Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Fawcett Society on R4 this morning re effects of budget on women.

29 replies

Earthymama · 13/10/2010 17:48

This was the section of the programme Mad Tory v Fawcett

I'm never in favour of burning books but I can see the attraction in this case.

I love the way she bangs on about 'choice' for women.Hmm

A choice......

to be sacked or made redundant from your job in the public sector, child care, elderly care, schools, libraries, anything,
shoved on the dole,
struggle to pay your mortgage, (as a good citizen you bought into the home-owning culture)
made to feel as though you are 'undeserving',
then put through a test to see if you are fit to work,
then 'asked' to 'volunteer' to do the same bloody thing you were qualified to do in your employment, through accreditted education that you are probably still paying your student loan for!!

I've been tamping about this all day, and bloody Sarah Montagu was rubbish!!

Might be around to carry on this thread but as DP is coming home soon, having been told to wind up a project employing many people I might be too busy crying, screaming or whatever is required.

OP posts:
Chil1234 · 14/10/2010 13:51

Being sacked or made redundant is not something exclusive to women. Admittedly more women are employed in the public sector at the moment but there's an argument that women could be kept on because they're cheaper to employ than men. If you're struggling to pay a mortgage then you have an asset & also the choice of downsizing somewhere cheaper. If you're fit for work, surely that's a good thing to know? And volunteering isn't compulsory....

Women still have a lot more choices than they had in the past. But no-one, unless they are independently wealthy with no family ties, has the luxury of true choice. We all have to make responsible decisions based on our circumstances and do the best we can with the hand we are dealt.

purits · 14/10/2010 14:03

Sorry, I lost interest when whinging woman explained that she was whinging about a policy that hasn't actually been announced yet, she was assuming that blah, blah, blah
Also, why did she presume that women would be doing the Big Society caring: she should be campaigning to make sure that men are expected to do it too.

As a matter of interest, have you heard today about the change to pensions. I'm guessing that it will predominantly affect men. Have you heard any "men's groups" complaining about it?

LadyBlaBlah · 14/10/2010 20:17

"Admittedly more women are employed in the public sector at the moment but there's an argument that women could be kept on because they're cheaper to employ than men"

And you are just fine with that?

"If you're struggling to pay a mortgage then you have an asset & also the choice of downsizing somewhere cheaper"

House prices are collapsing and people cannot sell their houses at the moment. THe elusive 'confidence' has gone. This is not a reasonable argument for a solution for women.

Just listening to the debate - the Tory MP has no clue - what their policies do is limit women's choice across many domains.

RhinestoneCowgirl · 14/10/2010 20:23

I think this what I half heard on Weds that made me disgruntled. Was only listening with half an ear due to supervising the monkey house that is breakfast time, but there did seem to be a lot about how dual income households shouldn't be the norm and that it didn't make sense to subsidise childcare so that mothers (not parents) could work, and that maybe mothers (again not parents) should be 'supported' to stay at home with their children.

Chil1234 · 14/10/2010 20:36

I'm not just fine with women being cheaper to employ when it's like for like. But if it's a choice between losing one very expensive male middle manager or two female manual workers whose combined pay is not so much... maybe things are not so clear cut.

The OP mentioned 'struggling to pay a mortgage'... and I don't think this is an exclusively female problem, which seemed to be the assertion. And home-owners - even in a poor housing market - still have options that aren't open to others.

Many of the choices provided in the past have proved to be illusory because they were funded through borrowing that society can no longer afford.

inveteratenamechanger · 14/10/2010 21:26

If you want to hear a mad tory, check this clip out (also on Wednesday's programme):

news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9086000/9086752.stm

It seems that women's work doesn't contribute to GDP, so we might as well as give up now. Hmm

LadyBlaBlah · 14/10/2010 21:36

Home owners often has fewer choices when the economy is destroyed in the way it is being at the moment

If you are in negative equity and can't sell, you are literally fucked - there is no choice about it

The example you give about workers is a sad indication of your opinions about females in general. It is a ridiculous example and bears no resemblance to anything in real life.

legostuckinmyhoover · 14/10/2010 22:16

'being sacked or made redundant is not exclusive to women'... but it is more likely to happen to women and then even more so again now with the public sector. volunteering isnt compulsory...no not YET, but sure it will be if you want to claim your unemployment benefit in the future-they call it 'big society'. rich coming from a party who said therewas no such thing a short time ago.

funny how that Bagshawe came from a very priviledged background, married into wealth too and then got her current constituency by apparently receiving 30k a year from ...lord ashcroft Hmm.

obviously none of the things pointed out by the Fawcett woman will effect her, she does not know how a RL woman lives and manages and she isn't bothered at all.

as for choices...ha ha ha. she even had the audacity to call herself a 'feminist'?
she could not answer the question of affordable childcare yet she banged on about women in work. erm how, without afforadable childcare exactly?

different world, different world.

huddspur · 14/10/2010 22:22

The cutting down of the public sector isn't an attack on women it is a necessary act in order to reduce and eliminate the deficit.

