On Wednesday I was on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour discussing a recent report produced by the Young Woman’s Trust (YWT). When I covered this report previously the survey findings were not available. Now that they are, a close look at them suggests that the report is an exercise in spin.

The report repeatedly states that young women feel traditionally male roles are out of their reach. The question they were asked was “Which of these jobs do you think are best suited to young women and young men”. Their responses were more gendered than those of the older female respondents, suggesting  that younger women are able to recognise that men and women are different. Perhaps feminists are losing their grip.

It is suggested more young women are economically inactive because of a lack of genuine equality of opportunity. But young men seem to have had more difficulties when it comes to work. 34 per cent are actively looking for work compared to young women’s more modest 25 per cent. While women may worry about confidence and appearance (women tend to across all surveys regardless of age) men are the ones worrying about safety at work. Men are more likely to have been shouted at by a manager or to have been formally disciplined, to have missed out on a promotion and they are marginally more likely to have been unable to get a job since leaving school.

What came across most strongly in the work related questions was the degree of similarity in the responses of women and men. If the YWT really want to tackle issues like the zero hours contract, and the minimum wage they would be far more effective if they could join together with groups representing the interests of young men. The fact that these don’t exist should be the real cause for concern.

There were areas where women did have more difficulties, but the YWT didn’t seem to understand the underlying reasons for this. For example, women were more worried about pay, job security, and having sufficient working hours. Household costs also weigh heavily on their minds.

However 33 per cent of these women were mothers, while only 16 per cent of men were fathers. Job security is much more of an issue when there are children to look after. Particularly when you are doing this on your own.

And this I suspect  is the real issue, the real cause of disadvantage. Those women who say their career opportunities are limited or that they have fewer opportunities for work and study may be single mothers.

But this is the question the YWT never asks.

As long as there are young women raising children on their own, young women will go on appearing to be disadvantaged relative to men. This in turn justifies further feminist intervention i.e. encouraging women into work and to do things independently of men. This leads to more single parenthood, more female disadvantage and so the vicious feminist circle is maintained.

A wish list of special privileges for young women makes up the bulk of YWT recommendations. But it is precisely the thing these young women do not want. They are asked “Which of these things do you think would be most effective in helping get more young people into work?”. The option “Specific problems facing young women being understood and dealt with” gets zero, yes zero, per cent.

What really shouts out from the data is the centrality that children have in women’s lives and the importance that they attach to them. The largest response 37 per cent, thought women were better suited to caring for children than having a paid job. 29 per cent thought it irresponsible to want to work if they had young children. Nearly a fifth thought it selfish if family was a lower priority than work. This data echoes the findings of data from a far larger sample published elsewhere.

However, instead of listening to the responses from women, the authors try to write them off as a product of some spurious inequality of opportunity and incredibly use it as a justification to focus even more on women’s access to work.

If the YWT really wants to support young women first it needs to recognise that having a child in your twenties will be incredibly important to a great many of them – in terms of reproduction they are at a peak stage of their lives.

The YWT then need to look at the barriers and hurdles that these women are dealing with. One of the barriers will be that the vast majority of young women really do not want to parent singly. But the lower rates of males going to university and doing apprenticeships means that there are higher rates of male unemployment. For women who want to create relationships based on love and interdependency there is a dearth of reasonably employed young men.


  1. A whole generation have been sold down the river by the feminists. Co-habitation as Laura pointed out is bad for women – no commitment from men. Marriage is needed both for women and children for. Secure environment. Young women find out too late that you are left holding the baby and life is tough. Children miss out on a father and do not thrive as they should. Young men are not given the responsibilities that form character and begin to despise women. Add into the mix the gender revolution where we all have to join in with Alice in Wonderland thinking and you have a totally dysfunctional society. God help us all.

  2. 16% of men being fathers, so it shows why more men will get married later as they are unstable economically, which actually explains why 20% of women are childless, yet we don’t sort this problem of unemployment, so why do we think their is less men willing to start families. Sorting out unemployment will be a building block to get better character – then men are more likely to marry, it seem society will not be concerned with this so women will have too face the problems alone.

    • Only 20% of the men from the lower and lower middle classes are married. This is partly because they are not a “catch” financially speaking for a women to latch onto, as women primarily go for resources, but also because they themselves cannot afford enter into a rigged game in which thanks to “no fault divorce” are guaranteed to lose half of their sh5t and half of all future earnings, even if she initiates the divorce and is a terrible wife. For a man of modest original means- that kind of loss and its guaranteed thanks to the bias judges, is not something he can afford. Living in a bedsit for the rest of his life paying for his ex and her children, whilst she most likely brings another man to also pay for her, is not a great deal. She gets two men paying for her out of it & she gains from a divorce…no wonder why so many women now initiate divorces for no apparent reason. The Western governments have done nothing to address this issue, unlike Japan’s for instance, because feminism is good from their perspective and they take the rough with the smooth.

  3. Young women need to be told: do not cohabit. You give the young man everything he wants – and he then has no incentive to formalise the relationship or make it permanent i.e. marry. Only one of the couple falls pregnant – the woman – and the man can then walk off with no commitment. Why would any female do something which has so much potential for her to end up worse off?
    Thus says a bloke.

    • Thats not true. Men can’t walk off with no commitment. That makes it even less likely that a man will give a woman anything. The reason women can’t find men isn’t because they’re ‘giving men everything,’ its because they aren’t giving men enough. The risks are on men these days, and women who keep getting this upside down are going to continue wondering what’s going wrong, and why men won’t ‘commit.’

    • Spot on. Tell your teenage daughters to look for a man who is (a) marriageable (b) will fight for you and (c) will wait as long as necessary. Moving in may be the norm now but social science journals have yet to report any evidence that moving in helps and loads of evidence that it traps the more fragile relationships just long enough to tempt them into parenthood before they then split up. The data shows this clearly. Half of all breakdown happens in the first three years of parenthood. Three quarters of this involves unmarried parents.

  4. We men, biologically, are fairly simple creatures. We have certain basic instincts as adults. To provide for and protect our ‘group’ and to have sex with as many women as possible.

    Western civilisation and its attendant Judeo-Christian heritage evolved the nuclear family unit over thousands of years. This evolution was led by women (who, also biologically, require the best quality father for their children) using the clever trick of promoting the first two of those male instincts and getting them to suppress the third.

    Like all “progressive” measures, modern, militant feminism has unravelled that delicate construct in a couple of generations.

    • So non-Western, non-Christian countries, like China or Japan, never got monogamous nuclear families?

      I agree with your point about unraveling but the evolution of the nuclear family is not true; it looks to me more like an advantageous strategy to prevent infanticide by competing males, or in societies where wealth can be transferred to offspring (so concentrating benefit to fewer offspring), or where female power is high enough to extract the price from males. Whichever, it doesn’t seem to have a particular regional or religious cause.

      • Yes they did – but far later in the day (official “concubinage” wasn’t abolished in Hong Kong until 1971 and it was the Chinese Communist Party who suppressed it in China as a “feudal vice”). Official ‘consorts’ were still a mark of status in Japan up to the end of the 19th century.

        Concubines, or multiple wives existed in Judaism as well, of course, but the practice had largely petered out by the time Christianity emerged.

        • Of course the practises of people have changed over the years; some of the factors I listed would contribute to changing that.

          My point was simply that the development monogamous relationships has no reliance on Western of Judeo-Christian factors.

          • The western world view of western marriage IS Judeo Christian and has been for centuries. The Muslims use the Old Testament texts and allow polygamy. Many societies have allowed polygamy. Specifically in Matthew 19 Jesus defines Christian marriage – it forms part of the service of Holy Matrimony today. “The two shall become one flesh” and “what God has joined together let no man put asunder”. Up until the divorce laws were changed in the 1980s only adultery and desertion were grounds for divorce. The ridiculous Same Sex Marriage Act brought in by David Cameron still holds consummation to be necessary for heterosexual couples (or the marriage can be annulled) and that adultery is grounds for divorce. Same sex couples cannot consummate (become one flesh) therefore they cannot be accused of adultery. But in Cameron’s world they are married because he says so.

          • “the western world view of western matti age IS Judeo Christian and has been for centuries”

            Well, obviously!!

            And the Japanese?

          • You stated that the development of monogamous marriage had nothing to do with Judeo Christianity. I have no idea about the Japanese. I understand they are a culturally conservative country and a young Japanese girl who I had the pleasure of meeting at a lunch party 2years ago informed me how shocked she was that English women had children without having a husband and this was not the case in Japan.

          • And what I said is true. Japan had little or nothing to do with the West until 200 years ago, are you suggesting we brought them marriage? The Chinese had a civilisation thousands of years before Jesus, and they included marriage.

            So, no, it didn’t come from Judeo Christian teaching.

          • No, it developed entirely independently and owed nothing at all to Judeo Christianity. That just came along for the ride.

            Why is this difficult to get?

          • it’s Genetics and it’s ‘K Selection’

            FFS! is it so hard BECAÙSE it’s so friggin simple?!

