Call him captain cave man MP
Like its the fault of women that men produce lots of testosterone that makes them die earlier than them. If he wants to live longer, I suggest he does humanity a favour and chops his balls off.
If this is the quality of the new bread of Tory MPs I think they have a problem.
another Tory MP, has been at it today too on his blog. Talking about “questionable sexual standards” when it comes to gay friendly lessons on schools. his post has been deleted but there is a screengrab here http://www.chickyog.net/2011/01/25/richard-drax-and-questionable-sexual-standards/
The tories are really starting to show their colours at the moment.How shameful that some of you voted for, and argued in favour for that bigoted homophobic political party.
Typical Tory – he’s homophobic scum.
Just like his disgustingly bigotted political party – the Tories.
The Tories are revealing their true nasty colours of late.
I think we need to start putting pressure on the Lib Dems to pull out of the coalition unless Callmedave takes action against his bigotted MP’s.
incidentally what is the response of those quisling morons in LGBTory.
Deafening by their silence as usual.
Gay Tories are as riduculous as they sound – well at least judging by the utter uselessness of the LGBTory group.
Because discrimination is measured by what’s on you’re pay slip!
How much extra money can make up for lack of marriage equality, lack of societal acceptance or getting Kicked to death for kissing in public?
Answers on a postcard to Dominic Raab MP c/o David Cameron, 10 Downing street, Westminster, London
and so it begins where are the lib dems condemming these people?
I’m sure Helen will be the first to jump on me (given that anti-male rant she just let out), but he does actually have a point – despite how arrogantly and self-pityingly he has put it across.
Men are massively generalised and stereotyped, not to mention blamed for many of the worlds ills. That’s only natural – when you dominate the world, you will get it in the neck. A bit like America, really. Whether it’s not doing the housework, being lazy, not paying enough attention, being selfish, not being able to multi-task or whatever. But make generalisations about women (like with other groups), then run for your life. Whilst I disagree with their sexism, if Gaby Logan had made similar remarks about men as Andy Gray did about that lineswoman, it would have gone unnoticed.
That IS an important point, regardless of the historical subjugation of women. Equality is equality, right? I wouldn’t want either to be stereotyped, but it has to work both ways. People ape each other’s behaviour, so if it is seen to be ok for a woman to mock men, they why wouldn’t the reverse be allowed? replace ‘men and ‘women’ with ‘Christians’ and ‘gays’ and you’ll see what I mean. Sexism is sexism, no?
As most politicians, board members, bankers and so on ARE men, then it would seem perfetly rational that if they are monopolising those positions, then they should cop the flack. But, conversely, the average man on the street also gets tarred with the same brush – including gay men that women have not realised are gay! I’m sure a few guys on here have had that experience…..
He is also right about gay people being better educated and more likely to be higher up the ladder. It would seem that, regardless of sexuality, a man is just a man in the business world and gay men seem to make it up there as much of the rest of them (even if by deceit, Lord Young!). Now, that’s clearly unfair on women, but that snotty Tory MP does have a point. Gays also have greater disposable income from few having children and thus are able to invest, hence wealthier on average. It shouldn’t be used as a weapon, but there’s no denying it’s true.
He may be a smug git, but just condemning everything he says, even when there is some statistical proof in it, is not right. Surely it should just be about ascertaining the facts. And some of his facts are actually correct.
Nick clegg calls himself a liberal, and sits in the same room as these right wing tory idiots. You just can’t believe the glibb brainlessness of someone who states that white heterosexual men are less equal in society than women or LGBT.
What a joke.
Where is the evidence that gay people are earning more? How exactly would anyone start to work out such a statistic?
The nasty party show their colors, shame they are dragging lib dems down.
And where’s mine, by the way?
On average Jewish families in Weimar Germany were wealthier than the mean – thanks to a combination of historical association with the financial and craft industries, their tendency to be among urban elites and cultural importance placed on education and securing material stability. In Raabworld there was clearly no anti-semitic prejudice or discrimination there then.
Wow the right wing bigots are all out at the moment. Shame they aren’t aiming their vitriol at the coalition.
All statistic show gay children bullied very much in school, murdered in street, more use drug, this man is fool. He make much sense as crazy chicken.
“Wow the right wing bigots are all out at the moment.”
Yup, the woodwork must be empty — they have all crawled out and are happy to spread their venom.
yuri, which statistic, real world statistic, that is, not dreamt up by torys or christians, proves gay people use more drugs?
@Rose, Google it!
A study by Dr. Michael P. Marshal of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center revealed that LGBT teens are 190 percent more likely to use drugs and alcohol than are heterosexual teens
Gay men were more likely than heterosexual men to score above threshold on the Clinical Interview Schedule, indicating greater levels of psychological distress (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.07–1.43), as were lesbians compared with heterosexual women (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11–1.52). Gay men and lesbians were more likely than heterosexuals to have consulted a mental health professional in the past, deliberately harmed themselves and used recreational drugs. Lesbians were more likely to have experienced verbal and physical intimidation and to consume more alcohol than heterosexual women.
Firstly, I would like to state that I am not Tory and I believe what this guy said about no discrimination against gays is not true but he does have a point when it comes to subtle sexism against men society. For example women only gyms, lesbian acceptance vs gay acceptance, parental rights etc. etc.
I don’t think extra testosterone really a significant factor in determining why men die earlier. I think the fact that men generally choose riskier jobs and the fact that overwhelmingly most of health funding worldwide goes towards women e.g. Breast cancer.
He is also right about gay people being better educated and more likely to be higher up the ladder
On what planet, mmm? What statistics support such a proposition? Does it occur to you that there may be persons in the underclass who are gay, but no-one’s ever bothered to canvass their opinion or evaluate their sexuality?
This MP’s income-based argument is not terribly convincing. Some of the richest families in the UK in Edwardian times were Jewish – Rothschild, Sassoon – but no-one in their right minds could claim the country was free of anti-Semitism.
Many of the richest people in the UK today are of South Asian origin: is that now going to be used as an argument that there’s no racism in the UK any more? I hardly think so.
I voted Tory- big mistake. I am old enough not to believe pre election BS by now.
Most respondents reported experience of discrimination, with a high proportion attributing it to their sexuality. These factors appear to be linked with higher rates of mental disorder.
I see, so LGBT people are 190% more inclined to be honest when responding to surveys….
“I don’t think extra testosterone really a significant factor in determining why men die earlier. I think the fact that men generally choose riskier jobs and the fact that overwhelmingly most of health funding worldwide goes towards women e.g. Breast cancer.”
Fascinated Lamar. And your evidence for that comes from where exactly? Apart from just kind’ve feeling that you’d like it to be true.
From Helens link
“Of the 1285 gay, lesbian and bisexual respondents who took part, 556 (43%) had mental disorder as defined by the revised Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS – R). Out of the whole sample, 361 (31%) had attempted suicide. This was associated with markers of discrimination such as recent physical attack (OR=1.7, 95% CI 1.3-2.3) and school bullying”
He’s totally out of touch with reality.
These Raab(e) s do say some things?
Seems a bit daft making assumptions on flawed stats anyway…I thought the 1.5 % figure of gay people in the UK was a bit suspect….
I wonder when the next Tory will come out with a “questionable” gay comment…
So, another toffee-nosed, unconnected with the real world, totally up himself tory, … Nothing new there then..
Nice to see the knobheads coming out of the woodwork in the ´modern tory party´..
modern my a-se!
Racist bigots here in the American South claim that there is no racial discrimination in the country because the riches woman is black and the president is black. Same ridiculous argument.
And by the way many studies have shown that gay men do not make more than straight men when compared apples to apples.
I have to say though that even a broken clock is right twice a day. He does have a valid point or two about gender discrimination and double standards mixed in with all the other dumbassery he’s spouting.
Helen, your statement is ignorant and unfactual. Recent scientific studies have proven that male stress and related lifestyle is the main cause of premature male deaths. Not only is your statement ignorant but its also offensive in its misandry. You would be rightly outraged if a man said something so vile about women. You need to give the respect you expect.
Not only is your statement ignorant but its also offensive in its misandry. – Hayden
The male hormone testosterone not only increases aggressive, risky and competitive behaviour in young men, it also increases levels of harmful cholesterol (low-density lipoprotein), raising a male’s chances of getting heart disease or stroke.
The statement I made in my first post was made on the science not at causing offence.
Although I did intend to cause offence to Dominic Raab, after he implied men living 5-10 years less than women is somehow discrimination.
So here we are, another stupid person is generalizing on homosexuals and being homophobic and intollerant, and that gives the opportunity to some (and not all) lesbians to generalize on all men, just to prove that the dumbest way to fight against one type of generalization is to impose another type of generalization, this time against the bad bad really bad men.
Ok so according to one type of generalization, since I am a young man, then my male hormone testosterone increases aggressive, risky and competitive behaviour in me, but according to another type of generalization, since I am a young gay man, I should be a sissy girly effeminate passive fag.
So I suppose I am an aggressive sissy violent girly risky passive rude effeminate competitive fag-dude guy. ok…
Sounds like someones jealous!!
“On what planet, mmm? What statistics support such a proposition? Does it occur to you that there may be persons in the underclass who are gay, but no-one’s ever bothered to canvass their opinion or evaluate their sexuality?”
No-one said there weren’t gay people in the underclass, but statistically, time and time again it is shown that gay people are more likely to have a university degree. Have you been to university? Didn’t it strike you odd that there were so many who were not only out but just so many full stop? If I had time I’d dig one set of stats out, but I’ll refer you to an Attitude article a couple of years back (look it up). Although, unsurprisingly, a very self-victimising ‘journo’ commented on the stats as being…..a generalisation. How are figures generalising when they are the barest form of empiricism known to humankind? It is possible for a community to be polarised around the extremes of above AND below average in terms of education levels. Male intelligence is another example: repeated analyses have shown that men are most likely to have the highest and lowest IQ results, whilst women tend to cluster around the average to slightly above average. Given all the men and women you have met in your life, is that really such a shock? How you explain those stats is a different matter altogether.
“This MP’s income-based argument is not terribly convincing. Some of the richest families in the UK in Edwardian times were Jewish – Rothschild, Sassoon – but no-one in their right minds could claim the country was free of anti-Semitism.”
Many of the richest people in the UK today are of South Asian origin: is that now going to be used as an argument that there’s no racism in the UK any more? I hardly think so.”
He is right in that many gay people are very well-off and certainly above average income. And you’ve just shown it’s not just us, Jewish people and now South Asians show smilar trends. However, the difference is these groups are not subject to the same level of discriminated against by other people of colour outside of their communities. Being present in ALL communities, gay people are discriminated to an extent by ALL communties. It’s fairly consistent. Also, because South Asians are CULTURAL communites and much larger, its members can trade with one another. There are no gay-run, gay-family multinational shipping businesses, finance centres or shop chains…..the money doesn’t stay within the gay community, it is distributed elsewhere. South Asians predominantly target their own cultures at home and abroad. We don’t have that option, so for us to be so successful without having the same kind of market access is actually extraordinary.
This MP chap is NOT, however, correct that there is no discrimination at all. But he is right in that it is obviously not as widespread as it once was. Gay people are not kept from economic success in the ways they once were as they are not shut out from education, markets or welfare in the same way as 50 years ago when it was illegal.
Let’s be rational, saying he is completely wrong in everything he says just because he is a Tory is like people condemning everything you are saying just because you are gay. His words must be divided into truth and lie like everyone else’s.
So who is stereotyping now, eh?
Interesting point…..multistereotyping with extreme contradictions. Now that’s one thing gay people are clearly as good at as any other group they accuse of stereotyping!
to the person who is known as mmmmmm
I don’t think you understood my comment. And it was clearly against generalizations, all of them, in plane english. I just wrote that it is wrong to generalize, including on men. Not very difficoult to understand. I just don’t like when “feminists” (angry lesbians) try the best they can to throw crap at men, either becose they don’t like men or becose they are obsessed with them. I believe it is pathetic and very low to use chemistry and hormones to try to prove that men are all violent or aggressive. Maybe they should take a good look at themselves and see who is really aggressive, angry and sometimes even violent. Every single debate is transformed into a hate club towards men. That’s wrong, childish predictable and very lousy. As a gay man I don’t feel the need to hate women, I expect the same type of intelligence (?) from “feminists” who should not generalize (and THAT was my point in my comment, not arabic, but English, that I tried to explain) on all men.
