Two Women Convicted of Elder Abuse

One man was convicted, too. Why do I draw attention to the women in particular? Simple - because feminists deny that women are ever violent or abusive for any reason at all. Nobody seriously denies that a small minority of men are capable of doing things like this, but feminists tell us, with a straight face, that violence is just what men do, and that women would never do anything to harm another human being.

Time and time again, it appears that they are wrong.

Another nail in the coffin of feminist jurisprudence - note that the women did not simply receive lighter sentences for being female, as usually happens:

Bupa care home staff tormented dementia victims and recorded their 'despicable' acts on their mobile phones

They were elderly, suffering from advanced Alzheimer’s Disease and needed the best possible care at their Bupa nursing home.

Instead the frail residents were bullied, assaulted and terrorised by care workers who recorded their ‘despicable’ behaviour on their mobile phones for fun.

Yesterday the ‘appalling’ video footage of a vulnerable 99-year-old woman and a man of 86 being mistreated by their three carers led to the carers being jailed.

The five minutes of blurred video, which was played at Bradford Crown Court, shows the carers laughing at the helpless pensioners, grabbing and poking them, taunting them and shoving phones into their face and mouth.

The elderly man, Kenneth Costigan, has an expression of ‘stark terror’ on his face, and is shown ‘cowering’ and burying his head in his hands in ‘utter despair’.

Edith Askham, who died later aged 100, is shown being bullied and treated roughly as she sits helplessly on the floor pleading ‘help me…I am frightened’.

Recorder Richard Mansell, QC, was clearly outraged by the defendants’ actions, which he described as ‘inhuman and degrading’.

The judge said supervisor Paul Poole, 26, and assistant care workers Jolene Hullah, 21, and Tanzeela Safdar, 23, had committed a ‘gross breach of trust’.

Earlier, when it was suggested that Hullah, who was 19 at the time, had not received adequate training, the judge was barely able to conceal his fury commenting: ‘You don’t need training in ordinary human decency.

‘This is a feature that unfortunately seems to be part of general life. The first instinct of people when they do something wrong is to start casting blame elsewhere. This is about taking responsibility for your actions.’

Referring to the victims, the judge said: ‘Although they were elderly and very ill they still had their dignity.

‘Your job was to provide them with a dignified level of care in the last years of their lives. With these despicable acts of abuse you stripped Mr Costigan and Mrs Askham of their dignity for your own amusement and gratification.

‘Of those who sat in court today and watched the video footage from your mobile phones, nobody could have failed to be appalled by your sick conduct.’

The defendants, all from Bradford, each admitted two offences of ill treatment of persons lacking mental capacity. The new offence, carrying a maximum five-year jail term, was created by the 2005 Mental Capacity Act.

Recorder Mansell ignored pleas to spare the defendants from jail. Hullah was sent to prison for 18 months, while Safdar, who was described as the ‘most culpable’, was jailed for 21 months.
Poole, who fainted in the dock, was given 12 months. All will be released after serving half their sentence.

Prosecutor Jonathan Sharp told the court the offences took place at the Dales Nursing Home in Bradford between December 2008 and February 2009. The Bupa home specialises in caring for people with dementia.

The victims were ‘particularly vulnerable to abuse’ as they were ‘unlikely to complain’ and had poor short-term memories.

The convictions were only made possible because police recovered the damning video footage from the two women’s mobile phones.

... Several excerpts show Mr Costigan sitting in his room being ‘taunted’ and physically abused by his laughing carers.

Hullah is seen pushing the phone into his face, imitating and teasing him and on another occasion assaulting him.

Mr Sharp said Mr Costigan’s dementia ‘causes him to swear’ and the carers found it funny to provoke his foul-mouthed outbursts.

They put a phone in his mouth and later as he becomes ‘upset and agitated’ Hullah screams at him and ‘pulls at his right thumb in a way that will have induced considerable pain’.