  5. From the 2013/14 Annual Report for YWT: ‘Total income was £2.1 million … Grant and contract income from statutory funders and trusts, including central and local government departments, the Welsh Assembly, the Big Lottery and other commissioners totalled £1.2 million …’

    We are paying for this propaganda.

    • The fact the government sponsors and supports a movement that actively promotes and leads to the destruction of the nucleur family, openly attacks men & seeks unfair advantages over them on a case by case emotional basis, has destroyed marriage among the lower classes, supports discrimination against men and promotes lesbianism…
      This pretty much says all you need to know about the governments “big society” and their concern about what is best for the people…as opposed to what maximises the workforce of workers bees paying taxes.

      • In fact the government in the form of the elected politicians are pretty clueless. They preside and rely far too heavily upon their civil servants and the linked quango s and professional groups. Deeply embedded in our Universities for decades and consequently in the professionals they have trained an orthodoxy of feminism is the default view of the people in charge now. One can see this in the Legal Profession, Teaching, Social Work , Civil Servants and professional politicians as well as media graduates. I fact I suspect some politicians do try to address things without feminist spectacles but in Government they find their policy initiatives traduced. Even Jeremy Corbyn has fallen foul of this recently with his attempt to focus on the big themes of Marxism (re distribution of wealth jobs social class) yet apparently gets hammered for not enough or the right wimmin in his entourage. It is is institutions of government , of social administration more than any elected Government.

  6. The Feminists pit women against men- deliberately in fact, because Feminism of course is a government sponsored and supported project to maximise the workforce & destroy the nuclear family. Then when this very competition reduces the pool of working men with a greater amount of resources, than the government can provide to them as a single mother, shock of all shocks, horror or all horrors, it becomes very difficult to find a man with lots of resources to merit them settling down and marrying.
    The marriage rates among the lower and lower middle classes are now at the 20% level for under 40’s. The rate for upper middle classes and upper class is as high as it was in 1980 at around 70%. This is because marriage still works if the man has money, for obvious reasons. For a man on an average or low wage losing half of everything they own and losing half of all of their future earnings, is catastrophic and its not something he can really risk. The courts have gone so far the other way now, that they are inadvertently putting men off marriage, because the men from lower and lower middle classes can *NOT* take the “financial hit” of a divorce and the marriage itself is an ideal they no longer aspire to.
    Two things need to happen here:
    1. Women need to stop calling themselves feminists and stop buying into feminism. As the Cologne attacks prove, it has nothing to do with what is best for women, and is more about special pleading by mainly lesbians and women who are extremely unattractive and jealous of women who get attention from men. Getting things at the expense of men, in an unfair way, is not cool and its not going to make men want to be with you. Men notice that, men know its unfair and men are walking away because of that.
    2. Women need to be women. Be Femine. Admit that the most important thing to you is being a wife and mother- and do not feel the need to be “career women” just because you are being shamed by the Marxist teachers and professors to do so.
    Some good advice. But as Feminism and special pleading plays to a women’s greed, its unlikely that they are going to think strategically about the damage it does to men. Feminism is not going to go away because its government supported and sponsored, because the cultural Marxists are now responsible for social policy in the UK.

  7. Preferentially giving jobs to rapists cloaked as “refugees” is also not going to help either native young men or the young women who would like to marry and raise kids with them.

  8. What sensible young men want are marriageable young women, who work as hard as them and want to settle down to build a life together. I know quite a few younger hard working men in the 25 – 35 age bracket who are single because they have had bad experiences with “spoilt princesses” who only want to go out clubbing with their mates and spend money on designer handbags, shoes, and fancy holidays which look good on Facebook. Time for TCW to set up a Socially Conservative dating website?

    • This has come to my mind a few times now.

      As you point out, and it is not said enough, the sensible young men do indeed want sensible young woman.

      What was it Mr Mr. Knightley said in Emma, young men do want silly brides, or something along those lines.

      And don’t start me on the anti-dowry (serious student debt for ‘reading’ gender studies).

      I know of a very nice young woman, a nurse, responsible job at a big hospital. She would make a wonderful wife.

      • Thank you very much, I will pass this link on to the young men (and any sensible young ladies) who might benefit. Although the overtly Christian nature might put some of them off, more’s the pity.

  9. It appears that the young have more deep rooted instinctive sense than the not so young. Has the deep brainwashing of our schools failed then ? Or maybe it has become so exaggerated that it has become more obviously the rubbish that it always was. I hope so. But those in power, the older ones, feminists, male and female, are still happily destroying the nuclear family, egged on by our esteemed governments. Our society may one day heal its wounds from the attacks of cultural Marxism but there are no signs of that at present.

Comments are closed.