How Obama Stimulates Feminists
While men have lost most of the jobs in this downturn, women's groups demand that stimulus funds advance their agenda — and Obama has agreed.
Where does one begin? Ms. Hirshman is wrong at every level. No evidence is offered for her assertion. This is in keeping with feminist patterns, as without ignorance their social movement would cease to exist. A glass snake could peer through their arguments and even slither past them. Indeed, a January 22, 2009, Reuters report illuminates Ms. Hirshman’s pervasive alienation from economic reality:
The economic crisis is hitting men much harder than women in the workplace, largely because male-dominated industries like construction and transportation are bearing the brunt of job losses, figures show.
Women, meanwhile, dominate sectors that are still growing, like government and healthcare, experts said.
“It’s men that have taken the hit,” said Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston. “It’s been an overwhelmingly male phenomenon.”
Four-fifths of the 2.74 million people who lost their jobs between November 2007 and November 2008 were men,” Sum said.
It took a month but the news eventually found Battleship Hirshman. She followed up her original article with another appearing in Slate on January 13, 2009. She countered facts and figures with speculation: “Doesn’t this sound wrong? Could it possibly be that women have lost only 20 percent of the jobs that have vanished in the last, devastating year?”
Yes. Women (generally) favor public-sector jobs that are not contingent on high rates of productivity and involve little personal risk. Being a teacher, an academic, a social worker, and/or a bureaucrat are not careers wherein one is exposed to physical danger or the elements. Therefore, it is no surprise that they are largely immune to economic downturns because government never cuts programs. Living on a budget is something only the taxpayers need do.
More and more the United States is paralyzed by the effects of creeping socialism, but this is a bonanza for those lucky enough to toil in bureaucratic redoubts. Most of what functionaries do — while undoubtedly of assistance to largesse recipients — has no positive impact on our trade deficit, the national debt, or the level of entrepreneurial activities in America. Moreover, beadledom eradicates venture capital as sclerotic, unprofitable structures have a corrosive effect on the economy as a whole.
The most astounding aspect of Ms. Hirshman’s perspective is that she has no notion as to what “economic stimulus” means. Of course, I am not implying that the Obama administration’s Keynesian hallucinations are valid, but the idea (purportedly) was to help employers, foster opportunity, and establish market incentives for the creation of jobs.
One can easily understand, though, based on past government policies, why Ms. Hirshman confused such actions with a desire to increase woman’s privilege. Yet instead, would it not be best practice for women to gravitate towards areas of the economy short of labor before deciding on a career path?
Rather than contract the economy by funding make-work jobs, Hirshman would serve women better by realizing that economies grow when businesses provide citizens with goods they wish to acquire. Sadly, it appears that Ms. Hirshman had the last laugh, as feminists invariably do nowadays. It turns out that Barack Obama — assuming that he ever did want to stimulate the economy in the first place — has buckled to pressure.
Two of his advisors released a report that reaffirms our president’s commitment to identity politics:
Summing across industries suggests that the total number of created jobs likely to go to women is roughly 42% of the jobs created by the package. Given that so far in the recession women have accounted for roughly 20% of the decline in payroll employment, this calculation could reflect that the stimulus package skews job creation somewhat toward women, possibly as a result of the investments in healthcare, education, and state fiscal relief.
Perhaps this was the type of change that Barack was alluding to all along. Genius Mark Steyn noted that the meaning of economic stimulus has morphed into: “transfer massive sums of money from what remains of the dynamic sector of the economy to the special interests of the Democratic Party.”
I guess language isn’t what it used to be. There is no stimulus in funding non-productive people, but once President Obama’s package of goodies for the faithful becomes law that is precisely what we will be doing.
Obama’s other acts are even more troubling. Our president appears to believe every lie that feminists utter. Nine days after the inauguration he signed the Lilly Ledbetter bill as “a simple fix to ensure fundamental fairness for American workers.” His description of it was totally fallacious.
The bill makes a mockery out of the original statute of limitations and could result in employees suing over supposed discrimination emanating from supervisors who, in the case of Ledbetter, are long dead. The law is a disgrace and allows women, via phantom evidence, to break companies.
During the Ledbetter signing ceremony, Obama made clear that he accepts the spurious notion that when women are paid less than men it is a product of free-floating (and invisible) discrimination. Yet Thomas Sowell, in his outstanding 2008 book Economic Facts and Fallacies, labels the male-female wage discrepancy as being “one of the central fallacies of our time.”
