The Reality Blog

The flawed thinking behind calls for further equality legislation.

Oh yes. As life goes on then more feminist lies become unstuck. Certainly puts paid to this little saying..

“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”–Thomas Jefferson

Thomas was obviously was well aware of that fact. So we have this marvellous bit of work and in pdf form for you to scrutinize.
Now lets see if this author has any credibility, has any credentials.tick.
Cites her own sex, tick,
Assists in denouncing the feminasties and their lies, tick.
Three out of three, not bad..

THE AUTHOR
Catherine Hakim is a Senior Research Fellow in the London
 School of Economics. She has written extensively on women’s
 employment issues, including Key Issues in Women’s Work. Her
new book, Erotic Capital: a new theory of social interaction in
everyday life, will be published by Penguin in 2011.

We have been faced with the relentless raging by feminist demanding that women, according to their organs, should be automatically installed into the top job just because, they are..

I will list a few more facts from this study and leave you to decide the bleeding obvious..

1. INTRODUCTION
Equal opportunities policies have been successful in the UK,
stimulating massive changes over the past 30 years and
transforming women’s lives. Women today have more choices
than men, including real choices between a focus on family
work and/or paid employment. For the first time in history
women in developed societies are free to take up any
occupation or career on the same basis as men. In 2005, the
Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) celebrated these
changes shortly before it was merged into the new Equality and
Human Rights Commission.
In Then and Now, the EOC set out how life has changed for
women. The fertility rate fell from 2.37 in 1971 to 1.78 in 2004.
Average gross household income almost doubled from £324
per week in 1970 to £552 per week in 2002/3 and disposable
income rose by a similar amount. In 1970, two-thirds of students
in higher education were male. By 2003, over half were female.
However changes in female employment have been relatively
small. Among women of working age, six out of ten had a job in
1975, compared to seven out of ten in 2005. The increase in
female employment has been primarily in part-time jobs – not
2
only in the UK, but across much of western Europe. Women’s
full-time employment rate has remained constant, hovering
between 30% and 40%, about one-third of the age group since
at least 1850 in Britain, similar to many other European
countries.1 Across western Europe, full-time equivalent (FTE)
employment rates2 remain around 50% for women and 75% for
men. It is only in the Nordic and post-socialist countries, where
public policy has pushed women into paid work for decades,
that the female FTE employment rate rises to around two-thirds
of the 15-64 years age group, still well below rates for men (see
Table 1). Even this is illusory. Swedish economists have shown
that Sweden and the US are almost identical in women’s
average actual hours of paid work and household work, even
though Swedish women appear to have labour force
participation rates 20% higher than in the US.3 On average,
working wives still contribute only one-third of household
income, husbands contribute two-thirds. When wives without
jobs are included in the analysis, the overall contribution of
wives is even smaller.4

Employment patterns among graduates are no so different, according to a
March 2010 report in The Economist. For example a study of MBA graduates
of the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business by Marianne
Bertrand and her colleagues found that 10 to 16 years after graduating, in
2009, around half of those with children were working full-time, one-quarter
were working part-time, and one-quarter had left the workforce to become
full-time mothers and homemakers. Vere 2007 also shows that even
graduate women have realised that ‘having it all’ does not work in practice
for many.

Women and Work Commission report chose not to recommend
further legislation to promote gender equality, opting instead for
moral exhortation, models of good practice and other advocacy.
Harriet Harman ignored this to ensure that the 2009 Equalities
Bill included prescriptions for action. The main purpose of the
Bill was to synthesise and harmonise equal opportunities laws
across all the relevant social groups and criteria (sex, age,
ethnic group, religion, disability and sexual orientation). However
Harman insisted it should also include new obligations on
employers, most notably compulsory gender pay audits for
public bodies and companies, and a strong push for employers
to use positive action (in effect, positive discrimination) in favour
of women, so as to make business ‘more representative

Hat tip to Feckblog..