A common type of discrimination is not just the overt discrimination but covert discrimination, effectively discrimination by omisson - where figures relating to men are ignored or not given equal status as figures affecting females.
Another way of seeing this in action is to reverse the genders (The Lyndon Concept, named after the concept Neil Lyndon first set out) and then see what the prominence would be with the media, politicians, opinion formers, pressure groups etc. What would be the outcry if it was a 'Neil' Lawson who was at the end of domestic abuse at the hands of a 'Charlotte' Saatchi for instance.
Today's homelessness report (summary and full report) called Street to Home by the Combined Homelessness and Information Network in London (led by Broadway) is a classic example.
The press release states that "6,437 people were seen sleeping on the streets of the Capital between April 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013. This compares to 5,678 the previous year". So what is the gender breakdown?
Er...well it mentions that 786 female (12%) were female, but does not mention that 88% were male - nine out of ten.
Now all homelessness is awful and no man or women should be homeless - it's what we pay our taxes for to make sure that doesn't happen to anyone. But how in the name of equality can a report's press release fail to mention that 88% of homeless people are men (the overwhelming majority) and even worse not mention men at all. It is why it is not mentioned in the Evening Standard report. This is why people do not realise the plight that so many men face on our streets because they are not told about it.
Using the Lyndon Concept can you imagine the headlines if the genders were reversed. It would not dominate the news it would be the main hook on the press release. But because it is men - it does not even get a mention.
Why did Broadway choose to highlight the female figure and not the male figure? Why did they think it was OK? Why did they feel that the number of female homeless was far more important to raise than the number of men even though men are more than seven times as likely to be sleeping rough on the streets of London than a woman.
The only rational and logical conclusion is sexism. Insidious, anti-male, anti-equality, institutional cultural misandry.
The thought process was that men are not as important than women, that no one is interested in men and the plight of homeless men. Men according to Broadway are the disposable sex and only 12% of homeless people are worth mentioning, and that is because of they are not men.
Shame on Broadway for their sexism.
Posted by Skimmington
PS Glen Poole's excellent Telegraph article set out some aspects
As you say sexism in ignoring men. It's a sort of compliment to men in that it assumes men are much more capable of sorting out their problems without help. This problem of sleeping rough is the tip of an iceberg. Local Authorities all operate variations on a housing criteria( often a " points" system) which effectively means men of working age are not going to get any help in being rehoused once homeless. This means men are the vast majority of those in hostels, sofa surfing or temporarily with family or friends. Just as the welfare system is largely welfare to women so the state funded housing sectors are effectively disproportionately a female service. Maybe men are more resilient in general but if they fall on hard times then only some of the voluntary sector is there to help.
Posted by: Groan | Friday, 21 June 2013 at 13:53
Of course homelessness of any kind is a terrible thing and if men and women were equal this argument would be valid. Women are more vulnerable for a number of reasons, not that the men aren't vulnerable and secondly a woman has less time to turn her life around. For both cultural and physiological reasons women have a reduced window of fertility etc. as compared to a man. As being homeless affects a woman more unfavorably than a man and also the possibility of the woman bearing children that would come to harm as the woman is not in a position to raise them it is more bad and thus more newsworthy to focus on the women.
If the article didn't go into detail about the men does that mean that the opinion of the person is that a man is deserving of being homeless? I would suggest not.
Posted by: andrew | Saturday, 22 June 2013 at 15:32
If the genders were reversed, it would have been considered a national and global crisis; especially since we have similarly high numbers for homeless men in the US.
I have to shake my head at people that wonder why I have a problem with inflammatory stats like "1 in 3 women will be raped OR physically abused ( yeah, sitting rape beside physical abuse is misleading to say the least) in their lifetime" whilst all these campaigns call it a "global crisis". Nothing of the sort for men that make up the vast majority of homelessness and suicide.
Posted by: Theseus | Saturday, 22 June 2013 at 22:57
Andrew I do take some of your points. Effectively men are assumed to be, and generally are, more resilient. Of course this may just be because they have to be as their society isn't for offering help to males. However the sexism stands as there is a clear double standard. The rules should apply to need not the sex of those in need.
Posted by: Groan | Monday, 24 June 2013 at 12:26