Sowell reaffirmed my earlier point that women eschew vocations involving physical hazard and also that divergences in salary are attributable to other factors such as the time mothers spend raising children. He argues that there will always be “a premium paid for workers doing heavy physical work” and that men comprise 92 percent of all employment-related deaths. One suspects that erasing the sex-based disparity in vocational deaths is not a cause Big Feminism will soon champion.
Barack Obama appears to be one with the feminist privilege machine. When combined with his obvious lust for pork-barrel spending, it is clear that our current president is every bit as partisan as Jimmy Carter and should be seen for what he is: a uniter of radical leftists.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Bernard Chapin wrote Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island, along with a series of videos called Chapin’s Inferno. You can contact him at veritaseducation@gmail.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
36 Comments
1. Delia:The dissembling mantra of “female equality” is a J-O-K-E. -All sponsored by power hungry bull-dykes who hate men and especially hate WHITE MEN and god forbid CHRISTIAN white men!
The ANTI-MALE feminization of our country is already spiraling out of control with the attention deficit disorder mandate crappola shoved upon parents and if they refuse to “DRUG” their kids they are criminals.
I am a strong woman and I run a tight ship and my husband is GLAD of that. I’m the antithesis of everything that many supposed “Strong Females” stand for.
Is it too provocative a question to ask?:
“When men don’t man-up what did you expect?”
My own father never paid a cent of child-support and I’m the product of a single mom but I’m one of the lucky ones who didn’t repeat the mistakes my mother made.
We need to hold our men to higher standards and we need to hold our women to higher standards too…especially the stay at home moms who work their butts off too without much praise or respect. It would be nice if women could be mothers rather than worker bees. It would be nice if Men could be fathers and bread-winners rather than just a ‘partner’…
I’d like to think there are a lot more GOOD people in this world than bad [hey, don't argue me that point because this is the only way I sleep at night] and in the end if we do what we feel is right in our hearts then surely that’s better than the alternative. -But, what’s right and wholesome for me might be entirely NOT cool for YOU and visa versa and this is why shoving opinions down someone’s throat in the form of “LAWS” become scary.
Speaking of which…
WAYYYYYYYYYYY too many lawyers in politics. WAY TOO MANY.
“Vanity. My favorite sin.” Quote from ‘The Devil’s advocate’
Feb 8, 2009 - 2:38 am 2. formwiz:The truth really hurts. From the first sentence, Mr. Chapin has Bambi’s number.
Feb 8, 2009 - 4:47 am 3. Mongoose:Of course, they do not want to actually support women, they just want to tear down our civilization. Thus they attack its chief creators. That this is congruent with Obama’s vile personal demons as regards white men is just the icing on the cake.
Should white men decided to leave this Nation is will quickly find itself in the situation that S. Africa finds it self in today.
White women should be cautious, for after they destroy White Men, they will turn on them next. They should also understand that a great many of them will have sons and grandsons.
Next will be the Asian, and then the productive members of our Hispanic population; thy may even get around to the American Arabs when they have outlived their usefulness.
That is what racial and gender divisions are about: Divide and conquer.
Feb 8, 2009 - 5:41 am 4. White minority:As a white male in Denver Colorado; i am officaily in a minority group in Denver county –I want special treatment too!
Feb 8, 2009 - 6:52 am 5. Nemesis:Great commentary. Most people are completely unaware that Obama and Biden are as beholden to radical feminists and lawyers lobbies as the Bushies were to the Carlyle group. Credit goes out to the ‘objective’ media for ‘educating’ the public on both fronts!
The whole Ledbetter Bill is nothing more than the passing of a money-filled envelope across a table in the back room of a diner. The Obama clan owes its backers big-time, and this is one of the pay-offs. Unfortunately, this means that as the manager of a successful family-owned business, I will no loger hire any woman, because the risk is just too great. God forbid I fire her for any reason – all she has to do is shake me down and our business is up in smoke. How unfortunate! Somewhere out there is a talented, deserving young woman who deserves a break in this world. Now she won’t get it, because the Obamites have turned all women into a liability.
Hiring a woman is now tantamount to building your business on a fault-line – and if I don’t have to build my factory on a faultline, I won’t. But wait; I GUARANTEE you that in a year’s time, the Obamites will propose a bill that forces ALL businesses – great and small – to hire a ‘certain number’ of women. A section of this bill will make it illegal to fire women for any reaosn whatsoever.
Social engineering at it’s best. Do I see little red books waving in the distance?
Those female resumes that I so eagerly perused now go immediately into the garbage. Thanks Obama. You just made my hiring decisions easier. I only hire men now.
Feb 8, 2009 - 7:42 am 6. Mongoose:Nemesis: the “Bushies” were not “beholden” to the Carlyle Group. That is just left win agitprop and resulting paranoia.
