Dominic Raab is no more keen on the Equality Act than he is on the Human Rights Act
Esher and Walton MP Dominic Raab has just been made justice minister alongside Michael Gove.
Raab is a longtime critic of the Human Rights Act – this appointment looks like David Cameron’s way of saying he is serious about scrapping it. In January 2014 Raab voted to allow human rights grounds to be used to prevent a foreign criminal being deported only in cases where there would be a breach of right to life or the right not to be tortured.
In 2013, he voted to remove the duty on the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to work to support the development of a society in which people’s ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination.
And in 2013 he also voted against making it illegal to discriminate on grounds of caste.
Raab also took an unusual stance on gender equality in 2011, when he expressed his fears that ‘from the cradle to the grave, men are getting a raw deal’. He attacked the ‘obnoxious bigotry’ of feminists and complained that men work longer hours than women (no mention of pay gap etc).
“While we have some of the toughest anti-discrimination laws in the world, we are blind to some of the most flagrant discrimination – against men.”
Seeming to have fallen at the first hurdle – assuming that feminism is anti-men – Raab also suggested that men start ‘burning their briefs’, presumably as a long- overdue retaliation against the feminists of the sixties (who did not, in fact, burn their bras.)
Raab’s diatribe continued:
“Britain’s not perfect, and we will never eradicate all human prejudice.”
This is especially true when we do not understand that prejudice. Another interesting choice from David Cameron.
Ruby Stockham is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow her on Twitter
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
398 Responses to “He thinks feminists are ‘obnoxious bigots’: meet the new justice minister”
Debbie Jackson
Thanks for the response, Rex, unfortunately I haven’t the time to read through and reply in detail to each point as I’ve seen this on the go, so I appreciate the time taken now that we’ve begun a dialogue.
I have to say, though, I’m very disappointed in much of your reply, for reasons I’ll attempt to go into below. In short you’re choosing to argue (and presumably, believe?) that men are more persecuted than women at present from the single standpoint that there are more laws protecting women as a group, but in doing so, you choose to remain oblivious to the reason that those laws have come about. I was hoping that you’d be reasonable and open-minded, especially when I saw the amount of agreement your comment had elicited. Anyway, a few specific points, those I’ve had time to answer.
“the lack of legal protection for male genital integrity which women have been able to enjoy for 30 years now in Britain”
In this instance, your example mirrors exactly what I’m trying to say; there was no particular issue regarding masculine genital mutilation on a large scale in the UK and it’s generally not a major social problem worldwide either, whereas women are habitually taken for harmful and destructive procedures on a daily basis in many parts of the world. You might be referencing something I’m not picking up from the manner of your response but the point is that we have more legal protection on certain matters for the exact same reason any other ‘minority’ or underprivileged group enjoys similar protections – the protection has been written into law to attempt to stop widespread and ongoing harmful behaviour against women as a vulnerable group.
“male retirement which has until just recently meant men were forced to work a further 5 years than women, despite traditionally working in labour intensive jobs”
Men traditionally work in almost all jobs, if we’re being particular about looking into historical precedent here – regardless, I absolutely agree that the staggered retirement age is an example of gender disparity that underprivileges men. Obviously, choosing the example of retirement age to indicate that men have it worse in the workforce skirts the fact that men also have significantly better employment, prospects and treatment throughout the workforce in general. However any imbalance without good and universally accepted reason isn’t appropriate and so I’m glad to see this disparity has also been ended – in my comment I made it clear that feminism as a movement (and I as an individual) fight to remove all such unfairnesses and disparities in future. It does as I say work on both sides.
“When genital mutilation was banned in 1985 for women, this legislation need not have been gender specific as both males and females have genitalia and may be subject to religious or cultural circumcision or modification practices.”
Yes, both men and women possess genitalia and both are therefore potentially at risk from genital mutilation. However the fact that equal concern is theoretically possible doesn’t make it likely or accurate in practice.
Female genital mutilation (FGM) is the practice of deliberately and permanently damaging female genitals in a painful manner and is designed to enforce chastity. It frequently leads to haemorrhage, urinary retention, urinary infection, wound infection, and septicaemia, and women die from the procedure every year. Male Jewish-style circumcision is the near-painless removal of a portion of the genitalia which is not necessary for long-term function for purely religious and ritualistic reasons regarding the worth of the male child, causes no long-term harm, and is not lethal.
