School Kids Forced to Donate Money to Feminist Cause in Canada

Here's one of our friends in Canada who is disgusted at how her kids are being bullied by the school into donating $1 to a feminist cause which describes itself as "a social movement to unleash the power of girls and women".



In the video she states, "It is not acceptable to be teaching small children that one gender is better than the other, and that one gender 'takes away' from the other gender. That's bullshit. I don't approve of this at all. It's disgusting."

It would be much easier for her to simply go along with the school's cultural narrative, and it takes a lot of intellectual integrity to openly oppose it as she is doing.

Thank you Wooly Bumblebee.

Pankhurst: White Feather Day (12th November)

STOP PRESS! On 12th November 2012, MRA London staged a protest at the Pankhurst Statue next to the Houses of Parliament in London in order to provide an alternative perspective on history.

This was not a protest against female suffrage—far from it. We believe in equality between men and women, equal rights but equal responsibilities also. For a discussion and supporting video of this alternative perspective, see our recent article on this.
In brief, the event was intended to raise awareness of the following historical truths...

• At the time Pankhurst was actively campaigning, most men did not have the vote—only wealthy men with property did. Nearly a million British men died in the trenches of the First World War, many millions more were maimed and disfigured. The overwhelming majority of these did not have the vote, yet we no-longer seem to feel that this is relevant.
• Emmeline and her daughter, Christabel Pankhurst, demanded the vote not for all, not even for all women, but only for wealthy women such as themselves.
• The campaign of intimidation, violence and arson they waged is glorified by the establishment today—nothing less than crass hypocrisy and should be seen as such.
• At the time, there was widespread opposition to the suffragettes because of their use of arson and violence, and because the working classes were excluded from their proposals.
• And finally, the suffragettes were among those who handed white feathers to males not in uniform, including teenage boys as young as 16, to coerce them into enlisting in war that would kill millions. This has been quietly forgotten.

At the time, another Pankhurst daughter, Sylvia, wrote in her chronicle...

"Mrs. Pankhurst toured the country, making recruiting speeches. Her supporters handed the white feather to every young man they encountered wearing civilian dress, and bobbed up at Hyde Park meetings with placards: "Intern Them All."

Shame on you Mrs. Pankhurst! We'd like to propose that the 12th of November become known as White Feather Day.

Pankhurst - The White Feather Betrayal of History

In modern culture, the story we are given is a simple one—in the past men had the vote and women did not. For example, on the topic of "Women and the Vote", the UK Parliament website states simply and without qualification¹, "Before 1918 only men were allowed to vote in parliamentary elections." Indeed, the picture we are generally presented with (such as this poignant example from the BBC) is a very distorted one. According to this popular narrative, the suffragettes led by Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst fought a noble campaign for female suffrage and, after a valiant struggle, were ultimately successful. And curiously, the campaign of intimidation, violence and arson they waged largely goes without criticism.



The reality was much more complex, however, and many important historical perspectives have been airbrushed from of our collective memory. For example, the simple fact was that at the start of the 20th century, most men also did not have the right to a parliamentary vote. But this is rarely mentioned.

Only wealthy property owning men could vote in parliamentary elections, and prior to the 1832 Reform Act, only 2% of men in the UK had such a vote². As of 1903, this had risen to one third³, but the fact remains that, whilst Mrs. Pankhurst and her supporters were fighting for their right to vote, the overwhelming majority of young men sent to the trenches in 1914 lacked any political franchise. Unlike the suffragettes, however, they were fighting for the their lives rather than the vote.

The suffragettes, fronted by the organisation founded by Mrs. Pankhurst and her daughters—the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU)—weren't the only group of the period campaigning for suffrage. Whereas other groups supported universal adult suffrage, such as the Labour movement, the suffragettes advocated a separate bill for wealthy women with property, i.e. women such as themselves. It is somewhat perverse, therefore, that the suffragettes have become synonymous with universal suffrage when this simply wasn't the case at all.

The following extract from the Socialist Standard⁴ in 1908 makes clear its opposition to their proposals.

"Men vote at present under the £10 franchise. The suffrage is thus upon a property basis with plural voting for the wealthy. Therefore, according to the proposals of the women Suffragists, only those women having the necessary property qualifications are to be allowed to vote. This excludes not only all those single working women unable to qualify because of their poverty, but it also bars practically the whole of the married women of the working class who have no property qualifications apart from their husbands'. Further, it increases enormously the voting power of the well-to-do, since the head of the wealthy household can always impart the necessary qualifications to all the women of his house, while the working-man, through his poverty, is entirely unable to do so."

John Bruce Glasier, chairmen of the Independent Labour Party, wrote in his diary after a meeting with Emmeline and her daughter Christabel that they were guilty of "miserable individualist sexism", and that he could not support their organisation.

