An excellent piece by Dr Will Jones, published today by TCW, and brought to our attention by “Groan”, one of our most valued commenters and supporters. In an email to me, he wrote:
Will Jones makes a very good point about the Equality Act. He hones in on Sections 158 and 159 which he says ought to be a “high priority for conservatives serious about ending the scourge of identity politics in our country”. I’d suggest that it would be worth J4MB considering this as a specific Political Aim.
In particular the idea of repealing the two Sections rather than the whole Act. As Will Jones points out the Act continued the prohibition on “direct discrimination” which for instance was used to get Gov. concessions for retired men to begin at 60 while the retirement age was thus for women, and pushed Gov. into the harmonisation of Pension ages which so many women are whinging about now.
As far as I can see there is nothing lost for the rights of men to have legal equity, as it is men who are legally directly discriminated against by the State and Public services (and private companies). In the Act the protected characteristic is “sex” not “woman” and it is Section 158 and 159 that allows all the various privileging of women (from STEM to accelerated promotion) and though many of these could be challenged as “disproportionate” of course then it’s complicated and expensive. Whereas simply having any discrimination on the basis of sex outlawed would automatically put most of this stuff on far shakier ground.
It would also change the debate to supporters of “positive action” to explain and defend it, rather than appear to defend “Equality”, which they would easily do if the prospect of repealing an “Equality Act” was held forth.
I agree with the stance of J4MB that the key to the future is taking “Equality” as the core rather then “Men’s rights” and this would fit as a political objective. It fits with the cultural climate: Public gynocentrism generally is hostile to very idea of “men’s rights” if it perceives them as in anyway disadvantaging women (which feminists use to their advantage constantly). And public support for “Equality” and “Fairness” as broad ideas, but one that is understood as equity of treatment (a level playing field) rather than the obtuse ideas of the feminists (privileges for women to counter some supposed male privilege).
Just some thoughts. Best wishes.
If everyone who read this gave us £10.00 – or even better, £10.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
