insideMAN

Are men less likely to be seduced by left-wing Corbyn-mania?

by 2 Comments

The left-wing contender for the leadership of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, is heading for a surprise victory according to the pollster YouGov, with 53% of those eligible to vote saying he’s the candidate they’ll back.

More interesting than that—for those of us who view the world through the filter of gender politics at least—is the fact that the same poll reveals that Corbyn is a hit with the ladies. So while 48% of the male selectorate back the Islington MP, a whopping 63% of females polled want the anti-monarchist, lefty to lead Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition.

This left-right gender gap at the heart of Labour’s internecine succession contest seems to reflect a wider tendency in politics for women to be more left wing on average and men to be more right wing.

This has certainly been true in American politics where men and women have been voting for the “masculine” Republicans and the “feminine” Democrats along gender lines for 50 years now. Obama won the 2008 election by one percentage point amongst men and 12 points amongst women, while Clinton’s lead amongst women in 1996 was event bigger at 18 per cent.

And in the run up to the UK’s most recent general election, a stark gender divide in the nation’s political beliefs was revealed when a poll taken prior to the Heywood and Middleton by-election found that 20% more men would vote UKIP than Labour (41% v 21%) while 20% more women would vote Labour than UKIP (58% v 38%). As a result, the female electorate won the seat for the Labour Party.

This “right-wingers are from Mars and left-wingers are from Venus” divide which is found across the wider political spectrum is clearly being replicated in Labour’s narrow slice of the political salami.

Of the four leadership contenders, Liz Kendall is the most right-wing and is backed by nearly three times as many men than women (11% to 4%).

In the centre of the pack it’s a slightly different story. Both Burham and Cooper stand to the right of Corbyn and the left of Kendall, but Burnham is probably a bit more left wing than Cooper.

According to YouGov, 68% of Kendall’s right-wing backers make Cooper their second choice (compared to 24% preferring Cooper and 8% Corbyn)—suggesting Cooper is closer to the Blairite right of the party than Burham.

Similarly, 32% of Burnham’s backers make Corbyn their number two choice compared to 24% of Coopers backers, suggesting Burnham has a slightly more left-wing leaning than Cooper.

On this basis, we might expect to see more women backing Burham and more men backing Cooper, but the reverse is true. It could be that good old fashioned gender politics is playing a greater role here than standard left-right politics.

Burnham, who has been attacked for running a “very macho” and “very male” campaign has the backing of 24% of the men eligible to vote and just 17% of the women.

Meanwhile, Cooper, has played the gender card, attacking Burnham’s campaign for “suggesting that somehow women aren’t strong enough to do the top jobs” and calling on the party to “elect a Labour women leader of the party” to “shake up the old boys’ network at Westminster”.

https://youtu.be/jrNfhEfowlM?t=27m19s

This approach may have made her slightly more popular amongst women than Burham, with 19% of the female selectorate backing Cooper compared with 17% of the male vote.

What’s interesting here, is women’s greater tendency to put idealism over pragmatism. When asked which candidates they thought had the potential to win the next general election, 51% said Burnham would be likely to win; 44% said the same for Cooper and 46% said Corbyn was a winner in waiting. Yet, while women think Burnham has the best bet of becoming Prime Minister, they’d rather vote for Corbyn or Cooper.

Men also have an idealist tendency, particular left-wing men. When asked which candidates could win the next general election, 53% said Burnham would be likely to win; 46% said the same for Cooper and 39% said Corbyn.

So for men, the gap between those who think Corbyn can become PM (39%) and those who back him as the next party leader (48%), is 9 percent. For women, the gap between premiership potential (46%) and leadership support (61%) is two-thirds bigger at 15 percent.

Corbyn, it seems, is currently a runaway success with both the gents and the ladies, but is notably more successful at politically seducing women.

One final note of worth, the YouGov poll once again nails the myth (spread by the likes of BBC Woman’s Hour) that the reason there aren’t as many women leaders is because men won’t support them. In total, 28% of men who are eligible say they’ll vote for one of the two female candidates compared with 23% of women. On the other hand, 78% of the female voters back one of the two men who are running for office, compared with 72% of male voters.

