Are Chris Grayling, the DWP and the Conservative party Just plain stupid or a bunch of sexist dinosaurs?

[minimathsmouse]

This week Chris Grayling MP responded to the storm over "Workfare" by saying the reason for rising unemployment was women. "women entering the workforce and women looking for work"

Wasn't it Government cuts that disproportionately effected women's jobs.

Well not only are Chris Grayling and chums content to put you out of work they will also strip you of your benefits under the new work programme if you fail to look "pretty"

www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wp-pg-chapter-6.pdf

If you click link, scroll down to pg 5 there is a link for the form WP08 that has to be filled in for someone to be sanctioned to lose benefits

If you open up the form in XL and click examples. This gives examples of reasons why someone could be sanctioned to lose benefit payments.

Note that for both examples where the claimant is male, the sanctions are imposed for non-compliance in seeking work.

In the 2nd example the woman could be sanctioned and have her benefit stopped because of appearance.

I don't mean to be picky but Grayling and the DWP appear to be breaking every known rule in terms of equality and morality.

Is Conservative policy women friendly?

When my DH and i were signing on back in the late 1990s they made me sign a form saying i would consider part time work.
They never made my DH sign any such form.
Because being the little woman i only needed to earn pin money.

I find it hard to choke on any sentence that includes the words Conservative policy women friendly in it.

Sometimes, I think it's cock up as much as conspiracy. In Chris Grayling's world, how on earth would anyone quibble with what he no doubt sees as a common sense observation of the reason why there aren't enough jobs to go around. Those ladies who should be letting their husbands support them while they look after hearth, home and community - it's all their fault.

And, I doubt whoever constructed the "examples" thought for a minute that there was anything unreasonable about putting this in a woman's job seeking plan.

"We had arranged an interview for her to be held on 23 February at 4pm and had booked an appointment for her at 'Justin's Beauty Parlour' for a full hair and body make-over for the same day at 10am."

Not just provided a few quid for suitable clothing for an interview - no, nothing short of a full hair and body make-over will make that woman employable - ffs.

I get so angry about this. If men are so concerned about there not being enough jobs to go round, WHY DON'T THEY SOD OFF TO THE KITCHEN INSTEAD??

In Graylings world view I expect most women need plastic surgery, breast implants and highlights just to qualify to make tea or work the tills at Tesco.

It's shocking isn't Carernotasaint. On the one hand this Government disadvantages women with things like workfare and not accepting that many women have caring responsibilities whilst on the other hand having policies that put women out of work. They have a very conflicted view about women. (not many female MPs either)

What I do believe though is:

working class women = slave labour, unattractive, unworthy, must work, must be demoted/made redundant(must not take a job which might otherwise be filled by a man)

Middle class women = have rights, can make choices about employment, are always attractive, worthy, free to stay at home as a kept cupcake baking, pinny wearing goddess.

So is it a feminist issue or a class issue or both?

Its both Mini. Ive been very impressed lately with a young bloke ive been seeing on TV and radio called Owen Jones.
He wrote a book called Chavs The Demonization of the Working Classes a book im going to order and read.

To be fair - this example was not about the woman failing to look pretty, but she was described as "unkempt with dirty fingernails". A man would probably rejected equally if he turned up at an interview like that.
My contract of employment lists dresscode, and that's a generic one which is not restricted to women

Reminds me of the David Willetts debacle

How do you argue with people who really believe that women should not have a role outside the home?

WidowWadman

Please take note of the fact that a woman was made an example of being unkempt and dirty, these people could of easily have chosen a man as an example but didn't. Please also note that it is states "she had dirty hair & fingernails" now why should she need a complete hair and body make over.

Last time I addressed these issues(most days) it was with shampoo and a nail brush) It didn't require an expensive major overhaul at a beauty parlour.

It is clear from my reading of this that they believe women have a greater need to spend money on appearance than men, even if this seriously disadvantages them economically.

Conservative ideology and policy is very confused, conflicting and ultimately damaging to women. They have through government cuts ensured that more women than men have lost their employment, they are now taking away benefits for mothers who care for their disabled children, their parents or partners and enforcing unwaged labour upon them through schemes like workfare.

Excellent summary minimath.

minimaths - I do think that by choosing a women for the unkempt example they left themselves open for that criticism, which wasn't terribly clever. Ditto the beauty parlour - although I think an unkempt man with hair sprouting out of his ears and a patchy stubbly beard probably would be hauled to a barber, too.

What the example suggests is that the claimant gets assistance in getting their appearance up to scratch, rather than asking them to pay for a haircut from their measly dole money. Surely that is a good thing?

If they had only chosen men for their examples, they would have left themselves open for criticism that there were no women mentioned.

It probably would have been wiser if they had switched the sexes in their examples - because either is equally possible.

If you're looking for work, you have to make an effort to appear professional if you want to stand a chance to be seen. That's not sexist in itself as it is expected of both men and women. It's an indicator of how serious someone is about wanting the job.

