Friday, 27 November 2015

How the six political aims of the Women’s Equality Party are not only outdated but are ridiculous. Women are no longer victims; they are becoming the villains!

How the six political aims of the Women’s Equality Party are not only outdated but are ridiculous. Women are no longer victims; they are becoming the villains!

Taylor Swift was the highest earning musician last year and it is likely the next president of the United States will be female yet the formation of the Women’s Equality Party this year shows that some women still believe that feminism has a mandate.  Feminism died in the 1980s when Baroness Thatcher was in power, the head of the monarch was female and Whitney Houston and Madonna were dominating the charts.  Feminism has since lost its mandate and therefore there was nor prerequisite for the creation of a women's equality party. The tardiness of the party’s creation can be exemplified through the scrutinizing the parties political objections.
1.     Equal Representation in politics and business - the party aims to introduce quotas as a vice to increase female representation
Quotas used as a vice to increase female representation are arguably undemocratic. It is through democracy that politicians are elected; forcing more females to be elected would be unfair to male candidates who constituents may have rather elected. One could argue that this is due to the “turnout gap”: in the UK 64% of women voted in the past general election compared in 67% of men. However in the USA it is the opposite, in the 2012 presidential elections 63.7% of ladies voted compared to only 59.8% of men. The percentage of female voters in the UK peaked in 1992 and has been in decline since, which is coincidentally shortly after Baroness Thatcher resigned; perhaps the female vote in the USA will peak after the first female president has been established.
            Margaret Thatcher being the longest serving elected prime minister illustrates that there are no barriers or constraints placed on woman from entering politics or business. Ironically Baroness Thatcher was no feminist but an advocate of meritocracy; Edwina Currie was Thatcher's only cabinet member and she also expressed great discontent to the equality bill when it was first proposed.  
            Men are underrepresented in fields such as beauty and nursing however there is little to nothing done to encourage men choosing these career paths. In schools the amount of bullying male students receives if they choose to study a subject like drama or home economics would not even be comparable to a girl choosing politics or business. Girls are encouraged to take part in sports such as football but it’s still frowned upon if your son is a ballet dancer.
2.  Equal Representation - the party wants to a)challenge the “gendered choices about subjects and careers that help entrench the pay gap”. b)“teach mutual respect in sexual relationships and tackle the underlying causes of violence against women and girls”.
There is a great deal of attention given to violence towards women by men but no apparent attention for the opposite. Although the number of violent incidents reported against women by men is greater than that of the opposite, it is exactly that: what is reported. Men may be less inclined to want to report an incident of domestic abuse because they feel embarrassed or because of the perceived bias against men in the judiciary system: that men are pugnacious and will have instigated the woman to attack them. The reluctance of men to report sexual violence towards them means it is very difficult to accurately compare this to that against women.
            A lot of criticism has been given to young men embracing “Lad Culture” as it is argued to encourage sexism. “Lad Culture” is seen on university campuses were male students play pranks on female students which at times could be perceived as sexual harassment. Although, it would be a lie to state that females are not involved in this sort of behaviour also; I personally have had my shirt ripped off me twice in clubs, imagine if this was done to a girl and the uproar it would cause - the boy could end up in jail!
3. Equal Pay- on average women are paid 81% of what a man is paid, the party wants to equalize this.
The gender pay gap is not as simple as it appears. Women are not always discriminated against in the workforce due to their sex. Women in their 20s are in fact earning more than men their age and women in their 30s are close to eclipsing men their age also. The average age for women to have their first child is 29.8 and this is the reason why after their 30s women earn less. It is not because they have children, but because of the time taken off to have a child. If a woman had two children in their 30s and took a year off each time, they are two years behind their rival male colleagues. In those two years time technology could have changed; new members of staff employed; new rules and regulations; new office; new syllabus and a large amount of other changes could have taken place within a workplace or industry that the mother will be behind on when they return to work.
            It is only natural that the male workforce will on average have more skills and experience at this point. It is fair that pay is awarded on meritocracy and meritocracy alone, thus the end result is the men end up earning more. It may not seem fair, however at the same time women are not forced to have children and on the other hand there are probably men who would like to have children but cannot; swings and roundabouts.
4. Equal Media treatment by women - the party wants to fight against the “false” image portrayed of women in the media. They also claim that women’s sporting victories are ignored by the media.
Sex sells and it is not just women who are sexualised by the media. Abercrombie for example would not be so successful without their shirtless six-packed male shop assistants. There are no fat male celebrities endorsing male perfumes or underwear instead we have David Beckham, Cristiano Ronaldo or Ryan Reynolds, because they are sexy, men idolize them and thus will by the products.
            The reason why the beauty and fashion industry uses slim, tall and attractive looking women in their adverts known as “models” is because they sell the product. For example a woman is not going to want to purchase a makeup product if the model is ugly; the product is meant to make them pretty and hence why a pretty model is used. Slim models are using for clothes because clothing is meant to be flattering to one’s body shape, and if a fat model is used the consumer will think that product will make them so. There is no way this will change and it would be very illogical for a business to do so.
            To claim that women's sporting achievements are ignored is preposterous. Who was the face of the London 2012 Olympics? Jessica Ennis. Who is it that we all watch every year in Wimbledon - the Williams sisters. The reason why men earn more in sports to put frankly is because men are better than women at them - hence why they separate the sexes. For example the Williams sisters in 1998 claimed they could beat any man outside the top 200 in the world, Karsten Braasch (ranked 203rd at the time) challenged them in the Australian open that year. Braasch was described by one journalist as “ a man whose training regime cent red around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple of bottles of ice cold lager”, however he beat both sisters in straight sets. If payment in sports was based completely on meritocracy arguably then Serena Williams the world number 1 should be earning less than any man in the top 200.
5. Equal Parenting and Care giving - the party argues that the responsibilities of parenthood are not shared equally and that caring for elderly relatives usually falls on women which hold women back in the workforce.
Although it seems surprising that the party has given thought to how men are in some roles arguably undermined, equal paternal leave on the other hand is not practical or necessary.  Maternal leave causes great annoyance to businesses due to the cost to give men equal leave would destroy the economy, as small businesses would be unable to cope! Part of the reason why women are granted maternal aside from bonding time with their child is because they are supposed to breast feed.  Women are suggested to strictly breastfed for at least 6 months, as men do not have breasts they are not required to do so.
            Care of elderly parents is something which I believe all children should take part in (if possible), however one cannot force one child to help more than the other and it would also be impossible to monitor. It is argued by nature women are more caring than men, and therefore it is arguably more natural for women to be a carer.
6. End Violence Towards Women - the party states on their website: “it is a stain on our society that women can be murdered, violated, assaulted, or oppressed because of their gender”
Generally speaking people are not violent towards each randomly or purely because of their gender; there is normally a reason for the assault. Domestic violence normally occurs due to an argument which can happen to anyone regarding of their age, gender or sexuality (as noted early it is difficult to quantify the amount of attacks on men and therefore difficult to compare).
            On a whole Great Britain is becoming a less violent nation, however the percentage of violent offences carried out by women is on the increase! Which on the contrary indicates that violent acts carried out by men has peaked and is decreasing, showing that men have learnt their lesson whilst women haven’t. Is this perhaps something to with the fact women are not as punished as men? Across all crimes women get off more lightly than men, women account for 15% for all arrests but only 5% of the prison population.
            One of the party's main aims is to stop street harassment, but when the obloquy of man can occur due to an innocuous compliment on “Linkedln”, a man must be terrified to be nothing but punctilious. Maybe men shouldn’t try and compliment women and insult them instead, maybe then they will complain less.

Through scrutiny of the party’s aims it has become apparent that women are not hard done by any more in British Society. In fact you could argue the opposite that men are now the victims, which could be linked to the fact that over 70% of suicide victims in the UK are male. The party claims to be an equality party “for the better of everyone”, however if it’s not obvious from the parties title, it is obvious from their political objectives that they are a feminist party as their main prerogative is that of the equality of women. There is no mandate for a feminist party in the UK, feminists need to open their vitriolic eyes and stop pretending that women are guileless victims but are becoming cunning villains instead.
Adam Henry Magee

Inline image 1

Tuesday, 24 November 2015

Petition in Regards to Dr. Finbar Magee.

Please sign the following petition, so that the doctor can go back to helping people and saving people's lives. People should have complete autonomy in regards to their health. The decision is completely undemocratic, unfair and callous.

Dr. Magee studied medicine and was a GP before going on to study other varieties of medicine out of interest and investigation including Chinese medicine, homeopathy, herbal, nutritional and environmental medicine. I wonder why he's been a medical adviser for 2 premiership football clubs and others were head hunting him but he declined despite the money they were offering? Good to see people are supporting him and can see through things.

You can read an article wrote about the decision here:

And Information about synergy helathcare and Dr. Magee here:

Saturday, 14 November 2015

Changing the colour of your profile picture to show support for a cause? - What is the point? If want to be supportive, be supportive!

Changing the colour of your profile picture to show support for a cause? - What is the point? If want to be supportive, be supportive!

Last night (I’m sure every knows), there was a brutal terrorist attack in Paris. Along with different people opining via social media there was also a plethora of people changing the color of their Facebook profiles to the colours of the french flag, in order to show support for the Parisians. This act is reminiscent of how recently people have changed the colour of their Facebook profile to a rainbow to show support of LGBT rights.

Changing the colour of your profile picture seems to me a fatuous, attention-seeking act - it screams to me “look how good of a person I am” and makes me question whether the person authentically supports the cause or just wants to be perceived as supporting it and receive approbation for doing so. Maybe everyone is not as critical or pessimistic as myself but realistically: does changing your profile picture make victims of that cause feel more supported? Probably not.

I was very bullied growing up in every aspect of my life. I was an easy target - mixed race, “posh”, ballet and Irish dancer and was quite effeminate. The place where I received the most bullying like a lot of other victims was school. It started happening when I moved school from St. Brides in south Belfast to St. Joseph's in East Belfast, but it was the worst in secondary school in Our Lady and St. Patrick's College Knock. I was probably one of the most, if not the most bullied person in the year or possibly the entire school - you name it they did it to me: name calling, physical bullying, spitting, rumor spreading and stealing.

One of the biggest bullying tactics they used was homophobic bullying - they bullied me because I acted in ways and took part in activities which were not perceived as normal for a boy to do. Out of the 200 people in my year I would say about 90% of them were involved in some stage and sadly enough teachers did not seem to want to intervene - actually some of them seemed to encourage it.  

Out of all the people who use to bully me, I can count with my fingers how many of them have been contrite and apologized to me . It was  therefore quite shocking for me to witness the amount of people on Facebook changing their profile pictures to show support of LGBT rights. Yes, I understand they may not be homophobic anymore but it does not change that they were a perpetrator in the past.  

Instead of changing the colours of your profile picture to show support, do something about it. If you want to show support to LGBT apologize to those you use to bully because of their perceived sexuality and stand up for people who are at the end of bullying in the future. Actions speak louder than words, but words speak louder than changing your profile picture.

Adam Henry Magee

Inline image 1

Thursday, 5 November 2015

Is Gentrification a Myth?

Is Gentrification a Myth?
  • We are constantly fed information on how gentrification is ruining neighborhoods and causing great distress to local households. But the facts and figures suggest the opposite is true.
  • 'Gentrification' is a word used by left-wingers to scare people about the effects of innovation, enterprise and evolution.
Two Saturdays ago a large of anti-gentrification protesters attacked the UK's first and only cereal cafĂ©, in Shoreditch, a “hip” area in East London. The “Cereal Killer Cafe” is propertied by two working class brothers from Belfast both past pupils of  Grosvenor Grammar school in east Belfast.  Why has this cafe garnered such fierce animosity to the extent that a violent protest occurred? A backlash against gentrification is believed to be the root cause.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, gentrification is the process of renovating and improving a house or district so that it conforms to middle-class tastes.  'Gentrifiers' are often wealthy individuals who mould run-down urban areas to suit middle class standards and tastes, and it can be argued that  such changes displace the existing population of the area. The locals feel alienated by their new surroundings, believing that the area  has lost its soul and culture.

However, after conducting fairly extensive research, I have found that a lot of the claims over the negative effects of “gentrification” are fictitious or at least highly-exaggerated. Anti-gentrification activists argue, for example, that it results in local households feeling displaced and having to relocate when studies have shown the opposite. A study undertaken by Columbia University in 2007 showed that disadvantaged households in gentrifying neighborhoods were actually 15% less likely to relocate than in households in non-gentrifying neighborhoods.
It is argued that gentrification causes the area to become populated by the white middle and upper class. However, statistics show the depopulation of black households in cities often started before the 'gentrifiers' arrived; for example in Washington the black population peaked in 1970 and has been declining ever since - long before any gentrification occurred.
Research undertaken by Columbia University in 2009 found that diversity in gentrified neighborhoods had in fact increased in terms of income, race and education. A study in 2009 by the Journal of Urban Economics found no direct link between black  families' displacement and gentrification: the overriding factor was  educational attainment - or lack of. Gentrification was found to be  largely beneficial to educated black households and thus appeals to these families. Uneducated black families, on the other hand,  were pushed out of their neighborhoods. It is obvious that  this is not a direct effect of gentrification but a problem with education in general, which is the government's responsibility and cannot be blamed solely on 'gentrifiers'.
Often very general anti-gentrification statements are postulated which are not backed up by any concrete evidence; for example Will Harvey writing for “The Guardian” opined: “Property developers and private landlords are making millions forcing these children and families out of their homes, often through violent evictions, and they are regularly moved into inadequate temporary accommodation and sometimes on to the streets. Many parents in the area suffer the indignity of relying on foodbanks to feed their children while the new Shoreditch residents can make a successful business selling children’s cereal for £5 a bowl.” Where is the evidence for these statements? Who are these families and landlords? Although he states that “some 49% of the children in the borough live below the poverty line”, he does not state what this figure was prior to gentrification and therefore cannot lay the blame for such apparent poverty on those who are trying to improve the area.

The areas were “run-down” to begin with, so it seems illogical that the locals would they complain if something new and fresh was happening in their area. 'New locals' may well be interested in making a living for themselves but the on-going effect is the provision of more exciting opportunities for the established population.  New businesses provide more job opportunities which in turn benefits the local economy. Research published by the Journal of Urban Economics in 2010 and the Regional Science and Economics Journal in 2011 showed that gentrification had a positive effect on the income of households which did not relocate and further had a positive effect on housing satisfaction.
This regeneration and development creates an atmosphere of excitement and innovation; there is no need for local young people to feel “stuck in the ghetto” because the ghetto is now a thriving part of town.  The young people can experience how you can change something run-down into something great and use this in their own lives. Research conducted by “Governing” found that, compared to areas which had failed to gentrify in the USA, there had been a decrease in the poverty line. Thus gentrification is not something that should be feared but something that should be embraced.
So who were these anti-gentrification protesters who showed up on the doorstep of an innovative business to intimidate and humiliate its owners and customers? They were nothing but a bunch of spoilt wasters who were jealous of other people’s success. Perhaps if they were not protesting they could instead be enterprising and reap the rewards on offer. The facts and figures show there is no logical reason to be anti-gentrification; perhaps gentrification is not an actual concept but is just simply business people demonstrating enterprise - just what our country and the world needs.
Adam Henry Magee

Inline image 1