The comparison holds no water save to demonstrate that similar sounding concepts often foisted as an example of equal suffering are often significantly different in effect and actual subjugation, which is something frequently seen in arguments against ‘women’s rights’ by men claiming that their own are being ignored. Sadly therefore I have to reject your point and repeat that the social inequality in this matter is -extremely- real and immediate. Please read this article for a fuller overview: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/10998633/Dont-compare-male-circumcision-with-FGM.html
“You appear to be referring to perceived social inequalities which 3rd wave Feminism has largely focused on”
The massive social inequalities in the Western world (let alone the world at large) still present between men and women are absolutely and irrevocably damaging to women as individuals and as a gender on the whole. They are absolutely, utterly proven and immediate, not simply ‘perceived’.
“…and which to my mind are of secondary consideration to legally protected rights. Whether those rights are actively enforced or not is also secondary as it is always a much easier position to defend one’s legally enshrined rights than it is to fight for them in the first place. This is the position men now find themselves in and which Dominic Raab rightly sums up as men ‘getting a raw deal’.”
I repeat my previous point that the reason there are so many legal structures designed to protect women (or black people, or LBGTQ people, or any other minority / underprivileged group) is -directly because- these groups are discriminated against within society. Laws arise as a result of necessity due to societal inequality. Therefore your argument, which is based on a perception that the laws specifically focus on women more often than men and therefore attempts to suggest that this means men have less protection and representation, actually reinforces the globally understood facts that women have had to suffer and push for legislation to prevent that suffering to a massively greater degree. There would be an equal number of male-focused legal protections in place if there had actually been a need for these to have been installed. Again, I’m all for the law being gender-neutral in general and would appreciate seeing that as the end goal of the destruction of patriarchal practices within society, but you need to understand where the current situation stems from and what effect the legitimate imbalances -in mens’ favour- are having on the small subset of issues you’re choosing to focus your attention on in this discussion.
“Moving on to perceived social inequalities I would say these affect men and women equally but in different ways…”
Absolutely, both genders / all genders suffer from patriarchal norms in different ways – except that looking over the past hundred years or so (and of course, before), it’s -definitely- not an equal balance. If it were then men wouldn’t be affected so negatively by perceived feminising of themselves just as one example. The suffragette movement would not have been required. Even talking from a modern-day standpoint though the concept of equal effect is nonsense and I’ll try to defuse it as rapidly as possible –
“Women have benefitted from the fact that they have been seen as generally speaking the weaker sex in that no shame has been put on women for raising their voices about these issues and positioning themselves as victims”
Again, ‘perceived’ differences, and ‘positioning’ of ourselves as victims, as if we were doing this for personal advantage or even just for fun. People in general do not -want- an unequal society, especially if it isn’t in their favour; fighting for this sort of thing to change is terrifying, dangerous, exhausting, soul destroying. It’s not a jaunt. That said; I take utter issue with the point as well as just with your wording. Being seen as weak is not a benefit. Being given an allowance to complain rather than being shamed by the gender group with all of the power is not a benefit. We do not ‘benefit’ from being ‘allowed’ to complain. The assumption of our comparative weakness or fallacy dogs us -throughout our entire lives-, from being ignored in serious conversations to being treated as a minority due to comprising the majority of the world population to being passed over for jobs or promotions to being seen as simply incapable in daily life. Enough of it!
“Men on the other hand are fairly silent on most matters which affect them, regardless of the severity of need, because there is some shame is speaking about them (suicide numbers being one good example).”
Not in all cases, but yes. This is a problem. It’s actually a direct outcome of the above, terrible situation where women are considered weak and therefore allowed or expected to show weakness. Men on the other hand are therefore not allowed to show weakness by their fellows or risk being deemed ‘feminine’ and ‘unmanly’ and therefore weak. The desperately important point here is that women are still being oppressed on a global and societal level, if the worst insult to a man is to call him feminine. But yes, it does also affect men, driving them to despair and suicide. You mentioned intersectionalism – basically this is what it means, we’re fighting for the rights of all and not ignoring people of other underprivileged groups (or even white male patriarchal privileged levels). We fight for you as well when we fight against these issues.
“It is therefore an example of the privilege women enjoy that they can actively campaign for changes in the way they feel they are treated or seen”
This is not a privilege. Being able to campaign for fairer treatment up to the level men receive automatically is not a privilege, it is a LACK of privilege and a presence of drive and spirit. We do not want to -have- to campaign for even treatment and respect.
Men, by the way, are completely able to campaign for any cause they wish, and are usually taken more seriously when they do so than we are – to the point that male feminists and allies are necessary simply for some people to actually get the point who have long ignored their female friends. It is a complete fabrication that men are unable to campaign as a group. To campaign actively is to fight, which is very masculine. It’s privately admitting weakness which is seen as a problem.
“while playing down the importance of the injustices which men also face and are less able to express.”