As to the main point:
Should the White Man opt out of this society and civilization, it would fall apart, It was he that created and maintained its great traditions,forms and institutions, and it was he achieved 99% of its great accomplishments. The rest at best move along in a world whose every shape, thought and form was created for them and must mimic those that have created and nutried it.
The pitiful, and mostly fictitious contributions to Western Civilization that the feminists attempt proffer to foist on us amount to so much childish wishful thinking. These feminist are really the distaff branch of Marxist-Leninist, with a strong does of Stalinism thrown in to the mix. Should their treason bear frit, they will be among the first to be discarded. The sexes do not share same in aspects, inclinations or capacitues. If they did, the history of the world would be radically different than it is. When this era has passed, feminists will be held up to the derision and ridicule that they so richly deserve.
What will be left should the white man is displaced will laughable theater were women and minorities will play act the forms of Western Civilization, but there will be no reality behind it. It will just be a puppet show. It will be a weak, decadent and effeminate parody of our then dying civilization. It will not last for long. More Creative and masculine Civilizations will conquer it and enslave what is left. These civilizations will be much harsher than ours.
Let us see our feminists stomp their feet at them. It will be straight to the harem for them, if they are lucky. Serves them right.
How future generations shall detest the women of today.
All this being said, it is much more likely that we have a civil war in this country along geographic and racial lines. You can bet the women on one side will do their moral duty. They will not be Left Wing feminists.
Feb 8, 2009 - 8:14 am 7. Gary Rosen:Oh, I thought you said *simulates* feminists. Never mind.
Feb 8, 2009 - 9:32 am 8. Delia:Mongoose,
Future generations will look at MY example in wide-eyed wonder. Why? I’m made of stuff that is the heart of America and the American dream.
A. I’m a self-taught computer geek and a webmistress with some decent html skills.
B. I’m a co-owner of a construction/carpentry business with my husband.
C. I home-birthed and home-schooled my daughter and she’s a SMART cookie and also helps us with our business now.
D. I’m a singer/songwriter/dancer/blogger in my spare time.
E. I’m in the process of creating a cookbook with someone who rubs elbows with famous people [not to overly toot my own horn].
F. I’m one of the rare Stay-At-Home wives that LOVE being a homebody and mastering it with love and fun. I do a lot of work for our business too of course but I do it from home so I consider that part of my house-wifey stuff.
Anywayyyyyyyyyy. I’m just saying that there are white women out there who respect men and love them dearly but in order to get respect you have to earn it and some men *cough, my father-sperm-donor- cough* don’t deserve it. There are a LOT of white, lazy, loser men out there too. My white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed, gun toting father never even gave me so much as a birthday card and NEVER a cent of child-support and he lived off of his second wife who was on welfare and NEVER worked EVER.
As soon as you try to paint “white men” as some perfect group of individuals it becomes a parody. There are good and bad folks in every shade of the rainbow and every culture. There are some stupid women and stupid men. STD’s are rampant in the world and the onus is not just on the female gender. Ahem.
~End rant~
Feb 8, 2009 - 9:53 am 9. Pierre Parent:Lol, I wrote this a few days ago as I just cracked. But, I know what to do…….who do I talk to?
If you could please suffer this analogy, let’s temporarily agree that we can view the planet Earth from space, rotate it in any direction, zoom in on any location etc. Let’s also temporarily agree that every action by each and every person contributes towards or not, a twine of “attitude”, which then by momentum, or lack of, creates or not, individual “virtual” vines that carpet all lands. Some are big vines, some are small. Some small ones are many, and some big ones are many, some small ones are long as some big vines are short etc. Oh, and while I’m at it, to make my analogy complete, add to this carpet of vines in Québec, (rotate Earth to zoom of Québec) a good man that can no longer tolerate the snake of the vines underfoot.
Here’s a vine that’s always growing well, and is exclusive to Québec. Male suicide.
Key indicators in societal trends such as the suicide rates are dangerously important. Please specify the Québec male suicide rate, and then compare to the Canadian one…
Alarming is the vertiginous rate of increase it has shown since the 1960’s and doubly alarming is the persistent stance on population duress that in Québec, women suffer and men inflict. Although today the facts in Québec prove that violence is more evenly spread out between the sexes than not…..what is hammered outwards from the state is that women endure, men inflict.
This disastrous situation is real, current, and carries within it the seed for proper full scale societal unrest. Québec is now in a “zone” of indecision, heavy with unknown fears, void of leadership and vision, filling with discomfort and pain that can be relieved…by it’s own. The ravages and its attendant losses to our society from this one indicator alone is but one, there are others, of significant and unique societal stresses that are building “virtual” stress faults throughout the population of Québec, couple by couple, family by family.
