http://www.emgonline.co.uk/news.php?news=3950

Harriet Harman, Minister for Women and Equality, will today urge women to make sure that they know what extra support is available to them through the downturn, as well as what their employment rights are, as she launches a new booklet ‘Real help now for women’ at an event at No11 Downing Street.

This comes as new research shows that eight out of ten women are concerned about the impact of the downturn on family life, and more than a third of women reported that the downturn had already reduced the quality of their family life.

The booklet outlines practical advice on everything from where to go for support if they lose their job, help with looking after children, information on skills and training, as well as advice on staying secure and well.

Ms Harman said:
“The global economic downturn affects both men and women – but it affects them in different ways, because women still do the lion’s share of caring for children and elderly relatives; most women are still the “managers of the family;” women have different patterns of work from men – are more likely to work part time; and because women still suffer pay discrimination at work.

“What hasn’t changed since the last recession is that women are still the main family carers. But what has changed is that women’s work is even more important than it was 10 years ago: more important to the household budget; more important to women themselves; and more important to every sector of the economy.

“We want to reassure women that not only are we taking all the action that we can to stabilise the economy and put it on a strong footing for the future – but that there is real help now for families that get into difficulty.

“And we want women’s voices to be heard in the run up to the London Summit through a big discussion about women and the global economic downturn.”

Today’s event at Downing Street is an interactive session with Ministers, charities, unions, business women, and working mothers to engage women in the debate and help identify how women are being affected by the recession, and how best to build a strong and fair economy in the future.

The event and the new booklet are part of a range of activities to engage women and look at how they are being affected differently to men during the global economic downturn, and will help ensure women’s voices are heard in the run up to the London Summit of world leaders on 2 April 2009.

Last month Ms Harman started an online conversation with women on mumsnet.com and other websites, and commissioned research by Ipsos-MORI looking at attitudes to and concerns about the global economic downturn. The research revealed a distinct trend of women being more worried than men about how the downturn will affect:

¬ Ability to pay the bills;
¬ Children’s job prospects;
¬ Their own job security, as well as other family member’s job security;
¬ Quality of family life;
¬ Personal finances.
To support women during the global economic downturn, and prepare them for the future, the Government is providing:
¬ New training for women and men who have been out of work for six months;
¬ £15million worth of skills development and support for women;
¬ Help with mortgages;
¬ Tax cuts and tax credits;
¬ Extending the right to request flexible working;
¬ Funding 35,000 more apprentices, amongst other things.

On Thursday 5th March there will be a debate in the House of Commons to mark International Woman’s Day on supporting women and families through the downturn, and building a strong and fair economy for the future.

The Real Help Now for Women booklet is available from www.realhelpnow.gov.uk, which is a new website bringing together details of all of the help available for families and businesses.

An opinion poll commissioned by Harriet Harman, the Equalities minister, shows that women are more likely than men to fear that their personal economic circumstances will worsen in the months ahead.
Ms Harman published the poll to highlight a new Government campaign, "Real help for women now,"

This is unreal...let me twist that a bit:

An opinion poll commissioned by Feckless, the bustsize minister, shows that women are more likely than men to fear that their breastsize is too small
Feckless published the poll to highlight a new Government campaign, "Bigger breasts for all women"

I mean a campaign because of fear? Allthough the recession hits men harder? Does anyone even doubt that the equality minister has an anti-male agenda?

An opinion poll commissioned by Harriet Harman, the Equalities minister

This poll, or anything authorised with the tainted claw of Harman, has as much validity as one conducted by Zimbabwian president Robert Mugabe, who potentially presided over any position pertaining to 'equality.'

Am I exaggerating? Given her proliferation of anti-male laws enacted into the British legislature which continues unabated, my diagnosis might prove to be rather conservative given the passage of time.

Ms Harman published the poll to highlight a new Government campaign, "Real help for women now," to highlight the benefits and other state aid available to women hit by the downturn.

This dipshit isolationist mentality by Harman reminds me of feminisms gender apartheid approach to AIDS. Radical feminists are so consumed with loathing and hatred for men, that, rather than attack the problem as a whole (how it affects both men and women) to bring about an 'inclusive' and more potent solution - they'd prefer to go down the destructive route of segregational problem solving (which in itself is a self-perpetuated nonsensical quandary).

No definitive resolution to any problem can be resolved by just approaching half the problem. This current economic downturn needs a determined collective solution if we are even going to begin staving off the ravages of mass economic hardship. Rigid adherence to ideological formulas is a recipe for disaster!

Feminists like Harman, so stuck in her warped socialist groove, merely reinforces her inability to see what's best for everybody, and instead, begins to more resemble a crazy bag woman inanely bleating the incomprehension of intolerance towards others, apart from her own kind. She's clearly unfit to officiate over any kind of decision that affects men, given the systemic state sponsored prejudice of men that routinely passes off as democracy in the UK.

Women's personal finances have also been harder hit. Some 59 per cent of women said they cannot afford to save now. Among men, the figure was 49 per cent.