This actually feels like a personal criticism against my attempt to explain things before. I hope it wasn’t meant as one. We do not play down men’s needs. We amplify them and again, I’m attempting to get the point across to you that the actions of feminism as a movement are designed to solve both of these! I have no issue with you listing matters that men need to see improvement in; the problem I have is that you’re trying to claim that men are oppressed to a comparable, nay greater, extent as a gender from gender-based issues which I can’t simply ignore as it’s just been disproven far too many times.
“Looking at the examples you put forward, men do not enjoy equal legal rights with women on paternity…”
I am aware of this and as per my previous message I believe that there should be a more equal and fair balance of rights regarding parenthood – paternity leave, divorce proceedings and so on. However I’ve already explained in great detail why a woman -carrying a child in her own body- has a greater right to decide what happens -to her own body- than the father who -is not carrying the child for nine months in his body-. This should be immediately self-evident. Here’s another link though, written by a man if it helps (it shouldn’t): http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/03/11/sorry-mens-rights-activists-dont-abortion-rights/
“Men must go along with the choice the woman makes with no regard given to his feelings which is fundamentally unfair and wrong.”
See above. Of course we should be giving you consideration on individual bases, but writing that into law means giving men direct power over the bodies of women again, and exactly when do women get the same control over the biology of men? Speaking of the Human Rights Act there’s a specific right over the self-determination of one’s own body. Anything other than the current situation breaches it. Women have, and should have, the inalienable right to control their bodies. Everyone does. THAT is why these pregnancy rights though seemingly unfair or discriminate are actually equal.
“Men should be given the equal right enjoyed by women to have a baby come to term if he wishes to keep it (and would be responsible in full for the mothers costs during her pregnancy) with the mother agreeing to turn over full responsibility to the father after the baby is born.”
At this point, I’m sorry, but I couldn’t keep answering you.
This is utterly reprehensible. I’m sure it doesn’t seem that way to you as of writing but please consider this.
What you’re trying to say is that a man should be able to, IN LEGISLATURE, demand that a woman turns over her body to him as an incubator for a baby she doesn’t want for a period of nine months, going through some of the most uncomfortable, disgusting and painful experiences in existence in order to fulfil that requirement, potentially losing her job and her entire future by doing so. At which point the man swoops in and collects the baby at no further cost to himself, and after the mother has had a chance to develop a bond with her foetus. Even if the mother wishes the child themselves you feel that the father should have 50% control over the child, visiting rights and so forth, regardless that he’s forced the woman to bear it in the first place, ensuring himself a permanent place in her life forever.
No.
I cannot see how you can’t understand this, but the above are techniques used by abusive partners to ensnare and restrain their current or ex-partners, often at great danger to the other person.
Forcing a woman into a permanent and life-long relationship with a man she may not ever want to see again and to bear and bring up a child she never wanted is slavery in its purest essence.
Please understand that beyond this, not every child is the product of a happy relationship. By your suggestions here, a woman would have to maintain a long-term relationship with her violent rapist, or give him an innocent baby.
Men can have the right to ‘enjoy equal rights with women regarding whether to take their child to term’ when men are able to bear the child physically themselves. Not in any other situation.
From a nice, succinct comment on the topic, the final word on this.
“the plain old principle that men have no abortion “rights” because they are never pregnant. 100% of the burden of pregnancy falls on women. He gets no veto. Men are given EXACTLY the same rights as women are in this situation… the right to make reproductive decisions about their own bodies. The failing would appear to be that some men wish to be able to make decisions for the woman’s body simply because the outcome may have an impact on them at a later point. These men may not like the “lack of control” once sperm leaves their bodies… but they also have none of the risks to life and health inherent with pregnancy. The day men can become pregnant and carry those pregnancies to term, men will have the right to make decisions about whether or not they wish to put their bodies through that. Until that day, these men just need to accept that they have no right to make decisions about how other people choose to use their bodies… you know… like how the world works for everything else…”
I’m sorry that I had to stop there but I can’t take any more repetition of the above points and variations thereof. I hope this isn’t actually your intention, but from the way your final points were written, this is how they come over to a reader of the gender you’re trying to dictate your personal views on abilities and privileges to:
You’re trying to debase the entire purpose of the women’s movement for -equal rights- by stating, effectively, that because men have to suffer -at all- and be inconvenienced on occasion so that women -can be occasionally safe-, women are therefore more privileged. You think a father should have control over the body and entire future of the woman he willingly or unwillingly impregnated. And when faced with a clear explanation of why societal balance still favours the man, you reject the argument because it doesn’t focus narrowly enough on the laws that we as women fought for, bled for, starved for, just to ensure that this sort of thing wouldn’t happen in the West at present. You repeatedly describe the fringe benefits of deep social issues and imbalances as ‘privileges’ on our side as if we’d ever wish to have the freedom to be disallowed from owning property (thence the husband taking on all debts) or the freedom to be treated forever as insubstantial people (thence to be seen as emotional or silly).
