The EOC's proposals are online at Sex Equality in the 21st Century, and our response refers to specific paragraphs within this.
United Kingdom Men's Movement
P.O Box 205
Cheltenham
Glos.GL51 0YL
Tel: 01242 691110
8 Feb 2001
Key Points :
Background :
The above document is the latest in the efforts by the Equal Opportunities Commission ((EOC) to twist the law even further in pursuit of their aims. These aims are certainly not in the service of 'equality' or 'equal opportunities'. These concepts have long since been abandoned by the EOC even though lip-service is still paid to them. Instead, the EOC is attempting to continue a grand piece of social engineering, devoid of any intelligent analysis or of an appreciation of the real distinctions between men and women and of the dictates of social biology. As part of this EOC project, politicians, policy makers, the press and the public at large are to be pressured into thinking that the further distortions in the law which the EOC envisages are necessary to overcome residual discrimination.
The above document contains internal inconsistencies and, for those who are as well acquainted with the EOC's lamentable track record in helping men as we are, it is amazing to see the document refer to 'problems' faced by men (e.g. custody battles) where the EOC has refused point blank our repeated requests to take up such issues of men facing discrimination simply because they are male. It is difficult, on reading this document, to escape the conclusion that the EOC is a bogus organisation devoted to hypocrisy, double-dealing and a distorted vision of society.
It is essential to understand the following. The EOC is, as in Orwell's '1984, deliberately altering the 'Duties' placed on it by Parliament, and defined very exactly in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and is further distorting the meaning of 'equal opportunities' in the furtherance of its (very different) aims.. As Orwell demonstrated so clearly, when language itself is abused in the service of social engineering, then all manner of tyrannies are possible.
To wit, the concept of 'equal opportunities' is a clear concept which means that any person should have the opportunity to perform virtually any job, take any educational course, have access to goods, facilities and services without facing discrimination on ground of gender or race. There are a very few legitimate exceptions where gender or race can be a 'Genuine Occupational Qualification' ( as defined in Sex Discrimination Act 1975). Few people would disagree with everyone having an 'equal opportunity'. However, the EOC is mounting a deliberate campaign to muddy the definition of this concept and 'alloy' equal opportunities with the entirely distinctive and alien concept of 'equal outcomes'. 'Equal outcomes' means that every job, skill, activity, sporting award, field of endeavour should exactly reflect the composition of the society in which it exists. This is absurd as a few examples will illustrate. Imagine that some Scottish expatriates in, say, London, set up a pipe band. Equal opportunities means that anyone, even members of the diverse nationalities in London should be eligible to join the band if they wish to do so. 'Equal outcomes', however, means that around 85% of the band members, by law, would have to be English, 10% Black or Asian and 50% of them would have to be female. This is absurd.
By contrast, suppose some Asians start up a Bhangra band. Once again, 'equal outcomes' would force them to have 90% white British members. In both of these examples, it is likely that the best and most motivated musicians would come from the ethnic group to which the music originally came from. Thus, special 'positive action' training would have to be provided to achieve 'equal outcomes'.
Try applying 'equal outcomes' to sporting awards. At present, the black community achieves success in a variety of sports out of all proportion to their numbers . If 'equal outcomes' applied, then 90% of Gold Medals won in Britain would have to go to white Britons. British Olympic teams would have to be 90% white, even if black athletes were performing better.
It is clear that slipping 'equal outcomes' quietly into policy, as the EOC is new attempting to do, will lead to massive distortions in our society. Versions of this nonsense have already been tried, have failed and are now being steadily abandoned in the USA. Federal quotas have been applied to every firm which receives any federal money. This has meant that firms have been forced to take on a fixed percentage of women and black workers, even when they may not have been the best candidates for the job. It has also meant that black women have been the candidate of choice, preferred beyond all other candidates, since this assists in reaching two quota targets at one go. As an unintended outcome, this had helped to worsen the already poor employment prospects for black American males. In academia in the USA, positive discrimination meant that a female student from a wealthy Asian-American background, ( many recent arrivals from Southeast Asia have become prosperous in a few short years) would gain a college place in preference to a poor white, but gifted, boy from a deprived Appalachian town, and this in the name of 'equality'. The absurdities which this led to has meant that such measures are now out of favour through much of the USA. However, this it the precise moment the EOC intends to see them introduced to this country.
