Are the cuts and the Gvt's spending priorities sexist?

[AWholeLottaNosy]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately and although I don't know much about economics it has strict me that whilst at the same time the Gvt has proposed massive spending cuts in councils etc, they are also proposing spending millions on HS2, road expansion and flood defences ( all works that benefit men in terms of employment ). How can they justify this if they are on the one hand claiming that cuts to public spending are unavoidable. Am I stupid or do I just not understand how this is fair or makes any sense..? Any ideas??

Its ironic as in the developing world gender is assessed when looking at capital investments.

Breakingdad, I would be interested to know why that is. I would speculate it is because of -greater importance of measuring human development indicators in those countries, greater influence of aid agencies in decision making, far more people whose employment is outside of the formal economy, demographic issues, genuine threat of food insecurity if they get it wrong, and more diversity and innovation in development economics as a field.

I don't know Buffy, because I don't know to what extent development economics is developed by people who are mostly outside the culture. Amartya Sen is Indian, for example.

I do think that it is harder to see solutions are possible when you are within a system though.

An example would be health care in the United States. Both sides of the debate agree that the health care system does not work, both agree it is complex, and there has been a failure to resolve it because 'economics.'

To most other developed countries this seems absurd. Our health care systems may be varied, inefficient and have problems, but not to that extent. It seems ludicrous that the US can't resolve the health care issue.

I am sure the UK is the same. These are the rules, this is the law. If your problem can't be resolved through our rules and law, it can't be a real problem, because our rules and laws are more real. It is just a more highbrow version of 'computer says no.'

Callindana, I'm glad someone else is noticing the replacement of paid work with voluntary posts too. I'm half way to believing that voluntary work is A Bad Thing for society as a whole. How is it so many are being reduced to food banks while others are available to give their time for free?

The planned new road expansion is obviously anti-environmental. I have mixed feelings about the HS2 project, public transport desperately needs investment but I'm not sure that this is the best use of that kind of money.

But deliberately sexist? Watching with interest.

Anyone remember the Tories and their 'family values' campaigns in the recent past? Not quite relevant, but

almondcakes in a developing context I think they used to just look at things from a capital expenditure as they do in west.

But over time recognized that women were still getting a rough deal, e.g the men just blowing all the cash they made from the employment on themselves rather than improving the household. Women are seen to be making up the majority of the poor but also key to improving the household. So have become the focus for interventions.

Breakingdad, if that is the case, it is really good news. So many organisations pushed for that, including FAO and UNICEF, and went to a lot of effort to collect the data on those issues. The more that approach is taken on the better.

Putting a standpipe in you would think would be simple hard enginnering solution, nut I read a case about how a new stand pipe with people queuing was to help reduce rural womens time burden (as they have to literally everything) of trekking to a river

Once built take up was very poor and was later found because the queing and design was seen to remove a social opportunity and bit of respite to give it a western proxy 'school gate chat' during the water collection.

That tax cut for the highest earners that they did in the early days benefitted men more than women because their are more men among the highest earning group.

The tax cut actually increased the amount of tax paid by higher earners.

I don't see, based on the arguments on this thread, how a capital project could be designed to help women as muvh as/more than men - could someone please explain.

Computer ate my long, careful post, so, instead -

I agree that economics as dogma can be destructive, but i think that some of its tools, like cost-benefit analysis, can be helpful.

I don't like the "computer says no" analogy - that suggests a decision that is arbitrary, non-transparent and incomprehensible

Whereas govt project appraisals are all published online, both the overall cost-benefit analysis and the equalities impact assessment, and the assumptions and evidence used are laid out and there to argue with.

basis of decisions is still arguably arbitrary (as it is also based on political values about what matters - eg whether rich men getting richer is/isn't harmful) but not the other things.

Although if a Minister wants a white elephant (naMalt) then ideas of using any kind of analysis or evidence can be just laughable

In answer to the op, yes. See charging victims of domestic abuse to use the CSA. The fact they will waive the £20 set up fee is irrelevent, we'll still have to pay a monthly fee. Unless we can persuade our abusive ex's to come to a private agreement .

Ex, it isn't that individual decisions orindeed much of economics is arbitrary, non transparent or incomprehensible. Nor is that what 'computer says no' really means.

It is that various types of economics have no way of measuring most factors of human well being, but their symbolic importance and ideological mystification of power is so great that people will accept their answers regardless of the consequences.

So even if lots of women end up poor, or people starve to death, or there is a war, or people are put at risk of genocide, or lots of people end up homeless, people accept the economic policy.

It isn't mystified in the sense that it is too difficult to understand or the details are hidden from the public. It is an ideological mystification of how power works.

Just ignoring everyone else being intelligent for a minute, Someone somewhere mentioned Fawcett Society to me and lo and behold this statement on why cuts in services affect women more may be of interest.

Not sure if the cuts have been deliberately aimed at women, but that's the effects. Still why choose conspiracy when incompetence can do the job just as well. and this lot have not struck me particularly with their political and social acumen

to almondcakes

Yes indeed they are.
If you google guardian article/ women and the cuts there is some great evidential stuff to read about the gendered nature of the cuts.
Also look up TUC women and the cuts.
It would be worth putting in a point of information to your local council to ask what is the impact on cuts on women.
A new international survey as come out and uk women are 23rd ish on the league table for women. This is the uk that us the 7 th richest nation. Those who run ten country are stealing wealth from women.

Most local councils employ women. In poorer towns the council is usually bigger it needs more services, so even more women are employed in those councils. The cuts to local government are devastating to women on two counts. One they are more likely to lose their jobs in this period and unlikely to get as well paid a job in the private sector.
Women and children by far use public services the most and as they disappear so do their life choices.

Oh yes. Definitely. The effect is gendered negatively for women. This happens in councils and education too.. higher education astoundingly so.. cuts are made in junior staff and admin 'doing' roles where academic, admin management roles and decision-making.. more male.. are far less dramatically affected. Domestic junior admin and part time staff go first irrespective of whether male managers are necessary to actual work being done or not.

Its true that big headline civil engineering projects employ higher paid men in larger amounts. . as things stand.

By the way the 'cuts' dont actually exist.. expenditure is going up.. but weirdly jobs that are disproportionately female are still going.

Yy to the big society crap. Its based on a 'Women in hats' cliche that requires an aristo-style 'good works' done by good weatlhy christian ladies. nice idea but not if you need those two salaries bub.

I think the main aim of the coalition government especially the Tories is to get rid of the welfare state as we know it, and for that reason women and children are going to be disproportionately affected.
Of 26 billion benefit cuts, women have been hit by 22 billion of them! Incredible.
I'm a big lover of call the midwife because it reflects so beautifully what the welfare state meant to women; women who worked within it and women who it supported.
Which is why I think women have to be and will be at the forefront of change in our society.