Our thanks to Jane for informing us the Women’s Equality party has just published its first policy document. We haven’t gone through it in detail, but a ‘speed read’ shows plenty of predictably absurd content e.g. on ‘equal pay’, p6:
Forty-five years after the Equal Pay Act, for every hour they work, women still earn just 81p of every pound earned by men. There are many ways of measuring the pay gap – pay for each hour worked, pay for each worker, total pay for all women, and for all men – but however you measure it, the story is the same: women earn less per hour, less per job and less overall.
In total, women earn just 52% of what men do every year because not only do they earn less, they are more likely to sacrifice the opportunity to earn a wage for the sake of their family.
The contribution of women to our economy and our society is undervalued, both in paid work and at home. The OECD has shown that if we unleashed the true potential of women the economy could grow by an extra 10% by 2030 – adding an extra £180 billion to growth.
WE will ensure all women who want to work can do so and are paid fairly for it. WE will work to end the bias in pay for occupations perceived as ‘male’ or ‘female’ that means caring work is paid less than manual labour. WE will be ruthless in the fight against direct discrimination that sees women pushed out of work or held back because of their gender.
Then there are downright lies, such as the one I’ve highlighted in the following (p.20):
The Women’s Equality Party’s work will not be complete until violence against women because of their gender has been ended. It is a stain on our society that women can be murdered, violated, assaulted or oppressed because of their gender.
No woman is free until she is safe: by diminishing women’s freedom to participate in their societies, violence against women and girls acts as one of the most pervasive barriers to gender equality.
To end this violence we have to recognise what it is: structural violence, overwhelmingly carried out by men. It is both a cause and consequence of gender inequality.
Justice for Men & Boys 
81p? It was 77p a week ago. What are those wimmin whingeing about? At that rate of increase they’ll be earning more than men by Christmas.
LikeLike
My goodness me but that ‘document’ reads as though it were compiled by a team of Junior School girls as part of their homework! I’ve tried and tried and I can’t get beyond the utter, uninformed and plainly eagerly dishonest stupidity of it.
They seem to be seriously proposing the removal of all market forces and the imposition of some government-enforced framework within which all women must by law be paid the same per hour – and somehow the same overall – as all men, presumably – and I’m making a leap here on their behalf – in some sort of stratification system pairing up female-only beauty therapists and male-only greengrocers, female-only care workers with male-only road-workers, female-only independent florists with male-only independent Indian takeaway owners. Also presumably with parity of reward everywhere from Covent Garden to Stornoway, and a spot of bureaucracy to enforce it – mayhap with the predominance of women in the Civil Service addressed somehow! Well, I say have at it ladies, have at it and when you’re done trying, let me know the results!
As for the rest, well… I am in danger of losing my luncheon foie gras and chips, and I really musn’t read any more of it aloud until the dog’s hysterical laughter has subsided.
I have hitherto regarded Toksvig (when I had to regard her at all) as some sort of slightly demented runt of her litter, but now I can see that the clinical insanity runs much, much deeper than that. She hasn’t lost her grip on reality, she has plainly never touched the real world in her life!
LikeLike
Women’s Equality Party ? And what are they campaigning for ? I am confused…
Equal number of Michelin star chefs? Equal dress code ? Equal sentencing in court for female offenders? Equal number of mothers and fathers getting custody of kids at divorce? A duty to be drafted in case of armed conflict ? Are they campaigning for this ? If not,then what are they campaigning for ?
LikeLike
I think perhaps that they are campaigning for men to be able to make the same choices as women, to be able to take huge amounts of time off for families, to choose a less-stressful or demanding career, to take state retirement pensions at the same earlier age that women currently do, to not pay higher premiums on insurance just because they’re men, to have equal funding for health issues, that sort of thing… Oh look – there’s a cloud, and there’s a cuckoo – am I living in cloud cuckoo land? Boing, boing, boing…
LikeLike
What’s often most interesting about these documents is not so much what’s said, but what things are absent which might have been present a few years ago.
Not so long ago, feminists would go on and on about domestic violence and that would be a key term in almost any feminist document. Once the truth started to get out about dv and just how many men were victims, feminists realised they’d lost the arguments and that their lies really weren’t so effective anymore. Therefore we see them increasingly abandoning the term “domestic violence” particularly in official policy documents and instead they’re now excluding men by moving the goalposts and introducing the term “violence against women”. The is essentially a completely meaningless term which has come to mean “any bad thing that ever happened or might happen to a women”.
I’m always puzzled and annoyed by this whole “violence against women because of their gender” nonsense and don’t see enough people debunking this crap. I expect you’ll come up against it in a debate before too long Mike, here’s my view, would love to hear other arguments debunking it
Domestic violence comes about due to living with a person. No gender is being targeted, it’s only predominantly male on female and female on male becasue most people are in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex.
The armed forces generally don’t conscript women and it’s rare for them to serve in front line and dangerous positions in war (just look at the gender breakdown of combat deaths in recent wars for proof of this). Therefore ever military conflict is essentially violence against men with men dying becasue they are men.
We have very strong social norms in out society that should should NEVER be violent towards women, children or even animals, even in self defence. Therefore, the only violence considered acceptable by society is violence against men. If men are the only legitimate target for violence then it’s actually fairer to say that all the violence against men is “becasue of their gender” – the exact opposite of the feminist position.
LikeLike
“If men are the only legitimate target for violence then it’s actually fairer to say that all the violence against men is “becasue of their gender” – the exact opposite of the feminist position.”
EVERYTHING the femarxists say is the opposite of the truth, this is their simple but effective technique.
It is the stated marxist aim to turn society upsidedown, (so everything falls out of place) and to do this you turn the truth upside down also.
All the the big questions and answers can be reduced to utter simplicty – only the devil’s detail becomes complicated.
LikeLike
i hope you check any and all citations and verify them, look what happened in the un lately when 2 well known feminists turned in their paper and embarrassed them and the whole movement and one of the women to even distance herself from the paper after the monumental flop it was , its been showing that educated feminists are not so educated
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
“Women will never be free until they’re safe”.
Well, in this world in this life, no one is ever going to be entirely ‘safe’.
So therefore we are always going to ‘need’ feminism and the grievance industry and state money that goes along with them.
Nice little earner, that.
LikeLike
You’re not wrong there! Feminism is one of those ‘ooh – shiny!’ phenomena, they’ll always be chasing some nebulous, unattainable target that never quite comes within their grasp. If all of the world’s feminists were to find themselves living in splendid isolation on their own, tailor(ess)-made planet, their squawking and flapping wouldn’t lessen any. Feminism is the unfulfillable ‘want’ of a spoilt toddler.
LikeLike