"What the Government could do"
In this section of the document, the EOC is suggesting that companies be 'bullied ' into pushing positive discrimination within their own workforce. One of the model organisations which the EOC is fond of praising is the British Broadcasting Corporation. The BBC has raised enormously the percentage of women at all levels in its hierarchy. Until recently, it was unclear to many outsiders how this was achieved. In fact, it emerged recently, when the Director-General announced similar plans to raise the ethnic quotas, that senior managers were given 'targets' for promoting women. If these targets were not reached, then they were denied their annual bonus. This practice, positive discrimination in effect, is undoubtedly illegal, yet the EOC has not only failed to criticise the BBC, but is encouraging others to do the same.
The EOC also wants parliament to twist the law into allowing positive discrimination measures to 'force' up the number of women MPs. Why voters cannot be left to choose their own MP without artificial tinkering is nowhere explained. At the time of writing, the Westminster parliament contains a large number of women MPs selected by a process, the women-only slate, which was declared illegal by a judge in a court case at the time of the May 1997 election. These women are still holding these seats, despite their being gained in this illegal fashion. The EOC has made no attempt to criticise this farcical situation. It is unfortunate that the EOC has such a minimal grasp of the parliamentary system. It is not necessary for every group, whether ethnic, class, racial, disability, religious or gender- based to have an exactly proportional representation of their own adherents in parliament. An MP is charged with representing the interest of all constituents. Thus, the argument that women 'need' to have 50% of female MPs is just one more distortion of the truth. It is instructive to read the Duties imposed on the EOC by the Act of Parliament which brought the EOC into existence, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Section 53(1) states,
"The duties of the Equal Opportunities Commission are; (a) to work towards the elimination of discrimination......".
Now, the EOC intends to promote the concept of 'positive discrimination'. This in direct contradiction of the very first duty laid on it by parliament. The UKMM has already complained to the Secretary of State at the DfEE ( which department has legal oversight of the activities of the EOC) about this fact. We contend that the EOC is now acting ultra vires by promoting the introduction of positive discrimination. In logical terms, the EOC actions are equivalent to Alcoholics Anonymous opening a chain of off-licences in order to raise funds. Under the section, 'What schools can do', the EOC is proposing a highly contentious programme of indoctrination of pupils into the EOC value system. This is an example of the EOC desire to perform its own brand of social engineering on the community.
"Which Rules Need to Change?"
The above question is the 'header' on many of the pages of this document The EOC appears determined to change the law to achieve a virtual 'unisex' society.
Apart from bringing in positive discrimination into the electoral process, the EOC wishes to end what it calls 'gender stereotyping' in occupations. Despite numerous pieces of information which has been relayed to the EOC by the United Kingdom Men's Movement, over the last few years, they are still in denial about many aspects of social biology and neuroscience. Books such as 'Sex & Cognition' by Doreen Kimura ( M.I.T.) and 'Brain Sex' by Moir & Jessel have demonstrated conclusively that there is s a preponderance of scientific and medical evidence of the gender-specific nature of the human brain. This divergence into a 'male brain' or a 'female brain' happens about the fourth month after conception. i.e. this does not allow for the possibility of any social conditioning by parents, peers or school. There is a massive segregation by gender into language and communication skills and occupations ( largely female-oriented) and into mathematical & spatial skills such as are needed for engineering, architecture etc. ( largely male-oriented). Medical studies have also shown that a large percentage of women who do become engineers or physicists either have a genetic condition which produces a hormone mimicking the effects of the male hormone testosterone or else their mothers were given testosterone at a critical point in pregnancy ( ~ 4 months) because of pregnancy complications . This was a fairly common treatment for some pregnancy difficulties a while ago. These effects have given these women, unusually, a masculised brain and their ability to handle 3-dimensional concepts has increased markedly. Significantly, Doreen Kimura , who is well aware that gender warriors find these conclusions unacceptable, states the following in her book, 'Sex & Cognition'.
