Apparently, according to The Guardian, women dislike the coalition more than men. This had led to a consultation of feminist groups who surprise, surprise are complaining that they are being treated badly by the government.
First off, I look at the graph and it isn't obvious that the female vote is falling comparatively worse to males.
Feminist women are looking for special treatment. They want to feel like someone is looking after them. This may make the individual feminist or female Labour politician (or Lynn Featherstone) feel better that they are having their wishes fulfilled, but what is the psychological effect on society? Remember that it is our taxes that are being used for politicians to spend as they wish. It is our freedom to say and do what we want, and social norms, that are being affected by this kind of feminist legislation. They do not have a right to do this in my opinion.
By government taking action in the name of women, it makes men feel like there is a problem and that they are being forced to work harder to cope with this 'women problem'. This causes anxiety and makes them feel they have lost control. It is also at odds with their experience, because they are quite capable of making the women in their lives happier. Women's happiness isn't dependent on money. It is to a large degree dependent on how their man (or significant other) treats them. Women live with men. Women want the men in their lives to be happy too - otherwise women become anxious and unhappy.. Men naturally take care of women. They prefer to be the ones to make the women in their lives feel better, and enjoy doing so. But instead of this happening, we are told from above that 'we have a problem'. But men cannot solve this problem; the government has to solve it. So you are making men feel bad, but are saying there is nothing we can do to solve it. Men just want women to be happy.
Why make men feel like they have a burden on their shoulders? That is not fair.
Also, it isn't ordinary working class women who are calling for special treatment, it is middle class women MP's and women in feminist societies, a lot of whom it seems have a psychological need for emotional support, that are calling for things to be done 'for women' (and not men). Obviously, this feels good for the individual feminist MP to have so much power and to feel like someone is looking out for them and fulfilling their every request, but real working class women aren't benefiting from this. In other words, the feminist MP's and societies are calling for women to become a burden on men. This makes men unhappy. Living with these unhappy men makes ordinary women unhappy. So it may be a surprise to the individual middle class feminist MP, but most working class women don't want you to do anything specifically for them (and not men). Unlike the emotionally needy feminists, most women are naturally quite happy. They have the potential to be happy and independent, or happy and in a relationship.
For most working class men, they prefer seeing a happy woman to an unhappy one. They would go out of their way to make an unhappy woman happy. But of course, because of the feminist legislation, it is socially unacceptable for men to seem nice and do nice things for women. By doing nice things for women you challenge the consensus , laid down by the government, that all men want to rape and beat up women. Which individual man is going to challenge that consensus? It would seem odd. It would cause anxiety that you were going against what society expects of a man. Far easier for men o go along with what the government's low expectations of them. Hence the rise in rape and domestic violence since the introduction of feminist legislation regarding sexual harassment, equality, rape in marriage, and domestic violence.
So, I am against devising policy on the basis of gender.