Throughout the first decade of the 20th century, Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst waged a campaign of intimidation, violence, vandalism and arson. Shortly after the outbreak of war, however, they agreed to cease their militant activities and the WSPU was promptly awarded a grant from the government⁵ for the sum of £2,000 (not an insignificant amount back then). Emmeline Pankhurst also declared her support for the war effort and began to demand military conscription for men (which was not introduced until 1916).

Furthermore, the suffragettes were among those who handed white feathers to males not in uniform, including teenage boys as young as 16. Sylvia Pankhurst wrote in her chronicle, "The Suffragette Movement"...

"Mrs. Pankhurst toured the country, making recruiting speeches. Her supporters handed the white feather to every young man they encountered wearing civilian dress, and bobbed up at Hyde Park meetings with placards: "Intern Them All."

Being both socialised to serve their country and subject to such stigmatizing female coercion, many males felt no option but to enlist in a war that would killed millions of them. A poignant example of this is given by the following incidental comment found in a book of the period about the lice and fleas that afflicted soldiers living in squalid trenches⁶.

"...the half-hysterical ladies who offer white feathers to youths whose hearts are breaking because medical officer after medical officer has refused them the desire of their young hearts to serve their country."

While her suffragettes carried placards demanding the "right to serve" by undertaking war work, Mrs. Pankhurst proclaimed that "The least that men can do is that every man of fighting age should prepare himself to redeem his word to women..."

Some 8.7 million British men redeemed themselves in the trenches of the First World War. For them, it wasn't a right, but an obligation. Some 704,803 men from the UK were killed and a further 2.2 million wounded⁷, with many losing limbs. The overwhelming majority of these never had the vote, but they were expected to lay down their lives nevertheless. There are few references to the average age of the British soldier and, in any case, many teenage boys lied about their age in order to enlist. However, of those executed for failing their obligation to redeem their word, as Mrs. Pankhurst put it, the average age was in the mid-twenties⁸.

Contrary to popular perception today, the suffragettes did not have widespread support at the time, especially given their proposal for limited female suffrage and advocacy of violence. Nevertheless, Emmeline Pankhurst wielded considerable influence amongst society's political elite and from 1914 onward the government, being primarily concerned with the war effort, considered that the WSPU would be useful in helping to breakdown union resistance to women filling the roles left by men in the workplace.

It certainly cannot be denied that, in times past, society placed gender specific burdens and expectations on men and women. Many argue that given the brutal hardship of life, far from being detrimental to women, such distinctions were largely beneficial. However, with the advent of industrialisation throughout the 19th century, society was changing rapidly and things also had to change as far as society's roles for men and women were concerned. But did the WSPU campaign of intimidation and destruction hasten female suffrage, or delay it? Speaking in 1913, Prime Minister Lloyd George, exclaimed...

"Haven’t the Suffragettes the sense to see that the very worst way of campaigning for the vote is to try and intimidate a man into giving them what he would gladly give otherwise?

At the conclusion of the war, women over the age of 30 became eligible to vote in parliamentary elections. Rightly or wrongly, it was argued at the time that the age restriction was necessary to avoid a gender imbalance in voting given that so many young males had lost their lives. By 1928, however, universal suffrage for both men and women over the age of 21 became a reality.

Today, next to the Houses of Parliament in London, stands a bronze statue of Emmeline Pankhurst. Located at the right-hand side of the half-rotunda extending from the base, there's a dedication to her daughter Christabel. In fact, Emmeline had two other daughters—Sylvia and Adela, both of whom were equally instrumental in the formation the WSPU. However, you will find no reference to either Sylvia or Adela at Emmeline's statue, and on gaining an insight to the Pankhurst family life, it's hard not to feel a degree of compassion for them...

In real life, Emmeline was an abusively controlling mother and her children were born into an emotionally toxic environment. Sylvia wrote in her chronicle of Adela...

"The desire was a reaction from the knowledge that though a brilliant speaker and one of the hardest workers in the movement, she was often regarded with more disapproval than approbation by Mrs Pankhurst and Christabel, and was the subject of a sharper criticism than the other organisers had to face."

Clearly, Christabel was Emmeline's protégée and nothing Sylvia or Adela could do would have ever met with their mother's approval. After their father's death in 1898, Adela gave a similarly desolate account of family life...

"Mother was now involved in public work. We had no friends, we played no games and went nowhere… she took no interest in our affairs. Christabel seemed at a distance, Sylvia hopelessly depressed… Public life was a relief to her…"

Emmeline and Christabel were enthusiastic advocates of violence but, as female members of the upper-class, they were relatively immune from harm themselves. With the increasing and widespread use of arson by the WSPU, both Sylvia and Adela distanced themselves from such tactics and rejected their mother's politics, eventually becoming estranged from her. Fearing Adela would criticise the WSPU in public, Emmeline had Adela sent to Australia in 1914 on a one-way ticket. She never saw her again.