The suffering of women is not ‘out of context’, it is not a ‘false perception’. It, along with the oppression and suffering of a thousand other minority groups, bled and tormented and silenced billions of people over hundreds and hundreds of years, and it (and they) are still current and still poisonous today. More so, in that the strides we all have finally started to make are now clear and obvious steps towards (NOT reaching, not yet) proper equality for all, and so they’re now being used by you and by those deliberately inclined to turn the argument to their own smaller sufferings. They are not an indication of female superiority within society. They are simply being widely featured and focused on. You can’t fault me for referencing the wider societal causes of a seeming imbalance within the laws as if I’m ignoring your point: I’m actually getting to grips with the thrust of your argument there. The reason for a greater number of laws protecting women is very simple. Women face greater oppression and have done in the past to significant degrees. We therefore have fought for and finally achieved laws to ensure it will be harder for others to continue this oppression from now on. More legal protections actually indicates a more oppressed group. This is key to understanding the entire issue. And, frankly? The ‘sweeping references to historical male privilege and female suffering’ are at the UTTER CORE of the debate. I’m making a general reference, you have the facility to look up what I’m talking about – and I’m sure you have as you’ve obviously a strong interest in this field – and see that women have been oppressed disastrously for hundreds of years. This is -going- to affect society, it’s going to affect the current state of affairs. To ignore all of this and to look at the present situation without any comprehension of either the historical or modern social context, or without acknowledgement of those in order to push through your own alternative reading of history, is to look at it in utter ignorance and possibly in malice.
I hope you don’t take these statements as personal condemnations. As said before, I am extremely disheartened to read the way you’ve responded to me today, but I don’t consider you impossible to speak with as a person. I do however very strongly push you to read a few sources outside the ‘men’s rights’ arguments and discussions with an open and comprehensive eye, so that hopefully you’ll understand why so many of the arguments posited here are unreasonable. It takes focus and understanding and a good deal of empathy for the situation of others which can sometimes be very difficult if you haven’t experienced it yourself, but to be honest, you’re falling into a textbook series of the traps of privilege at the moment, and some information on that would help you a great deal.
Debbie Jackson
I posted a longer reply and it seems to have been cut off.
So in short, you really need to read around the subject and not just look into the men’s rights’ slant on things. Most of the answers to your points are painfully self-evident when seen outside of the narrow, biased lens that MRA groups tend to use. Your response generally belittles the legitimate struggles of women the world over which is itself a textbook reply from someone in a position of power who either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about the experiences of those without said power. Most importantly, though, you support the Human Rights Act but appear to be arguing for the right of a man to force a woman to abort or carry a child to term, which is in complete contravention of the Act – the right to self-determination. Please look into that further. Until then, this quote will help.
“Men are given EXACTLY the same rights as women are in this situation… the right to make reproductive decisions about their own bodies. -Men can control the ejaculation of their sperm and the vessels into which they choose to ejaculate, and whether or not they attempt protection. Women can control their pregnancies, and whether or not they attempt protection.
The failing would appear to be that some men wish to be able to make decisions for the woman’s body simply because the outcome may have an impact on them at a later point.
These men may not like the “lack of control” once sperm leaves their bodies… but they also have none of the risks to life and health inherent with pregnancy.
The day men can become pregnant and carry those pregnancies to term, men will have the right to make decisions about whether or not they wish to put their bodies through that.
Until that day, these men just need to accept that they have no right to make decisions about how other people choose to use their bodies… you know… like how the world works for everything else…”
Debbie Jackson
Not every feminist organisation, or at least, organisation that claims the title, is actually feminist. To be feminist is to desire true equality. Sometimes that equality isn’t obvious from first glance (for example the fact that women have complete control over their pregnancies is actually a matter of equality as to do anything else would strip their control over their own bodies – which is something the masculine sex does not have to face as a result of pregnancy). But if an organisation is -truly- unequal it isn’t feminist.
Debbie Jackson
Right here.
Debbie Jackson
Okay, so only women will be drafted, but men won’t be allowed to vote? Women will be imprisoned while men will be looked after and protected as victims, but men won’t have their word trusted in a court of law even when it concerns their own sexual molestation at the hands of women? Women will make up a greater proportion of the homeless but no man will be allowed to work, own property, or possess a home, and will have to inherit one solely via marriage? In fact, men will count -as- the property of either their mothers or their wives or else become vagrant?
Obviously I don’t want this, but you shouldn’t want it either.