The implication of this is

Economists are calling on the government to produce a “Plan F” to tackle the disproportionate burden being placed on women by spending cuts. Female-friendly tax and welfare policies are desperately needed to redress the balance, say experts from the independent Women’s Budget Group (WBG), who have produced a report looking at the impact of austerity policies on different types of family groups in England.

It finds that women, particularly single parents and single pensioners, have lost much more than men from cuts to benefits and public services imposed by the government since it came to power in May 2010.

That before May 2010 the welfare system disproportionately favoured women.

Rectifying this misandrist sexism is wrong because?

3 thoughts on “The implication of this is”

  1. Rectifying this misandrist sexism is wrong because?

    Because most women are organised as a group and vote as a block. While most men have stubbornly romantic and old fashioned views about ladies – you know, laying down the cloak and all that – which means they enjoy being victimised.

    So this will annoy the vast majority of women who see it as a threat to their right to hit men for any bill they like, and many men who see their job as protecting the frail weaker sex.

  2. Such PC welfarism (also the way rate support grants always swing to Labour constituencies under labour governments) is only supposed to ratchet one way. Anything else is “prejudice”

  3. “the disproportionate burden being placed on women by spending cuts”

    What is disproportionate about it? I suspect the burden/cuts are proportionate to the amount of benefits they receive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *