Enjoy (video, 1:17). To say Maria Miller MP is a blithering idiot would be unkind to blithering idiots in general.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Would that she were JUST a blithering idiot.
She’s also a cunning and practised misleader intent on deceiving the people, whom she thinks are gullible fools who deserve to be disinformed.
She KNOWS she’s doing this and deserves to be prosecuted and locked up to protect the public who have a right to expect a minimum level of integrity from their official representatives.
LikeLike
The time must come when feminists are seen as dangerously mentally ill or otherwise disordered and confined to secure institutions for the benefit of society as a whole.
LikeLike
That time came long ago.
LikeLike
Clicked on the link but then thought, oh dear there is no way I can bear looking at that woman’s face for more than two seconds.
LikeLike
Now at least she managed in this clip to be accurate in that the “gap” is over the life course not about being paid differently for the same job, which is how its usually reported. Of course then she repeats the flexible work, childcare policy solutions beloved of the old Equality Commission (the former Equal pay commission). This was well over a decade ago. Now of course feminist heaven, aka. Sweden implemented all these things twenty years ago with results that agitate even them. The “pay gap” remains much the same as the UK and much greater than Italy and Poland the continental leaders (neither interestingly ever on feminist “fact finding” tours. Sweden has greater occupational “segregation” than it used to with women crowding into in the public sector taking advantage of flexible working etc. And Sweden has a much smaller proportion of senior mangers who are women than the UK, because with all the choice Swedish women prefer not to take on the responsibility, so says their own research. One response to this was to make “paternity leave” compulsory so men were less connected to work, understandably this has gone like a lead balloon in Sweden’s efficient private sector which has become over 80% male.
My point being (I admit long windedly made) that leaving aside any discussion of ideology simple observation of Sweden and other northern European countries shows these very same policies have done nothing about “the gap” where they have been vigorously pursued for 20 years.
However in countries without “flexible work” and very brief maternity leave, in short where working women have to work like men, well then the “gap” all but vanishes and women appear in a far greater range of jobs and achieve senior roles in greater numbers.
From Netherlands Germany Scandinavia its pretty clear that generous maternity leave and flexible working allows women to choose to work less in employment and have a “work life balance”. And this means these countries have similar “gaps”.
“madness is doing the same things repeatedly and expecting a different result”
I take it back the chair and her committee are “blithering idiots”.
LikeLike
An outstandingly stupid woman. I saw long ago that women use make-up, jewellery and dress to fool men into thinking that big children with the reasoning power of spoilt infants are capable adults and accepting them as such. That idiot is a prime example.
I note her mention of ‘flexible working’ and increased ‘paternity leave’, both of which qualify as doublespeak, as ways in which an entirely imaginary problem can be resolved. In the first case, she uses flexible working to mean working when it suits the (female) employee without any loss of remuneration or seniority, in the short or long term, whereas anyone who has ever been self-employed knows that flexibility requires working when and where it suits the customer in the knowledge that failure to do so inevitably results in possibly catastrophic loss of remuneration. That is a simple fact of economic life and the inability or refusal to recognise and accept it shows nothing more than a desire to have one’s cake and eat it.
In the second case, increased paternity leave simply means reducing men’s incomes to those of women by compelling us to take time off work when our wives or female partners choose to have children. That is not a move likely to make marriage and fatherhood, now increasingly seen by men as a highly disadvantageous arrangement, an attractive proposition. What, I wonder, will be the feminist proposals to alleviate the frustrations of spinsterhood for an ever growing population of neurotic, introspective and myopic, self-entitled harridans?
LikeLike
In the second case, increased paternity leave simply means reducing
men’s incomes to those of women by compelling us to take time off work
when our wives or female partners choose to have children. That is not a
move likely to make marriage and fatherhood, now increasingly seen by
men as a highly disadvantageous arrangement, an attractive proposition.
What will happens is that as men become primary carers the family courts will change their definitions of suitable parent and remove primary carer or change it to female only ( nature) in order to avoid men becoming primary custody holder for children, because there is no way that feminist would allow the alternative ( shared parenting after relationship breakdown)
LikeLike
A confusing post Rob (some quotation marks might help) and I’m not at all sure what you mean. Do you mean as more men become primary carers or do you mean as men more or less completely take over the role formerly performed by women? That aside, no measures are necessary ‘in order to avoid men becoming primary custody holder[s] for children’ because those measures have been in place for decades. That aside, shared parenting has not been ‘allowed’ for decades so it cannot be disallowed in future.
LikeLike
a little research into family courts shows that primary carer status is often used by the courts to award custody ( usually sole custody ) of children to the mother. As men become primary carers allowing their wives to become the main breadwinner( thus swapping traditional roles) this has challenged the status quo of the primary carer being women and thus at risk of losing custody. There are now cases whereby men who were the primary carer losing custody because their wives change their status( usually by going part time) at the breakdown of relationship to make themselves primary carers( in the eye of the court), so it has gone from historical primary carer to current carer. that is the response to more men taking on more parental role of looking after children. More parental leave is considered a threat by feminists to the mother status unless primary carer is redefined.
there is a similar situation in alimony whereby traditionally women got alimony for life because they were the lower income earner. since more women are now earning above their partner they have now fallen into that trap( a role reversal ) and they are the ones campaigning for lifetime alimony to stop not because its wrong but it affects them.
there is a pattern here whereby when the standards applied to women now apply to men, there is a change in the definition in order to continue the facilitation of womens advantage.
shared parenting was not allowed in the past and regardless of what anyone thinks it is likely to continued to be disallowed in the future because it disadvantages women( not that it really does, its just they still want to control the situation regardless of how much its hurts the fathers of these children).
the change in shared parenting was seen about 20+ years in sharia law( I have a copy of the report from that period) which pointed out that men are not recognized as primary carers by sharia law and thus cannot have custody of children. In turn even when the father is the one taking care of the children at home whilst the wife works, in the event of a marital breakdown sharia awards automatic custody to the mother, if the father( who is obviously not likely to be working if they are taking of the kids) is unlucky then they will find they also have to pay maintenance( alimony) to the mother ( even if they are the breadwinner) because it is not permissible under sharia for the husband not to provide( eg working)
LikeLike
For those with the inclination there is a “blog” to respond to the committee. http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/have-your-say/online-discussion-rules/
Which is open to mid April.
LikeLike
I really just don’t get it with maria miller- she conflates gender pay gap with earnings gap. They are not the same
the gender pay gap does not exist( been debunked so many times) and the earning gaps happens because of choices( all of which are available to both genders)
earning gap issues should be addressed for same disabled people, al of these issues were thrown at the equality commission who could not even own up these very issues which they inflict upon their own staff( they’ve done a fawcett)
I agree shared parental leave is an issue that needs to be addressed as done the bias of family courts that enable fathers to be denied equality as a parent( but maria miller is deafeningly silent over that !)
.. and yet again she is back to her bogeyman .. the gender pay gap which is as credible as the slender man.
her deceit of the public and of govt started with expenses and continues with her position on equality.
Nothing shouts louder about equality that when you put a single gender in the title of a committee
Miller if you want to fight real inequality then deal with the fools in your committee( and your friends the equality commission) who have decided that mistreatment of disabled people only includes DV against disabled women but not against disabled men.
LikeLike