When it comes to election campaigns and gender politics there are only two policy positions, female and gender neutral; and yes, that is just a different way of saying there are no male specific policies, but is that true.
If there were male specific policies you would expect them to be gender positive – I’d like to give you an example but I can’t find one, so I’ll have to use a female positive one; like Labour’s push to move the burden of proof in rape cases, it’s gender positive toward women, negative toward men.
There is something much more subtle going on when it comes to financial policy.
The Ministry of Women’s Affairs is quite open about the fact that its current focus is on putting more money in women’s pockets to ‘supposedly’ bring them up to parity with men, and there is a well-funded policy machine to churn out ‘research’ to achieve this.
Then we have other organisations like the PSA promoting domestic violence leave read that as separation leave, Family Court leave, paid counselling leave, whatever you want to call it, it is both a financial advantage and a position of advantage to women (it will be promoted as gender neutral).
Then you have what would appear to be, simply a financial policy where gender is not relevant, such as the minimum wage, but that’s not the case, because although it is not gender positive toward women it is gender negative toward men.
In the mobilisation of women into the workforce there have been some long term gradual changes, such as the numbers of graduates moving through universities, now internationally many universities are turning out more women graduates than men. We have a similar situation with pay parity, where it has taken effect over time.
Traditionally men have had to demand/fight for better wages and conditions, and we’ve had our share of scraps in New Zealand, but now the working man is expected to rely on the political protection of the minimum wage and wait for those generously gifted increments from the ruling party.
Over time it has the same effect as gender representation in the dole queue, there are considerably more men than women, and with existing policies like the DPB which keep women out of the dole queue, it’s the promotion of women’s work prospects that keep men on or close to the minimum wage.
We are a country that is fast running out of wage relativity, not only within the economy but between genders, and that leaves men unable to afford a relationship, a house, or a family.
When faced with separation and unemployment it is not hard for a man to end up on a reduced dole (because of child support) living on the equivalent of $4.00 an hour.
When you introduce policies such as domestic violence leave into the economy it creates the same disparity in the workforce as we can see in the dole figures.
Minimum wage, while it might be seen as a life saver by many amongst the masses has been one of the biggest con jobs men didn’t see coming.
Great bribe by Labour, two ticks, an extra $2 an hour in your pay packets. Sounds great, but it’s not. It will inflate the economy and disappear as quickly as it came.
I am not saying that because I am anti left wing, or support a right wing alternative. Whose memory isn’t good enough to remember the last time Labour pulled this stunt – and it didn’t win the election?
So what guys really get for their vote is the crumbs, because the cake is in the policy and that’s going to the girls, and no-one is actually providing a much needed wage relativity policy that will protect male workers from the current downward spiral we’re caught up in.
Once again the man in the street is loosing out because he’s too busy working his butt off to exist and not understanding what’s going on.
In the end there is only ever one outcome to ignoring this situation and that is a violent one, and that’s what we’ll get if men don’t start seeing the political representation they are entitled to.