Where is Harriet Harman’s equality agenda now?
Dear Harriet Harman,
I fear that with the impending electoral doom that faces the Labour Party, you may be losing sight of your beloved equality agenda. Yesterday’s coverage of the latest unemployment statistics focused on the disastrous figures for youth unemployment and the slower rate of growth in overall unemployment, but I’m concerned that you missed the most important figure of all as it is surely right up your street.
Earlier this year, you led calls for the PM to “give greater focus” to women within government spending, fearing it will be women who bear the brunt of the recession. Both you and Hazel Blears (remember her?) told Brown the government’s recession package had been too ‘masculine’, pointing to greater job losses in the female-dominated sectors of retail and service industries than in the higher profile finance sectors and car industries that have received greater attention. You also expressed concern that women would be targeted by employers seeking to avoid the costs of new policies, such as flexible working rights and longer maternity leave and, along with the solicitor general Vera Baird, you began spearheading a campaign across departments to devise policies aimed at protecting women from unfair job losses. Needless to say, you were never going to let the fact that officials at the Department for Work and Pensions were unable to provide any statistics to support your assertion get in your way. Indeed, a DWP aide said at the time: “We wish that this recession did have a shape – because if, for instance, we were able to say, ‘more women than men are losing their jobs’, it would be easier to form a policy response. But we just can’t see it.” The Federation of Small Businesses also insisted there was “no evidence” of a problem, while even the TUC said ”we don’t agree that women will be hit harder than men.”
Leaving all this aside, I hope that your commitment to equality still remains as strong and robust as ever because yesterday’s unemployment statistics demand immediate action from you. As your self-declared mission is to force equality down the throats of businesses and households across the UK, you must have been horrified – absolutely horrified – to read in the news that the number of unemployed men was 1.52 million in the three months to September 2009, up 34,000 from the three months to June 2009, yet the number of unemployed women was 937,000 in the three months to September 2009, down 4,000 from the three months to June 2009. It is clear to me, and I hope you would agree without hesitation, that this is clear evidence that men are being discriminated against in the workplace, and I can only assume that you immediately went to work on devising an action plan to tackle this abhorrent workplace maltreatment that men are now facing. Surely there is no-one better placed that the Equalities Minister to address such a damning indictment of the brutality and malicious nature of employers in this once great nation of ours, who have clearly decided to openly discriminate against men. As you expressed such a clear and genuine desire to rescue women from potentially greater job losses during the recession earlier this year, I hope that you will show the same commitment and vigour to saving men from the same terrible fate.
I look forward to the release of your campaign to keep men in their jobs during this recession, which should form a central plank in your efforts to drive through real equality in the workplace. While you’re at it, get Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to write a column in the Independent about the discrimination that men are facing.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
I’m sure that in the light of new evidence contradicting her previous assertions, Harman will change her position.
Any
Minute
Now…….
We need a ‘Men’s Lib’ movement. Gentlemen, burn your boxers!
*sound of fingers drumming on desk*
Yup, any minute now.
Dick, make sure you take the boxers off first before burning them.
More likely that Harman will claim it as a success for the pro-equality Labour Government.
“Since we started to address the problem, there has been a very real improvement in discrimination against women in the workplace, as evidenced by a reduction in the number of women out of work at a time when general unemployment has risen.”
Oh well. At least no-one will believe a word Harmansays.
We do. Check out
http://www.the-spearhead.com/
I have a feeling that the Harpy Harperson will fall silent at last.
We had a men’s liberation movement for about 2000 years – I can’t believe how petty minded some of us still are.
While I would hope that she stops force feeding regulation down our throats, I can already see the woman (in my head *shudders*) arguing “Its because of the wage gap that men are losing jobs quicker than women! We need to remove the pay gap between the genders!”
Still too hard to read with the pale typeface on the white background. Would love to be able to read this blog, but it really is too hard on my 58 years old eyes. And yes, I have got my specs on, and they were new three months ago.
She’s been very quiet of late hasn’t she?
Like a small child when you can’t hear the constant noise and shrieking you know they are up to something bad.
LFAT, a further relevant factoid in explaining relative job losses between men and women is that women are far more likely to work in public sector than men, and the public sector is still hiring.
See Table 2 here.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/lmsuk1208.pdf
(OK, these stats are from a year ago, but hey)
Total women in jobs, 14.7 million, of which 5.6 million in public sector (or 38% of women in jobs)
Total men in jobs 16.8 million, of whom 2.4 million in public sector (or 14% of men in jobs).
Or put it another way, 70% of public sector jobs are occupied by women.
For public sector figures see column L-N.
Mark, not sure anyone believes what Harman says. Indeed, the ONS told her a few days ago that she was no longer allowed to use her favourite statistic about men getting paid more than women because she kept using it in a blatantly incorrect manner.
Tony, there is no chance that Harman is going anywhere. She has her eye on the 2010 leadership prize.
Scott, didn’t think about it like that!
Elby, I’m working on it this weekend – my apologies.
Bill, like many other ministers she will be desperate to avoid being tramped out in front of the cameras to support Gordon. Every time she defends him, she provides the Conservatives with more ammunition for the post-2010 battle.
Mark W, thanks for that – will have a look.
It’s like the last day’s of the Weimar except that what follows is EU.
Ha, an interesting parallel.
You could snidely argue that perhaps she actually WON her arguement that women should be employed
at the expense of menerm no, that’s not it… Maybe this hits the right, er, left, er correct note…simply for being women and thus better – as Orwell noted, some animals ARE more equal than othersin preference to men in some cases to address historic injustice.Accordingly, I wonder if government aid was DIRECTED to deliver greater unemployment among men than women in order to achieve the strategic goal of employment numerical equality? Or am I being *too* cynical?
I’ve found her:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1227006/Clinton-Merkel-global-war-sexism-Harriet-Harman.html
Be warned – there is a photograph..
Shaun, you are clearly being too cynical – there is no way that Labour could execute a policy that actually worked that well.
BTS, interesting that in the DM article Harman drew attention to the fact that half of the Spanish cabinet are women – why did she not mention Silvio Berlusconi love of female politicians too?….
@LFAT – To make up for the picture of Harpy earlier:
http://www.maxim.com/girls/44066/worlds-hottest-politicians.html#10
Even a broken clock is right twice a day…
Without wishing to support Harman to much, the fact that fewer women are losing their jobs than men does not nullify the arguments around pay and work equality. If you look at the figures, the reason why more men are losing their jobs in because full time jobs (more populated by men than women) are being destroyed whilst part-time jobs (more held by women) are being net created (c.f. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2009/11/a-feminine-economy.html). This, rather than demonstrating anything positive about equality and closing pay gaps, makes clear the structural problems in pay and work equality. Women are far more likely to have part time jobs than men.
I know its a joke but we really don’t need a men’s movement like the women’s movement. We are in the dominant position. Still.
Yes they (Harman, Baird, Blears) got their analysis wrong of who would lose jobs more in this recession, but their logic wasn’t mad. They’ve gone quiet because what was thought to be a major problem isn’t.
LfaT
HH will get to work, raising the wages and cost of employing women so next month 38,000 more women than men will lose their jobs.
Equality and Socialism in perfect Harmany.
I’m pretty sure that Harriet is already trying her hardest to make women less employable with her crass logic and stupid legislation.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jane Fleming, David Chiverton. David Chiverton said: from LFAT http://bit.ly/BeCF3 <— Let's not hold our breath! [...]
Gosh, yes, the men of the UK are being appallingly oppressed by those 4000 women, deliberately and with malice. It is essential that all action on reducing women’s disadvantages should cease immediately, and all women removed from the Cabinet and preferably from Parliament.
What a stupid and nasty post. Can’t you celebrate anything nice happening to anyone, if they happen to be female? Your dislike of a powerful woman leads you to close your eyes to real suffering that she highlights. Just why do you think it is appropriate that the vast majority of the elderly poor are female, and why do you think it either moral or sensible to vilify someone for trying to prevent the same happening to our current workers? Harriet Harman is not asking charity handouts for working women, just the chance for them to be treated on an equal footing with the golden people born with a magic piece of flesh in their pants.
Many of us worried when stimulus spending was targeted at male-dominated workplaces. If, despite that, women’s employment in the formal sector is holding up well (God help the many part-time workers in the informal sector, male or female) that sounds like cause for celebration. And on your ostensible point, there is no evidence that men actually need their gender-specific rights in the workplace to be championed, though they have gained from the improvements campaigned for by women and granted to all workers. Men still get most of the pay and most of the promotions — and most of the protection of sunset industries, which may explain some of this employment difference. Would more earlier realism over those industries have served us better?
@Toto – “Just why do you think it is appropriate that the vast majority of the elderly poor are female?”
That could be because women live longer than men on average..