All of which goes to prove that party politics—like gender politics—is a funny old game.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/14x8p1al7n/TimesResults150810LabourMembers.pdf

 

Labour secretly hoping eight million men don’t vote

by 6 Comments

The Labour Party has come up with a brilliant wheeze to win this year’s general election by targeting the 17 million people who didn’t vote last time.

Oh no, hang on a minute, scrub that.

The Labour Party has come up with a brilliant wheeze to win this year’s general election by ignoring eight million of the 17 million people who didn’t vote last time…….because they are men.

Harriet Harman (make up your own joke about her surname), said: “There is a general disaffection with politics. You are even less likely as a woman to see politics as the solution to your problems.”

X marks the spot 

The evidence for this completely made-up statement is overwhelming. At the last general election, for example, a whopping 16.2 million men put an X on a bit of paper knowing full well all their problems would be resolved as a result. Meanwhile, only a teeny, tiny number of women (erm, that’s just 16 million) thought there was any point voting at all.

I know, I know, only 49.7% of the 32.2 million people who voted last time were women, but 50.3% were men—-it’s really, Really, REALLY not fair is it?

No wonder Harriet Harman told Good Morning Britain that “politics is much too important to be left to only men voting”—a great example of “this is what left-wing feminist maths looks like”.

Even worse than this, is the fact that a staggering 53.2% of the 17m people who didn’t vote in 2010 are women and Harriet Harman says “the growing trend for people not to vote is worrying for our democracy”.

Vote Farage 

So worrying, in fact, that Labour is going do nothing about the eight million men who didn’t vote because, well men are less likely to vote Labour than women. There’s really no point encouraging men to have a vote because they’ll only do something stupid with it like drive their white van to the polling booth (harassing women on the way) and vote for Nigel Farage or Al Murray

Instead they’re going to focus on the “missing millions”, not the millions of men who aren’t voting but “the missing millions of women who will be the focus of Labour’s campaign”.

But where will Labour find these millions of women (without accidentally alerting their menfolk that there’s an election brewing)? Well Harriet has a cunning plan.

“We will bring politics to the school gate,” she said, because the only men you find at the school gates are paedophiles and they all vote Conservative.

Shopping for votes 

“We will bring politics to the shopping centre,” she added, because women do love buying things, don’t they? Though heaven knows where they get the money from because, you know, gender pay gap.

“We will bring politics to offices and factories,” she continued, but shhh, don’t tell the male workers.

“This election will be a watershed for women in this country,” she concluded, probably because Ed “One Nation” Milliband will wet himself with tears of joy if he wins the election as the leader of a “One Gender” party. And in case we were in any doubt Harriet Harman told journalists that her pink bus was symbolic of Labour’s “One Gender” vision for the UK. “It is the correct colour.” she said, “this the One Nation Labour colour”.

T0 bring home the message that Labour really doesn’t want to attract any more male voters, it also announced that it will be launching a Manifesto for Women—a kind of WOMANifesto if you like (geddit?).

Labour’s WOMANifesto will include the following promises:

  • More free childcare (because men don’t care about children)
  • Support for grandparents who look after their grandchildren (because only grandmothers love their grandkids)
  • Forcing employers to publish their hourly pay gap figures to create equal pay for women (like that time when Dominc Raab MP did an FOI on the Government Equalities Office and found that female staff were paid 8% more than male staff)
  • Doing more to tackle violence against women (because who gives a fuck about violence against men)?

And just when you thought this story couldn’t get any better, Labour unveiled its #WomanToWoman battle bus and just in case you haven’t heard yet—it’s pink! And we all know that men hate the colour pink (except the gay ones of course), because, oh you know, hegemonic masculinity or something.

Genius! That will stop eight million non-voting men from getting all inspired about democracy and voting for one of the other parties that doesn’t prioritise women over men.

But most surprising of all was the way Labour’s “pink is for girls” van nearly made the socially conservative Daily Mail sound like the Everyday Sexism campaign—if only they hadn’t enjoyed the fact the driver of the bus had stalled quite so much—women drivers eh!?

The Mail’s stroke of genius, however, was digging up a quote from Labour MP Chi Onwura who condemned the marketing of “girls’ stuff'”in pink last year, warning:

‘This aggressive gender segregation is a consequence of big company marketing tactics. It has now got to the point where it is difficult to buy toys for girls in particular which are not pink, princess primed or fairy infused. What may be driving big company profit margins is limiting children’s’ choice – and experiences. And ultimately limiting the UK’s social and economic potential and helping maintain the gender pay gap.”

