IN THE COMMENTS: John Althouse Cohen said...
Do you stand by your earlier critique? "I think Obama must respond to this problem. If a huge federal jobs program is really what we need — and I'm not willing to say it is — then how can nearly all the job be men's jobs?"
In other words, weren't you one of the feminist critics that Sommers is talking about?
I did add "Is it enough of an answer to say that it's up to women to take up the hard physical labor of building roads and bridges and the like?" Those were 2 questions. Generally, I will stand by my preference for good solutions tailored to actual problems.
पोस्ट्स
२१ टिप्पण्या:
The economic programs of Obama and Democrat Party, Inc simply favor their constituencies. It's politics at same or higher rate as usual.
The sad part is how fine that is with liberals - and how dishonest. When Robert Gibbs, the President's spokesman, was asked about the thousands of families and workers affected by the closing of Chrysler dealerships, he expressed no sympathy for them whatsoever, simply stating that hard decisions had to be made and that so many jobs and families were saved bey the decisions made. What he left out of his comment was that the jobs saved were union - read:Democrat constituency - jobs.
Gibbs is so dishonest he could get a job at the New York Democrat Ass Kissing TIMES.
"Balanced" meaning...what?
When women say they want it all, they mean it.
I am unbelievably insulted by the idea that, somehow, there are now "men's jobs" and "women's jobs" in the eyes of feminist groups. There was a time in my life when I was young and the idea of feminism appealed to me- that time is long past.
The fact that someone even considered "Apron-ready" as a counter to shovel ready (regardless of whether it was rejected) just seals the deal. Simply outrageous.
Feminism has become genocidal, or gendercidal. They have the viciousness that we saw in Rwanda.
Hoff Sommers is one of the few who actually sees it. It's terrifying, and it's going to get a lot worse.
I liked this especially though toward the end of her article:
"Those men are fathers, sons, brothers, husbands, and friends; if they are in serious trouble, so are the women who care about them and in many cases depend on them. But NOW and its sister organizations see the world differently. They see the workplace as a battlefront in a zero-sum struggle between men and women, where it is their job to side with women."
Yes, and zero is what they want the men to become. Dead and gone. But aside from a few absolute Hitleresque separatists, who is that going to delight? It makes no sense, and yet, that is the result of taking up Marxism as the model.
Feminists don't really care about addressing issues that confront all women (or womyn, lol). More accurately, they really care about the issues that confront mostly college-educated, full-time professionals.
They really don't care a whip about the women who choose, to stay at home and raise their children. Quite the opposite. There are a number of (2nd and 3rd wave, I believe) opinions from the movers and shakers that believe the housewife to be mentally ill on some level.
A pox on our house.
Do you stand by your earlier critique? "I think Obama must respond to this problem. If a huge federal jobs program is really what we need -- and I'm not willing to say it is -- then how can nearly all the job be men's jobs?"
In other words, weren't you one of the feminist critics that Sommers is talking about?
Do you stand by your earlier critique? "I think Obama must respond to this problem. If a huge federal jobs program is really what we need -- and I'm not willing to say it is -- then how can nearly all the job be men's jobs?"
I disagree completely with the notion we needed the "jobs program" to begin with, but I think you're missing the point. If nearly all the jobs lost were men-centric, those should be the sectors receiving the most attention. Parsing things up to achieve some sort of gender equity doesn't make any sense at all if you accept that, in sheer numbers, men are far more likely to be unemployed in this recession than women.
This is another example of advocacy groups getting way beyond the people they claim (often falsely) to represent. Most women don't think of gender issues as zero-sum. Professional feminists do.
To ordinary men and women, feminism is supposed to be about equality and fairness. To a professional feminist, it's just about getting advantages for women. People try to have common sense; political groups just play politics.
The "feminist" movement is nothing but an interest group of educated, professional women. If you are not one of them man or woman, they couldn't care less about your interests. If they were genuinely interested in the plight of women in general, as opposed to a select priviledged class, they would be concerned about men losing their jobs and the effect that has on their families. But since they only care about educated professional women, men losing their jobs and the corrisponding hardship that falls on their wives and children mean nothing to them.
I think you're missing the point. If nearly all the jobs lost were men-centric, those should be the sectors receiving the most attention. Parsing things up to achieve some sort of gender equity doesn't make any sense at all if you accept that, in sheer numbers, men are far more likely to be unemployed in this recession than women.
I understand that point, and I agree with it. I don't see why you think I'm "missing the point."
The problem here is the belief that an economic stimulus was the solution and even if it was in the abstract, that a bloated, slow, government bureaucracy was the best way to pull it off.
If simply getting money to consumers was the solution, declaring a three month tax holiday would have had a far greater effect. Of course, this wouldn't have allowed the federal government to expand its power and that is anathema in Washington.
"We need to rebuild not only concrete and steel bridges but also human bridges."
Oh dear God.
Every woman with an engineering degree just threw up a little bit in her mouth.
This kind of injustice toward honest, hard-working men is certainly nothing new. They're the perfect kind of victim: the kind that doesn't complain, the kind that will eat a shit sandwich and then blame himself for not finding a way to make it more palatable.
Which isn't to say they're masochists: they will avoid suffering whenever possible, so if participating in society entails suffering...
The stimulus was written by a select group of House Dems who each got to throw some big dollar bones to faithful Dem constituencies.
As a result, the stimulus was a non-targeted, scattershot trilion dollar bag of goodies that will not invigorate the economy. Sorry, Mr. President, but that is the truth. The Dem leadership failed you and failed the American people. Only a idiot would trust them again but you are with the health plan. I suggest you wake up before your presidency is known as the alltime laughingstock of incompetence.
One of the most dangerous groups in history has always been large groups of unemployed men, with little or nothing to do.
They eventually find something to do, and it usually ain't constructive. Think inner city gangs as one example.
Democrats will once again make us all reap what has been ignorantly sown. That is, economic redistribution, not the soft-sell socialist kind, but violent and mean.
Enjoy.
A friend of mine is in a construction labor union. More than 60% of his union's members are out of work. They are wondering what happened to the road infrastructure stimulus dollars.
Most of them and their union leaders backed Obama in the election.
"... then how can nearly all the job be men's jobs?"
Because nearly all the jobs lost were men's?
I know that sounds simple, but...
Perhaps that's an old point of view Althouse?
I did add "Is it enough of an answer to say that it's up to women to take up the hard physical labor of building roads and bridges and the like?" Those were 2 questions.
Yes, they were 2 questions. Very pointed ones that implied a point of view. I still don't see how you'd reconcile your earlier post with Sommers's piece -- if you agree with the latter. Do you?
No big surprise that when the politicians have goodies to distribute, the pressure groups do what they can to get their share (or more).
Just another reason why the gov't shouldn't be in charge of handing out jobs.
I think that NOW not only wants the money to go to women, exclusively, but they don't want the men to get bailed out. They want to exterminate them, as part of their final solution to the problem of men. Maybe that's paranoid, but I think that's the case -- Valerie Solanas put the issue the most plainly, but then, many members of NOW backed SOLANAS, then and NOW.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा