Come, let us be unfair to men and patronise women!

Today I read a wonderful article in Counsel Magazine. It is called Women in the law (August 2009).

It explained the findings of a report looking in to the ‘experiences of women as victims, offenders and workers in the criminal justice system’. The report was called Engendering Justice –from policy to practice.


Obviously it is very important for me to point out how I feel about women in the work place. Women are essential. They are always to be in the work place because they break it up from being a ‘boys club’ and that is more important that just upholding the principle. Before women were in companies it was often common practice for high power males to ‘lunch’ or t put high power positions in it another way get totally off their faces drunk and then spend the rest of the day sleeping under their desks. The reason why this practice has all but died out is largely because women arrived on the scene and rightfully considered this practice completely inappropriate and highly inefficient. Also men are risk takers, high testosterone men are more likely to great risk takers. Now I will defend the high testosterone risk taking man to the hilt , without him we would still be in the stone age…. But without the fire, but even I can see that have too many HT males in one place and you get what has happened in investment banking: meltdown.


Therefore it is easy to see that almost every area of business, public sector or private needs to have women.

So with that in mind I can now move on to the problem I have with these reports.

Substantive equality

“to treat people in the same way may simply be to reproduce disadvantage, thus perpetuation discrimination.”

“Formal equality assumes that all people should be treated alike. Substantive equality is directed at achieving substantively equal outcomes.”

Right….. so first of all what they mean by the CJS is institutionally sexist is that the CJS does not favour women. This apparently is a bad thing. Apparently those evil scumbags at the CJS treat both women and men the same! How abhorrent!


Now I know what you’re thinking… the reason why they have to ‘positively discriminate’ (which by the way is still discriminating against men) in favour of women is because they often have to take time out to look after their children and so on and so forth. But why does that entitle women to get given advantages? Why should they have the penny and the bun? A man cannot spend years with his children and then come back and expect to be promoted over those who haven’t, why do women get this and men don’t. Don’t get me wrong I’ve not problem with women getting this advantage but then to be fair it has to be applied to men as well.


Workers in the CJS

Apparently women now enter the bar in the same numbers as men, all good there we can agree. But there are not so many at the top… well considering how many years it will take for today’s women move up the scale that is no surprise, given time all that will change on its on, which I’m sure we can agree it good too.


But one last beef with this sort of report why is it that they do this report and because there is not 50% women at the top of the chain they think something is wrong. How come they don’t do a check at the local board’s sewage facility and why there is not 50% women there? Why are women to have assistance to get into high earning jobs but society doesn’t expect them to have to get up to their waists in human faeces? No one asks why half of low paid road builders aren’t women… as a matter of fact the very same article states that women make up 5% of the prison population 5%! No does that mean that the police force is sexist against men? Does that mean they are institutionally sexist AGAINST men? If so with a statistic as huge as that surely we should be commissioning reports into why women aren’t being arrested for violent crimes just the same as men?


Common sense would suggest that women don’t commit the same number of crimes as men, but if you start suggesting such patterns then you have to start accepting that other patterns may exist too and I don’t think that is a pill anyone in the Guardian camp is ever going to swallow.

Finally with all these reports being made and more importantly paid for isn’t anyone worried abut the cost of these things to society. The report suggested that equality and diversity training should be compulsory for all barristers and judges; can you imagine how much that would cost? In a time when the West is seeking to compete against the East on all levels to keep its position as the dominant economic power what real benefit is having to throw millions of pounds at training the legal profession to put women before men. If you want to keep legal costs down here is an idea for everyone, stop commissioning papers to tell us all how we should all be ashamed of ourselves for treating men and women equally and accept that women aren’t stupid, they don’t lack motivation, if they want a highly paid job they are hard working resourceful and intelligent. To put it another way sisters can do it for themselves…