Safdar then ‘tries to grab his nose’ and ‘pushes both her hands into his mouth.’ As a result, Mr Costigan ‘holds his head in his hands and is plainly distressed’, said Mr Sharp.

Poole, the key worker designated with responsibility for his care, watched and failed to intervene.

Another video shows Safdar and another woman mistreating Edith Askham, who suffered from advanced dementia and was incontinent and ‘incoherent’. She is shown sitting on the floor away from her wheelchair and ‘holding out her arms for help’.

Mr Sharp said the carers did nothing to help her, ‘thrust the phone into her face’ and recorded her indignity. The other woman, Hannah Parveen, is believed to have fled to Pakistan.

Hullah later claimed she had just been ‘messing about’ and Safdar said she was just ‘playing around’. Poole claimed he said nothing because he was afraid of retribution from Hullah.

Amazingly, the two women were given longer sentences than the man - in direct contradiction to what feminist jurisprudence tells us should happen (punish the man! Let the women go!)

And did you catch that at the end? The man, Paul Poole, did not speak up about the abuse because he was afraid of retribution from one of the women. This is precisely the situation that feminism has brought into the workplace - even disagreeing with a woman can get a man hauled up before a tribunal. It's hardly surprising, in these circumstances, that a man would fail to intervene where a woman is being abusive - there's a good chance that he will become her next victim.

Is It Acceptable to Turn the Workplace Into a Nightclub?

From the Daily Mail:

Is cleavage a distraction at work? Four writers debate whether plunging necklines are ever acceptable in the office

Last week, a survey commissioned by Dragons’ Den entrepreneur Peter Jones claimed that women who display too much cleavage at work could end up sabotaging their careers.

The survey of 3,000 managers found that almost half of bosses had overlooked a woman for promotion if she had regularly worn low-cut tops to attract attention.

Sexist - or just common sense? Here, four writers argue whether it’s ever acceptable to parade plunging necklines in the office.

It's common sense. It's incredibly patronising that women think they can get by simply by showing some skin. The message it sends is: men, I think you are stupid, drooling, testosterone-driven animals, and baring my natural assets will make your brain go so haywire that you'll overlook my performance and promote me anyway.

The reason it's not sexist is because there's nothing to measure it against. If men walked around with their penises half-hanging out, and this earned them promotions, then yes, this could fairly be called sexist. But men do nothing of the sort, and women don't need to either.

What a surprise that men aren't taken in by women resorting to their 'feminine wiles.' Turns out men aren't stupid, drooling idiots who lose control at the sight of female flesh.

Only bimbos use their bodies to get ahead, says LIZ JONES

There was a time when I owed my ­career to my cleavage.

What an admission. Thankyou, Ms Jones. You said it, not me.

In the Eighties, I worked on a male-­dominated Sunday newspaper: me, my breasts and very little talent or experience.

I made terrible mistakes - and got away with them - because I had a giant cleavage.

More like, you got away with them because you were one of the few women working there, by your own admission. This was the Raving Feminist Eighties, when the ideas of political correctness in the workplace and quota systems and all that nonsense really took off. It was more likely the case that Ms Jones's employers could not afford to let women go.

Yet in truth, I hated the male attention and the favouritism. I started to walk around the ­newsroom with something clutched to my breasts to hide them: the Times World Atlas was a favourite.

Rather than, say, dressing more modestly? Ms Jones actually displayed her cleavage in order to get ahead, only to cover it up to avoid favouritism. This story is unravelling like a false rape accusation.

I despised the women around me who flaunted their breasts to get ahead.

Presumably because she saw it as her turf, and other women were a threat to her 'power' in this regard.

Another young trainee, fresh out of Oxbridge, used her breasts to get her straight to the top. She was given all the plum assignments and everyone hated her. I hated her most of all.

And so, aged 29, I took drastic action. I had my breasts cut off.

Jealousy, hatred, depression, self-mutilation; however did Liz Jones end up becoming a feminist?