legostuckinmyhoover · 14/10/2010 22:28

do you mean there are honestly not other alternatives? are you sure?

or do you mean it is necessary to attack women in order to reduce the deficit?

huddspur · 14/10/2010 22:32

To reduce the deficit you need to reduce public spending and unfortunately as a consequence there are going to be redundancies and if women make up a high proportion of the public sector then they are going to lose their jobs, the mistake was to allow the public sector to become so bloated and inefficient. The same applies to the 2 year pay freeze that is being imposed.

lucky1979 · 14/10/2010 22:33

Is Louise Bagshawe the "chick-lit" author? Presumably she feels that, like in most chick lit, all women end up with the dark handsome (rich) guy in the end and give up their career in PR/Wedding Planning/Being a PA to be a happy wife and mother because that is all they ever really wanted deep down.

Or am I being totally random and thinking of someone else entirely?

legostuckinmyhoover · 14/10/2010 22:40

sorry, am lost...two year pay freeze? are you saying pay in the public sector is over inflated?

are you saying it is an 'unfortunate consequence' to attack women?

are you sure there is nothing else we can do to get the econmomy being more productive to boost employment and cut the deficit? are you sure we cannot cut anything else, or cut things less so?

legostuckinmyhoover · 14/10/2010 22:43

lucky1979, that is her.

huddspur · 14/10/2010 22:47

Sorry I wasn't very clear I was that the public sector is too big and weighed down by bureaucracy and is unsustainable. It is going to be streamlined by the coalition and there are going tob job losses and due to womens prominence in the public sector then it is likely that more women will lose their jobs.

The point I was making about the pay freeze which is another measure being used to tackle the deficit is that this is likely to mean that a lot of women are going to have their pay frozen for the next 2 years and so will be made poorer in real terms.

Chil1234 · 15/10/2010 07:49

" do you mean it is necessary to attack women in order to reduce the deficit?"

I don't think anyone can name one cost-cutting or tax-raising measure that would exclusively affect men rather than women. But this is a wider issue, I think, of why women are still in an economically vulnerable situation in society. Why is it that in 2010 daughters are predominantly taking the role of giving up jobs and caring for elderly parents? Why not sons? Why is it that mothers feel they have to organise their jobs around their children (and take lower pay in the process), or give up working all together ... why not fathers?

I see comments on these boards such as 'my wages only pay for the childcare'.... when presumably the reality is that those wages are paying a proportion of all the household expenses. If women see their financial contribution as just 'paying for the childcare', it's very self-denigrating. If women are more negatively affected by a reduction in low-paid public sector jobs and changes to public services or benefits then it should be the start of a much bigger conversation.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 15/10/2010 08:20

Cutting employment in public services will disproportionately affect women for the same reason that cutting benefits disproportionately affects those who depend on benefits. It is an unavoidable consequence.

sarah293 · 15/10/2010 08:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 15/10/2010 08:57

I've said it before....

Equalise maternity and paternity rights and wait twenty years.

Litchick · 15/10/2010 09:03

The government have decided, nay the public have decided - cos they voted for this, remember, that the deficit hsd to be reduced and that this will come primarily from public spending.

So jobs will be lost.
And will will dispororinately lose them.

But this doesn't make it an attack on women.
It is an attack on the institutions involved.

When Thatcher decided to close the pits, almost all those made redundant were men. But I don't think anyone owuld say it was an attack on men.

LadyBlaBlah · 15/10/2010 10:32

Nay, do remember that the public did not vote for this

In fact, despite the fact that they didn't even win the election, any pledges they did make as part of their election campaign and since in their coalition manifesto have simply been ignored as a consequence of their deficit reduction autism.

Chil1234 · 15/10/2010 12:21

All the serious parties pre-election had cost-cutting and deficit reduction in their pre-election manifestos. They differed in terms of numbers and timing and there were few nitty-gritty details attached. The conservative proposals were the most severe but, even allowing for that, none of the main parties' plans came close to what was required. Post election the coalition is dealing with the reality of things like a massive overcommitment on defence spending.... information not available to them pre-election.

BTW I think it's offensive to flippantly use a term like autism to describe a policy strategy.

purits · 15/10/2010 13:08

Well said Chili at 07:49 and Litchick.
I'm not sure that constantly portraying women as downtrodden victims does them much good.

jackstarbright · 15/10/2010 13:23

A couple of weeks ago Radio 4 Analysis covered the issue of Feminism within the context of the spending cuts.

Whatever happened to Sisterhood?

Worth a listen.

LadyBlaBlah · 15/10/2010 14:34

All the information was present before the election, the argument that it wasn't is so very poor. In fact the situation is better now than it was before the election (or at least there was recovery until this lot took decisive action to take us back into recession).

As for your offense at the autism comment. Thought that sort of outrage was very against the grain of the Tory ethos?

"I'm not sure that constantly portraying women as downtrodden victims does them much good." I think sitting back and just taking it makes things much much worse.

Swipe left for the next trending thread