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

Politics

Women's equality: clock is turning back as cuts bite, says Fawcett Society

101 replies

ttosca · 18/11/2011 11:24

Life-raft policies must be drawn up to counter worst threat 'in living memory' to women's hard-won rights, says charity

Women's financial security and human rights are under attack on a scale not seen in "living memory" due to the coalition's austerity measures, according to a report released today.

Backed by more than 20 charities, unions and academics, the report by the Fawcett Society shows how the cuts are pushing women out of the workforce, driving down their income and undermining hard-won access to justice and protection from violence.

The report, A Life Raft for Women's Equality, offers key policy recommendations to reverse the impact the cuts will have on women's jobs, benefits and key services as state services are withdrawn.

The report is published on the same day that the home secretary, Theresa May ? who is also minister for women and equalities ? outlines the government's approach to women and the economy.

May will announce an ambitious plan to recruit and train 5,000 volunteer business mentors to help women who want to start or grow their own businesses.

"Business people tell us that they want to take advice from other business people. So the business mentors will be experienced individuals who can provide tailored advice and support. They will be a huge help to women entrepreneurs," May is to say.

Anna Bird, acting chief executive of the Fawcett Society, said: "Our report identifies a series of targeted and achievable policy measures that could be adopted by, or at, the 2012 budget, which together offer a life raft for women's equality ? and never has the need been so great.

"Women have not faced a greater threat to their financial security and rights in living memory. Decades of steady, albeit slow, progress on equality is being dismantled, as cuts to women's jobs and the benefits and services they rely on, turn back time on women's equality."

The number of women out of work is at a 23-year high, with cutbacks in the public sector hitting women particularly hard: two-thirds of the 130,000 jobs lost in local authorities since the first quarter of 2010 were held by women.

"Women up and down the country are experiencing greater hardship. For those families affected, the cuts to women's jobs, services and benefits will represent a personal loss," said Bird. "But we must add to this the cost to wider society as women's opportunities are scaled back.

"Fewer women working, a widening gap in pay between women and men, entrenchment of outdated gender roles at work and at home, and women being forced into a position where they must increasingly rely on a main breadwinner or the state for financial subsidy ? this is the picture that emerges when the many policies of economic austerity are stitched together."

The report calls on the government to restore support for childcare costs for low-income families to the level before April 2011. This, says Bird, would "help ensure paid employment makes financial sense for the many low-income women who've found they are better off not working".

Another recommendation is ring-fencing funds for Sure Start centres. "This would further protect women's access to employment and shore up the other vital benefits these centres offer thousands of families," said Bird.

The society calls on the coalition to stop local authorities from treating violence against women services as a soft touch for cuts. "We need to ensure some of the most vulnerable women in the UK have access to the support they need," said Bird.

Signatories to the report include Eaves Housing for Women, the End Violence Against Women coalition, Unison, Child Poverty Action Group, Daycare Trust, White Ribbon Campaign UK, and Rape Crisis.

"We need urgent action to stop women being ground down by the government's devastating cuts," said Dave Prentis, Unison's general secretary. "Women's jobs and pensions are under serious attack. They are being hit hard by unemployment, the rising cost of living and cuts to benefits and services to young people."

Alison Garnham, chief executive of Child Poverty Action Group, agreed. "Child poverty and the incomes and services women are able to access are intrinsically linked. The vast majority of child benefit is received by women, whether as the main carer in a couple, or as a single parent.

"It is hugely unfair that such a large burden of the government's cuts should be falling on the shoulders of women and children, and it would be profoundly wrong if these unfair cuts to child benefit became permanent."

A Home Office spokesperson said: "Fairness is facing up to the reality of the financial situation we are in and not leaving our children to pick up the bill. This government is protecting services for the most vulnerable and focusing resources where they are most needed and most effective.

"We are taking 1.1 million of the lowest-paid workers ? most of whom are women ? out of income tax altogether, introducing flexible parental leave and extending flexible working, and taking action to reduce the gender pay gap."

? This article was amended on 4 November 2011. It originally stated that extra money was being made available by the government for the business mentoring scheme. This has been corrected.

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/nov/04/women-equality-clock-back-fawcett?INTCMP=SRCH

OP posts:
breadandbutterfly · 20/11/2011 13:47

Moondog - you seem to have forgotten again to mention where you studied history. Along with your salary and amount of child benefit - still waiting.

Curious as to what 'my sort' is, exactly. Grin Do enlighten me.

Having already stated that you are extremely well off, such that child benefit is an unnecessary extra for you, I don't think you're in any position to comment on how hard life is for those who don't enjoy your luxurious standard of living. Yes, I'm sure life is quite comfortable for the rich - it has ever been so.

But not every family enjoys your luxuries of "the modern wonders of cars, central heating, supermarkets,gas ovens, computers and washing machines" - try reading threads on how to cope without using the heating, on nice, middle-class MN, for example.

Your assumption that everyone has life as easy as you do but is just whinging is rather amusing in its arrogance. And rather sad, too, in its utter lack of humanity.

JuliaScurr · 20/11/2011 13:54

swc & moondog Have a nice Brew and a lie down

JuliaScurr · 20/11/2011 13:57

Oh, and moondog check out those general election results.
You were saying?

bemybebe · 20/11/2011 14:12

"Moondog - you seem to have forgotten again to mention where you studied history. Along with your salary and amount of child benefit - still waiting."

Hmm And why should she tell you??

bemybebe · 20/11/2011 14:14

"

breadandbutterfly · 20/11/2011 14:16

I suspect that moondog is claiming to be many things she is not - a history graduate being just one of many. Her comments on history on this thread were so naive it was hard to believe she was who she claimed to be. If she is not who she claims to be, that rather throws into doubt all her other comments based on her 'experience'. So it is relevant, rather than just nosy - can't say I have the slightest interest on a personal level.

bemybebe · 20/11/2011 14:17

But salary and child benefit??

breadandbutterfly · 20/11/2011 14:24

Reference to other posts where she claimed that all those on 40k plus didn't need the child benefit due to be lost - because she didn't need it.