I didn’t want to get ahead by plonking my breasts on to the editorial conference table. I had come of age believing that women should be treated equally, and as well as being given the same opportunities as men, this also meant not having an unfair advantage over them.

If men are no longer allowed to swear and throw their weight around, then women should be banned from acting coy, and blushing, and crying, and simpering . . . and wearing tight tops.

Actually, she's dead on here. I can't fault her on this.

And when I ultimately became a boss on a glossy magazine, I freely admit I discriminated against women who flaunted their cleavages. They were bound to disappear on maternity leave, and flirt with the inevitably male publishing directors and chairmen of the board.

I'm confused; is Liz Jones a feminist, or a misogynist? She sounds far less tolerant than the majority of MRAs.

Ultimately, a woman who puts it all on show is not only brassy, she is brainless. She usually has a face that is less than beautiful, but she always believes her breasts make up for this shortfall.

Ouch. The jealousy lingers on. Onto the next Opinionated Chick (TM), someone I've never heard of called Rachel Johnson.

I’ve certainly used it to get ahead at work - and I’d recommend any other ambitious woman to do the same.

And what ambition! As a famous celebrity once put it, "math is hard." God, I feel a bit like a feminist myself.

I’ve never minded men staring at them rather than my face. My feeling is, if you wear a low-cut top, you are asking for men’s gaze to lock on to your bust rather than listen to you warbling on about nonsense.

Quite, but it doesn't mean you get to sit on the board, darling.

Any woman knows that if you want to distract your audience from the possible vacuity of what you’re ­saying, allow them an unimpeded view of your cleavage.

I don't really know why I bother any more. Other people are apparently doing my job for me.

Perfect for parties, banned in the boardroom, says EVE POLLARD

This whole issue is dear to my heart because during my career in Fleet Street, I was often accused of deliberately wearing low-cut clothes to get ahead.

In fact, far from flaunting it, I invariably felt that showing my cleavage would backfire, so hand on heart, I never did.

Besides, many of the steps I took up the executive ladder came with the help of some amazing women. I don’t think putting my bust on display at interviews would have impressed them very much.

But I do know plenty of members of the sisterhood who thought nothing of unfastening a couple of ­buttons as they were being summoned into the lair of the big, male boss.

... Using your talent, your personality and your experience to get ahead is very shrewd; using your body is just dumb.

etc.

Next up is Lucy Cavendish, who has a face that could cut glass and whose general demeanour suggests that she is not just a career woman, but a fucking career woman.

Above: a fucking career woman.

A woman's brain should be the only asset she needs, says LUCY CAVENDISH

When I was an editor of a magazine, I would NEVER have employed a woman who’d come for an interview showing off her cleavage, any more than I would have hired a man wearing tight shorts with his lunchbox on prominent display.

So why do women insist on ‘putting it all on show’? The answer, regrettably, is because whatever Peter Jones and his survey says, male colleagues do turn in to brain-dead morons at the sight of an impressive cleavage.

Yawn. Feminist who nevertheless won't help a sista out. Hates men, hates women too, blah blah blah.

And far from taking a negative view, in their breast-obsessed ­stupor men are not only more likely to hire you, but to forgive any shortfalls.

I know this, because I’ve been on the receiving end of it - and felt ­horribly demeaned in the process.

Aww, poor Princess is upset about her privileges. You know what you could do about it, Ms. Cavendish? Stop bashing men, for a start, because that's nothing more than the exercise of that very same privilege you're so upset about.

Bashing the opposite sex is a shortfall which is forgiven only because you're a woman - any man can attest to what happens when he talks about women in this way.

I recently wore a new dress to a friend’s Christmas party that was reasonably low cut. I thought it wouldn’t matter. Why would a flash of cleavage make any difference to anything?

I couldn’t have been more wrong. One really old friend, a bit worse for wear, spent most of the night looking down my top, his tongue hanging out.

Another came up and said: ‘God, if my wife wasn’t here, I’d take you to bed.’ On and on it went.

It was bizarre. Usually, I would have expected to stand and talk to these people. We would have discussed the student riots, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. But my cleavage had turned me in to someone who suddenly had no brain, no opinions, but was ­centre of attention. I was horrified.

So horrified, indeed, that she even had to air the experience to the whole world in print.

The section above is nothing more than boasting about the attention she received. Take that, my poorly-endowed peers! I'm Queen Bitch of the Boob Wars.

Finally, we come to the only male opinion in this clusterfuck of an article. Surprise, surprise; like a person who has had to get by on his own merits and not by flaunting parts of his body, James Delingpole pens the only reasonable assessment.

There's one correction I would make, and that would be to substitute 'efficient' for 'simple.'

...and the male view, from JAMES DELINGPOLE

I’m no prude. Au contraire. Like most men, I like well-defined cleavages very much indeed. But that’s precisely the problem.

Men are simple creatures, they want to get the job done as well as possible in as pleasant an ­environment with no ­distraction.

And a prominent cleavage is a distraction with a capital D - and not just to men either.

Among the other women in the office, it inspires vicious, claws-out jealousy and hatred; and in the men, it acts simultaneously as either an ­outrageous come-on or an ever-present source of embarrassment.

You don’t know where to look. One part of your brain is urging you to linger appreciatively on the fleshy delights laid out so blatantly for your delectation; the other part is saying: ‘No! Don’t you know how easy it is to get done for harassment these days.’

Modern equality laws are bent outrageously in favour of protecting ­women’s ‘privacy’.

The very least women owe us in return is to turn up to the office looking like they’re dressed for business - not the bedroom.

Female Academic: Pay Gap is Women's Own Fault

Women can't have it all: Female academic says those with top jobs only end up with 'nominal families'

Bold text is my emphasis.

Some women might want it all. But a report by a leading academic claims they never will.

Those who try to combine high-powered jobs with having children really only end up with ‘nominal families’ with whom they spend little time.

Dr Catherine Hakim concludes that the battle for sexual equality is over and any pay gap is down to women’s lifestyle choices.

She added that there was no popular support for ‘social engineering’ of the kind used by Labour to try to push mothers into work and persuade fathers to spend more time looking after children.

Her report calls on ministers to drop policies pushing for flexible working hours, more time off for fathers, and more places for women on company boards.

It comes after the publication of figures that show there is no longer a pay gap acting to the disadvantage of women among people under the age of 30.

After 30, women gradually earn less than men. The age at which pay rates diverge between the sexes is the same at which most women start to have families.

Dr Hakim, a senior research fellow at the London School of Economics, said: ‘In Britain half of all women in senior positions are child-free, and a lot more of them have nominal families with a single child and they subcontract out the work of caring for them to other women.’

Her report for centre-right think tank the Centre for Policy Studies will say equal opportunities policies first introduced in the 1970s have now achieved their aims.

Dr Hakim’s paper says the pay gap has not disappeared because women have chosen the jobs and careers they want rather than those that feminists – and politicians sympathetic to feminist arguments – believe they should have.

She criticises the widely-held assumption that women want to be financially independent from men and hold the same ambitions and career aims.

Her report also criticises the notion that ‘family-friendly policies’ help businesses achieve profitability. She says there is no difference between men and women managers, and that success in business for either sex depends on commitment to work and the willingness to put in long hours.

Young Women in UK Reverse Pay Gap

Women in their twenties smash glass ceiling to reverse pay gap

Remember, in feminist speak, when women do better than men (due to artificial measures that tilt the playing field in their favour), it is 'equality' or 'parity'. The most men can expect is more discrimination in the form of mockery.

British women in their twenties have smashed the glass ceiling and are now being paid more than their male counterparts – reversing the traditional "gender gap" in pay for the first time. This is the only age group for which this is true.