The forced feeding of suffragettes in prison is widely held up today as an example of their bravery. Although Emmeline and Christabel urged others to do so, neither of them were willing to submit to it themselves (only Sylvia had the courage to do so). Tended by servants and chauffeured to rallies in a motorcar, Emmeline Pankhurst's life was one of privilege—she never had to face the horrors which she readily advocated for others. It is a travesty that this women is so idolised by our modern political establishment, and her ideology so misrepresented in our culture.

Andy Thomas
Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Acknowledgements
Male narration by "Trauma Fried Brains". Female narration provided by "Girl Writes What" (used with permission). For her full discussion concerning the white feather campaign and the US male-only draft, see her blog.

References:

1. UK Parliament website, Women and the Vote. Link: http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/
2. Steve Moxon, The Woman Racket ("True Sufferers for Suffrage").
3. Spartacus Educational, Emmeline Pankhurst. Link: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WpankhurstE.htm
4. Socialist Standard, No. 46 June 1908 ("Suffragette Humbug "). Link: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1900s/1908/no-46-june-1908/suffragette-humbug
5. Spartacus Educational, Emmeline Pankhurst. Link: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WpankhurstE.htm
6. The Minor Horrors of War, 1915. Link: http://archive.org/details/minorhorrorsofwa00shipuoft
7. Chris Baker. The Long, Long Trail, The British Army in the Great War. Link: http://www.1914-1918.net/faq.htm
8. Wikipedia, The British Army during World War I. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_during_World_War_I

Myth of the Gender Pay Gap

Myth: Sex discrimination in the workplace is responsible for the wage gap between the genders, with women being paid less than men for the same work¹.

Summary: Often cited, but overly simplistic, comparisons of earnings between men and women fail to account for differences in hours worked, family commitments, occupational and life-style choices, not to mention the hazardous and arduous conditions of labor intensive jobs typically performed by men. When these differences are properly taken into consideration, it becomes clear that claims of widespread discrimination are baseless.

Discussion: In June 2011, President Obama claimed that², "Women still earn just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns." This figure originates from the US Census Bureau report for the year 2010 which compares the median* full-time earnings of women to those of men³. A separate report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for the same year reports a different value of 81% for earnings ratio⁴. (The BLS report compared weekly earnings, whereas the Census Bureau report compared annual earnings.)

Both these figures are widely quoted to suggest that there is a significant gender wage gap due to discrimination in the workplace. These figures are, in fact, crude comparisons which take no account of the different occupational choices, hours worked, and personal circumstances of men and women. In testimony given to the U.S. Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Heather Boushey summarises recent work done by researchers Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn who found that 58.9% of the pay gap can be explained by measurable personal and occupational factors, leaving 41.1% as 'unexplained' by known factors⁵. If this proportion is applied to the BLS earnings ratio (i.e. 19% * 0.411), it would produce an 'unexplained pay gap' between men and women of 7.8%, a value significantly less than the 23% implied by President Obama.

In the UK, the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings for 2011 found that men's median full-time weekly earnings were £538, compared with £440 for women⁶. This yields a weekly female-male ratio of 82%, a value almost identical to that given in the BLS 2010 report in the US. However, the UK survey report doesn't quote this figure itself but, instead, calculates the pay gap using hourly median earnings (excluding overtime), and determines the value to 10.5%.

The narrowing of the pay gap as the time period used to measure it decreases can be explained by the fact that men work more hours than women in full-time employment. Indeed, the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings for 2011 finds that men in full-time employment work on average 40.2 hours per week, compared with women who work 37.4 hours⁷, (i.e. men work, on average, 7.5% more). Furthermore, the survey finds the proportion of pay attributed to overtime and bonuses are significantly higher for men than for women⁸. The use of hourly earnings, excluding overtime, rather than weekly or yearly earnings, thus eliminates differences due to the hours worked and overtime rates, giving a more accurate result.

Nevertheless, an apparent pay gap of 10.5% remains, even when taking into account overtime and hours worked. The UK Home Office website provides an explanatory breakdown of this pay gap⁹, as follows:

• 22% is due to the different industries and occupations in which women work
• 21% is due to differences in years of full-time work
• 16% is due to the negative effect on wages of having previously worked part-time or of having taken time out of the labor market to look after family
• 5% is due to formal education levels

This leaves 36% unexplained by any of the above factors. Applying this proportion to the UK earnings ratio would leave an unexplained pay gap of only 3.8%. Although the UK Home Office, itself, admits that this differential as 'unexplained', it suggests that discrimination may be an important factor, but provides no justification for this claim.

