Is this not blatant statistical manipulation? Title states 'women face significant jobs risk during covid pandemic' but when you read the article it turns out that men have become redundant in greater numbers than women

Chemoralora · 2021-05-04T09:08:08+00:00

The article is written in a way to lead you into believing that women are at greater risk of losing their jobs because of the pandemic, but when you read the article the way they actually back this up is that the percentage by which the number of redundancies women face now compared to the 2000 crisis has increased by a greater amount than that for men. But the number of redundancies men faced then were higher in the first place, and so now its still MEN who are facing redundancy in greater numbers than women. I find it a little shocking how blatant this is but I'm sure the writers are well award most people will only read the title and allow them to use that to come to the wrong conclusion.

TheFakeVenum · 2021-05-04T09:49:49+00:00

Men die in wars, women most affected.

mhandanna · 2021-05-04T11:42:02+00:00

Female job losses 178K

Male job losses 217K

Then absurd comparison to the financial crisis only to make men’s redundancies not sound so bad “3% increase” as oppose to “76%.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

1) Email Guardian, and the journalists (yes they do respond usually) - even if it is just one line saying how misleading it was

2) Social media post real stats, call them out

3) Actually do something rather than just post here in an echo chamber where literally everyone agrees with you

hectorgarabit · 2021-05-04T12:50:23+00:00

"Women did not lose their job during the financial crisis, as a result they should not lose their job during the COVID crisis".

How do they say... when losing your privilege feels like oppression?

MostLikelyPoopingRN · 2021-05-04T10:05:01+00:00

Honestly sometimes the Guardian feels like a left wing version of Fox News. Their work is often ideology based and they have a clear agenda that they prioritize over good journalism. The blatant misandry and misleading writing like you cite really disappointed me since until about four years ago they were my main source of English language news.

redditthrowaway1478 · 2021-05-04T10:55:23+00:00

Well, it IS The Guardian after all

bufedad · 2021-05-04T11:25:18+00:00

World ends women most affected.

MeLittleSKS · 2021-05-04T11:39:36+00:00

typical.

say last year 100 men lose their jobs and 20 women lose their jobs, and then this year 120 men lose their jobs and 40 women lose their jobs, and the headline will focus on the women. every time.

TerribleModsrHere420 · 2021-05-04T14:53:38+00:00

Plenty of warehouse jobs around here that women don't want..

YesAmAThrowaway · 2021-05-04T14:53:55+00:00

It's the guardian, they're producing lots of bollocks

stutteringarmycarney · 2021-05-04T16:10:58+00:00

A female writer lying to make women’s problems more important than men’s? Shocker!

Izzno · 2021-05-04T13:21:01+00:00

Wow look at the graph. They do try to hide the men curve but it can't be clearer.

Run-OnWriter · 2021-05-04T13:46:41+00:00

My local newspaper is parroting the same nonsense.

sTixRecoil · 2021-05-04T13:51:07+00:00

well i mean it IS the guardian. they are the single most inconsistent and manipulative "news" group i have ever seen, aside from maybe fox..... MAYBE, but thats a damn close runner-up. unfortunately the bullshit stories and altered facts go far beyond just this, and instead reach out into most of their other stories. its quite frankly sickening that they are allowed to do that.

jrackow · 2021-05-04T14:28:43+00:00

Wow, the graph is so clear, too. What odd propaganda.

ApprehensiveMail8 · 2021-05-04T16:24:47+00:00

They wrote that article to get to this article:

WBG responds to the Prime Minister's speech: Invest in care to create jobs and growth - Womens Budget Group

Basically, they want the government to create more jobs for "carers" ie. babysitters and nurses rather than investing in infrastructure.

Bloody #$%^%, I'm sick of babysitters/nurses etc. whining about how low their pay is (as a group).

Your pay is lower because everyone else has to pay you OUT of their salary. That's how the system is set up.

A construction worker with children is obligated to pay someone to watch their kids just as a prerequisite to get to work. The worker is also obligated to pay for insurance, social security and medicare so that there is money to pay the nurses if they get hurt or sick or old. The worker's effective salary is just what is left over after all those obligatory expenses are taken out.

If the construction worker isn't making nominally more than everyone else the whole arrangement makes no sense. You can't sell services to people for more money than they have.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Look, if you want babysitting to be the higher pay job, fine. Just order all the babysitters to cut paychecks to the dad's whose kids they take away every morning so the dad's can go build roads for them. Order all the nurses to cut a paycheck to all the workers who are risking injury to create potential insurance payments for them.

narwaffles · 2021-05-04T13:43:54+00:00

The Guardian is all bs

SeeBeyond1983 · 2021-05-04T10:59:27+00:00

Dude give it to them, give every last corporate and labour job to them, make your own money and let them be the slaves of the economy.

