YVETTE COOPER'S BUDGET REPORT IS RIDICULOUS AND ANTI-MALE

Unless you are single or gay, society has men and women who live together in partnership or married and often with children. Not according to new Yvette Cooper MP, former Government Minister par excellence.  

This week, she published a report (it cannot be found online not even on her official website so its  veracity cannot be interrogated) which was covered fulsomely and without challenge in the Guardian on Monday. In the report it states that women will bear the brunt of the proposed budget cuts by a ratio of 75% to 25%.

This was based on the freezing of the children's allowance, changing pension allowances, capital gain tax changes and others. The list that is not given by Cooper contends that as 94% of recipients of children's benefit are women, its freezing means the benefits affects women to the tune of £913 million compared to £62 million for men.

Er... wait a minute, just because the women is the main recipient of children's benefit (only one parent can be nominated to receive it) are not men who share the family home with their female partner and children not affected then?

Also she says because of the freezing or lower increases in pension allowances, women will suffer more then men. That's because women live longer and have a far longer post retirement period of life than men. No mention of that.

She also complains that this also does not taken into account any cuts in public sector jobs. Of course, a cut in a public sector job where a woman is employed won't also affect her male partner or husband!

She honestly thinkls that women and men do not share their lives together.

Yvette Cooper of course was a part of the same Government that said women were the biggest losers from the recession and the financial crisis despite all the official figures (here and here) produced by their own Government showed that it was in fact men.

What continues to amaze (but not surprise) is the brass neck of it all. There are so many in Parliament like Cooper, Harman, Flint and Baird (oops sorry just remembered she lost her seat!!) who want to outdo each other in standing up for women by slagging off men and simply just making things up.

Misandry is alive and well in Parliament still.

Posted by Skimmington

   

Comments

[John Kimble]

Excellent analysis.

If so many women are employed in the public sector why hasn't she previously complained about sexism against men in this regard, especially given the high unemployment rate amongst men. The "problem" she highlights would party be solved if we had more male teachers

Not heard much nonsense from Cooper in the past, it's a shame that she shares the view of her colleagues that children are the property of women.

There is one quite brilliant solution to many of Cooper's concerns, an EDM proposed by Lib Dem Adrian Sounders for child benefit to be split in cases of equal parenting (something not possible at present):

http://www.cb42.org/

[amfortas]

One might like to think that this sort of thinking is down to people electing mental pygmies, but it goes a lot deeper, doesn't it.

She makes it up because she CAN. She is automatically believed by so many who WANT to believe that women are victims. It is the MAIN attention-seeking rationale of a huge proportion of our population.

One might also think that it is confined to just over half the population - the 'empowered' woman-half - but one can barely listen to a 'public' chap talk these days without him refering to 'poor' women and how hard-done-by they are.

If this woman politician claimed that women are refugees from Venus she is likely to be believed by the Guardian and given column-space.

[paul parmenter]

When women are given all the benefits, allowances, affirmative actions, pseudo-jobs in the public sector and every other type of unearned hand-out that the feminists of the last Labour government could think of to pour into their laps, it is inevitable that when somebody puts the brake on the gravy train, it will be women who will find themselves crashing against the buffers. They are simply losing what they should never have had in the first place, and what men were never given. But how typical that the whining sex should twist that much-needed reality-check into yet another whinge that they are being victimised.

[Groan]

Up until the mid nineties the majority of single parents worked. Go further back and it was the vast majority. The picture is very different with the vast . Majority of male single parents work but the reverse is now the case for female single parents. Of course as most tax is paid by men, far from being independent as lauded by some feminists this just mea
s they rely on men through tax. Frank Field is right that male unemployment is a factor in this dependence on taxes, possibly more important is the belief people should be entitled to money whatever thier choices. I recall years ago the author of No More Sex Wars subsequently concluded that so much of the gender feminist project relied on using public money the best course of action was to join the Tax Payers Alliance. Though I don't think that is enough Yvette does remind us of the cost of supporting the women as victim agenda. At the very least the current gov should look at funding for quangos and other bodies whose purpose is to ague for special privileges for women. Of course Yvette also exposes the daftness of ignoring the interconnected nature of life and the fact that women are not some separate "class".

[J. MacKie]

If you read the DWP staff employment statistics you will find that 65% are female. Factor in their quota for Gays and ethnic minorities and you find that white heterosexual men are not really represented (certainly not in any focus group that the DWP maintain).
In my day at the Benefit Agency(read hell on earth for males, period) the figures were 75% female employees.
The interesting fact from the DWP website is that disciplinary procedures against males are twice the level as those against females. Given that the female/male employment ratio is roughly 2:1 then you are 4 times more likely to be disciplined if you are male.
Anecdotal evidence from my experience in the BA is this: A male colleague was reported for asking a female colleague who was a single mother "if she still kept in touch with the father"? He was on very good terms with the lady and she stated no.
A female colleague on the next desk reported him, stating " he asked her if she knew who the father was". Even with the support of the single mother colleague, my colleague went through hell in his disciplinary procedure by these feminist bitches.