The social revolution taking place among the nation's twentysomethings is being driven by a rise in the number of women attending university and their subsequent entry into the better paid professions, notably the law: around 63 per cent of solictors under the age of 30 are female.

EU Rejects Proposal to Increase Female Privilege

EU ministers reject 20-week maternity leave plan

EU ministers have overwhelmingly rejected a move by Euro MPs to extend maternity leave to 20 weeks on full pay in the 27-nation bloc.

Oh, I see. What about paternity leave? What was proposed with that?

Minimum maternity leave in the EU is currently 14 weeks. The European Commission has proposed extending it to 18 weeks, to improve work-life balance.

Oh, so women already get 14 weeks off. No mention of what men get, but the EU proposed extending women's 14 to 18 weeks, to 'improve work-life balance'.

The work-life balance of women. Apparently such a balance is not an issue for men, who must simply work.

The UK was among the countries that lobbied against the 20-week plan. One assessment said such a measure could cost UK businesses an extra £2.5bn (2.8bn euros) a year.

Gosh, I'm so proud. This government could not even deliver anonymity for men accused of rape, but when businesses are threatened, they draw the line.

Not that profit margins should bend to the will of indulgent and selfish women, of course.

But then, neither should the lives and reputations of innocent and presumptively innocent men.

A statement from the Council - the EU body representing member states' governments - said many ministers were also reluctant to include paternity leave in the directive, "whose main purpose was to improve the health and safety of pregnant women and workers who have recently given birth".

The MEPs' amendments included a proposal for two weeks of paid paternity leave for fathers as a minimum.

So ... we don't even have two weeks minimum paternity leave for men?

Yet, women already have managed to secure fourteen weeks maternity leave.

And the debate was all about extending the fourteen weeks to twenty.

And nobody was really very interested at all in granting men a paltry fortnight.

And to think, feminists actually wonder why women cannot shake off their 'traditional' caregiver role.

Women 'Pushing Back' Against Their Own Choices

From the New York Times:

Frazzled Moms Push Back Against Volunteering

An interesting take which happens to coincide with the feminist worldview - women must always be 'pushing back' against something, must not they? Even when what they are 'pushing back' against is what they chose to do.

The tone of the piece suggests that women are oppressed by the sheer amount of volunteering they do ...

Around the country there are a number of altruistic, devoted and totally burned-out mothers just like Ms. Lentzner who are becoming emboldened to push back against the relentless requests from their children’s schools for their time. What started out as an admirable civic gesture somehow snowballed into an inability to say no to any committee assignment or project request, and spiraled into night, weekend and after-school commitments, middle-of-the-night e-mail exchanges, as well as frozen dinners, takeout pizza and baby sitters at home.

An 'inability' to say no to such requests?

The article goes on to discuss some seriously questionable propositions by certain schools which would make it mandatory for the families of students to do some volunteer work on the school's behalf.

Now, that certainly is ridiculous, not least because 'mandatory volunteering' is an oxymoron.

But then, women's victimhood in all this turns out to be overblown, as usual. Spot the cognitive dissonance:

Part of the burnout stems from the fact that in most schools a small number of volunteers shoulder the vast majority of the work.

Ms. Jones is a mother of two in Keller, Tex., who works part time as a booking manager for professional speakers. This fall she was co-chairwoman of the Scholastic Book Fair, a commitment of five full days on top of the multiple meetings required to organize the event. And the decorating.

This year’s theme was superheros, so Ms. Jones made the sign with Superman saying, “It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s a book fair!” She made tall buildings out of cardboard boxes. She stuffed the Spider-Man costume that she had found and bought herself. When it was over, she helped pack everything up and take the money to the bank.

In the real world of work, people do more than make buildings out of cardboard boxes and take trips to the bank. These are the trivial non-tasks that employees are likely too overstretched to spend time on. The idea that volunteering mothers "shoulder the vast majority of the work" at schools because they make signs and help with the decorating is preposterous.

What goes unspoken in this article is the role of men, although it is implied that they are just too damn lazy, since, you know, it's women doing all this non-work.

Ms. Christensen declared herself off-limits to all school volunteer requests. “I said: ‘I’m done. I quit. Don’t call. Don’t e-mail.’ I said I have given so much of myself. I’m spending 50 hours a week working on a volunteer position."

It's more likely the case that the husbands of these women simply don't have the time to tag along on school field trips, because they are doing real work for 50 hours a week.

After all, men don't have the choice to just quit working once the first kid comes along; they don't have the choice to idle their way through the chores deemed less important by those who are actually employed in the education system.

Nor do men have the choice to quit and indulge in "a little me-time" while supported financially by the spouse.

More on Discrimination in the UK

According to the Telegraph, the 'positive discrimination' I discussed previously is being sold as 'positive action' - the difference being not entirely clear.

Britain embraces 'positive action' to abolish workplace discrimination

Calling it 'action' is most likely a move to avoid all those nasty connotations which unfortunately attach themselves to the word 'discrimination' - connotations which remain even when you deem it 'positive'.

Perhaps when men are beaten in the street, it is 'positive violence'?

When men are killed, is it 'positive homicide'?

I am sure that feminists think so; after all, it is precisely the same logic behind calling discrimination 'positive' when it targets men.

Miss Featherstone said recruitment and promotion decisions, especially in big firms, were still made on a "nudge-nudge, wink-wink basis", before women had the chance to apply.

If these decisions really were made in such a clandestine matter, how exactly would Miss Featherstone - barred entry to the old boys' club because she is a victimised woman - know this to be the case?

I highly doubt it's the case at all - most companies are falling all over themselves to prove that they genuflect at the church of Equality. But, to turn profits, they also need to hire the best candidates.

Who are, for our cultural guardians, all too often male.

Ministers said that in practice this would mean that a primary school with no male teachers could hire a man of equal merit to a woman.

It will also mean that a manager will be able to hire a black man over a white man, a woman over a man, or a homosexual man over a heterosexual man, if they have the same skills and qualifications.

This is an attempt to play down the ramifications of the Equality Act. All those things listed above can and do already happen - when two equal candidates have applied, the employer has to choose between them. If this was all the Act implied, there would be no need for it; it would be completely superfluous.

Miss Featherstone said the reforms were “absolutely not about political correctness” but aimed to give employers “the choice to make their workforce more diverse”.

Again - employers already exercise full choice over who they hire. If they want to create a more diverse workforce, they are currently free to do so without requiring the help of government.

So, what's really going on?

Companies with more than 150 staff will be encouraged voluntarily to disclose whether they pay women as much as men.

Miss Featherstone told business leaders in London’s Docklands that she hoped the voluntary approach would work. However, if too few companies signed up, ministers would consider whether tougher action “including a mandatory approach” was needed.

So disclosures will be voluntary - unless nobody volunteers, then they will be mandatory.

So essentially, disclosures will be mandatory.

business leaders said the new rules would lead to a rise in the number of companies being sued by potential employees.

This is undoubtedly one of the primary reasons for the new legislation - the terms of the Act are so broad that anybody can sue for virtually any reason, so long as they belong to a 'protected category' of person.

The effects will be for disgruntled or bored women to cripple businesses, in order to fund their own lavish spending habits and luxurious cruise trips.

David Green, a director of the think-tank Civitas, said the new law imposed “illiberal requirements on employers”. He said: “The Government is now to require employers to discriminate on grounds of 'group identity’ not personal qualities.”

Spot on. I would add that ideologies such as feminism explicitly aim to divide people by putting them into little 'group identity' boxes then treating them differently.

Disapproving Glance Proves Fatal to Young Woman

A man is suing his former bosses after he was put before a disciplinary panel - for glaring at a disruptive junior co-worker.

Can anybody guess the co-worker's sex?

I think it's safe to say that no young men would be taken seriously if they demanded disciplinary action be taken against a colleague who merely glared at them.

