The Elephant in The Room: Labour's Male Problem

[random260]

Labour dont fight for men anymore the majority of the workforce (may change to be equal but still the majority). Look at what labour proposes

More education funding---> majority female dominated field
More healthcare funding ----> majority female dominated field

Renewable energy funding--> a slight majority female (full of environmentalist)
Science --> male although shifting rapidly
Hospitality ---> female field

Do labour even support construction any more? Only support comes from unions who are increasingly losing support since the 1900s

Liberals

Oil and gas funding ---> male dominated field
Mining funding ---> male dominated field

Construction/trades funding ---> male field (this what LNP is slowly tapping into)
Mental health funding ---> female

So while LNP have a women problem labour has a men problem. I mean when you push education and healthcare and climate funding as a priority your are backhanding males.

 

[Fire]

Women dominate health care? You got any numbers on that?

Also what are the liberals doing to support construction/trades? They aren't exactly known for building infrastructure.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Women dominate health care? You got any numbers on that?

Also what are the liberals doing to support construction/trades? They aren't exactly known for building infrastructure.

This is from the ABS

 

[random260]

Women dominate health care? You got any numbers on that?

Also what are the liberals doing to support construction/trades? They aren't exactly known for building infrastructure.

Nurses, Enrolled nurses, delivery nurses and receptionist (10 nurses to 3 doctors). There is also a huge push for female GP. https://www.truthaboutnursing.org/faq/rn_facts.html#gsc.tab=0

Glady infrastructure, Scomo push on manufacturing in Australia, apprentice funding, renovation grant and recent infrastructure funding (roads). There is a shift. Sure state labour may still be infrastructure but with federal labour (shorten) and labour supporters. It is always funding for

1) Education
2) Health
3) Climate Change

 

[Fire]

This is from the ABS
View attachment 1019822

Thanks for taking the time to source and post that; but 'healthcare and social assistance' isn't useful. I dont think anyone would be surprised that 'social assistance' would be dominated by women.

But what of healthcare?

 

[Frank Bunn]

This is from the ABS
View attachment 1019822

The Victorian government justified measures aimed solely at women because "Female-dominated industries, such as retail, hospitality and the arts, were hit the hardest by the pandemic". From your graphic, retail and hospitality shows a small bias towards women, whereas the arts (and recreation) has more men.

Somehow women being "on the front line of essential service delivery in health and education" was also used to justify the measures.

For this reason, of the $250 million for the job-creation scheme, $150 million will go towards getting 6000 women back to work. Of this money, $50 million will go towards funding jobs for those aged over 45.​

​

A $10 million fund will be created to invest in startups run by women, in recognition of the tech industry's male domination, and there will be $5 million for a Women in Construction program to fund more space for females in the building industry.​

Female wage subsidy and tax credits key to plan for creating new jobs

The Victorian government has set aside $619 million to get Victorians back into jobs, including $50 million aimed at helping women aged over 45 find employment.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Renewable energy funding--> a slight majority female (full of environmentalist)

I'll believe it when I see hard statistics in support, instead of idle speculation.

Education and healthcare are going to cover the bulk of future job growth, so if men have such an issue with funding towards those areas, perhaps they should retrain so they can also benefit from the opportunities.

 

[random260]

I'll believe it when I see hard statistics in support, instead of idle speculation.

Education and healthcare are going to cover the bulk of future job growth, so if men have such an issue with funding towards those areas, perhaps they should retrain so they can also benefit from the opportunities.

Or maybe we can fund areas where men are working which labour isn't advocating.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Or maybe we can fund areas where men are working which labour isn't advocating.

So you want to redistribute investment from the productive parts of the economy to the less productive parts, based on some meritless myth that men are discriminated against. Really it just sounds like you're starting a pity party on behalf of all men.

 

[hamohawk1]

How is it 2020, and the 2nd major political party still can't be correctly listed.

It's Labor ffs.

 

[Nickoo]

Women dominate health care? You got any numbers on that?

Also what are the liberals doing to support construction/trades? They aren't exactly known for building infrastructure.

Huh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Frank Bunn]

I'll believe it when I see hard statistics in support, instead of idle speculation.

Education and healthcare are going to cover the bulk of future job growth, so if men have such an issue with funding towards those areas, perhaps they should retrain so they can also benefit from the opportunities.

So when women are under-represented in a certain sector it's because of "structural bias" and that

"The pandemic has confirmed what we knew all along – women face an uphill battle every day in the workforce. It's time it changed."​

To redress this so called discrimination, jobs for females in male dominated sectors, should be subsidised by government.

But when men are under-represented in a sector, it's their own fault for not re-training at their own expense.

Righto.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

So when women are under-represented in a certain sector it's because of "structural bias" and that

"The pandemic has confirmed what we knew all along – women face an uphill battle every day in the workforce. It's time it changed."​

To redress this so called discrimination, jobs for females in male dominated sectors, should be subsidised by government.

But when men are under-represented in a sector, it's their own fault for not re-training at their own expense.

Righto.

Did a women take your job?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

So when women are under-represented in a certain sector it's because of "structural bias" and that

"The pandemic has confirmed what we knew all along – women face an uphill battle every day in the workforce. It's time it changed."​

Who are you quoting?

To redress this so called discrimination, jobs for females in male dominated sectors, should be subsidised by government.

I never said that.

But when men are under-represented in a sector, it's their own fault for not re-training at their own expense.

Righto.

As it happens, I generally don't favour programs that are intended to lift the participation of women in certain sectors. But I do understand that they may have issues breaking into some of those sectors due to the amount of sexism and objectification that they endure in some workplaces. Do men face such psychological barriers to entry in education or healthcare? Because I can tell you I know several men in both sectors who didn't hesitate before pursuing the career they wanted even though there was a female worker majority.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

OP should have looked up the average salaries in oil & gas, mining and construction before starting this thread IMO

 

[Frank Bunn]

Who are you quoting?

Victorian Minister for Women Gabrielle Williams, in the Age article I linked to above.

As it happens, I generally don't favour programs that are intended to lift the participation of women in certain sectors. But I do understand that they may have issues breaking into some of those sectors due to the amount of sexism and objectification that they endure in some workplaces. Do men face such psychological barriers to entry in education or healthcare? Because I can tell you I know several men in both sectors who didn't hesitate before pursuing the career they wanted even though there was a female worker majority.

Or maybe many women don't go into mining, construction, truck driving because they are not inclined to do those jobs.

Of course some men go into education or healthcare roles but there's no government programs and funding encouraging them to redress the gender balance. I'm not saying there should be. But the funding aimed solely at women finding jobs is not justified by recent events. Many jobs traditionally performed by men have disappeared such as manufacturing, and IT (outsourced overseas).

 

[Engimal v3]

Only a Liberal voter could spin funding education and healthcare as a bad thing lol

 

[Caesar]

The Victorian government justified measures aimed solely at women because "Female-dominated industries, such as retail, hospitality and the arts, were hit the hardest by the pandemic". From your graphic, retail and hospitality shows a small bias towards women, whereas the arts (and recreation) has more men.

Somehow women being "on the front line of essential service delivery in health and education" was also used to justify the measures.

For this reason, of the $250 million for the job-creation scheme, $150 million will go towards getting 6000 women back to work. Of this money, $50 million will go towards funding jobs for those aged over 45.​

​

A $10 million fund will be created to invest in startups run by women, in recognition of the tech industry's male domination, and there will be $5 million for a Women in Construction program to fund more space for females in the building industry.​

Female wage subsidy and tax credits key to plan for creating new jobs

The Victorian government has set aside $619 million to get Victorians back into jobs, including $50 million aimed at helping women aged over 45 find employment.

www.theage.com.au

Jobs strategies tend to target women because they are one of the biggest untapped workforce resources going around. As a demographic they have higher levels of educational attainment than men, but they have much lower levels of workforce participation and a much higher rate of part-time work.

Finding ways to keep women in the workforce, encourage those that have left to return, or enable women to work more hours is an easy, cheap and fast way to boost workforce capacity. It also helps the government get better value for the money they've already spent on education.

If at some stage the numbers flip, I would expect similar strategies to be targeted at men. Governments love going after low-hanging fruit.

 

[Pessimistic]

The Victorian government justified measures aimed solely at women because "Female-dominated industries, such as retail, hospitality and the arts, were hit the hardest by the pandemic". From your graphic, retail and hospitality shows a small bias towards women, whereas the arts (and recreation) has more men.

Somehow women being "on the front line of essential service delivery in health and education" was also used to justify the measures.

For this reason, of the $250 million for the job-creation scheme, $150 million will go towards getting 6000 women back to work. Of this money, $50 million will go towards funding jobs for those aged over 45.​

​

A $10 million fund will be created to invest in startups run by women, in recognition of the tech industry's male domination, and there will be $5 million for a Women in Construction program to fund more space for females in the building industry.​

Female wage subsidy and tax credits key to plan for creating new jobs

The Victorian government has set aside $619 million to get Victorians back into jobs, including $50 million aimed at helping women aged over 45 find employment.

www.theage.com.au

yet when the Victorian govt goes to the people, infrastructure is the headline. Even If constructed by men, the customers come equally from gender.

would everyone agree that professionals and graduate are largely paid equally regardless of gender? Although what happens moving into upper management needs work.

perhaps the imbalance is in trades. Males largely construction both corporate and household. females in such as hairdressing, therapy, beuauty.

there’s a structural imbalance in what people are prepared to pay for such trades.

 

[Pessimistic]

Jobs strategies tend to target women because they are one of the biggest untapped workforce resources going around. As a demographic they have higher levels of educational attainment than men, but they have much lower levels of workforce participation and a much higher rate of part-time work.

Finding ways to keep women in the workforce, encourage those that have left to return, or enable women to work more hours is an easy, cheap and fast way to boost workforce capacity. It also helps the government get better value for the money they've already spent on education.

If at some stage the numbers flip, I would expect similar strategies to be targeted at men. Governments love going after low-hanging fruit.

it’s also a big decision factor in attracting migrants with the skills needed (there is competition) countries get compared on leave, parental leave as well as things like tax and cost of living

 

[Donakebab]

Education and health care benefit the entire community and have investment returns above 10 to 1, significantly higher than infrastructure at 2 to 1 and mining/resources which are often lucky to break even for the taxpayer.

But yeah its all about gender. OP is a donut.

 

[random260]

Education and health care benefit the entire community and have investment returns above 10 to 1, significantly higher than infrastructure at 2 to 1 and mining/resources which are often lucky to break even for the taxpayer.

But yeah its all about gender. OP is a donut.

University is wasteful spending unless want to make money from international students then its not. You learn more at work force than at university. Mining gave wa a surplus...

Also this topic is about gender as i said in the title. Labors neglect of men who are half of the voting base

 

[Kram]

Both parties abandoned the average Joe working man years ago!

 

[Frank Bunn]

Jobs strategies tend to target women because they are one of the biggest untapped workforce resources going around. As a demographic they have higher levels of educational attainment than men, but they have much lower levels of workforce participation and a much higher rate of part-time work.

Finding ways to keep women in the workforce, encourage those that have left to return, or enable women to work more hours is an easy, cheap and fast way to boost workforce capacity. It also helps the government get better value for the money they've already spent on education.

Will there be funding to redress the inequality in educational attainment?

You are probably right on jobs strategies but these programs were justified by nonsense statements like -

"women face an uphill battle every day in the workforce"

"Female-dominated industries, such as retail, hospitality and the arts, were hit the hardest by the pandemic, while women were also on the front line of essential service delivery in health and education"

If at some stage the numbers flip, I would expect similar strategies to be targeted at men.

I doubt we'll ever see a Victorian minister for men.

 

[Frank Bunn]

yet when the Victorian govt goes to the people, infrastructure is the headline. Even If constructed by men, the customers come equally from gender.

would everyone agree that professionals and graduate are largely paid equally regardless of gender? Although what happens moving into upper management needs work.

Infrastructure is usually the headline, but the reason for infrastructure being required is usually population increase - which is never the headline. Why not?

Females graduates tend to be paid more than males. There's later a natural shift as many women choose to drop out of the workforce to start a family or take part time work. But 'gender equality' policies that set 50/50 quotas for women when the participation rate is 71% for men and 61% for women actually discriminate against men. Then you can get specific in sectors - like IT where 80% of the qualified candidates for a job might be male but company policy gives advantage to female applicants. Contrast this with gender equality policies never being implemented where there is a female dominated workforce.