NEWS UPDATE

A few to catch up on

Cycletta - Women-only cycle rides inclduing at Whipsnade Zoo

The Guardian - Labour must stand by side with women (Yvette Cooper)

The Guardian - Rolls Royce points to lack of female maths and science students (Jill Treanor)

The Guardian - Sheffield council agrees to backpay of thousands of women (Owen Bowcott)

Evening Standard - The one woman Dave needs to listen to (Sarah Sands)

Irish Times - Amen launch abuse campaign (Aoife Carr)

The Guardian - Is Iceland the best country for feminists (Kira Cochrane)

The Guardian  - Is it any wonder women's support for Cameron is dwindling (Jane Martinson) - Ms Martin does not seem to like women who do not share her "all men are bastards" worldview.

Posted by Skimmington

 

Comments

[Groan]

"The reasons for this seem pretty clear – public sector jobs are being hit hardest in the recession and women tend to depend more on the benefits and services". And there you have it from Jane Martinson herself. It seems women aren't "paying" more for recession than men(as Yvette start out) its just they are getting less than previously from the tax payer. I wonder which gender pays most tax........? So nothing about women making a contribution, offering to retire at the same age or older than men perhaps? Maybe working in the private sector then? I rather think the common theme is "all men are providers". The arguement appears to be that the women's vote dependes on who can offer the biggest state (tax payer) hand outs. Isn't that what got us into debt in the first place?

[mananon]

"The arguement appears to be that the women's vote depends on who can offer the biggest state (tax payer) handouts. Isn't that what got us into debt in the first place?"

Groan, if I really wanted to be cruel I could say giving women the vote was a big mistake.

But there are apparently sensitive souls reading this, whos support for men's rights is apparently pretty equivocal, so I'll hold my tongue for now...

[Groan]

I,m for equity. I think there is a big difference between the claims of Guardianistas to speak for women and the many and varied views of actual women (who will work out that if their husband has to pay more tax it takes money out of the family pot). Similarly for men. I,m against a polarised view. For instance parents should have rights and resonsibilities rather than the current pattern of mothers rights and father's responsibilities(often to pay). What seems to get forgotten in the rush to claim "rights" in that these also imply or rely on self or others taking responsibilities. It is easy for feminists to conjure up the idea of the "saintly" woman (for instance in the praise of Iceland)if women are never involved in the real world and had to take resposibility. However the more female Prime Ministers,ministers and so on are seen to grapple with just the same issues as their male counterparts the less tenable any notion that if women ruled all would be "sugar and spice and all things nice" becomes. A notion many men seem to cling to too.

[John Kimble]

Reading about that women only cycle event - at least the money is going to a gender neutral cause rather than a sexist organisation such as CRUK.

I still think gender apartheid and exclusion of one gender is a bad thing, but that's a relatively mild case of it.

[Groan]

As british feminists wonder about the behefits they may lose. Men are figtining and giving their lives to improve women's rights.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/oct/06/women-afghanistan-feminist-experiment?intcmp=122

A brave man along with his comrades doing more for geniune rights than all those busy with their special pleading in this country.

[Groan]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/firms-ignore-women-director-targets-2369369.html
I can,t help wondering that on the same day as the terrible unemployment figures come out and in an atmosphere of financial crisis the Gov. is focussed on the employment prospects of a couple of hundred highly paid women.