It is broadly acknowledged by political and economic commentators that the cuts are going to hit the most vulnerable and the worst off in society, in particular the women from these groups. It is these women who I think we should be standing with as feminists as much as, or perhaps more than, hypothetical, educated, mobile, middle income women who might be made redundant from the public sector as a result of the cuts. The shambolic claim from the tories that ‘we are all in this together’ was made stylishly evident in its irony when the Camerons appeared together to announce the cuts in child benefits with Mrs C wearing a dress that would have cost me 36.8 weeks worth of first child benefits payments.
This fashion faux pas made it evident how little knowledge of or empathy the Camerons and the majority of the coalition have for ‘normal, hard working families’, let alone those who are on lower incomes and are already struggling to make ends meet. The TUC and UNISON have reported that the poorest 10% of households will lose 20.5% of their income as a result of the cuts, whereas the richest will lose only 1.6% of theirs. There is a clear Conservative, ideological drive to this poor-punishing budget and it is to the shame of the Liberal Democrats that they have had any part in supporting it.
The argument that the cuts in public sector employees might be a positive thing because it will flood the private sector job market with women who will demand equal pay and flexible working hours does not ring true for me. When I made a noise about the gap between maternity and paternity rights in my private school and those in the state sector, I was roundly ignored by my employers who dared me to take them to a tribunal rather than recognise the inequality of their provision. I, as an articulate, educated and determined women, backed by the majority of my staffroom colleagues, could do nothing to force a change in their provision and I suspect that this will be the case with many other private sector employers. Rather than some radical change in private sector employment culture, basic labour market economics suggests that a market flooded with ex-public sector workers will lead to the private sector entrenching their position and selecting only workers who will not demand such flexibility and equal opportunity provision. That is, if these mythical employers can be found in the first place...
The argument about the existence of legislation that will help these women in their fight to be granted equal opportunities in terms of work hours and culture as well as pay is also hard for me to accept. The Equal Pay Day campaigners drew our attention to the fact recently that just because women can now demand to find out if they are receiving equivalent pay to their male colleagues, this has not in fact led to a closing of the pay gap; it has made us angrier but the gap is still there. Similarly, women have the right to demand consideration of flexible working arrangements from their employers and their employers have the duty to show they have considered such requests but beyond this there is little pressure on employers to change their employment practices or to make life easier for women who want to contribute to society as a carer as well as a tax payer. Legislation, as it stands, is not strong enough; it is whitewash that is emphatically not fit for purpose.
Beyond the issue of the effect of the cuts on public sector workers, many of whom are women, we must also, as feminists, be concerned about the effect of a budget that privileges cuts to public services over rises in taxation. The great trick of the coalition has been their success in making people forget that the deficit we face is not the fault of overspending on the public sector under the Labour party but a result of their decision to bail out the banks during the credit crunch. Their success here has given them enough grace from the public to convince many of us that reigning in public spending is a moral as well as economic necessity. The Fawcett Society’s report eloquently demonstrates the falsity of this argument of necessity and puts forward some serious alternatives that could prevent the terrible cuts that are already being made.
In contradiction to the view that Kelly’s post puts forward, that the Fawcett society are entrenching backward stereotypes, their report actually demonstrates how it is the coalition budget which aims to restore ‘the ‘breadwinner/dependent female carer’ model of relations rather than an egalitarian ‘dual earner/dual carer model’ and I would encourage readers to digest it in full before they make up their mind on its credibility.
The coalition budget will punish the poor and will punish poor women in particular; as such we should back the Fawcett Society and stand in total opposition to it.
First and foremost, I resent the idea that my views are motivated from a purely political perspective. I consider myself a feminist above and beyond my political standing, and which ever party I support will not change my belief that women and men are equal in all ways and should be treated as such.
ReplyDeleteIt must also be noted that which ever government is making public sector cuts would inevitably lead to women being more maligned.
My post was intended to bring to attention the underlying cause of this discrimination, and the wider implications of an unfair society where women are seen as child rearers first and foremost and therefore receipt of “special” attention, of which predominately only the public sector is prepared to work with flexible hours and hold equal pay and equal opportunity in high regard.
Ultimately, to challenge the cuts seems to me to be to shut the stable-door after the horse has bolted. We as feminists should be standing together as women who demand equal pay, who demand flexible working, who demand childcare facilities and above all who demand not to be reduced to second class citizens purely as a result of the ability to reproduce.
The nature of society means that in times of financial hardship, people will resent those who have more money, and processes are in place to make earnings fairer, reduce tax evasion and stop universal benefits for those who wear dresses that cost 36 weeks worth of child benefit cases.
However, I am keen to empathise this runs deeper than politics. Whether you vote blue, red, yellow or purple, it must be recognised that the role of the woman in British Society is still not equal to the male.
I consider Employment Legislation and processes to be inadequate when dealing with discrimination in the workplace, largely because of the allegedly accessible system which proclaims employees can handle their own cases, which in fact usually means they are deprived of sound legal counsel and up against employer counsel who make mincemeat of those who have something to lose by going to Tribunal.
Nor do I necessarily believe all will be solved by public sector cuts. There simply are not the jobs to cope in the private sector, and of course, currently, while employers can, they will select candidates who do not have children, can work 70 hours a week and do not need to run a house.
To me the answer is to improve employment legislation, make a corporate responsibility for the private sector to provide child care, to demand equal pay and to be fined and rendered malpractice for not doing so. The crux of the public sector is money, and every time you do not challenge discrimination, every time you fail to address inequalities, is another saved penny for the firms who get away with effective exploitation and detriment of women.
As a last point, I would strongly disagree that the coalition has implied the deficit was a result of public overspending, and feel that the banking crisis is an ever present representation of the cause of the deficit.
On a personal level, I consider the proposed cuts to the public sector to be too fast, too severe and unlikely to have a significant affect on the deficit in the short or medium term. However, challenging the cuts is unlikely to prevent them, and I feel lobbying and campaigning by the Fawcett society would be better placed to challenge existing equality laws, specifically in employment and education, and invest in a long term strategic solution.
So, we agree on the absolutely central things, that women should be treated as equals and that in our current society this is not the case. I think that means that our main point of separation is whether the Fawcett's response is entrenching or challenging negative stereotypes of women - the title of the post that got us going and my last parag signal this difference. I would be interested to hear what other readers of the Fawcett response to the cuts think?
ReplyDeleteI think that, to move the debate on a little, the next issue we're going to have to consider is how negative a stereotype 'the mother' is. I notice that all the rights we tend to talk about, are about the rights of the woman to work and receive equal treatment at work - i completely agree that these are central issues for us but I'd like to add to that my own desire, which I suspect you also share, that the other half of the problem is about the undervaluing of the carer and the lack of support for the carer who opts out of contributing to society economically but rather does so in more targeted care for others. Another blog post I think, if James ever takes the girls off for another paintbuying mission!