Anti-woman agenda in the budget?

fiona-f

Is this an anti-woman budget? One phrase in the budget speech nearly made me fall off my chair - when the Minister spoke of the childcare allowance, which in practice is used for families where both parents work, he referred to the boom and said that the benefit was "appropriate to the time". By my reading the clear suggestion is that, in times of recession, women should return to the home and rear children.

On a related point, I am absolutely furious this morning reading the Irish Times - in every single one of their examples of how the budget will effect single people / married couples / pensioners / self-employed, etc, in every case the woman either had no job at all or was by far the lower earner compared with the man. I would have thought that in the 21st century, the Irish media was mature enough to recognise that women can and do have well-paid careers, are often the main breadwinner in a relationship and so on. I know that we have gone back to 1980s-style budgets and cutbacks but I was saddened to see we've returned to 1950s mentality as well.

I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts on this.

DrumSteve

chain them to the kithcen sink lol

but seriously this does have an aura of anti-women sentiment about it... however he is a bit right in the maybe the time when both parents could afford to work and pay for childminding fees and the like has gone? (im not agreeing with him)

as for the media... it all depends on who wrote the column.

while women can earn as much as men, in real life (and this is a sad fact) proportionately they dont.

Helix

fiona-f wrote: »

Is this an anti-woman budget? One phrase in the budget speech nearly made me fall off my chair - when the Minister spoke of the childcare allowance, which in practice is used for families where both parents work, he referred to the boom and said that the benefit was "appropriate to the time". By my reading the clear suggestion is that, in times of recession, women should return to the home and rear children.

no, it clearly meant that we could afford it at the time

we can no longer afford it

francish

A lot of men are now staying at home, construction workers for a start.

I hate the whole argument, women are paid less because of discrimination. There are a number of studies which have shown that it is driven by female choices. Women who take the same decisions as men in their career are on the same wage.

Toneranger

Ally Mc****ingBeal observes the budget

Fiona cop on, jesus the country has had the worst budget in history and you want to turn it in to a "Womens" issue. Let me guess you're single!?

So you come under the single banner, get it!?.

Did you want the minister to differentiate between Prada wearing Women and those that shop exclusively at Dunnes? Because it's a woman's choice if she wants to wear Prada, or dumb down, or not, yes he should have put that line into the Budget.

If Women are paid less in any Company for the same job, than it's because they can't negotiate, simple as that, that's not men's fault and jesus I can't believe I'm saying this it's not The Minister for Fiunance or even Fianna Fail.

There's a reason why Columbus and Magellan were men, because they weren't afraid to stick their ****ing neck out, fast forward 500 years and the same trait is used when you're at the closing stages of an interview.

If you wanna have kids and work, good luck to you, if you wanna stay at home stay at home, but the Country is in a financial crisis, and frankly we don't have time for your petty ****.

If you really want to start talking equality in relation to the budget then why did I not get equal Paternity leave when my child was born?
Why am I paying more for Insurance based on my sex?

There are lots of guys who do exactly the same job as me, but if they're getting paid more it's because they stuck their neck out and negotiated, go and learn how to do that and you won't walk around life with a chip on your shoulder, comparing yourself to Men.

The bottom line is it's in the Countries interests to have the other 50% of the population working full time, as in all Nordic countries, as the economy is more independent, stronger and resilient if you have close to 100% of the workforce employed.

brianthebard

Helix wrote: »

no, it clearly meant that we could afford it at the time

we can no longer afford it

The suggestion there being that we could afford to have women working and now we can't? I think the op has a good point that needs to be debated, not denigrated and pooh poohed as some here have done.

Pollythene Pam

It is not a gender issue. It never was a gender issue. There was and is plenty of stay at home DAD'S as well as mother's.
I think what the minister was trying to say was that there is no more money left for private childcare.

karen3212

fiona-f wrote: »

On a related point, I am absolutely furious this morning reading the Irish Times - in every single one of their examples of how the budget will effect single people / married couples / pensioners / self-employed, etc, in every case the woman either had no job at all

I noticed that, but it was on RTE's examples. I thought it was strange given that a lot of men are out of work because a lot seemed to work in construction.

For most couples though, I think women generally earn less. Either because the type of work they choose is generally paid less(for some reason) or because they might have taken time out, or because some employers pay them less because they are sexist.

johnnyskeleton

brianthebard wrote: »

The suggestion there being that we could afford to have women working and now we can't? I think the op has a good point that needs to be debated, not denigrated and pooh poohed as some here have done.

I think Helix is more right than the OP; he meant that during the good times we could afford to help pay for early childcare, but now we cannot. They are replacing a grant which helped pay for private early childcare with a system of public pre-preschooling. The latter will no doubt be worse than the former, but its an area where a relatively painless cut can be made, therefore early childcare suppliment was removed.

In any event, Helix expressed a genuine view of the cuts i.e. that they were to do with money. He/she didn't denigrate or pooh pooh her views. The suggestion being that we could afford to pay childcare assistance and now we can't. Nothing more, nothing less.

brianthebard

I didn't say that helix denigrated or pooh poohed, only that some did. I didn't think it a good idea to name names.

astrofool

If women are working and paying tax, they will more than cover the allowance for childcare, as well as creating employment in the care for the child. Another shortsighted policy (is anyone surprised?).

Heineken Helen

Interesting thread... I wouldn't say the INTENTION was sexist... but it certainly leaves women a bit further behind

Toneranger

Toneranger wrote: »

If Women are paid less in any Company for the same job, than it's because they can't negotiate, simple as that, that's not men's fault and jesus I can't believe I'm saying this it's not The Minister for Fiunance or even Fianna Fail.


There are lots of guys who do exactly the same job as me, but if they're getting paid more it's because they stuck their neck out and negotiated, go and learn how to do that and you won't walk around life with a chip on your shoulder, comparing yourself to Men.

Fiona claims that women are paid the same as men these days and that irishtimes are at fault for not noticing this and giving outofdate examples. Basically, what you just wrote there has almost nothing to do with anything she said - it almost agrees with her.
Perhaps you should learn to read a post properly before going off on a completely irrelevant, ill thought out rant.

mcwhirter

fiona-f wrote: »

Is this an anti-woman budget? One phrase in the budget speech nearly made me fall off my chair - when the Minister spoke of the childcare allowance, which in practice is used for families where both parents work, he referred to the boom and said that the benefit was "appropriate to the time". By my reading the clear suggestion is that, in times of recession, women should return to the home and rear children.

On a related point, I am absolutely furious this morning reading the Irish Times - in every single one of their examples of how the budget will effect single people / married couples / pensioners / self-employed, etc, in every case the woman either had no job at all or was by far the lower earner compared with the man. I would have thought that in the 21st century, the Irish media was mature enough to recognise that women can and do have well-paid careers, are often the main breadwinner in a relationship and so on. I know that we have gone back to 1980s-style budgets and cutbacks but I was saddened to see we've returned to 1950s mentality as well.

I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts on this.

A few women friends I know think they have taxed it this way so women will stop working as it is possibly not worth it after losing child benefit supplements/means testing so that all the jobs the women were doing could now go to all the men on the dole.
Can you imagine a woman in charge of this country, sadly I cannot see it happening in my lifetime. If there was maybe it would be Irelands Obama moment.

Ludo

fiona-f wrote: »

Is this an anti-woman budget? One phrase in the budget speech nearly made me fall off my chair - when the Minister spoke of the childcare allowance, which in practice is used for families where both parents work, he referred to the boom and said that the benefit was "appropriate to the time". By my reading the clear suggestion is that, in times of recession, women should return to the home and rear children.

Why anti-WOMAN? Some men are stay at home dads now and more will be in the near future.

It is anti-FAMILY...not just anti-woman.

ntlbell

Ludo wrote: »

Why anti-WOMAN? Some men are stay at home dads now and more will be in the near future.

It is anti-FAMILY...not just anti-woman.

Correct Jim, Correct.

TheQueen

Absolutely not, it was an anti-everyone budget.

ntlbell

TheQueen wrote: »

Absolutely not, it was an anti-everyone budget.

I think that was the general idea.

although if your single on avg ind wage don't own a home you didn't do too badly.

Firetrap

Well, it's not as if things weren't anti-family before. The cost of buying a house and paying the ensuing massive mortgage has meant that in many families, both parents have to work.

TheQueen

Firetrap wrote: »

Well, it's not as if things weren't anti-family before. The cost of buying a house and paying the ensuing massive mortgage has meant that in many families, both parents have to work.

This government has been the most family friendly in history. When you consider the increases in maternity benefit, the huge increases in childrens allowance and the three years we have had of ECS, no other government in Irish history in my recollection has been as friendly to families.