'My life was ruined after I glared at a colleague' says council worker suing bosses for £330,000

After his disapproving glance, the man was publicly insulted, and subsequently found himself facing disciplinary proceedings, after the young woman complained of "serious harassment," "intimidation" and "constant staring" of a sexual nature.

The disciplinary panel dismissed the allegation of sexual harassment, but found him guilty of "gross misconduct."

Now, if not for feminism - which has slowly turned workplaces into adult daycare for overgrown little girls - she would be the one being disciplined and charged with gross misconduct.

I speak from experience when I say that young women in the workplace can be a royal pain in the ass.

Indeed, I work with one at present, who hardly seems to do her job - rather, she is relaxing in the next room, flirting with guys from other departments, or just hanging around talking incessantly.

About herself - she doesn't seem to have any other interests.

And this is seriously disruptive - it makes it difficult to get on with the work I'm trying to do.

And now I know, that to make even the most passive-aggressive criticism of her disprutive behaviour could result in me being disciplined and found guilty of "gross misconduct."

I also work with a young woman who does get on with her work, without disrupting others, so I am well aware that not all women are like this.

And I admit entirely that it is painful when anyone acts in this way - whether they are male or female.

But only women are insulated from the consequences of their actions. Young men would have to bear the brunt of their colleagues' disapproval - and rightly so.

And I am sure that feminists the world over will celebrate at the fact that men shall just have to struggle on despite the disruptions, while women are 'liberated' to act like spoiled children, doing as they please without ever having to deal with something so traumatic as a disapproving glance.

Which brings me onto my final point.

If women are so hurt by a disapproving glance, what makes them think that they belong in the workplace?

If we have to restructure the whole office dynamic, regulate all conversations, and even monitor how we look at each other, all to make women feel secure - what makes them think that they are equal to men?

Can anybody answer me - why, if women are so vulnerable that they feel the need to lodge an official complaint when looked at in a certain way, do they think that they can handle the real world?

Particularly those women who bleat on and on about how 'strong' they are.

It seems obvious to me that anybody who reacts like this young woman did is profoundly weak. And thanks to her profound weakness, and to the insistence of feminists that women are the paragon of strength, a man's career is over and he is taking daily medication for depression.

Let's hope he wins his case.

Legal Discrimination Against Men in the UK

'Positive' discrimination against men is now legal in the United Kingdom.

As reported by the Daily Mail:

Employers given right to hire women rather than men in 'positive discrimination' laws

Businesses will be permitted to hire women over equally qualified men under new 'positive action' legislation unveiled today.

How successful the feminists have been in demonising men - we have reached a point where explicitly sexist action against men is deemed 'positive'.

Personally, I do not believe that discrimination can ever be 'positive'. Though I suppose it depends on your point of view as to whether or not it is 'positive' - i.e., who is being discriminated against. If it's not you, and if you stand to gain from the discrimination, then you might well think that it is a 'positive' thing.

This new legislation, if you are a man, could certainly be called 'negative', because you could be rejected for a job for no other reason that you are male - a fact of your birth that has nothing to do with your experience, merits, references, or what you could bring to the role.

So, I have a hard time swallowing that this is 'positive' discrimination - it's just plain discrimination.

For years, we have heard that treating women in precisely this way is just plain discrimination, and that we should never judge women on the basis of their sex but on the basis of their merits.

Who could have foreseen that the very same feminists who imposed law after law, ensuring that this would be the case, would then deem it acceptable and fair for men to be discriminated against in this way?

"These plans are absolutely not about political correctness, or red tape, or quotas," says Lynne Featherstone, who is apparently the Equalities Minister.

That's nonsense.

Of course these plans are about all these things - if not for certain politicians' chauvinistic devotion to political correctness and quotas, the plans would not exist.

Specifically, they would not have been dreamed up by the notorious feminist Harriet Harman, who held Ms. Featherstone's role in the previous administration.