quote]Difficulties are meant to rouse, not discourage. The human spirit is to grow strong by conflict. ~ William Ellery Channing (1780 – 1842) American Unitarian preacher[/quote]
Two months ago I wrote an article for AVfM titled, ‘Fighting feminism – let’s get practical’. It was a call to MRAs to start fighting the manifestations of feminism on an issue-by-issue basis:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/activism/fighting-feminism-lets-get-practical/
At that time I’d worked full-time for eight months for Campaign for Merit in Business, an organisation I founded early in 2012. We campaign against the government’s initiative to force major companies (through the threat of legislated gender quotas) to increase gender diversity in the boardroom (‘GDITB’) because the independent evidence shows that the consequence will be a decline in corporate financial performance. A decline in performance is largely attributable to the enduring reality that the pool of women qualified for corporate boards is shallower that the pool of qualified men. Driving up the number of women on boards inevitably means driving more poorly-qualified people onto boards. Our briefing paper on the matter:
So, what has our campaign achieved? We’ve succeeded in stopping prominent advocates of GDITB publicly claiming that one consequence of GDITB will be enhanced corporate performance. Those advocates include numerous politicians, including the very left-wing Business Secretary, Vince Cable. We’ve contributed to House of Lords and House of Commons inquiries, and enjoyed some national newspaper coverage of our campaign. But we’ve yet to persuade a single government minister – in a Conservative-led coalition – to meet with us, or to engage with our arguments.
The House of Commons inquiry report is forthcoming, but the House of Lords report was published in November 2012. Despite our providing compelling evidence showing that GDITB leads to declines in corporate performance, the report included the following statement:
It should be stressed that we reject any suggestion that improved diversity would be to the detriment of company performance, as was argued in some submissions we received.
I wrote to the chair of the committee, the Conservative peer Baroness O’Cathain, asking for the basis on which our evidence had been rejected. She failed to answer that simple query. In December, after dwelling on this matter for some time, I had a ‘light bulb moment’. What can you do when the democratic process fails, when politicians fail to adjust policies in line with compelling evidence? With the question framed in that way, the answer was blindingly obvious. You form a political party and fight marginal seats, winning enough votes so that some politicians lose their comfortable livelihoods. Then the main political parties may start to compete for men’s votes, by promising to end anti-male legislation and initiatives.
Along with a number of supporters I’m currently engaged in registering that new political party, which I shall personally lead, and I can now exclusively reveal its name on AVfM:
Justice for Men and Boys
(and the women who love them)
We plan to raise public consciousness of the discriminations faced by men and boys in many areas, including:
Education
A feminised education system ensures that 60% of undergraduates are female.
Healthcare provision
As many men die from prostate cancer as women die from breast cancer, yet the state spends less than half the amount of money on early diagnosis of the former as it spends on the latter.
The workplace
Nearly two-thirds of public sector employees are women, yet the Equality Act (2010) enables public sector bodies to favor women in their recruitment processes.
Unemployment
For every three women who are registered as unemployed (1.08 million), four men are (1.44 million).
The justice system
When convicted for the same crimes as women, men face higher rates of incarceration and stiffer sentences.
Paternity fraud
It’s estimated that for 10% – 30% of births, the man who’s been led to believe he’s the father of the child has been misled.
Personal enrichment through divorce
In an era where women have the same employment opportunities as men, this is clearly unjust. Enrichment through divorce almost invariably favors women, since women rarely risk their personal fortunes by marrying poorer men.
Domestic violence
It’s long been known that female-on-male DV is as common as male-on-female DV, yet the provision of resources for male victims is miniscule compared to that for female victims.
Parental access to children following relationship breakdowns
The justice system continues to fail to enforce contact orders.
Homelessness
Almost exclusively a problem for men.
Retirement age
On average men live shorter lives than women, yet have to wait longer for their state pension.
In the UK the suicide rate for men is more than three times the suicide rate for women. The government spends almost nothing on understanding the reasons for this persistent reality, let alone try to reduce the male suicide rate. Men learn at an early age that they’re expendable.
Why the subtitle, ‘and the women who love them’? We’re seeking to appeal to women who genuinely believe in gender equality, rather than relentless special treatment for women and girls regardless of the cost to society. Women are increasingly recognizing that feminists assault the nuclear family and the majority of women, as well as men. Women are mothers of sons, and they see their sons’ futures blighted from the moment they enter the feminised education system. They have husbands, brothers, and fathers, as well as male friends and acquaintances who are assaulted by feminists throughout their lives.
It’s time to go on the offensive, so I end with a plea to MRAs and anti-feminists around the world. Feminism is a highly undemocratic movement. If it’s a scourge in your country, establish a party, and fight it at the ballot box.