It’s ok, I think you misunderstood my post from it not being clear enough, my fault. I was actually agreeing with you, showing that gay people are just as bad at stereotyping, yet don’t think they should be criticised for it. Stereotyping and generalising is as bad wherever it comes from. It does no-one any good.
And I agree wholeheartedly with your second post too.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, the perils of intonation-less text on a screen!
“Fascinated Lamar. And your evidence for that comes from where exactly? Apart from just kind’ve feeling that you’d like it to be true.”
I don’t know if you have noticed but I said “I think”, not “I am sure (being a biologist myself)”. I am not claiming to be an expert in genetics. I was simply expressing the opinion that instead of changing society by making sure more funding goes towards men’s health as well. In doing so there will be more equality for men regarding how long they live for an average in comparison to women. I just think they whole ‘oh it’s just their genetics’ argument is an excuse to do nothing about a blatant problem affecting men in today’s society.
Really, the country isn’t riddled with discrimination against gays? Hmmm, ok Tory party….why can’t we marry then? Put your money where your collective mouths are.
He obviously isn’t aware the the discrimination he talks about was created by an overwhelming majority of heterosexual males. Ours, like most other countries is a patriarchal society, the sooner he learns that the better.
Gay and Tory = Oxymoron!
@ mmmmmmmmmmm: yes, I did go to university, but it was some time ago and its GaySoc barely attained double figures; so my experience is clearly different, though younger friends say that being openly gay usually means being part of a pretty small minority even now.
If we’re to avoid generalisations, I think it’s wisest to avoid making assumptions about ALL gay people’s incomes. After all, any survey only deals with people who identify as gay, and it must be obvious that there a lot of people around who still don’t, in the workplace and elsewhere.
As for South Asians, I’d suggest that Laxmi Mittal (steel), the Hindujas (banking) and Gulam Noon (food) hardly got where they are from ‘targetting their own cultures’. But to come back to the point, just because there are some extremely rich South Asians in the UK it does NOT follow that ALL British South Asians are prosperous. Ditto gay men, ditto Jews, ditto just about any other such syllogism.
“Really, the country isn’t riddled with discrimination against gays? Hmmm, ok Tory party….why can’t we marry then? Put your money where your collective mouths are.
He obviously isn’t aware the the discrimination he talks about was created by an overwhelming majority of heterosexual males. Ours, like most other countries is a patriarchal society, the sooner he learns that the better.
Gay and Tory = Oxymoron!”
Your comments are nothing short of naive. As the most openly gay politicians have been in the Conservatives, that’s your oxymoron theory put to bed. Not to mention that there is no single set of ideals within political parties – there were anti-gay Labour MPs as well, let’s not forget. No party has managed to enact full equality for all and each party has actually done something towards helping equality. It was the Tories who lowered the age of consent and criminalised marital rape wasn’t it? I don’t like Tories for many reasons, but overall I don’t see them being much better or worse than Labour on a number of issues.
You are right about us being a patriarchal society. However, you fail to realise that ‘while nasty straight white men’ were responsible for our repression, they have also been responsible for our emancipation. They passed the laws, not the single figure of gay MPs alone. Or are you going to tell me it was the women, gays and ethnic minorities alone in the House of Commons that managed it?
Given that more than 50% of the country is female, wouldn’t it be worth asking them why they haven’t been able to bring about equaity quicker? They are technically the majority, surely if they took to the streets and the ballot boxes en masse, there would be equality today (for women at least). Gays can only achieve so much because we only make up 10%, we rely on the support of the straight community – including straight, white men.