Gender studies wont pipe water to their taps, wont grow their food, wont ship a damn thing, wont build ship, cars or refine fuel, this list is insanely long. ... give it to them, i know i dont want to go back to a desk, i dont need wealth, i need my mates, my brothers. We can get by without, they cant. It all exists for their comfort, if we are the garbage they like to tag us as then let it fall apart. Just walk away

Vegetable_Ad6969 · 2021-05-04T16:03:46+00:00

The Guardian has always had an agenda on emphasizing women's issues and downplaying men's issues. In the current genocide of Mozambique, they covered an event where all the boys were rounded up and enslaved/killed. They not once mentioned that all the victims were men. Only using non gendered words such as children or people. Not even a month later, they covered a similar event, however this time it was all girls who were targeted. And like clockwork they explicitly elaborated how they were all girls targeted, with addition 'information' explaining how women are disproportionately affected.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/17/escaped-girls-tell-of-insurgents-mass-abductions-in-mozambique

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/16/isis-linked-militants-beheading-children-in-mozambique-says-aid-group

DoubleDollars69 · 2021-05-04T19:40:52+00:00

Journalism /s

MancunianMuffin · 2021-05-04T22:52:29+00:00

That's why media can kiss my arse. Fuck all of it.

TC18271851 · 2021-05-04T11:23:20+00:00

And yet Women still expect Men to be ATMs and providers and refuse to marry down despite having more opportunities than Men

clique34 · 2021-05-04T11:16:47+00:00

It’s fake news. Just like the rest of FREE mainstream media nowadays. This is exactly the same shit they do for right wing and left wing news. They just bullshit

2021-05-04T11:18:53+00:00

As a statistician, every time I read a statistic I stop bothering

Saltedfish2 · 2021-05-04T22:23:56+00:00

The Guardian, what a surprise.

ChiefSteward · 2021-05-04T23:05:16+00:00

So this article talks about how much support and assistance women in the UK need during the employment crisis caused by COVID. Meanwhile, males' job redundancies outnumber females' job redundancies by almost 40,000. And the increase in male job redundancy was only 3% due to COVID (compared to an increase of 76% for women due to COVID) meaning it's still easier for a woman in the UK to find work even during a global pandemic than it is for a man to find work ever. But it's the women who are in crisis here.

GTFO

SeeBeyond1983 · 2021-05-05T00:02:35+00:00

When my previous employer closed down 7 women that held office positions lost their jobs, subsequently they have been rehired when the doors reopened, but the men who worked office positions have not, then il mention the 180 strong workforce of men who fabricated pipe spools and structural steel have lost their jobs permanently.

Consilio_et_Animis · 2021-05-04T12:13:20+00:00

Paging u/obviousobservationz.

Please comment with your “feminist mathematics”, and explain this to us simple minded men. 🤪

ElegantDecline · 2021-05-04T11:42:30+00:00

the guardian is a highly politicized media. I'm not sure why but they take EXTREME propaganda measures on some issues. This is one of the issues.

wrekd · 2021-05-04T11:56:04+00:00

Which is why I will only free read Guardian articles and never pay for their content.

SuperStateSamBamCam · 2021-05-04T17:13:34+00:00

I didn't read the article but going on what you said, I don't have a problem so much with the paper doing this as I do with the fact it is the effective strategy to generate clickthrough. If I were an editor, I think I prefer this title because it will cause more people to read my article about the fact that COVID is having a greater adverse effect on men than on women -- than if I told them up the truth, which is that this an article about men. It's not wrong but laudable to use sexism against itself imho.

throw-away_cuz_ynot · 2021-05-04T23:58:55+00:00

I saw this commercial about GMA or something and they were promoting a special celebrating the people who were most affected by the pandemic and helped us through it. Their list was doctors, teachers and moms.

BrokeMacMountain · 2021-05-05T10:25:20+00:00

I bought the gardian for 20 years. The pleasure of sitting in a cafe, on a saturday with the broadsheet and a decent coffee is something i may never replace.

Sadly, the gardian became a man hating, toxic feminist rag, which I no longer read. I have even gone as far as to block it on all my firewalls across all my devices.

LegendaryEmu1 · 2021-05-05T15:42:53+00:00

Well, technically they're not lying. Technically.

More women 'are at risk'. So those who actually lost their job don't count. In addition, sure, women are at risk of that, men are too, but nobody cares about that as a headline.

Its the guardian, so being garbage is sort of par for the course. I'm certain they don't expect people to read it, wanting them just to read the title.

TheKobraSnake · 2021-05-04T11:59:11+00:00

Well, they didn't really say women more so than men, but eh

ballerrr123 · 2021-05-04T19:48:37+00:00

The worst thing is women make up much less of the workforce. So there is much more men that have lost jobs.

Vaeon · 2021-05-04T17:19:40+00:00

Female redundancies in the UK hit 178,000 between September and November 2020, according to its analysis – 76% higher than the peak reached during the height of the financial crisis when female redundancy levels hit 100,000.

In the same 2020 period 217,000 men were made redundant – 3% more than the peak of male redundancies during the financial crisis.

Last time I checked 76% is way the fuck higher than 3%.

Is this not blatant statistical manipulation? Title states 'women face significant jobs risk during covid pandemic' but when you read the article it turns out that men have become redundant in greater numbers than women

Comments

How to talk about men

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

"I would often hear an innocent, valid point that a men's rights activist would make, but in my head, I would add on to their statements, a sexist or anti-woman spin, assuming that's what they wanted to say but didn't...

It's not a contest. But I kept making it into one. Why couldn't I simply learn about men's issues and have compassion for male victims without jumping at the opportunity to insist that women are the real victims...