DEMONISATION OF UNEMPLOYED MEN

Without wanting to get into the argument about strivers versus skivers which is part of the government's view of life, the Conservative Party's latest advert is striking in its negative portrayal of men. Here they show a skiver as being a man loafing on his sofa.

What is sad about this advert is not just the context that we are still in the economic mire so there are plenty of people (2.5 million) who are unemployed (including 1.5 million claiming Jobseeker's allowance) but this includes 1.4 million men and 1.1 million women.

So with the figures showing roughly 55% men and 45% women - does that mean the next poster will be a female skiver on the sofa.

No I doubt it either, because it is easier to stigmatise men rather than women. That's the way is in the discriminatory UK.

Posted by Skimmington

Comments

[Brian]

Given they have deliberately denied men work in favour of quotas for women, like 1 million extra civil servants...the vast majority women. They have no right to complain.

Men shoudl put there feet up and tell them to f***** ! We would see then how important men are to the world, compared to women if they all did that.

[Mike Buchanan]

The figures are 1.08m unemployed women and 1.44m unemployed men - almost exactly 3:4. When I mentioned this fact to a House of Commons select committee, the feminist Labour MP Ann McKechin shrugger her shoulders and grunted, 'It's long been like that.'

Almost two-thirds of public sector workers are women. The opposite is true in the more meritorious private sector, needless to say. The public sector has for many years been a job creation schemen for women.

Mike Buchanan
ANTI-FEMINISM LEAGUE
http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com

[Groan]

At the root of this are twoo deeply ingrained attitudes. The first is that males are "disposable" so one need not concentrate any attention on thm if things go wrong. The second is that men are "human doings",they only have value if they work.

One very obvious link is a climb in suicides.

http://brightonmanplan.wordpress.com/

For all the bally hoo about gender and choice in fact the only really significant change for men in the past 70 yeas has been a decrease in the proportion who will be sole "breadwinner" over their working lifetime and an increase in the proportion who will be the main "breadwinner" over their working life. because of their spouse/partners part time work, earlier retirement and/or maternity leave.
So the strains on men have remained the same and the social expectations too.

Hence the unemployment of men especially younger men who will find it nigh on impossible to fulfill their expected role as a "human doing" and even form a partnership or family, is a disaster for those men and our society. but one that is assumed to be entirely their own fault.

As you say Mike one part of the many changes for women over the same period has been an increased role of the "state". Both in providing "flexible" jobs and direct support through benefits.

[brian]

What this site really needs is a COMPLETE fact and sopurce section

Male suicide rate
D.V rates
homelessness
mental illness
cancer funding and rates

and so forth all with proper source and official or most learned sources.

It would really save a lot of people time when rebutting the feminists, especially noobs

[Mike Buchanan]

While women 'attempt' suicide 3x more often than men, it's usually a cry for help. Women know that society cares for them, and will support them come what may. While men are 3.7x more likely than women to 'successfully' commit suicide. They KNOW society cares not a jot about them.

I believe male unemplyment to be a significant and risinog causal factor of male suicide. When a woman is made redundant she's far more likely to be supported by her partner for an exte3nbded period than a man in the same boat. Indeed I understand that male redundancy is a major risk factor in causing couples to break up. Money must always flow from men to women, not the other way around. Equality my arse.

Mike Buchanan

ANTI-FEMINISM LEAGUE
http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com

[Groan]

Quite right. "Cries for help" usually in the form of drug overdoses are more common in women. Perhaps understandably there are some rather unpleasant trends in our society which are rarely mentioned. Working aged men who become disabled are likely to face divorce. Similarly for men with disabling mental illness that prevents them working for 6 months or more. Older men with disabling illness face a higher risk of partner abuse. There are a number of little researched trends that reflect the way that not fulfilling a core role can result in men being disposed of. I recall an eminent Pychiatrist observing that"there is a good reason men don't cry, their women don't like it" in fact men appearing to fail in health causes anxiety in female partners. For the prosaic reason that a fit and healthy man who is earning gives his partner great security in their life. This isn't say many women don't stand by their man, but the trends overall point to disposability.

[Mike Buchanan]

Thanks Groan. Disposablity - society's prevailing attitude towards men distilled into one word. Yet men's taxes provide the money which props up so many women's lives.

If the 'average' man worked in paid employment as few hours as the 'average' woman, the system would collapse overnight... and female privilege with it. So let's go on strike, and force women (and the government) to face a reality check...

Mike Buchanan

ANTI-FEMINISM LEAGUE
CAMPAIGN FOR MERIT IN BUSINESS

[brian]

I have been saying that for AGES Mike.

If all men downed tools tomorrow, this world would collapse in 24hrs, if all women did, we would carry on, maybe have some tiny inconvenience that we woudl soon get over.

When you start looking at what men do, roads, communication, medical, planes, cars, boats, everything you see around you was most likely designed, invented built and maintained by a man. Having women in a few cushy job in these industries because they don't want to work like men do, does not mean they contribute anything in reality.

However to get enough men to do this, first you have to get through generations of chivalry, in-doctored self-sacrifice, ego, shaming and a whole host of other things.

[Mike Buchanan]

Sorry Brian, I'd forgotten you've been beating that drum for some time!

[Groan]

In a sense this is exactly what happened in the 1970s. Culminating in the Winter of Discontent the decade saw a series of strikes in "male" industries many of which had dramatic effects on daily life. So much so that it added to discussion of recruiting women as they were thought to be less likely to join unions etc . Indeed debate in the early 80s included satisfaction with the growth in female employment and related decline in unionisation. The whole thing fell apart however in that after some early enthusiasm the female workforce concentrated in the service and public sectors particularly with the growth in part time and maternity rights. With the possible exception of health we are still in the position where an essential services strike would be a male strike. Recent weather shows that it wouldn't take many men from the drivers of Griters to the truly heroic men working on our power cables. In fact many of the men in the "glass cellar".

[Groan]

Mike mindful of your new party a suggestion. From your comment about that female labour MP's dismissive comment about male unemployment and an apparently unconnected visit to my library where the is advertised an IT skills course for women for free. Linked because the latter is one small example of the extra offer to young women and the lack of the same for young men. Presumably men unemployed and wanting to get IT skills somehow can get the money or more likely they haven't been given a thought. Yet even the equalities industry collates data showing the real losers both prior and during the recession are White and black working class men. Just as with male students if a party joins up the dots of all the "positive action" and the traditional parties support of this then maybe youthfull energy could be harnessed by the party. At a time of such high youth unemployment and with generations brought up to expect equality ,exposing the simple unfairness and joining up the dots of experience may wake up significant numbers of young people.

[Groan]

To explain what I mean by join up the dots; I have occasion to talk to groups of young people. Though not the focus often examples come up of programmes directed at females. These are frequently seen as unfair(by both sexes).Occasionally feminism comes up and is seen as old hat or just about banning porn. So the youngster make no connection with the positive action they see as unfair and feminism which they don't understand because it is something from the past. Exposing feminism does mean showing the links between that MPs disdain for male unemployment and what people can see on the ground. The link is feminism.

[K]

If someone hadn't told me the above ad was a Tory ad, I would have attributed it to some far-right organisation! I mean, where did they get the pic of that idealised 'pure Aryan' family from? It looks like the exactly the style of poster that the Nazis would have put up if they'd won the war and fulfilled their hideious ambition of turning Britain into a slave labour camp!

[Mike Buchanan]

Groan, you make some very good points including people not 'making any connection'. The younger the person, the bigger the problem (with some notable exceptions). One of the stated aims of our party will be to raise public consciousness of the impacts of feminism, and help people 'join up the dots'. Feminists made a tactical master-stroke 30+ years ago (even stupid people get lucky occasionally, though usually these days with the National Lottery) - to stop debating publicly, and to operate 'below the radar'.

One of my favoutite examples of outrageous feminist-inspired assaults on men is:

1. Nearly two-thirds of public sector employees are women.

2. The Equality Act (2010) - drafted by Harriet Harman, enacted by David Cameron - allows public sector bodies, when recruiting, to favour the recruitment of... er... women.

Why are men not marching on parliament to protest against such assaults? One day they will.

One of our recent posts about the genders in the workplace, including a chiilling anecdote from Erin Pizzey:

http://c4mb.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/womens-in-group-preferencing-in-the-workplace-a-serious-and-sustained-economic-assault-on-men/

Mike Buchanan

ANTI-FEMINISM LEAGUE
http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com

CAMPAIGN FOR MERIT IN BUSINESS
http://c4mb.wordpress.com

[Groan]

Just seen Newsnight. It finnished with the usual guff about the women's recession. Factually the report did recognise that men's unemployment rate is higher and more men want full time work. Referred to as "under employed". Also that a key factor is women's greater dependence on the state spending. As employer and distributor of welfare. As usual the Fawcett Society :
Assert women want full time work when just given evidence that they don't.
Ignore that much of the welfare bill is on children thus the benefit is to both parents.

Single fathers are overwhelmingly in full time work. If swirled man can do this why not a widowed woman? Even on the report a woman said she wouldn't work at weekends or lates/nights . Yet I have a friend who did exactly that to keep his family afloat following the sudden death of his wife. .And of course the men in work are most likely spending their money supporting their family.