And here’s how I would fix this nasty vines’ growth….
I believe I can forge a plan to re-arrange, (lol, the gall), the desired Québec family of the future.
Hire mommy or daddy, if they so wish, as an educator paid to work from their own home (child required). Hire only one of the two, irrespective of sex. In Québec, this can be achieved currently, somehow, in a tax neutral, or tax deferred way. Do this as a voluntary, parental “thing to do”
The benefits of welcoming the Québec male back to the family fold will solve so many of Québec’s ills it’s not even funny.
Feb 8, 2009 - 10:03 am 10. Mongoose:Mr. Rosen: Well, that too.
Feb 8, 2009 - 10:10 am 11. Mongoose:Delia, Well you you have a point, but I was talking about the whole structure of our Civilization, the whole form and concepts of the traditions of the West, and its unique synthesis. I am talking about the men in aggregate over the course of the history of our civilization, not mere individual lives. The “genius” if you will of cur civilization (genius in the sense of guiding principles and creative spark). It is neither here nor there that there are good men and bad men, this is true in all civilizations. That is not the point. It is a much deeper thing, and it is mostly a maie creation, as it is in almost all civilizations.
The major notions of it from our languages and alphabets, to symphonies, to mathematical formulas, the notions of parliaments, Bill of rights, The philosophical traditions, Our notions of archietcture. The notion of the computer. The notion of software.
Not just the contents in a given epoch, but the actual forms of the West. The very conceptions of them. They things men have done, not women, and to agrue otherwise is to ignore history and the truth of the sexes. Sure their are exceptions, but they prove the rule. Sure their are lazy white men, and some deeply immoral and sinful ones. This is not what I am getting at at all. This is something much broader than daily lives, though it is built out of them.
And I am just as sure that you have done you duty and raised good children and there have been men around you that did not do this. And shame on them. I in fact would not call them men at all, but merely males. They are not doing their duty whatsoever. And you may even have to take on a man’s role to do your duty, and no doubt did it well, and more power to you. You are a real woman in my book, you can count on that. I am thankful for it even though I may never meet you for I know your chidren will go out as decent people into the world, help it and not burden it. This is really the best that most of us can do.
But you should not have to do that, should not have to take on a man’s duty, a man’s role. That should not be your job. and it is a sign of how decadent we have become if you had to do so. I am not saying that it is your fault either. Far from it, believe you me.
You must agree with me on some level becuase you have home schooled you children. You must feel that there is something wrong out there, maybe not about the terrible state of the sexes, but about something.
Right?
Feb 8, 2009 - 11:17 am 12. Delia:froms of it
Mongoose, should I respond to you with tongue clicks and chest thumps?
Thank you for the nod towards my ‘children’ but I only had [on purpose] ONE child and SHE is spectacular.
In all honesty, I hear you loud and clear on many points and the conceptualized hatred of white men has become almost “cool” and absorbed into our society like a blanketed virus that bleeps under the mental radar of many youth. REALLY STUPID backassward ideology.
Yes, if every white man and woman with half a brain pulled up stakes and high-tailed it away from the USA to some other utopian dream the USA would turn into a SLUM. No doubt about it. I suppose that’s the joke of it all though huh? Or irony? Of course, I’m raaaaaaaaaaacist for even saying so.
I thank you for your posts because they are thought provoking even if I don’t always agree [just as surely as you don't always agree with mine].
I’m fortunate. God turned my life around for me and he gave me the miracle of my child, my husband and my belief in humanity too. I will always cry for the wrongs and I will roar for the rights and I’ll make mistakes and say stupid things but I’ll put my fists up to any mofo who wants to deny me my freedom to be ME.
P.S. Where does my genius “mensa” worthy I.Q. land me? Does the fact that I’m a Card Carrying Vagina wearer make me less or more since all males have had to be borne of woman?
Feb 8, 2009 - 12:30 pm 13. LawhawkSF:There are three generations of executives in my company. The first generation, the senior executives is comprised largely of men nearing retirement. They were the founders of the company, and the builders of the company.
The second generation, the junior executives and regional managers, is split fairly evenly between men and women, with women having a slight edge. In another few years, they will be the senior executives.
The third generation, newer regionals and local managers, is comprised of about 60 percent women and 40 percent men. Eventually, they will be the senior executives.