"Egalitarian Ideology"
The bias against biological explanation seems to have arisen from egalitarian ideologies that confuse the Western concept of equal treatment before the law.....with the claim that all people are in fact equal. People are not born equal in strength, health, temperament or intelligence. This is a simple fact of life which no sensible person can deny.......... Egalitarian ideology, however, often goes beyond this and insists that all people would be equal, if they had equal environmental stimulation......A social scientist flatly unwilling to entertain the idea that there are important biological contributions to the variation we see in cognitive pattern from one person to another has stopped being a scientist and has become a ideologue.... It has been suggested that a distinguishing characteristic of ideology is its commitment to a position regardless of evidence."
Exactly! The ideologues of the EOC reject all evidence which does not suit their own prejudices.
One might find the EOC stance less unpalatable if it was consistently applied. However, consistency and balance are not EOC strongpoints. Consider the following,
In the name of equality, the EOC has both funded and/or encouraged the Women Into Science & Engineering' (W.I.S.E.) programme ( see www.wisecampaign.org.uk) , Girls into Science & Technology ( G.I.S.T.). It has supported numerous other programmes like GETSET ( Girls into Science Engineering & Technology, Girls -only residential courses are offered free!. No boys allowed, of course). It has backed Government initiatives like SET (www.set4women.gov.uk). These all intend to raise the percentage of women doing Science & Engineering related courses and occupations. Further, at a time when male unemployment is three times as high as female unemployment, as it has been for years now, the EOC backed and helped to fund the sexist organisation, 'Take Your Daughters to Work Day'. However, when the EOC was asked what they had done to balance the following, 92 % of primary schoolteachers are female 98% of NHS dieticians /nutritionists are female Over 80% of social workers are female Over 80% of nurses are female. they were unable to come up with even one initiative, programme, course, award which they had even encouraged, far less sponsored to establish equality in these figures. Thus, it seems that the EOC regards equality as a one-way street. No traffic allowed for men at all.
The clearest example of two-faced hypocrisy within this document concerns the issues of custody battles for children in civil law cases. Since civil law is a 'service' paid for by those who participate in it, it is obviously part of 'goods, facilities & services' and, therefore contained within the wide-ranging provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. It is clear that the court system practises sex discrimination routinely against men. 92% of all these legal battles are won by women. Nonetheless, starting with the Chairmanship of Kamlesh Bahl, whose performance has come under legal scrutiny since her recent, short duration as Vice-president of the Law Society, a period during which a number of employees complained about her conduct, the EOC has refused to have anything to do with the million-plus cases of divorce involving children which have been processed through the courts. Their excuses for doing nothing during this time have changed, as with the seasons. Here are the various excuses they have put forward in correspondence with members of the UKMM (copies of their letters are available on request), 'This matter is outwith our remit.' (It was pointed out that 'Oh no, it was not at all outwith their remit as defined in section 53 of the SDA 1975') 'It is within our remit, but we lack the resources to take it up'. 'It is not currently one of our priorities' 'We have no plans to make this one of our priorities'.
Over this same time period the EOC has made it a 'priority' to spend thousands of pounds of taxpayer's cash ensuring that women are able to ride their horses through the main street of Hawick ( a small Border town in Scotland) in a procession commemorating a time when the men of the town defended them from attack by armed raiders. Muriel Robison , EOC's Legal Officer in Scotland, was reported in the press to be willing to back an action by any woman who was aggrieved at being sold two half-pints of beer instead of a pint, after a pub landlord had refused to sell a woman a pint as it was 'unladylike'. The EOC was willing to spend taxpayer's money on this trivial issue while flatly refusing to help the million -plus men which face serious discrimination in the family law courts. These facts speak volumes about the true nature of the EOC. At this point, any sane impartial person may be wondering just what is wrong with the EOC's 'priorities'. Nonetheless, this has not prevented the EOC, in the current document, from commenting that, ' Fathers are more disadvantaged in custody battles by gender stereotypes - women are seen as more competent carers'.
OH WELL, WHEN THE EOC TAKES OUT SIMILAR COURT ACTIONS TO THOSE WHICH THEY HAVE DONE ELSEWHERE, TO REDRESS THE SEX DISCRIMINATION FACED BY FATHERS , THEN WE WILL KNOW THAT THEY ARE SERIOUS. ONLY THEN WILL WE BE CONVINCED THAT THE EOC IS NOT THE MOST SEXIST, AND HYPOCRITICAL ORGANISATION IN BRITAIN TODAY.