Macha

TheQueen wrote: »

This government has been the most family friendly in history. When you consider the increases in maternity benefit, the huge increases in childrens allowance and the three years we have had of ECS, no other government in Irish history in my recollection has been as friendly to families.

I wouldn't give them the credit of assuming it was part of a pre-conceived plan to be pro-family.

Basically, FF blew the windfall property taxes on paying off the public sector and raising social welfare payments (partly, admittedly, to keep up with inflation) in order to keep everyone happy.

fiona-f

Sorry, only getting back to this thread now; I haven't been online in a while. Thanks for your replies, it's been interesting

Toneranger wrote: »

Ally Mc****ingBeal observes the budget

Fiona cop on, jesus the country has had the worst budget in history and you want to turn it in to a "Womens" issue. Let me guess you're single!?

So you come under the single banner, get it!?.

Did you want the minister to differentiate between Prada wearing Women and those that shop exclusively at Dunnes? Because it's a woman's choice if she wants to wear Prada, or dumb down, or not, yes he should have put that line into the Budget.
...
If you wanna have kids and work, good luck to you, if you wanna stay at home stay at home, but the Country is in a financial crisis, and frankly we don't have time for your petty ****.

If you really want to start talking equality in relation to the budget then why did I not get equal Paternity leave when my child was born?
Why am I paying more for Insurance based on my sex?...

The bottom line is it's in the Countries interests to have the other 50% of the population working full time, as in all Nordic countries, as the economy is more independent, stronger and resilient if you have close to 100% of the workforce employed.

I have to say I was fairly surprised at this response. I have no idea what my personal circumstances have to do with it (for the record I'm married with no children - considering maybe trying to have a family at some undefined point in the future but why is that relevant?) and I certainly don't know where the personal abuse comes into it but hey, I'm relatively new here, maybe this is the house style?

I have no idea what you are talking about in the Dunnes/Prada section, could you clarify please? In any case, I absolutely agree with you on issues of discrimination against men, like paternity leave and I would be happy to support you in principle on those; would you care to share your proposals? Equally, I am sensitive to issues that threaten the equality of women in society. I think it is dangerous and insidious to suggest that equality issues are "my petty **** " that are all well and good in the boom times but that must be discarded at the first sign of recession. You could say the same about human rights, about education, about healthcare, about support for elderly people - where do you stop? I genuinely do not believe that equality is a luxury that we should only enjoy when we are wealth and am interested in hearing what other people think about this.

Ludo wrote: »

Why anti-WOMAN? Some men are stay at home dads now and more will be in the near future.

It is anti-FAMILY...not just anti-woman.

francish wrote: »

A lot of men are now staying at home, construction workers for a start.

I hate the whole argument, women are paid less because of discrimination. There are a number of studies which have shown that it is driven by female choices. Women who take the same decisions as men in their career are on the same wage.

As I said above, point taken, perhaps I should have phrased it more anti-family than anti-woman in some respects. However, I believe it remains an anti-woman agenda overall; there is an undercurrent of anti-woman economic theory being whispered in Ireland at the moment, I think Lenihan's speech strongly smacked of dog-whistle politics, letting people feel justified in thinking that women should give up their jobs and stay at home. And it made me feel deeply uncomfortable that this should go by unchallenged, so hence my own little challenge to it here!

On the pay disparity issue, my husband and I are both in our early thirties, both graduated from university in the same year, both have worked in a (or a series of) graduate jobs since then and I earn about 30% more than he does. This is not unusual in my social circle; I know many couples in broadly similar situations and so it saddened and angered me to see that the Irish media absolutely failed to contemplate even one hypothetical scenario out of half-a-dozen where the woman was not in a position of economic weakness compared with her male partner. In the greater scheme of things, it's may not seem a huge deal, nobody died but symbols are important and this kind of stereotyping should be challenged. Women have made huge gains towards equality but constant vigilence is required to ensure that our rights are not eroded under an economic pretext, or indeed any other.

fiona-f

Sorry, only getting back to this thread now; I haven't been online in a while. Thanks for your replies, it's been interesting

Toneranger wrote: »

Ally Mc****ingBeal observes the budget

Fiona cop on, jesus the country has had the worst budget in history and you want to turn it in to a "Womens" issue. Let me guess you're single!?

So you come under the single banner, get it!?.

Did you want the minister to differentiate between Prada wearing Women and those that shop exclusively at Dunnes? Because it's a woman's choice if she wants to wear Prada, or dumb down, or not, yes he should have put that line into the Budget.
...
If you wanna have kids and work, good luck to you, if you wanna stay at home stay at home, but the Country is in a financial crisis, and frankly we don't have time for your petty ****.

If you really want to start talking equality in relation to the budget then why did I not get equal Paternity leave when my child was born?
Why am I paying more for Insurance based on my sex?...

The bottom line is it's in the Countries interests to have the other 50% of the population working full time, as in all Nordic countries, as the economy is more independent, stronger and resilient if you have close to 100% of the workforce employed.

I have to say I was fairly surprised at this response. I have no idea what my personal circumstances have to do with it (for the record I'm married with no children - considering maybe trying to have a family at some undefined point in the future but why is that relevant?) and I certainly don't know where the personal abuse comes into it but hey, I'm relatively new here, maybe this is the house style?

I have no idea what you are talking about in the Dunnes/Prada section, could you clarify please?

In any case, I absolutely agree with you on issues of discrimination against men, like paternity leave and I would be happy to support you in principle on those; would you care to share your proposals? Equally, I am sensitive to issues that threaten the equality of women in society. I think it is dangerous and insidious to suggest that equality issues are "my petty **** " that are all well and good in the boom times but that must be discarded at the first sign of recession. You could say the same about human rights, about education, about healthcare, about support for elderly people - where do you stop? I genuinely do not believe that equality is a luxury that we should only enjoy when we are wealth and am interested in hearing what other people think about this.

Ludo wrote: »

Why anti-WOMAN? Some men are stay at home dads now and more will be in the near future.

It is anti-FAMILY...not just anti-woman.

francish wrote: »

A lot of men are now staying at home, construction workers for a start.

I hate the whole argument, women are paid less because of discrimination. There are a number of studies which have shown that it is driven by female choices. Women who take the same decisions as men in their career are on the same wage.

As I said above, point taken, perhaps I should have phrased it more anti-family than anti-woman in some respects. However, I believe it remains an anti-woman agenda overall; there is an undercurrent of anti-woman economic theory being whispered in Ireland at the moment, I think Lenihan's speech strongly smacked of dog-whistle politics, letting people feel justified in thinking that women should give up their jobs and stay at home. And it made me feel deeply uncomfortable that this should go by unchallenged, so hence my own little challenge to it here!

On the pay disparity issue, my husband and I are both in our early thirties, both graduated from university in the same year, both have worked in a (or a series of) graduate jobs since then and I earn about 30% more than he does. This is not unusual in my social circle; I know many couples in broadly similar situations and so it saddened and angered me to see that the Irish media absolutely failed to contemplate even one hypothetical scenario out of half-a-dozen where the woman was not in a position of economic weakness compared with her male partner. In the greater scheme of things, it's may not seem a huge deal, nobody died but symbols are important and this kind of stereotyping should be challenged. Women have made huge gains towards equality but constant vigilence is required to ensure that our rights are not eroded under an economic pretext, or indeed any other.

sunnyside

Yes lots of women earn more but they are usually women like you and me fiona who don't have children. I think a lot of mothers choose to work part time so for that reason they would earn less.

I think it was a bit anti mothers rather than anti women as not all women are mothers.

hallelujajordan

The budget was anti-family, not anti-women . . . . For a lot of families the affordability difference between the second parent working or not working was marginal based on the huge cost of childcare . . . this budget has reduced that margin further and for some families it may no longer make financial sense to have both parents working . . there are some who may say that this was deliberate on the part of the government who may believe that the economy cannot support 2-working-parent families.

However it is not specifically anti-women and it is wrong to bring the equality agenda into it. . it is simply a fact that in most families the father is more likely to be working and earning more than the mother . . it is also a fact that if 1 parent is going to give up work it is more likely to be the mother. These facts are the result of choices that we make and are not down to government policy.

And its ok for RTE to report using examples that are most likely based on the real life realities . . I hate political correctness just for the sake of it !

gurramok

Well, out of 370 odd thousand out of work, 250,000 are men and 120,000 are women.

Do we need more men at work or women? Interesting

the_syco

Women who don't take 9 month career breaks will often earn the same as their male counterparts. Some women seem surprised that they earn less after they come back from maternity leave. You leave any job for 9 months, and it'll effect your job prospects.