Remember back in 2009, we had our Deputy Prime Minister Harriet Harman declaring that the biggest victims of the recession were women, which was debunked by all and sundry. The pity the media did not ask her to prove it exactly at the time she was saying it and it took a little while for the facts to emerge. Funny how she no longer persists with the line.
However, the Government's Equalities Office and Equalities and Human Rights Commission are never one to stop flogging a dead horse even when they know the facts don't stand up. Perish the thought that the Commission might one day say that x, y or z affected men more than women, that would be go against their Orwellian mantra '"Everyone is equal but some people are more equal than others."
Their latest report, even though clearly showing that male employment has fallen by 2.7% compared to 0.8% for women, does not say a jot about the plight of these men (and of course their wives or female partner), it just concentrates on the female angle even to the point of saying (page 26):
Over the longer-term, the rise in women’s employment is a clear triumph for women’s greater autonomy at the expense of both discrimination and disadvantage. But recessions reduce autonomy by reducing the options available to some women and by forcing others into choices that they might not otherwise make. And recessions also render many women more vulnerable to both discrimination and disadvantage.
Where is the evidence for this and a failure to say that "recessions reduce autonomy for men by reducing the options available" is an outstanding piece of wilful and conscious piece of purposely ignoring the impact on men.
One of the main reasons female employment has not fallen as swiftly as male employment is that many women work in the public sector which so far has not been impacted as much as the private sector. So what about the fact that there are fewer men (teachers, health, social services etc) in the public sector, is that not discrimination and disadvantage as well? I would suggest not particularly (except in teaching) as many men do not want to work in the public sector but if they make the point about women then on the same basis they should do about men.
They do not of course, the report just exposes their bias and proves they only look through female eyes and not one male eye and one female eye which they are meant do.
The Policy Exchange think-tank said the recession had meant that it was a Full-Monty recession affecting more men than women. No spin just facts.
Prof.Bradshaw finding the obvious. The solution to much of the nation's child poverty is employed young men able to found a family. Seems we should place our efforts there.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241558/Women-decide-marrying-unemployed-young-men-recession.html
Posted by: Groan | Saturday, 09 January 2010 at 20:12
It will not change until the bloody labourites GO.
But it may still remain unless the Conservative ninnies pull their finger out and get some backbone.
Posted by: amfortas | Sunday, 10 January 2010 at 13:40
“The recession or its remnants are going to be with us for many years as far as job creation is concerned." Many employers lost their job due to economic slowdown but recession didn't affect “Education and Healthcare” field. And these two fields look very relevant to women. So we can give stress to make career in these two fields to overcome this recession. I came to known one job portal which is totally dedicated to female job seekers http://naukriforwomen.com According to me it's a good step towards women empowerment......
Posted by: Account Deleted | Wednesday, 03 March 2010 at 10:56