"Progress has been made...."
Stunning, absolutely stunning! The EOC, in this section claims that , 'Men are now entitled to widower's benefits and to free prescriptions at the same age as women' Yes, but no thanks to the EOC. The EOC was asked by PARITY, the Equal Age organisation, to assist in their fight, and also help with legal costs, to gain equality in these areas. Guess what, the EOC refused to help. Yet now, they mention this achievement which was made despite their refusal to help men facing discrimination. For bare-faced gall, this takes some beating!
"Which Rules need to Change"
Among the many absurdities in this section, one stands out beyond the rest. The EOC complains about the fact that women face poorer pension prospects , one reason being the fact that insurance industry actuaries calculate lower pensions for them based on their greater lifespan. There is a wealth of half truths in this assertion. Firstly, although many women currently of pension age do have lower occupational pensions this is because many of them were housewives. However, they were also given 'Domestic Responsibility Credits' towards their state pensions during this time. Also, many women opted to pay a small N.I. stamp for decades, expecting as they did to rely on their husband's pension. Secondly, these women who are highly likely to end up as widows are eligible to inherit their husband's pension rights ( but men cannot do the same in reverse in state pensions, and very few in occupational schemes) as well as gaining the widow's benefits which were also denied to men. ( None of this is mentioned by the EOC). The EOC would not give financial backing to the fight for widower's benefits However, this is not all. Let us look at how the insurance industry does and must operate in order to provide a competitive service to shareholders and customers alike. If 'Man A' applies for life insurance, but has a high smoking habit, high blood pressure, a family history of early heart disease, then 'A' will receive lower benefits than a healthier 'Woman B'. This is because 'A' presents a worse risk than 'B'. Even on equal health terms, a man will receive worse terms than a woman because of woman's greater lifespan. Similarly, motor insurers believe that men are worse drivers than women ( this may or may not be valid). Thus, many insurers offer better terms to women because men are, they say, a worse 'risk'. The EOC has not made any mention of either of the above sex -differentiated insurance practises which disadvantage men. No, the only one they have used in this document is the one which disadvantages women. Rather than tinker with the way the insurance industry works, as the EOC clearly intends to do, there is a more egalitarian way ahead. Tessa Jowell MP , when Minister of Health, was forced to admit that �8 is spent on women's health for every �1 on men's health. Let the EOC campaign for equality of health treatment and, then, men's lifespan will rise closer to that of women. Problem solved! Why we wonder, has this simple solution not occurred to the EOC?
They have also ignored the fact that men comprise 94% of all workplace fatalities because it is men who do over 95% of all the dangerous, unsociable jobs often exposed to the elements, often exposed to hazardous chemicals or machinery. These jobs do sometimes pay more, but at a price in health and/or lifespan. The EOC's line on the 'pay gap' would not persuade the 10,000-12,000 men, mostly ex-shipyard or engineering workers who face a lingering death from asbestosis, which they contracted due to the hazards of their employment, over the next decade.
Conclusion :
The EOC has failed lamentably to improve British society. This failure has been due to a number of factors, the chief being the total absence of any intelligent analysis of social issues of Britain or of similar societies e.g .the USA Unless and until the EOC proves itself capable of constructing such an intelligent analysis of the state of our society, this organisation will be able to make zero contribution to Britain. At this time, ( February 2001), it is fair to say that the EOC has done nothing but damage British society and poison relations between men and women. The final costs of this damage are incalculable and, indeed, it will probably be decades from now before the true effects of this damage can be properly ascertained.
The EOC trumpeted this present consultation as the start of a debate. We welcome this because nothing is as badly needed in the present situation as an open debate. However, up until now, debate has not been an option for the EOC's ideology or for other aspects of feminist ideology, ensconced as they are in the academic sociology departments throughout British universities. When the UKMM has offered debate to the EOC, as was offered to Kamlesh Bahl to appear with the UKMM on the BBC Newsnight programme, she refused. We throw down this challenge to the EOC and their fellow travellers,
'Come, debate these issues with us. Logic and intellectual argument hold no terrors for us. We will meet the EOC at any convenient place and time before any or all sectors of the media'.