For those working part-time, rather than full-time, the UK Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings finds that pay gap is negative at -4.8%. This means that women actually earn more than men for the same number of hours in part-time employment¹⁰.

Turning back to full-time employment, however, a study conducted by American and Korean researchers in 2004 investigated the reasons for the wage gap, including the unexplained proportion often attributed to discrimination. They concluded:¹¹

"In simple models, personal and work characteristics account for two-thirds of the pay gap, but one-third is accounted for by other considerations. Many allege that discrimination explains this one-third. In particular, they allege that women are relegated to poor paying jobs, and thus women in general have lower wages because they are crowded into women’s jobs. In short, they claim occupational segregation is responsible for women’s inferior economic wellbeing.

"This study investigated the relationship between occupational sex segregation and wages. The empirical findings refute the claim that the number of women in one’s occupation negatively influences wages. Instead, the paper supports hypotheses relating to efficient job matching. Women choose female jobs to earn a relatively greater amenity package than they would have received elsewhere. Similarly men choose male jobs to earn relatively more."

The figures reported by the US Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Office for National Statistics in the UK, all clearly show that men earn more than women overall. This is undeniably the case. However, often cited, but overly simplistic, comparisons of earnings fail to account for differences in hours worked, family commitments, occupational and life-style choices, not to mention the hazardous and arduous conditions of labor intensive jobs typically performed by men (men account for 92% of all workplace fatalities in the US in 2010¹²). When these differences are properly taken into consideration, it becomes clear that claims of widespread discrimination are baseless.

In fact, according to the most recent US Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly 4 in 10 working wives out-earned their husbands in 2009¹³. Just what would it take to close the overall pay gap still further? Would national policies designed to restrict the numbers of men in high-paying jobs be needed, for example? Or, perhaps, would it be necessary to deny women personal freedoms concerning life-style and family so that they, in effect, have no choice but to spend more time at the workplace?

Andy Thomas
Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.


*Note. The term median is a statistical measure which refers to the midpoint in a sequence of observed data values. It is not the same as the average, or mean, value. It is generally accepted that the use of the median gives a more representative picture than the average value in many cases, especially where a few exceptionally high or low observed values (outliers) may skew the results.

References:

1. Example: Pay Equity & Discrimination. Institute for Women's Policy Research. Link: http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination/
2. White House (June 04, 2012). Remarks by the President on Equal Pay for Equal Work via Conference Call. Link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/04/remarks-president-equal-pay-equal-work-conference-call
3. United States Census Bureau. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010. Page 5. Link: http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf
4. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Women in the Labor Force: A Databook, December 2011. Page 1. Link: http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2011.pdf
5. Heather Boushey (March 11, 2010). Strengthening the Middle Class: Ensuring Equal Pay for Women. Testimony of Heather Boushey (Senior Economist, Center for American Progress Action Fund) before the U.S. Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Link: http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/03/pdf/Boushey_testimony.pdf
6. Office for National Statistics. 2011 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (based on SOC 2010). Page 1. Link: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_256900.pdf
7. Office for National Statistics. 2011 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (based on SOC 2010). Page 24. Link: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_256900.pdf
8. Office for National Statistics. 2011 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (based on SOC 2010). Page 23. Link: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_256900.pdf
9. UK Home Office (August 2012). Link: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/equalities/women/women-work/
10. Office for National Statistics. 2011 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (based on SOC 2010). Page 7. Link: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_256900.pdf
11. Soo Kyeong Hwang and Solomon William Polachek (2004). Occupational Self-Selection and the Gender Wage Gap: Evidence From Korea and United States. Link: http://www2.binghamton.edu/economics/wp04/WP0413.pdf
12. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, and Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 2012. Page 10. Link: http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0009.pdf
13. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Women in the Labor Force: A Databook, December 2011. Page 78. Link: http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2011.pdf

GirlWritesWhat on Suffrage and the White Feather Ladies

Prominent Canadian MRA, GirlWritesWhat, gives her take on Female Suffrage and the White Feather Ladies here in Blighty.

NB. She gets to the meat at 6:20. The transcript of this video can also be found here

BBC Journalist Suicide after Allegations of Harassment

BBC Journalist Russell Joslin killed himself after being sexually harassed by female work colleague, according to his family.

The reporter died in hospital on October 22, after apparently committing suicide. A post-mortem examination found Mr Joslin died from asphyxiation.

It is reported that the bullying began when Mr. Joslin spurned sexual advances made by the woman, and he had been asking to be moved to a different job for five years. The [unnamed] woman accused of harassing the reporter denied any wrongdoing, and his requests to be moved were dismissed by managers at the BBC.

Further information is available in this BBC news article.