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
We are not wheels, we are people.
If “female privilege” = being valued as reproductive and sexual resources, then you may be right, breasts as an extension of sexual utility are valued more by society than male sexual utility. BUT that still doesn’t discredit the enormous amount of work that has gone into creating the fight against breast cancer: *people still have to work for it*, even if they get the funding, funding and work don’t drop out of the sky. But it is still dehumanising, and people still make the decision to accept these gendered value systems, which value biology over people. Here’s a post (tw: gendered bitterness, which I think everyone is entitled to, and exists because of a shitty gender situation.)
http://at-gmail-dot-com.tumblr.com/post/113140770175/ablogforemily-shamelesslyunladylike
“deserving” plays no part in a capitalist system rex, come on you should know that by now. Either the people with money all earned it (just world hypothesis) including millionaires with inherited money, or everyone deserves a fair living and capitalism is fundamentally unfair. Choose one.
If men earn more money, of course they are taxed more, because that’s “fair”. Do you want more funding for men’s cancers too, because it’s “fair”?
If women cook more food, because they are out of formal work for whatever reason, does it follow that women should eat proportionately more of the food, and men less? If men cook less food, because that’s “women’s work”, does that mean they should eat less?
Choose what system you’re working for Rex.
Rex
You did liar. You copy everything I say and repeat it back to me. Your pathetic.
Rex
Your comparisons are not the same thing. I am saying that cancers that affect men should get an equal amount of funding to cancers that affect women, at the very least. The fact that cancers which affect males tend to kill them in greater number should in fact guarantee those cancers a greater percentage of funding and media attention. But they don’t get it because of female privilege.
Women might cook more food, but more men are paying for that food in the first place. Sharing it evenly is still a balanced situation but as always you take one thing which looks as though it disadvantages women and remove it from context. One might argue that earninig the money to pay for the food is harder work with less personal freedom than buying the food and cooking it, but like with healthcare we can overlook this for the sake of argument.
Men work more than women in the exact same jobs because women take off more time for family events, sick days, reduced working hours to pick up kids etc. So comparing like for like, women still contribute less money to the system, which is not fair. They take a disproportionate amount out of it. However no one minded, till women started moaning about their lot in life and saying how awful men were to them. They’ve largely got it easier in many ways. And whinging about having to stay in the comfort of home cooking and cleaning won’t wash any more. It’s infinitely more desirable to do that than slog in to work every day at a job you hate to pay for an ungrateful modern family who doesn’t respect you and simply demands more and more of you, such as a ‘wage’ for house work when the wife already spends 75% of the household income anyway, and demands 50% split on household chores. That’s fine if there’s a 50% split on household bills and income too, but usually there’s not. Men often end up pulling more weight than women but never complain about it.
So much for your concepts of equality.
fmf
See my other response about fairness and capitalism. See this response for ramblings of an extreme-parental rights political stance.
I suggest that the people who carry children to term and pay the biological and physical cost of extreme discomfort, huge health risks, massive pain for hours on end and distorted and scarred bodies, should have the sole right of custody for the offspring (unless they are found to be an unfit parent by government services.) . I believe they should be able to share parenting rights –if they choose– with one or more willing co-parents, and this would encourage people to respect each other as co-parents.
The one who does not carry would have to respect the carrier’s ultimate right to the child, thus encouraging respectful treatment of their relationship to maintain the connection to the child. The one who does carry would have to respect the non-carrier’s right to leave the relationship and child. Obviously, this is in a world with a perfect birth control system, entirely at the discretion of those who can carry, meaning that those who can carry would be able to choose co-parents perfectly according to those who will want to stay around with the child.
Finances would be provided by either the willing and not-obligated co-parent, the willing and able carrier parent, or by the government, which, in this perfect world, has a vested interest in maintaining family integrity and is highly socialist. Though obviously, people prefer to earn their own money, so this would not be a massive drain on taxes, which would be paid equally by all people of all genders, races, sexualities, religions and abilities, because there would be a perfectly efficient job market with no discrimination, meaning perfect job matches and equal pay over all demographics.
Past quarrels about eating cake and binary gender dividing lines would be forgotten in this perfectly equal and fair and free world. People would change nappies or pay for nappies according to what they decided together would be best, based on ability and preference.
fmf
Okay, so everyone should get funding based on mortality. There needs to be someone to accept that funding, and work on it, but sure, ideally, yes. In an imperfect system, one gender might get more funding, despite having lower mortality, (due to a history of sucessful funding). Though some cancers might be easier to treat. And some fetishising of certain parts of certain bodies.
So choose your argument, do men deserve more cancer funding because of higher mortality, or because they earn more/pay more taxes? One’s a stronger argument, because with food, you’re appealing to the mortality thing: we should get equal food because we’re all equally in need of it.
The cooking in this analogy is the work that the funding enables. It doesn’t count for anything in your book, because you think that the money/earning is a greater sacrifice/measure of effort.
Why do men not take more time off for family events, sick days, picking up kids? Because surely they are entitled to them? Or do they rely on their female partners taking these days off? Because then as a unit, families are are equal to eachother, even if those within them are “unequal”/doing different roles.
A lot of people agree with you about how it is a massive privilege to be able to stay home with the kids. () And of course the homestayer spends more money, that’s how a team works: if the worker had to buy all of the grocieries and home supplies, what would happen to their kids?? It can be seen as a plain transaction. No one is forcing someone to have a family and take the breadwinner role in it. If the homestayer is paying bills, where are they getting the money from? Or should they work too, leaving the kids? We come back to the question of the family unit and the roles within it.
What’s your ideal system?