So, ladies, perhaps you are the ones hindering equality after all. If you ‘know’ that straight men are the problem, why haven’t you done more about it? And before you start on about women being denied access to top positions and political seats, even if that were the case, you could easily be writing lobbying letters, marching, leafleting, refusing to pay tax and all sorts of other things. Girls also outperform boys significantly in schools, so there can be no claim of denying access to education causing that inequality. It’s about numbers, the more people are visible, the more they will be taken into account.
Maybe men are just better at exploiting opportunities to get ahead? Maybe they just have more will? I don’t know, you’ll need to consult some studies on that. Either way, it doesn’t mean men can be generalised or stereotyped – let’s set an example instead of contradicting what we apparently believe in.
Oh, lovely – the old “feminism is sexist” argument. People act in sexist ways all the time, and people includes women, and feminists – but that doesn’t mean that feminism is a sexist ideology.
A strong theme within modern feminism is that *everyone* is hurt by the kyriarchy (balance of power through intersections of privilege), and that it’s important to tackle inequalities wherever you find them.
Feminists tend to worry about inequalities against women more than we worry about inequalities against men partly because the balance of power in our society is still held by men, partly because solving inequalities faced by women often benefits men indirectly too, and partly because most feminists are women, and can only speak from our own experience – it would be wrong for us to appropriate that of men.
While some feminists still fit the 70s “man-hating” stereotype, most of us are supportive of efforts to tackle sexism of all kinds. The idea that “men suffer from sexism too” is true, but shouldn’t be used to try to derail arguments for women’s rights and safety, or to attempt to discredit the feminist movement for its focus on women.
The following article says this stuff better than I do:
“before you start on about women being denied access to top positions and political seats, even if that were the case, you could easily be writing lobbying letters, marching, leafleting, refusing to pay tax and all sorts of other things.”
Just to let you know, some of us *are* doing this stuff :)
“If we’re to avoid generalisations, I think it’s wisest to avoid making assumptions about ALL gay people’s incomes. After all, any survey only deals with people who identify as gay, and it must be obvious that there a lot of people around who still don’t, in the workplace and elsewhere.”
Well, erm, how else do you imagine we can get statistics on gay people? They can only take those who identify that way. How on earth do you propose we find out which people not identifying as gay actually ‘are’? And who are you to define what other people are instead of them? And is there any point in that? Stupid comment, seriously stupid! You are just trying to play the victim card by implying that there is some hidden majority of gay people on low-incomes when there isn’t! Not helpful.
No-one is saying that all gay men are wealthier than straight men, but our average income is higher than for straight men. There is clearly something significant in that. And as many things, rightly or wrongly, are calculated on average incomes per capita, then it is directly comparable with other stats.
“As for South Asians, I’d suggest that Laxmi Mittal (steel), the Hindujas (banking) and Gulam Noon (food) hardly got where they are from ‘targetting their own cultures’.”
And you are basing the ENTIRE South Asian business world on just THREE people? That’s worse than the Daily Mail for a generalisation, you have some serious hypocrisy going on there! The point is that someone starting up a business who is South Asian has a huge number of people to target because there are a lot of South Asians in South Asia (and other Asian diaspora who are happy to buy products and services that are sold by people from or ‘closer’ to their cultures). The same rules apply to the Chinese in the UK – if they have any nouse, they will target China as a market because a) China is HUGE, b) the Chinese are more likely to trust them being from their own culture and c) if the products are relevant to Chinese culture, they more likely to buy them. Gay people are NOT a cultural phenomenon, we have no gay language, gay culture or gay religion. There is no uniting of gay people across the world that favours ‘gay-produced’ products. Thus there is no specific ‘gay cultural product’ to sell or a gay market to which we have access across the world. Not even sex toys are gay-specific as anyone can use them.
“But to come back to the point, just because there are some extremely rich South Asians in the UK it does NOT follow that ALL British South Asians are prosperous. Ditto gay men, ditto Jews, ditto just about any other such syllogism.”
Did I say ALL of them were rich? No, stop twisting things, we are talking about statistical averages here NOT the entire spectrum of income. The average Jewish income per household is higher than the average, despte any anti-semitism. South Asians? Who knows, possibly, possibly not. The reasons for certain communities having higher average salaries is unlikely to be due to any discrimination in the workplace. Muslims have much lower average incomes than Hindus or seeks? Why? Because the greater subjugation of women means their households often have only ONE source of income or because women are often denied education and can therefore only have access to low-paid jobs. Not to mention families are larger and thus each child has less money spent on it than in a 1.8 child average white family.
All of these are minority groups that receiev similar levels of discrimination, yet their average incomes differ significantly. It is therefore a cultural problem, not a discrimination by nasty straight white man problem.
Just to let you know, some of us *are* doing this stuff”
Good, glad to hear it. But ‘some’ is not good enough, you need ‘all’ or ‘nearly all’. The same goes for all of us. If every gay person a) came out and b) got on the street and his/her soap box, we’d see greater progress.
The problem is that too many people are ‘ok’ these days. Less and less people are affected by discrimination thanks to the advances in law. Consequently, that means there are less people who see the need to be politically active. It’s all very ‘I’m alright Jack’, but it’s human nature to be complacent when one is not affected. Most people are probably saddened by what they see in Africa, but out of sight, out of mind. It’s not on their doorstep, so what can they do? That’s the problem, people are politically apathetic. Hopefully the flip side of this recession and the period of austerity will be that people are mobilised and take their freedoms and prosperity less for granted.
Then we may just get a better result :)
And yes, I agree with your longer post. Tackle sexism of all kinds, but don’t derail the movements of the minorites who are treated unequally in the process.
I agree. And I hope you’re right that we might see a resurgence of grassroots activism in the current economic and political climate.
Mobilise your female cohorts and you shall see :) Money trumps rights any day of the week, but if access to money is hindered by absent rights, then we see progress.
Please would Dominic Raab show us any ‘evidence’ he may have to support the ridiculous suggestion that gay people get paid more than straight people! How on earth could that be true? His notion stinks of prejudice, because he is making out that gay people get paid more because they are gay! Where does he get that idea from? How could a survey realistically support this? I know I get paid the same (as a support worker for adults with disabilities; county council) as my colleagues! Why would my employers pay me more because I was gay?! Dominic Raab seems to be making assumptions based on the possible false conclusion that just because the mean average wage of gay people in the survey was perhaps higher than straight people, that it somehow meant that employers are paying gay people more than straight people! This is a totally false conclusion coming from Dominic Raab, with his disgusting, narrow minded, prejudiced attitude! Hope he reads all these comments, if there’s anyone who can lead him to read news and comments on this fantastic website! If he’s left to keep spouting ‘innocent’ prejudice, this is potentially harmful for society, as there are far too many lies in our society. He is part of the problem, not part of the solution! Sort it out!
@ m(x8): Oh dear oh dear, I haven’t been doing too well at putting my point across, have I? But I think we’re actually on the same page in thinking it’s pointless extrapolating generalisations from a few examples of, say, successful South Asians.
And, to clarify, I would say the same about positing statistics about the ‘average’ income of gay people (incidentally, are we talking about gay people or gay men?). Personally I am suspicious of the methodology behind any such survey – on how many examples are these conclusions based?
And I certainly think it’s best if MPs steer clear of such glib and unconvincing “statistics”.
You’ve massively missed the point Raab was making and, consequently, the overreacting rant you made was completely unjustified. READ THE ARTICLE FIRST.
He wasn’t sayiing gay employees in the SAME job positions are given more because they are gay, I have no idea where you have got that from. He is actually saying that the AVERAGE gay income is higher than that of the average straight person. Why? Gay people are more likely to be in managerial or junior professional positions than they are checkout assistants at Tesco or road sweepers. This correlates to the fact that more gay people are university educated, on average, than their straight counterparts. That doesn’t me there AREN’T any gay people who are on minimum wage, but being gay is clearly not the hindrance to getting a good job as some would claim it is.Nor is access to higher positions as difficult as it was, say, 30 years ago.
Good for us I say, if Raab feels threatened by it, that’s his issue. But it’s a big tick for equality in my view.
How many dope-smoking cones has he been smoking lately?????