Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

« WHAT PARENT WOULD SEND THEIR SON TO ACLE HIGH SCHOOL? | Main | SWIMMING DISCRIMINATION IN SALE (UPDATE) - CAN YOU HELP? »

Wednesday, 04 August 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

paul parmenter

These women are the most appalling hypocrites, are they not?

If more women than men are employed in the public sector, and more women than men use public services, does that not prove that the public sector is ALREADY discriminating unfairly against men? If you already have the lion's share of the goodies, it is inevitable that when the goodies are cut back, you will lose proportionately more.

But so you should. That is a move TOWARDS fairness and equality, not away from it.

Theresa May's illogical argument could be applied in many other areas. How about looking at it in the context of that perennial favourite of the feminists, men having the vote but women not having it? In that situation, if anyone proposed women should have the vote, the men could simply claim that it would discriminate against them because their rights would be watered down and diminished (because their votes would be proportionately worth less) whereas women's rights would be increased. So no votes for women - it would be unfair on men.

Does May agree with that logic? She ought to. It is exactly the argument she is putting forward. Except of course it is completely different when men stand to gain, isn't it?

The fact is that the public sector has been a gigantic job creation scheme for women for many years. And it has displayed a crushing bias towards females and other priority groups, paid for predominantly by men. Women have thus cemented themselves into positions of advantage and privilege; but now that the country can no longer sustain the staggering costs inherent in this bloated and wasteful sector full of unproductive parasites, and have to start some much-needed pruning, the privileged groups are screaming blue murder.

It's a nauseating sight. As a taxpayer who does not and often cannot use the inefficient and often quite useless so-called "services" offered up by this female-dominated menagerie, but for which I am forced to pay, I strongly resent being told that I should continue to work my nuts off so that endless groups of females can spend their time sitting on their useless backsides yakking their stupid heads off and occasionally shuffling worthless bits of paper back and forth between them.

I not only want them to stop burning my money, I want a refund. A big one. They can start by dismantling the Ministry for Women and Equalities.

Bob

Very good point Paul, if the gender ballance is skewed towards women in the public sector then they should the a proportionate 'hit' of job losses anyway and hope no one decides to correct this gender inequality!

Its a pity there was no Minister for Men and Equalities to write his own preemptive letter to get the law tilted towards his beliefs. Its is disgusting that she did this.

It is absolutely incredible that we have got to the stage where there is such a double standard. Worst of all it seems to be accepted by the public at large.

If Ms May says women will be affected because there are more women in public services perhaps Mr Osborne should bring in a positive discrimination law to redress the ballance so men can be equally affected.

Surely as Minister for Women and EQUALITIES she would applaud such a measure.

John Kimble

A well written piece as usual. I was basically going to add the same stuff as Paul but he's saved me the trouble.

I think the best way to illustrate the point would be domestic violence spending. Of course any cuts are going to hit women more than men as each female victim gets 2,500 times more money spent on them than their male counterparts.

Groan

Deeply dissapointed in May. First off the gender equality duty should not be just about women. If only there was a body making the point that men benefit less from public services than women, same for cash benefits. What is obvious but not said is that men contribute in tax far more than wo
men. Of course all this goes to show what a cul de sac identity politics is,
men women and children all face our problems and all lose if we don't pull together. Shame on May for peddling this stuff.

amfortas

"....Essentially if you cut services or jobs in a female dominated area, then you need to do the same in a male dominated area ...."

Yep. So let's make a start with most Gumnut departments that are female-dominated and balance with all the road-building and repairs; the garbage collection; the sewerage maintenance; the water and electrical reticulation systems. When society starts to break down and the toilets overflow to match the rubbish bins, the Guvmunt can say that they are simply responding to woman's demands.

Crikey, we might have a lower demand on the NHS from the reduction in accidents at work.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Twitter

Blog powered by Typepad

Reading List