If you are going to presume to speak for everyone earning over a certain amount, with any numbers of children, it is highly relevant if you actually earn 3, 4 or 5 times what others affected do, say, and if you have 1 child to their 3, say.

She is welcome to speak based on her own circumstances - but she has no right to claim to be speaking for me, or for hundreds of thousands if not millions of others, without laying her cards on the table.

bemybebe · 20/11/2011 14:33

The question of "need" is highly subjective though. What one person on 40K with 3 children considers "essential" is different from another person with the same circs.

Anyway, I will live you to that, there is obviously no room on this thread for anything but mud slinging...

JuliaScurr · 20/11/2011 14:38

Sorry if that was taken as an insult; it was intended as light banter and used as such on eg 'I'm sorry I haven't a clue' etc

twinklytroll · 20/11/2011 14:42

I agree that you can only speak from experience, I earn in the region of 40K and dp in the region of 30K, we not not need our child benefit so do not claim it. However our needs our less than other people's , we are not overly bothered by home ownership and we have one child.

rycooler · 20/11/2011 15:21

More left-wing rubbish.

op; here's the truth - read this

smallwhitecat · 20/11/2011 16:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

moondog · 20/11/2011 18:00

I never claimed to be a history graduate.
I told you I studied it at university.
Two different things.

I am flattered you take such a close interest in my life.
I am wearing a flattering pink bra and knicker combo and have a lamb scotch broth simmering on my stove after which I shall retire with the Independent and a cup of Earl Grey.

moondog · 20/11/2011 18:02

And I would never claim (or even want ) to speak for you.
Don't flatter yourself.

GeekLove · 20/11/2011 18:18

The site in question here claims to be independent and non partisan but for its claims it has more of a whiff of DM- like hysteria.

breadandbutterfly · 20/11/2011 18:56

TMI, moondog. Grin

Am I to assume that you failed your history degree then? That would make sense.

And yes, you did claim implicitly to be speaking for all parents where one earned over 40K, re the need or otherwise for child benefit.

Twinklytroll - I suspect there is a cut-off point at some point over 40K when child benefit does become non-essential. maybe a combined total of 70k and one child is that point? Or maybe your housing costs (most people's biggest expense) are lower than average? Certainly, you're close to the 80k combined income at which no-one would be entitled to child benefit.

But try imagining that you had another child and your husband lost his job. Now try imagining how easily you could do without the child benefit. I suspect the sums would not add up so well.

moondog · 20/11/2011 19:12

No I didn't 'implicitly' claim to be speaking for anyone.
And no I didn't fail my degree.
One chooses different options in certain years. Were you not aware of this.
You carry on.
It's harmless light amusement for a Sunday evening!

ChickenLickn · 21/11/2011 14:55

I agree, this government is turning the clock back. To the 1850's if youve noticed their policies for forced, unpaid labour for all.

Next year they will promote the use of low cost stone tools, which provide a sharp cutting edge and can be easily fashioned from flintstones.

Tories are fuckwits, its official.

Bonsoir · 21/11/2011 15:23

In most developed economies, state policies to help women to work outside the home have been quite successful. However, do we really believe the state should share the workload of childcare? Won't women and men be more equal versus the workplace when fathers, rather than the state, voluntarily share that workload?

moondog · 21/11/2011 15:40

Yes, good point Bonsoir!
Don't be asking the state to do what the father of the child in question should be doing.
Responsibility begins at home.

JuliaScurr · 21/11/2011 17:19

rycooler Sunday 15:21 - this would have more credibility as a critique of political bias if it wasn't run by Tory and UKIP representatives Hmm

JuliaScurr · 21/11/2011 17:41

The comment you manufactured your outrage about originated with thewell known Trotskyite, Barry Cryer, I think.
Your argument about men doing domestic labour isa good one imo. How do you propose to achieve this laudable aim? And what about lone mothers? In the meantime, since women do most housework/childcare, it's basically fair theyget most benefit from public sector spending. The division of labour, public/private split is several books' worth.

moondog · 21/11/2011 17:55

JS, you are happy to maintain and reinforce a fundamental injustice in soceity then.
You remind me of Muslims who argue that women must be covered in order not to tempt men.
No word of addressing this so called issue with the men.
Deary me no. Accept a fundamental flaw and build around it.

twinklytroll · 21/11/2011 19:04

breadandbutterflySun 20-Nov-11 18:56:32

Twinklytroll - I suspect there is a cut-off point at some point over 40K when child benefit does become non-essential. maybe a combined total of 70k and one child is that point? Or maybe your housing costs (most people's biggest expense) are lower than average? Certainly, you're close to the 80k combined income at which no-one would be entitled to child benefit.

But try imagining that you had another child and your husband lost his job. Now try imagining how easily you could do without the child benefit. I suspect the sums would not add up so well.

I did say that I did not want to speak for everyone, I suspect that we are on the cusp of not needing the child benefit. We do not find life easy without it, our housing expenses are high as we rent. We have to budget carefully, e.g the heating only goes on when we can wait no longer, I eat my main meal at work so I can just have a snack at home to keep food costs down. Yes we have one child, but that is because we did not want to have a second child that we could emotionally, practically or financially care for. We could not have that second child but it has taken a lot to get us to that point.

Having said that I recognise that our income is much higher than that of many people which is why we do not claim our child benefit, it feels wrong to expect others to go without their essentials if we are not ready to give up our luxuries.

Swipe left for the next trending thread