A "professional" appearance is not a pre-requisite for many jobs.
In fact in some of them you might be viewed with suspicion if you turned up looking immaculate!

I can't imagine the jobcentre sending a qualified plasterer or mechanic off to a beauty parlour for a full body treatment especially not if they were male.

Found examples now

"Her unkempt appearance would be a barrier to her finding employment in her usual occupation of accountancy. Her hair is generally dirty and scruffy looking with her finger nails dirty. She agrees that she has generally 'let herself go' since losing her job over a year ago. She still has her old business suits We had arranged an interview for her to be held on 23 February and a smarter appearance would have improved her chances at the interview. "

Letting herself go????
How many accountants going for jobs turn up at interviews with filthy nails and dirty hair? That would indicate mental health problems surely - some kind of depression? Given that a professional like an accountant would know full well what was expected and someone with that sort of intelligence and ambition is unlikely to show themselves up like that in a professional meeting?
And as for a "full body makeover" - what the actual fuck?

Of course "letting herself go" is a sign of deeper problems, but, IME (I've been there myself - not just a little bit, but inpatient) , things like doing something about appearance can help out of the vicious circle of feeling shit about yourself, therefore not doing anything about it because you're shit anyway, so why should you bother, but maybe tomorrow, or maybe after I finished reading that thread, oh shit its 5 hours later, so no point really, I might as well stay in my PJs"

Crikey, that is horrible. And you are right, that sounds as if the woman had some problems.

I do find the idea that we should find this ok because it'd happen to men too (it wouldn't, obviously, as SQ points out) quite unpleasant. I'd hope if any person, male or female, were showing signs of depression they'd be treated with more consideration than that. It doesn't make me happier to think maybe men get bullied by the job centre too.

It's the language

"letting herself go" is not a phrase that a JCP advisor should be using in relation to a client IMO

And the fact that an accountant is turning up for interviews looking such a mess that the interviewers recoil in horror, is an indicator that all is not well with this claimant, but the advisor has failed to identify this, instead choosing to sanction her so she loses her benefits.

And this is an official example

so it really is a bit worrying

it's the full body treatment thing that's odd

surely if anything, she needs a haircut and a manicure
full body treatment implies the gamut of arcane practices the salon has to offer, and she has to submit, somehow

Can JCP send you to get your legs waxed I wonder?

"What the example suggests is that the claimant gets assistance in getting their appearance up to scratch, rather than asking them to pay for a haircut from their measly dole money. Surely that is a good thing?"

Widow please re-read the examples from DWP, it states that the women felt paying her gas bill was more important. This suggests that she is expected to pay.

I think it means they gave her cash to pay for the salon, but she spent it on her gas bill?
They don't usually give out cash for stuff though, it's usually vouchers or reimbursement afterwards.
So I'm confused.

Being in danger of having your benefits stopped because of your appearance is appalling. Where do we draw the line? Many teenagers have spots and greasy hair even though they shower everyday. Are they at a greater disadvantage?

What about the person who is disabled, are they not good to look at so equally at a greater disadvantage?

I do wonder at the irony of David Cameron calling Skinner a dinosaur when he and his party have such antidiluvian attitudes.

Ok, I have overlooked that. That's really not good. Surely bills are more important.

However - the form also suggests that she hasn't tried to improve her appearance/clean her nails etc at all.

I think it's a really difficult area. Obviously it's no good to push people to work when they are clearly not ready, on the other hand, regular work is undeniably a way of improving someone's self worth. How is this best solved?

Good post dworkin

I would have thought they should be sending her to see her GP or something, widow.
If she's got problems with her bills maybe she didn't have any hot water. Who knows.

I really think that the language used in that example is really unprofessional and I'm a bit surprised.

"And the fact that an accountant is turning up for interviews looking such a mess that the interviewers recoil in horror, is an indicator that all is not well with this claimant, but the advisor has failed to identify this, instead choosing to sanction her so she loses her benefits."

Well said SardineQueen, this is the point of this, firms like A4e are motivated by profit and results, in the DWP guidance notes to level 1 companies it states that the employment advisor should consider whether the claimant is from a vulnerable subset of claimants before making sanctions. But in their examples for filling in the WP08 applications to impose sanctions it clearly illustrates otherwise. I wonder why?

"Well said SardineQueen, this is the point of this, firms like A4e are motivated by profit and results, in the DWP guidance notes to level 1 companies it states that the employment advisor should consider whether the claimant is from a vulnerable subset of claimants before making sanctions. But in their examples for filling in the WP08 applications to impose sanctions it clearly illustrates otherwise. I wonder why?"

I'm guessing they feel they have to pay lip service to the idea of some claimants being vulnerable, but in practice believe it's perfectly acceptable to overlook this.

Sardine Queen is probably right about the woman mentioned in the example: she spent the money on her gas bill because prior to this she hadn't been able to afford it, but because she had been without hot water for a time she was unable to shower/bathe and her appearance had suffered. I think the advisers might have served her better by helping her come to some kind of affordable deal with the gas company so she could keep her gas on which would have enabled her to wash her hair and take regular showers.