That’s right, if you follow that logic through, using a pink bus to market to women and tell them how you’re going to tackle the “gender pay gap” will actually help maintain the”gender pay gap”, apparently. Someone should tell Harriet Harman.

If you liked this article and want to read more, follow us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook

Article by Glen Poole author of the book Equality For Men

Also on insideMAN:

Election 2015: Fathers’ charity welcomes Labour’s paternity leave plans

by 1 Comment

The Fatherhood Institute has welcomed Labour’s plans to double statutory paternity leave from two to four weeks, and increase the rate at which it’s paid by £100 per week.

The institute’s joint chief executive Adrienne Burgess said:

“This would be good news for families and for business. Under the current system, more than 90% of dads take time off around the time of their children’s birth. But only 70% take statutory paternity leave, mainly because it is paid below the minimum wage, so they can’t afford to take it; instead, they use up annual leave, which means they get less time with the family later on in their child’s all-important first year.

“Extending paternity leave and paying it at a higher rate would be good for families because dads would be in a better position to become confident, hands-on carers for their babies – thus freeing up mums and dads to share the load of caring and breadwinning through their babies’ first year and beyond – which we know makes a huge difference to children’s outcomes.

“And it would be good for business because the more you can get dads embedded in hands-on caring early on, the earlier you can get the mums back to work – so companies would feel more confident about retaining both male and female talent.

“Business leaders’ criticisms of the plans as being too expensive are unfounded, because statutory paternity leave is paid for by the state. At the moment some expectant and new dads change jobs because they’re not family-friendly – which is a hidden drain on employers, who may not realise they’re losing staff for this reason.

“The Government’s shared parental leave system, which starts in April 2015, will give some families significantly greater flexibility to make choices about who takes time off – but it won’t be available to everyone.

“Whatever the results of the election, we need the politicians to create a modern, forward-thinking parenting leave system that values fathers’ vital role as hands-on carers as well as breadwinners, and gives all mums and dads the flexibility to make the right choices for their families.”

—Photo: Flickr/Mamchenkov

In the run up to launch of the film Down Dog on 13 February, insideMAN is running a series of articles about fatherhood and we’d love you to get involved. You can join the conversation on twitter by using the hashtag #MenBehavingDADly; leave a comment in the section below or email us with your thoughts and ideas for articles to insideMANeditor@gmail.com.

For more information about the film see www.downdogfilm.com

 

Eight reasons British women are more left wing than men

by 1 Comment

Last week’s Heywood and Middleton by-election saw 58% of women but only 38% of men saying they’d vote Labour, providing more proof that men are more right wing and women are more left wing. So why are women more left wing than men?

The Labour Party’s claim that the Conservatives are anti-women has been a common political theme since the last general election. In reality, to paraphrase the pollster Lord Ashcroft, the Conservatives aren’t unpopular with women, they’re unpopular with everyone and seem to be attracting equally low numbers of male and female voters.

The Labour Party, in contrast, does have a gender imbalance in its supporter base. It attracted just 28% of male voters at the last general election and lost to UKIP amongst male voters in the recent Heywood and Middleton by-election (41% to 38%), though it held onto the seat by attracting far more female voters than UKIP (58% to 21%).

British women, it seems, are now more left wing than men. So why is this? Here we provide eight possible reasons.

1. Young women are more idealistic

Both men and women seem to get more right wing the older we become. According to YouGov, 38% of young men and 34% of young women support UKIP or the Conservatives compared with 56% of men over 60 and 57% of women over 60.

Meanwhile on the left of politics, 48% of young men and 54% of young women support Labour or the Lib Dems, compared with only 39% of men and 39% of women over 60.

So women’s greater leaning to the left seems to be limited to the younger generation.

2. Women care more about health services

When asked about specific issues, men and women have similar concerns such as the economy and immigration. One area that a higher proportion of women consistently highlight as a concern is the health service. One poll found that 35% of women name “improving the NHS” as one of their top three political priorities, compared with 26% of men.

Another survey found that men were twice as likely to support a 5% cut in NHS spending. As the NHS is traditionally seen as being a greater priority to the left than the right, women’s leftward leaning could be the linked to their concern for the NHS.

3. Women don’t support war

Another area of policy where there is a significant gap between men and women is in support for British troops engaging in war. According to Peter Kellner of YouGov: “there seems to be something close to a cast-iron rule, when it comes to military action, there is a persistent gender gap of around 20 points”.

Women Men
March 2003: % supporting British participation in Iraq war 43 63
March 2011: % supporting British military action in Libya 37 53
Jan 2013: % supporting help for France in Mali 35 58
Jan 2013: % saying Prince William should serve Afghanistan 53 68

Source: YouGov

As the doves on the left of politics are generally considered to be less willing to engage in warfare that the hawks on the right, women’s reluctance to support military action may also shape their left-wing politics.

We should remember, however, what George Galloway, MP, had to say on the matter:

“[We were told]…for years in the Labour Party, if only we could get more women into parliament there’d be fewer wars, less aggression and all of that. There was 101 ‘Blair babes’ elected in 1997 and all but three of them voted for every war that Tony Blair took us into.”

 4. Women think about family more

According to Dr Rosie Campbell, women are more inclined to view politics through the lens of family life. In one set of focus groups, Campbell recorded 77 mentions of family from women, compared with 11 men. Lord Ashcroft Polls also found that only women mentioned “family” in their top 20 words when asked to describe the characters of Cameron, Clegg and Milliband.

Could it be that women are more left wing because the left is seen as having more family friendly policies in relation to issues like childcare and parental leave?

5. Women are more censorious

Dr Rosie Campbell’s work has also highlighted that women tend to be more authoritarian than men. For example when asked if the censorship of films and magazines is necessary to uphold moral values; women are twice as likely to strongly agree while men are more than twice as likely to disagree.

Could the left’s greater interest in censoring lads mags and Page 3 be drawing more women to the left of politics?

6. Women prefer the public sector

The majority of public sector workers are women and the majority of private sector workers are men. On this basis, it’s perhaps not surprising to learn that men are nearly three times more likely to strongly agree with the statement: “private enterprise is the best way to solve Britain’s economic problems”.

As the political left which is historically seen to favour the public sector over the private sector, maybe this is why women are more likely to be left wing?

7. Women are more unionised

Men have traditionally dominated the trade union movement. Ten years ago this was still the case with 3,752.000 men being a member of a trade union in 2004, compared with 3,587,000 women. In the intervening decade, women have begun to outnumber men, with the figures for 2012 showing 3,142,000 male union members and 3,613,000 female members.

Could women’s increased involvement in the trade union movement be at the heart of women’s greater tendency towards the left of politics?

8. Women are more reliant on state benefits

Women are more likely to be reliant on welfare benefits than men, according to the Fawcett Society, who estimated that around 20% of women’s income is made up of welfare payments and tax credits compared to 10% for men.

Maybe this is why more women than men oppose freezing welfare benefits and reducing child tax benefit. One benefit that women are more supportive of cutting than men is unemployment benefit. This may be explained by the fact that it is one benefit that more men rely on than women.

As the left is generally seen as being more generous with welfare payments, this may be one reason why more women vote for parties on the left.

For more on this subject, see our article men are more right wing and women are more left wing.

If you liked this article and want to read more, follow us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook

Article by Glen Poole author of the book Equality For Men

Also on insideMAN:

Are men more right wing and women more left wing?

by 1 Comment

Does the fact that more men are voting UKIP reveal a masculine tendency towards right-wing politics, asks Glen Poole?

Last week a stark gender divide in the nation’s political beliefs was revealed when a poll taken prior to the Heywood and Middleton by-election found that 20% more men would vote UKIP than Labour (41% v 21%) while 20% more women would vote Labour than UKIP (58% v 38%). As a result, the female electorate won the seat for the Labour Party.

This wasn’t a one off result. Men and women in the U.S.A have been voting for the “masculine” Republicans and the “feminine” Democrats along gender lines for 50 years now. Obama won the 2008 election by one percentage point amongst men and 12 points amongst women, while Clinton’s lead amongst women in 1996 was event bigger at 18 per cent.

Women in the UK have been slower to make the leftward shift, with 20% more women voting for Margaret Thatcher than Michael Foot in 1983 and 10% more women voting for John Major than Neil Kinnock in 1992. It wasn’t until as recently as the 2005 election that a “women to the left, men to the right” gap began to open up in the UK, with more men than women deciding to vote for Michael Howard.