The second generation can thank the original feminists for their hard work gaining gender equality. Even among the second generation, equal pay for equal work has been the rule. Among the third generation, nobody in his or her right mind would think that there is any disparity between men and women competing for the right to move up. And because the company has recognized the equal worth of men and women, the fact that the first generation is largely male is of no consequence since it has simple, historical and practical reasons. The world changed, and the company changed with it. The current crop of radical feminists, however, would say the first generation was (and is)sexist, the second generation is struggling against institutional sexism, and the third generation is largely female only because of government pushing of gender-equality.
Like everything else liberals believe, the success of females in the company can only occur because of government largesse and dictatorial powers backed by the legions of lawyers out to improve the business by destroying it. In fact, the current status of the company is due almost 100 percent to sound business practices that will be crippled by the phony gender quarrel and resulting crippling litigation resulting from Obama-approved gender-equality legislation.
Affirmative action of any kind most likely served a useful purpose thirty or forty years ago. Now it is entirely counterproductive, quarrelsome and litigious. It’s also unconstitutional even if the wooly heads on the Supreme Court say otherwise. Once again the dictum is proven true: Conservatives believe in freedom, liberals believe in forced artificial equality.
Feb 8, 2009 - 1:13 pm 14. David S:You assert that there is female privilege, yet fail to define it. You also claim that the female workforce is “non-productive”, which is just a nice way of saying that they would be better off in the home.
The only thing you cite that Obama has done for feminism is to enact a law that provides recourse against discrimination. Is this really a feminist issue, rather than a fairness issue? Can’t men potentially benefit as well?
It seems to me this is sour grapes.
Peace.
DS
Feb 8, 2009 - 1:29 pm 15. Delia:13. LawhawkSF: ”
Affirmative action of any kind most likely served a useful purpose thirty or forty years ago. Now it is entirely counterproductive, quarrelsome and litigious. It’s also unconstitutional even if the wooly heads on the Supreme Court say otherwise. Once again the dictum is proven true: Conservatives believe in freedom, liberals believe in forced artificial equality.”
~
Brill! -And, so true.
The artifice of ‘equality’ is a farce. We now have women FireMEN who shouldn’t be and can’t qualify even enough to tug a firehose or tote a man over her shoulder.
God forbid my house is on fire and some petite woman who can barely wobbly around in her fire gear “rescue” my arse.
Seriously? WTFFFFFFFFFFFFF?
Eh. I’m getting worked up.
Anyhoo *wipes bead of sweat off of brow*
Unions should go too. NOT NEEDED any longer. Unions are AMERICAN COMPANY TOXIC KILLERS.
Unions are a joke.
Teachers? HA!
Teachers. *grumble*
Yeah. Don’t let your children pray [God forbid] in school but be sure to give plenty of SEX ED and CONDOMS out.
EFFING A.! I’m so sick of the hypocricy I want implode.
~Rant off~
Feb 8, 2009 - 1:29 pm 16. Marc Malone:Wow. The comments here went straight downhill. The problem in this society is that we’ve lost track of what the traditional roles are. I’m not saying that women shouldn’t do men’s jobs and vice-versa. I’m merely stating that one must keep track of the baseline.
Men are supposed to provide for and protect the women the children, and the community at large. They are supposed to provide guidance; wisdom and dsicipline. They are supposed to be heads of their households and make the tough decisions. They are hardwired this way, because of their compartmentalized thinking.
Women are supposed to provide for and protect the children. They are the nurturers. The man may build the house, but the woman makes it a home. They provide the warmth and comforts. They do the cooking and cleaning.
Once we start crossing over and doing each other’s jobs, it is easy to lose sight of these baseline roles. It then becomes very easy to shirk. If it’s not in your natural area of responsibility, it takes real conscious effort to do what’s necessary. Men especially tend to shirk. They really resent not being in their natural role. This leads to passive-aggressive behavior. It also leads to power struggles within the family, because the chain of command is no longer clear. Divorce goes up, and discipline declines. This then gets reflected in society at large. Of course, Delia, some men are just naturally shirkers, like your father.
As for the role of white men and their achievements, you’re really off base, Mongoose. Women have only had a contributory role for just a little over a hundred years, previously being completely subordinated. Furthermore, whites are not naturally superior. Our culture is, but that’s because we discovered science and philosophy first. Then we got Christianity, and it made us more civilized. It creates liberty and morality, which are great spurs to the mind.
Any other race that adopts these things as pillars of their culture will also become ascendant. We are drifting away from these tenets, and so, are losing our ascendancy. Our education systems are in decline. Our religiousness and morals are in decline. Our interest in philosophy is in decline (which is why most people are no longer capable of critical thought and the hucksters rule).
All these things are pillars of our civilization. Attack them, and the civilization falls. A man’s role in society is one of those pillars. When men are relegated to secondary status, they rot, and so does society (which accounts for the high male suicide rate in socialist countries). We lose the benefit of testosterone. The important thing is not to differentiate between the races when talking about men. The role of men is the same, regardless. It’s not about white men. It is about men. Or, as Clint Eastwood put it, (raspy voice) “When did we become such pu$$ies?” The answer is, when the women started calling the shots.
Feb 8, 2009 - 1:51 pm 17. Cybergeezer:The Stimulus Bill, as proposed, is NOT RECOMMENDED by the Congressional Budget Office, whose duty it is to study effects of Congressional legislation. And this group is not made up of a political group.
Feb 8, 2009 - 2:03 pm 18. Ditto:This Bill should not be passed until it can get approval from the CBO.
“Your focus becomes your reality.” “Think and Grow Rich.” “The Power of Positive Thinking.” “The Secret” Even The Bible tells us that not only what we think, but the way we think it has power to create in the physical world.
So I read Michelle Obama’s thesis and I understand that the more she focuses on her “blackness”, the longer it will take to overcome racism. She’s in an influential position now, and will make her focus a national one. The absence of racism isn’t affirmative action – it’s fairly competing for jobs and a place at university and scholarships and whatever else there is to compete for, with no thought whatsoever to what color one’s skin is.
Likewise, sexism remains front and center in the national spotlight because BHO has to pay his pipers, so to speak. The opposite of sexism isn’t a one-size-fits-all role for each gender. The opposite of sexism is each of us achieving according to our propensities, proclivities and abilities regardless of our gender.
In short (I know, way too late for that…) the way to achieve any sort of equality is not to force anything on anybody, or to keep one group from participating fully just to let another catch up. Programs such as affirmative action were necessary in their time. Now they are not. Legally acceptable competition, not pacification, must become the norm in any so-called under-privileged group.
But it has become shameful, somehow, to be labeled the “smart kid” in class — the “brown-noser” at work who really pumps out the production each day, even when s/he’s got a cold. It’s no longer admirable to be wealthy, as if this monetary manifestation of successful application of effort is somehow a signal that one is heartless, cold and uncaring. Nevermind the fact that wealthy people invest in small businesses or create their own and hire people to work… it’s (whisper along, boys and girls) capitalism! *gasp*
We as Americans had it a lot better when it was sink or swim – because we got busy (most of us) and swam. Making poverty comfortable is no way to stimulate anything but more poverty.
Feb 8, 2009 - 2:24 pm 19. Delia:Marc, excellent post as usual.
I apologize for sinking into the frick-n-frack. Usually I try and take a few deep breaths before posting my rants but every once in a while my fingers are too nimble for my gray matter to catch up in time.
Yes, men are becoming pu$$ified but who’s fault is that? Our schools are liberal/brain-washed geared towards treating boys as “problems” if they are…well…testosterone filled BOYS! The idea of a matriarchal “It takes a village” society gives me the serious willies.
Is there a happy medium between patriarchy and matriarchy? Heaven only knows but I’m unwilling to turn the rest of my life into a “practice arena”.
Are we no better than lab rats?
Ugh.
Feb 8, 2009 - 2:33 pm 20. LawhawkSF:Although I think Marc Malone may have gone a little over the top, much of what he has to say is true. I like the traditional role of man as the breadwinner and woman as the homemaker, but it is not the only choice. If a woman chooses not to be a homemaker, we lose something, but we gain something as well.
Part of the gender difference (as opposed to gender inequality) is obvious in certain areas. The business I discussed in my earlier e-mail is the wholesale/retail jewelry business. The positions are entirely gender-neutral as a result of the type of business we run at all levels. The pendulum, if left to its own devices, could swing either way. But liberal government has no intention of leaving anything or anybody to their own devices. And that pendulum is now going to behave very oddly and erratically, to say the least.
But what about gender “inequality” in the construction trades? Of course it’s going to be heavily skewed towards men for obvious biological reasons. But is the fact that most of the executives who don’t work with their hands and their muscles are men as well an indication of gender discrimination?
Liberals and feminists will answer that question with a resounding “yes.”
Conservatives and logicians look at all the facts and answer “no.” Most successful businesses want executives who know the business intimately. Where best to learn it? On the job. So they tend to promote from within. Thus, the construction business is heavily male at both the ground level and at the executive level. Sound, logical and gender-neutral action and result.
Should the Chief Financial Officer be a man, then? It probably makes no difference whatsoever, but the chances are pretty good it will be a man anyway because of the network of knowledgeable people within the construction industries. Yet if the de facto percentage of males in that position is high, then the Obama-backed bill requires that almost all future construction CFOs hired will have to be women.
And a whole new overpaid government bureaucracy will come into existence to look solely into which positions, at which levels, in which industries are continuing to practice the horror of gender inequality. They, not the companies, will become the determiners of who can be hired and who cannot. They, not the companies, will determine how much each job is “worth.” Good bye, free enterprise. Say hello to the end of the rule of law which has morphed into the tyranny of the legal profession.
And in the end, who benefits? Radical feminists, government bureaucrats, and bottom-feeding lawyers.
PS: I am the only lawyer employed by the company, and I am the entire legal department. That means that the company’s legal department is 100 percent male. Will the Obamacrats require that we hire a woman to make the department gender equal? If she is the second lawyer in the department, must she be paid exactly the same as I receive in order to avoid gender inequality in pay? Not as ridiculous as it sounds from the Obama point of view, and only the bureaucrats know the answer. The company’s point of view is entirely irrelevant.
Feb 8, 2009 - 3:23 pm 21. Kastaco:The real issue here is that equality has become confused with being identical. Men & women are different on a genetic level & have resultant differences in phisique, brain structure, and anatomy to name a few. Even the most die hard liberal numbnut is forced to admit this, & then will engage in double think to deny the obvious. Men & women think & act different because *GASP* we are different. To deny these differences is to deny reality, & eventually, reality will re-set itself, & purge the chaff away. (usually in very harsh terms, i.e the comming great depression due to spending a trillion $ of pretend money). The fact that we are different does not, however mean that we do not have the same unalienable rights as humans & American citizens. It means that if we are left to freely choose, men & women will generally (but not always) choose different paths in life. Some people just cannot accept that our equality co-exists with our differences
Feb 8, 2009 - 3:24 pm 22. John Galt:Obama is a MACK DADDY!
so says reverand James David Manning of Atlah church in Harlem N.Y>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LIlA_dLWcM
Feb 8, 2009 - 3:48 pm 23. John Galt:The complete video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU
Feb 8, 2009 - 3:52 pm 24. Delia:“PS: I am the only lawyer employed by the company, and I am the entire legal department. That means that the company’s legal department is 100 percent male. Will the Obamacrats require that we hire a woman to make the department gender equal? If she is the second lawyer in the department, must she be paid exactly the same as I receive in order to avoid gender inequality in pay? Not as ridiculous as it sounds from the Obama point of view, and only the bureaucrats know the answer. The company’s point of view is entirely irrelevant.”
~
That’s a realistic and sickening fear.
Ugh.
I HOPE NOT. The Gov. should have no business in OUR successful businesses.
The laughable idea of being forced to hire a woman to work in our business would be dangerous and detrimental.
Women are superior at certain things and so are men. I guess GOD made us different and that is unfair somehow? Let us not confuse issues to such a degree that critical output of product and blood, sweat/tears/feasability outrank the urgent task a hand. Men, REAL MEN are getting the screws put to them…the decent guys who pay their taxes [ahem], support their children [double ahem], love their wives and respect them with grace and dignity [ahem to every abusive jerk white male who thinks he's 'da boss' just because he has two saggy nuts and a shrinky dink], and every PERSON of ANY COLOR or SEX who is paying tax… We are getting the HIGH HARD ONE from Prez OBAMA.
I refuse to bend over and grab my ankles for this administration.
No way José.
Feb 8, 2009 - 3:59 pm 25. ashok:Very much agreed with your closing statement, that President Obama is a “uniter of radical leftists” – remembering that is probably a wise thing, when dealing with the adulation the man gets for simply being elected.
Feb 8, 2009 - 5:02 pm 26. Karen:I don’t like most feminists because their mantra is that they love women, however, they do not love women who stay at home and raise their children. They hate us and speak to us as if we don’t have working brains. It has been my experience that WOMEN have treated me more unfairly and unkindly than any man. I have admiration for both “working” women and women who choose to stay home with their children, however, that same courtesy is not extended to me by the radical feminists. They think I’m a tool of the “man” rather than a person who is trying my best to raise responsible children to go out into the world. And even though raising children is sometimes very mindless, monotonous work–someone HAS to do it and I would rather my children be raised by me (I am also fortunate enough to be able to stay at home because my husband works very hard for us). When I said as much to a radical feminist once she told me I was no more than a slave. It’s that sort of mentality that is killing our socieity.
Feb 8, 2009 - 6:18 pm 27. Delia:Amen, Sister. Thank you for being the ‘other’ brave female with balls enough to tackle this post. I was feeling a bit shark-bate-ish.
