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”
fmf
Okay. Well, your comment was about why you are anti-feminist, and you ended it by saying people shouldn’t call themselves feminists if they believe in equality. Yet, not all the women who were being anti-men etc were even calling themselves feminist, so how can we distance ourselves from them?
People will always attach themselves to prominent movements for social power. I don’t think the answer is renaming the movement, but rebranding it.
People who cling to the gender binary are small minded and I don’t like them. But feminism is increasingly inclusive of the gender spectrum, so over time, being all “penises bad” will become synonymous with sexist, not feminist.
And I know the word is scary because of its focus on women, but it is about the historical roots of the fight for sexual equality, which started in the interests of women, not men. Fighting for women doesn’t mean we have to fight men, and we’re more effective when we offer solutions that are fair to all genders. Over time, people realise that.
(PS: I think we are inherently less different than we are taught. I think we should be allowed to act for ourselves and be defined first by our choices, not our bodies.)
Rex Duis
“I don’t think the answer is renaming the movement, but rebranding it”.
Why though? You are the second person I’ve spoken to on this page who seems wedded to the term feminism. It’s more than just ‘equality’ it comes with patriarchy theories and socialisation theories and other inbuilt agendas, biases and suppositions. And no one can give you a clear, precise definition of the term which all its adherents would agree too. Best to clear it out of the way and create something new and positive. It’s tainted beyond redemption now.
“Gender binary” – no one is ‘clinging’ to this. It’s just how it is. We have 2 sexes, male and female, and then mentally we have a variety of sexualities across a spectrum. What people who talk about these things need to understand is that those who are different form a minority on this planet. I’m gay, so I’m included in that. It’s not ‘normal’ though, it’s natural I think yes, but not the most common. So attempts to break up societies view on ‘gender’ are simply going to anger the majority, and rightly so. I’m not saying we shouldn’t give equal rights to queer people or transgender, intersex etc, of course not. But we should also respect the fact that we are a minority group and instead of projecting our discomfort at being an oddity in society onto the majority groups, we should accept that we are different and learn to deal with that. In time society will become more tolerant naturally as minority groups stop ramming their agendas down the throats of ordinary people till they’ve had a gutsful.
“Fighting for women doesn’t mean we have to fight men, and we’re more
effective when we offer solutions that are fair to all genders”.
Your sentence is contradictory. Do you want equality or not? If you do, then you need to ensure men are also given fair treatment, including equal legal rights which we don’t currently enjoy, as well as equal social treatment which we’ve never enjoyed.
“I think we are inherently less different than we are taught. I think we should be allowed to act for ourselves and be defined first by our choices, not our bodies”
Another nice feminist ideal, but a false one. Our bodies do influence our choices heavily. Our hormones are different, our brain chemistry different. We are never going to be the same. Males and females in all species show gender dimorphism. Human beings are the only ones who fight with tooth and claw Against every drive or instinct within us. We’re the only animals on the planet who ignore our fundamental natures and bodies and that’s why we are chronically sick as a species. No other animal population on Earth experiences so great a variety of complex illnesses and social dysfunction, just us. Have you never stopped to wonder that might be? We need to appreciate our evolutionary roots and accept the differences between us first off. After that we can look at ways to ensure equity in terms of opportuinties regardless of skin colour, sexual preference or sex.
Bryan Scandrett
Genuinely apologise for the offense. I deal with insincere women all the time, using the sort of arguments you have been. It’s OK to exclude boys because, reasons. But they definitely should have their own thing, but not here.
Intactivists have been flogging that dead horse for years and have lost ground in the face of it. Foreskin cream is just recent in relative terms to opposition to mgm. Yet we have been unable to stop it being laughed abut much less questioned.
It’s a really simple principle – do not cut healthy babies. Fundamental human value. Not for any reason, not to any gender. No.
Any inability to empathize with a baby boy because penis, doesn’t get much consideration above oxygen thief from grumpy old mra’s.
In my world view, your entitlement to your ‘girls only’ stance, is viewed from the perspective of a drowning man, watching the women row away in the life boats. Unconscionable.
I fail to see how you can ignore the millions of victims lining the streets around you.
GrumpySteve
I don’t think of feminism as anti-men, it just ignores men’s issues. Mr Raab is right when he says we are blind to discrimination against men. This is not an anti-feminist statement: feminism is just what it says on the box, a movement to remove all disadvantages against women, while ignoring disadvantages suffered by men. The only problem is that feminists often claim to be fighting for equality for all, which they clearly are not ( http://wp.me/p5MHLq-hC ). We shouldn’t knock feminism, we should just accept it for what it is and make sure that its limitations are known.
As an example of the one-sided nature of the struggle for “equality” take a look at the way the Global Gender Gap Index is calculated ( http://wp.me/p5MHLq-lE ) – it openly ignores all cases where men are disadvantaged compared to women, and assumes that women have an entitlement to live 6% longer than men. What a strange view we have of equality.
Rex Duis
Debbie, I just saw this video posted on Twitter by Dean Esmay. It’s a short but thorough explanation of the functions of the foreskin and how it benefits both men and women. It also confirms there’s over 20,000 nerve endings in the tissue thats removed, in fact it may even be as high as 100,000. It is THE Most sensitive part of the male body.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgoTRMKrJo4&feature=youtu.be&a