In her article, she goes on about “the alpha male” using terms like having to “engineer” change and regurgitating virtually the whole feminist lexicon.
It’s a post about hypocrisy, like man-excluding, women-only sites in these days of supposed non-discrimination and it’s about the prosecution of non-favoured groups by the State on behalf of the favoured but utter impunity on the part of the favoured groups – they can discriminate all they like and not be held accountable for it.
It’s about hypocrisy, as has just been said. It’s also about misinterpretation – about me supposedly ascribing this hypocrisy to an individual or about me actually being the alpha male referred to in the piece. If it’s read carefully, it actually mocks the alpha male in the nicest possible way. It is annoyed about a site which excludes men and yet which pretends to be all nice and civilized. And above all, it is directed to Pippa Grange and her “ridiculous article“.
To underline this hypocrisy, which rankles with me something awful – I don’t mind the discrimination as much as the hypocrisy – I had to go, last year, down to my local Citizens Advice Bureau, on a matter concerning my utilities bill. Par for the course. When I walked in, there was a barrage of non-discriminatory warnings on a large poster, right in our faces. That didn’t go down well for a start.
The CAB has been around since the 40s and was womanned by volunteers from its inception. It does a fine job, most usually for people at the end of their tether who can’t deal with the monolithic State and what it’s doing to them. There are many relationship issues handled, employment issues etc. By the way, if you have any troubles that way, I’d recommend Advice Guide – it can give you instant feedback on the state of things in the UK at any time.
If you visit that site, you’re hit by a young black man, a white woman and a mixed baby as the graphic. Pardon me but isn’t the majority in this country white and lower or middle class? So there’s immediate hypocrisy there, before we even get started. Why does the graphic not reflect the demographics of the country?
Anyway, I got to speak with the head-honcho [a woman but as the CAB has always been women, there’s no issue in that]. I asked her what if an employer came in and needed advice on employees who were not doing the right thing, said employees giving him GBH of the earhole?
Sorry, she said, he can go and get legal redress. The CAB has always been for the employee.
Why? Surely it is an advice organization which does not discriminate – in fact, on the wall is just such a statement. It’s free, they don’t “tell”, it’s confidential and they are strongly anti-discrimination. So, on that basis, they have to hear the employer too, he being just as much a citizen?
The answer was that their resources were stretched. To an extent, that’s right and they have to start somewhere, means-tested probably.
I then asked what about the discrimination against men in the workplace today – surely she must have seen many men coming in, unemployed, at the end of their tether and facing this discrimination?
Her face went sour and she moved to close the conversation. However, as I had on my nicest possible, expectant look, she had to answer.
“This does not come under social policy,” she replied.
“Pardon?” I asked and she knew exactly where this was going. “Are you telling me that if men feel they have just grounds for unfair discrimination against them on the basis of age and gender, that you won’t listen to them?”
“On age, yes, it’s covered by social policy.”
“But not on gender. Well, that’s fair enough. So if any woman comes in and says she feels she was not given a job on the basis of her gender, you’d politely dismiss her and wait for her to go away?”
She couldn’t directly answer, naturally, so she went oblique and said they could only advise on what was currently government policy.
That was fair enough so I asked if the CAB ever made representations to government on any issue they felt needed rectification? In other words, if there was a glaring issue of injustice, the CAB would provide feedback to government and even lobby them on behalf of the discriminated-against?
Again, she didn’t want to be drawn and wanted this thing to end – quickly. As I’d been super-polite though and the conversation had only been two or three minutes at this point, she had a hard time ending it abruptly and I knew it and she knew I knew it.
It was when I asked, “Don’t you think this is all a bit hypocritical?” that she felt she had grounds to say goodbye to me, as I’d had my own issue addressed and there seemed to be nothing more they needed to do, as the CAB. Plus they’re not allowed to offer personal opinion – only point to the law at the time.
That was fair enough. I did notice though that she had personally taken umbrage at a series of questions in which I was obviously gunning for the government and CAB policy but not specifically gunning for her or calling her personally hypocritical. Ditto with my post yesterday – it was directed at this Pippa Grange, as someone who’d been caught up in something insidious and it’s that something insidious I’m gunning for.
We have to stop all this discriminatory rubbish against large sections of our own population and start supporting our population as a whole, being inclusive for sure and not differentiating between groups, not favouring one group but oppressing the other.
In exactly the same way in the family, if there’s to be any support, it should be for the couple as a unit, plus their children, not specifically for her to rip off the man via the CSA or for the man to rip her off via … well, I can’t think of an example off the top of the head.
Surely that should be obvious?