Is it any suprise when women account for more than 70+% of consumer spending. Here's an idea for women to increase saving. Reduce or cease needless spending. Secondly, increase work hours, or get a job in the first place. Also, a successful equation can be adopted. More work hours+less spending=more money saved. Got it?

And women are more pessimistic. Only 19 per cent said their personal finances would improve over the next 12 months. Some 27 per cent of men said they were optimistic.

They use this as reason to specifically target women for help, yet, reverse the scenario and it would be a "look at how the strength of women can get us out of this economic rut."

Ms Harman said: "What hasn't changed since the last recession is that women are still the main family carers.

And men are still the primary breadwinners. And? Any social engineering with this dynamic is subject to 'cause and effect' of course.

Meanwhile, the Tories criticised the Government's record on equality after European Commission figures showed that the pay gap between men and women in the UK is amongst the highest in Europe

Amazing, they manage to manoeuvre the "pay gap myth" into just about every platform of opportunity possible. European Commission figures? Corrupted data from a biased source.

British men earn 21 per cent more than women in the UK, based on the average difference between gross hourly earnings. The European Union average is 17.4 per cent. In Italy, the gap is 4.4 per cent.

I've mentioned the decidedly questionable data provided by the European commission. But I wonder what accounts for the disparity between the laughably debunked British figure of 21 per cent, and Italy at just 4.4 per cent?

Stupid..

Women account for 70% of spending yet at the same time earn 70% of cash?

That in itself shows just how succesful they are in getting everyone else to hand then them their hard earned! (and why they bust the banks!)

And, womens work, so heavily subbed and based in the public sector anyway, is going to be the LEAST affected by the turn down anyway!

Seems that the femistate is intent on ensuring that ONE gender has immunity to taking the shit, and the other gets to pay for it all..

Not that this is not already very clear to see..

But, hounds like harmen are just the sort of animals to give men a seriously counter-productive feeling of disdain towards women..

Her pandering to women will have the same effect as that which prison officers note when they start to treat one particular inmate with prefferntial treatment..

The standard method used by prison officers to get an annoying inmate "sorted" is to give him prefferential treatment..

Pretty soon, they find him with a sore arse and broken bones..

Harman will be reaping a harvest of misogyny if she carries on in this way..

Sounds like what she wanted to do was release a public service message ONLY for and to help women and used this study to make it appear less biased.

British men earn 21 per cent more than women in the UK, based on the average difference between gross hourly earnings. The European Union average is 17.4 per cent. In Italy, the gap is 4.4 per cent.

Theresa May, the Shadow Minister for Women, said: "These figures show that despite all Harriet Harman's claims about the Labour Government being female friendly they have failed to address this most basic problem."

We're all clever enough to know that those figures come about collectively, and not on a job-by-job, person-by-person basis, which would be a more fair way of doing it, and we're all well aware that these figures come about purely because of women's individual choices (which I thought feminists were for, not against), not because of discrimination,
BUT,
what's good is, you have the shadow Minister For Women bringing her to question on her own altered statistics which she has quoted on many occasions as being justification for women getting preferential treatment.

Can I recommend a thread being started specifically to point out what exactly Harriet Harman has done to benefit women ever since becoming Minister For Women, and what she's done for equality since becoming Minister For Equality?
I would wager that the only thing she's done for women, is convince them that they're victims every couple of weeks, so that women think they need her, to keep her in a job, much like a therapist who tells you that you have problems, therefore you need to keep seeing them.
I honestly cannot think of a single thing she's done for women, maybe if enough of us point this out, people will make her work a bit more, and eventually bring all her bullshit into the cold light of day for everyone to tear apart.

all these feminazis have done for women as far as I can see is to enable them to hang themselves on the rope they have been given..

If the state is so busy looking after women, it means us men don't have to give a shit about them in our private lives..

So, its rather a home goal aint it?

"Honey, I am short of cash, I NEED to buy..."

"fuck off, go and ask your friends the feminazi state to bring some legislation in for you, it aint my concern!! Now here is the number for the DV refuse dump, off you fuck!!"

I think I’ve composed myself now to make some form of comprehensible rant:
Harriet Harman is..... No gone again

Though the issue raised of "of segregation problem solving" and "gender apartheid" gave me images’ of a famous scene from history, but instead of Rosa Parks being asked to give her seat up and go to the back of the bus with the rest of the people of African American heritage (I think they used another description), its some bloke being told to give it up for the likes of Harman because he’s privileged and who’s presence makes all the ladies uncomfortable.
barry

In Harriet's sphere of influence, how come ONE "providers" salary, from a 40 hour work week, won't support a "household"?

I take it that the UK is a quasi feminit totalitarian state a we speak

educated cattle ticks might be concerned with skinny cattle

and don't feminit wimyns studies come up with presumed conclusions - " gee us wimyn are doing it tough"

Women's worries. Women's concerns. Women's fears.

What kind of insanity is it to base economic policies on such ridiculous and unstable grounds? Particularly of course when one of the main planks of Hateman's odious political ideology is to increase women's fears by constantly painting them as victims of brutal male misogyny and prejudice.

You can see the feminist plan at work, can't you? It is as transparent as it is evil. Women are always victims. Men are always perpetrators. Women have every reason to live in constant fear of what those horrible men might - will - do to them. Men make all the mistakes, and women do all the suffering for them. So to hell with men, let's focus on the people who really need help: those who possess the blessed vagina. Men won't help them; they are the enemy. So only the caring state can protect women and fight for their interests. The state needs its power to be bolstered in order to help those heroic, embattled females. So more power to the state, and the women within it.

This is Hateman's deeply held belief, and now she has the power to put it into action, she is not wasting a moment. She knows her time is short; at the next election, she and her cronies will be out on their ears. So the race is on to stampede as much misandric legislation onto the statute book, and to stir up as much antagonism between the sexes, as possible.

Just watch the horror unfold.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article5854361.ece



Men who fear redundancy more likely than women to become depressed



Rosemary Bennett, Social Affairs Correspondent


div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited {color:#06c;}Men who fear redundancy are far more likely than women to become depressed and suffer from anxiety, according to research on the credit crunch.
The study, by academics at the University of Cambridge, also found that job insecurity, rather than redundancy itself, took a far greater toll of the mental health of both men and women.
Brendan Burchell, of the university’s sociology department, used data gathered during the last two recessions, and case studies in which companies were taken over by competitors, making job cuts inevitable.
Though men put on a brave face in times of uncertainty, they recorded higher measures than women of depression and anxiety on the standard clinical measure, which records symptoms such as insomnia, poor concentration and unexplained sadness. Dr Burchell said that there was in part “a macho issue about men being the breadwinner”.






In reality, however, the downturn appears to be having a worse impact on women than men. Unemployment statistics show that the number of women in full-time work fell by 53,000 in the last quarter compared with a drop of 36,000 for men.







COMMENTS



More wasted money on research! It has long been known that men don't deal with stress so well because they don't have the same support networks as women and tend to bottle it up. Plus even nowadays, men are more likely to be the main breadwinner. The findings are hardly rocket science.

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2009030601

Men hit harder by credit crunch stress

6 March 2009


Men who think they may lose their jobs are likely to become more depressed and anxious than women, even though they claim to be less concerned, new research shows.

Findings to be presented at a University of Cambridge conference suggest that as the economic slowdown wears on, the effects of job insecurity will take a greater toll on men's health than that of their female counterparts.
Poll results released earlier this year indicated that women say that they are worried about the possibility of losing their jobs more than men. That poll, and the fact that there has been a sharper decline in women's jobs than men's, prompted speculation that women would be the main victims of the credit crunch recession.
The new study, however, reveals that while men may put on a braver face, job insecurity causes more symptoms of anxiety and depression in men than in women.
The research, by Dr Brendan Burchell from the University of Cambridge's Department of Sociology, also suggests that the long-term decline in mental well-being can be worse for people who are under threat of losing their jobs than for those who are actually made redundant.
The results will be discussed at a seminar today (Friday, March 6th), entitled "The Credit Crunch: Gender Equality in Hard Times". The event, in Cambridge, has been organised by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Gender Equality Network as part of the ESRC Festival of Social Science.
Dr Burchell is currently analysing the results of a study of more than 300 UK employees as well as data from the British Household Panel Survey, an ESRC-funded survey of thousands of people which has been charting the effects of social and economic change since 1991.
Both projects use standard clinical measures (called the "GHQ 12") which pick up symptoms of stress and anxiety. This enabled Dr Burchell to carry out the first ever study on a representative sample of how job insecurity is linked to changes in psychological welfare over time.
The study revealed that while men claim to be less concerned about job insecurity than women, they show more signs of being stressed, anxious and depressed. For example, when unemployed men move into insecure jobs, they show no improvement in their psychological health. But for unemployed women, even insecure jobs restore their psychological health.
"In part there is a macho issue about men being the breadwinner," Dr Burchell said. "Men, unlike women, have few positive ways of defining themselves outside of the workplace between when they leave school and when they retire. Despite several decades of more equal employment opportunities for men and women, men retain traditional beliefs that their masculinity is threatened if their employment is threatened."
The presentation will stress the need not just to restabilise the City, but to reduce the suffering of both men and women as the recession wears on for the sake of public health and cohesiveness.
Dr Burchell found that the stress and anxiety of people who had become unemployed "bottomed out" after about six months as they adapted to their new circumstances. By contrast, people who had not lost their jobs but were worried about doing so displayed steadily worsening mental health for one to two years.
This suggests that particular attention should be paid to the psychological well-being of workers as the recession drags on. The "social ills" resulting from greater stress and anxiety are likely to be worse in a year's time than they are now, Dr Burchell will argue.
"Given that most economic forecasts predict that the recession will be long with a slow recovery, the results mean that many people - and men in particular - could be entering into a period of prolonged and growing misery," he added.
"People seem not to be able to develop coping mechanisms for job insecurity as they do for unemployment. This means that people who have been in an insecure job for over a year continue to show a decline in their mental health."