By 2010, Labour was haemorrhaging male voters, with only 28% voting for Gordon Brown. Meanwhile, women’s combined centre-left vote (Labour and Liberal Democrat) was 57% compared to 50% for men.

Looking at the combined right-wing vote, 38% of men and 36% of women voted Conservative in 2010 and men were 50% more likely to vote for one of the “other” parties, with UKIP and the BNP on the right collecting most of those votes. More recently, a 2013 YouGov found that 52% of Conservative voters and 57% of UKIP voters are men.

VOTING BY GENDER AT UK GENERAL ELECTIONS 1974 TO 2010

Con (m) Con (f) Lab (m) Lab (f) *Lib (m) *Lib (f)
1974 32 39 43 38 18 20
1979 43 47 40 35 13 15
1983 42 46 30 26 25 27
1987 43 43 32 32 23 23
1992 41 44 37 34 18 18
1997 31 32 45 44 17 18
2001 32 33 42 42 18 19
2005 34 32 34 38 22 23
2010 38 36 28 31 22 26

*Includes Liberals/Alliance and Lib Dems

Source: Ipsos MORI

IT’S RAINING MEN 

Much has been made of the Conservative’s apparent woman trouble since the last general election, particularly by Labour whose deputy leader, Harriet Harman, famously claimed “it’s raining men in the Tory Party”.

There is some evidence for such claims, with one Guardian/ICM poll revealing that Labour had a 7-point lead over the Tories (36%-29%) among men and 26 point lead (51%-25%) among women. What the media didn’t report was that those figures also showed that while the Conversatives had a 4% male-female gender gap (29%-25%) the Labour Party recorded a 15% female-male gender gap (51%-36%). Based on these figures, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to claim that “Sisters are doing it for themselves” in the Labour Party.

Several analysts (see Kellner, Ashcroft and Wells) have challenged the theory that the polls reveal a significant gender issue for the Conservatives, pointing out that the small polling samples have large margins of error; though this didn’t stop Cameron appointing an adviser on women’s issues.

So what does this tell us about gender and politics? One thing is clear, men and women consistently vote for all of the main parties, as YouGov’s analysis of men’s and women’s voting intentions over a 5 month period shows (see below), the gender differences are often unremarkable.

VOTING INTENTIONS BY GENDER (SEPT 2013 TO JAN 2014)

Con (m) Con (f) ukip(m) ukip (f) Lab (m) Lab (f) Lib (m) Lib (f)
Jan 14 33 33 13 12 38 40 9 9
Dec 13 33 33 13 11 38 40 9 9
Nov 13 33 32 13 11 38 40 9 10
Oct 13 33 33 12 10 38 41 9 9
Sep 13 33 33 13 11 37 40 9 10

Source: YouGov

Irrespective of their voting intentions, there is evidence to suggest that even on the right of politics, female Conservatives tend to be more left wing than male Conservatives. So why is it that women tend to be more left wing than men? We explore this question in our companion article: Eight reasons why British women are more left wing than men.

If you liked this article and want to read more, follow us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook

Article by Glen Poole author of the book Equality For Men

Also on insideMAN:

If you’re under 40, the biggest gender pay gap is experienced by men

by 7 Comments

Today David Cameron became the latest to declare war on the gender pay gap by announcing companies that pay men more than women will be “named and shamed”. But when you look at the underlying data, you discover that the story we are being sold is a great big statistical lie.

In this article published by insideMAN last year, Glen Poole gave his response to the Labour Party’s own declaration of war on the gender pay gap which it said would take 60 years to close at the current rate.

How many times in your life have you heard that women are getting paid less than men? It’s one of the top three reasons given to support the claim that it’s a man’s world, the other two being “men have all the power” and “all women live in fear of violence by men”.

We’ll probably have a look at power and violence another day, but in the meantime, has anyone ever told you that the gender pay gap is a lie?

Last week the Labour Party–who were criticised by the UK Statistics Authority for misleading the public on the gender pay gap last time they were in power—declared that they would put closing the 19.7% gender pay gap at the heart of their next manifesto.

What the Labour Party didn’t tell us was that women under 40 in the UK are now earning the same or more than men! If you don’t believe me then here’s the official line from the government’s Department for Culture Media & Sport (DCMS):

“The full time gender pay gap is very low for those in the age groups between 18 and 39, for whom the gap now sits at or around zero.”

The real statistics paint a different picture 

And here, if you need further proof, are the figures from the DCMS’s 2014 report, Secondary Analysis of the Gender Pay Gap (catchy title huh?):

>18-21 year olds, men working full time earn 1.4% more an hour on average

>22-29 year olds, women working full time earn 0.3% more an hour on average

>30-39 year olds, men working full time earn 1% more an hour on average

And for part-time workers:

>18-21 year olds, men working part time earn 1.2% more an hour on average

>22-29 year olds, women working part time earn 0.9% more an hour on average

>30-39 year olds, women working part time earn 8.2% more an hour on average

And yet we are still told, with the help of official figures, that the pay gap for all workers under 40 still favours men:

>Men aged 18-21 earn 3.5% more than women an hour on average

>Men aged 22-29 earn 5.3% more than women an hour on average

>Men aged 30-39 earn 12% more than women an hour on average

But hang on a goddam statistical minute, how is this possible?

If women in their twenties are earning 0.3% more than men when they work full time and 0.9% more than men when they work part time, how on earth can they those same men be earning 5.3% more an hour than women on average?

As the government itself acknowledges “the pay gap for all employees still exists” and “the differences between part time and full time pay are significant in driving this”. This is not surprising when women are twice as likely to be working part time in their twenties and 4.5 times more likely to be working part time in their thirties.

Put simply, part-timers get paid less; more women opt to work part-time and therefore women on average earn less than men.

The gender pay gap is a problem for men

So why is the gender pay gap a problem for men? Well, earnings for women aged between 30 and 39 have risen faster than any other group since the late nineties to the point where they now earn 1% less than men working full time and 8% more than men working part time—and yet because the misleading headline figure tells us women in their thirties earn 12% less than men the pressure is on employers to keep narrowing this statistical gap.

What campaigners for “equal pay” are essentially arguing is that women in their thirties (for example) should be paid more than men per hour in order to reduce the headline pay gap—and then we’ll have gender equality. Put another way, when one sex (men) earn more than the other sex (women) we need to correct that statistical inequality by paying one sex (women) more than the other sex (men)—and then all will be well in the world.

It sounds absurd, but this is the logic that is driving our national and international thinking on gender equality in the workplace—it’s a gender political narrative that wants you to believe that all women have problems and all men are the problem.

For women under 40 working full-time there is no pay gap

And yet for women under 40 who are working full time— which is 72% of women in their twenties and 62% of women in their thirties— there is no pay gap. The most significant pay gap for people under 40 is not the gap between women and men, but the gap between full-time workers and those who choose, for whatever reason, to work part-time which is:

>18-21: 50% of men and 65% of women

>22-29: 15% of men and 30% of women

>30-39: 8% of men and 38% of women

The pay gap is certainly a minority problem, but for people under 40 it’s not women who are in the minority but part-time workers, both male and female. Of course the loudest voices campaigning on the pay gap don’t want you to know this because they aren’t driven by the politics of equality, they are driven by the type of gender politics that advocates for all women and against all men.

So why should men be bothered about this? If only 8% of men in their thirties are working part-time, who gives a shit if those men get paid less? They could just get their fingers out and get a full-time job like the other 92% of hardworking men aged 30-39!

Well my dear brothers, you could be next!

Employers are under constant social pressure to keep closing the headline gender pay gap and the only way to address this statistical anomaly at present is to pay women more per hour than men.

Men in their thirties who work part-time are now paid 8% less than their female counterparts so who’ll be next? Well men in their twenties are already earning slightly less than women—whether they work part time or full time—and the gap looks set to keep growing, with full-time male workers in the thirties the next in line.

The question for all men is this: is this a trend you want to continue or do you want men and women to have an honest and open debate about pay equality—a debate that isn’t based on the big white lie that the “gender pay gap” has sadly become?

If you want to help us make this debate happen, why not try asking a few people if they knew that the only group under 40 to suffer a significant gender pay gap are men in their thirties who work part time—and see how they respond.

Oh and let us know how you get on in the comments below, we’d love to hear your experiences of starting discussions on this issue.

—Photo credit: Flickr/Images of Money

If you liked this article and want to read more, follow us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook

Article by Glen Poole author of the book Equality For Men

Also on insideMAN: