Was the spending review sexist?

This week I read the Fawcett society’s comments about the spending review with interest. I think it’s important to look at issues such as this from all sorts of perspectives, including a feminist one. But ultimately I found their arguments against the spending review and its impact on equality unconvincing. Their response states that

“The cuts are so deep and will hit women so hard that they risk more than women’s financial security – they threaten hard fought progress we’ve made on women’s equality. The Chancellor’s plans undermine the status of women as equal partners with men in the world of work, home and society as a whole”.

Their justification for this statement is, in part, that 65% of public sector workers are women, and more women than men work in the lower grade jobs which they assert are more likely to be hit. Whilst I am not sure where they have got their evidence for this assertion, there is a more fundamental problem I have with this statement.

The argument seems to go along these lines- more women than men work in the public sector, especially in low paid jobs- we want women to have equal job opportunities- therefore these jobs should not be cut. It seems to me that this is rather flawed analysis. What we should be asking is why do more women work in the public sector, and why are there more women in lower paid jobs? Then we need to take action to find ways for women to have equal ability to get jobs in all sectors, and at all levels.

In other words, a feminist campaign should, in my view, be about ensuring that women have equal opportunities alongside men in all aspects of life- and this means building resilience to the bad times as well as taking opportunities in the good. The Fawcett society’s statistics about the over-representation of women in public sector jobs highlights how far from equality we really are- it’s not spending cuts that cause inequality, but inequality that means that women and men may feel the impact of cuts differently. As a feminist, I do not want to be in a position where I argue for the maintenance of low paid jobs for women- I want to be in a position to argue that women should be equally represented in all employment types and levels.

The problem they are describing is not a reason to maintain high levels of public spending if this is not the right thing for the economy. A poor economy is going to hit everyone badly. The important factor here is not that public sector spending cuts cause inequality, but that inequality means that men and women are not in an equal position to respond to those cuts, and more needs to be done to improve equality.

As an aside- I am really pleased that currently all the top jobs at Hull City Council are held by women. Proof that women can get to the top given half a chance.