Interesting. A rare move in the right direction. A tip of the hat to Kim Reynolds, the female governor (shouldn’t that be a “governess”?) of Iowa. According to her Wikipedia profile, she’s a staunch supporter of Donald Trump and “has a close relationship with the Iowa pork industry”.
—————————-
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.
If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Good for Iowa!! Finally a small voice of sanity! Yes, she should be called a “Governess”!
LikeLike
Reading this I note the new legislation follows a successful case in law where the existing legislation in Iowa (mandating gender quotas) was challenged and the Court declared it unconstitutional. This appears to be going the same way as the race based laws that have been declared unconstitutional by both Sate Courts and the supreme Court. As the article points out such gender quota (affirmative action) laws are common in about half the US States. Being about 30 years old and following on from the passage of the “Equal Rights Amendment” (ERA) by Congress. The big problem with the ERA is that it has in fact never been ratified by all the States and so is not in fact a part of the constitution of the USA. Much of the power of the ERA was because the higher courts especially the federal supreme court successfully sidestepped having to make a decision on this for decades, alowing administrations to behave as if the ERA was passed. With the federal Supreme Court now once again actually adjudicating on such constitutional issues the obvious unconstitutional nature of not treating all citizens equally and discriminating against specific groups to favour other groups is being manifest. As in this case, where the Pacific Law Centre took the case of a man excluded from consideration for a post because it was reserved for women only, the challenge and Court ruling in effect meant the State of Iowa had to “clean up” with a Bill that removed the unconstitutional discrimination from its statute books.
In the UK much of the discrimination done on the basis of sex is in fact illegal under the Equality Act. But to really make headway it does require, similar o the US, cases to go to employment tribunals or other courts to establish case law. And in the UK the legal system is adept at avoiding making judgements (for example the case of MGM where cases trying to prosecute have been successfully directed away from courts for well over 100 years). Its not that I’m a huge fan of the Equality Act itself, but it has been a tool to challenge discrimination against males over such things as recruitment, promotions, differential pricing, women only swimming sessions/gym memberships, free drinks for women in bars or free entry, discriminatory airline ticket/seat allocation and so on. Even in fact “women only” lists for selection of political candidates (even though this is specifically allowed in the Act but with strict conditions) If only there were more law firms or someone with deep pockets to support men get what are their actual legal rights under existing law. Not only would it get males, from students to employees to customers and citizens, their rights. The cases themselves would highlight how much of the supposedly legal “Guidance, Procedure and “targets” are in fact outside the law and go well beyond the strictly limited permissions of the Act itself.
LikeLike