Maybe I’m a sap but your apropros words from your heart brought a wee trickle of a tear down my cheek.
I’m a Proud Stay-At-HOMER. I’ll wear that badge with honor.
Feb 8, 2009 - 7:07 pm 28. NMSC:Wow – what a clueless article about feminists. Chapin clearly needs to spend more time with them becuase this piece is really ignorant. Hirshman is a scholar and is one of few feminists who actually conducts research, and she most certainly does not have the ear of the president. In fact she is a feminist outsider. And NOW is a huge joke – barely respected by feminists anymore. And Obama is loathed by feminists, and his actions are perceived as being as lame as Chapin thinks they are. It’s not a good idea to pluck a few feminists out and make them representative of the whole group. Most feminists, even lefty ones, supported Sarah Palin, by the way, and understand the fair pay issues that Sowell cited. Unfortunately, there is a small collection of women and organizations who get all the press – they’re called feminist celebrities – and most feminists can’t stand it either.
Feb 8, 2009 - 9:50 pm 29. tanarg:The Evil Plot: Chicago-Style Democratic Patronage??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGafMHsV4Ug&eurl=
I believe it. Listen particularly to the last line the guy says.
Feb 9, 2009 - 1:39 am 30. Marie Claude:well, the problem with feminists is that they want to imitate the “males” without their logic, and finally they are still in “feminine” professions.
uh, I never wanted to imitated men nor women, just make it in my way, that’s also why I am taken for a peculiar specie by both genders
though I educated my sons to become men because they felt better that way ( learning sports of self defense were necessary at a time). If I had had girls, I would also have pushed them into what they would have felt at their best, the thing is to to find the breach where they can express positively
Feb 9, 2009 - 6:59 am 31. mariecurie:As a feminist of the Sarah Palin, pro-life type, I resent such articles/discussions that lump all feminists together into one group. The man-hating, pro-choice feminists of the 60s and 70s don’t represent me.
I also bristle at comments about how cooking and cleaning are part of a woman’s role, whereas breadwinning is man’s role. What’s wrong with sharing duties, building a home together?
Not all of us have been blessed with children. And there are only so many times a day that a woman can vacuum the floor and load the dishwasher. Now that we have appliances like washing machines and refrigerators, women don’t have to slave away all day for a simple meal. Some of us would like to use our time and education to do things within the community and larger world that we feel makes a difference, and we would like equal pay for that.
Sometimes I feel like any discussion of feminism or gender roles on the politically conservative sites disintegrates into re-workings of the same old stereotypes and assumptions–just because that is the “conservative” way of thinking about things.
Neither conservatives nor liberals seem able to discuss these issues without realizing that each woman, marriage, and family is unique, and most families try to make the decisions that are best for them economically, emotionally, and spiritually.
Feb 9, 2009 - 11:43 am 32. mariecurie:A few more thoughts:
I pretty much agree with NMSC. And responding to Karen’s posting: I have a great respect for stay-at-home moms, but you would be surprised at how many look at me disdainfully because I don’t have kids–as if I’m not really a woman or a grown-up because I haven’t reproduced (and it’s not from lack of trying, believe me). In my small town, women without kids really are the outcasts.
I can’t understand why conservatives are so afraid of the word “feminist.” Unfortunately, I guess that is the legacy of the 60s. What is a feminist? A feminist is a woman (or man) who thinks women should have the same opportunites for education, employment, health care, political involement, spiritual development, etc. as men. If it were not for the early feminists, women would never have gotten the vote, been admitted to universities, been able to hold checking accounts or buy property, etc. Feminism should not be about reproductive rights (that, in my opinions is a human rights issues, not a women’s issu), man-hating, us vs. them, or any of the other non-sense.
Notice that I used the word “opportunity.” I am not saying that a woman should get a job just because she is a woman. A woman who can’t pass a physical test shouldn’t get a job as a fireman any more than a man who can’t pass an anatomy exam should get a job as a nurse or physical therapist.
So–in that respect I probably do agree with the author of the article (leaving aside his little snippy remarks about feminists that don’t help his argument). I find problematic the lobbying of every little special interest group that wants a piece of Obama’s pie (especially when the pie hasn’t even been baked yet–i.e. we are spending money that hasn’t even been made/created yet).
Feb 9, 2009 - 12:24 pm 33. Marc Malone:LawhawkSF and mariecurie – I think you both misunderstood my message. I didn’t say that things should stay in those traditional roles; only that we should keep our eyes on the baseline.
Thus, if a woman helps bring home the bacon, then the man should help with the household chores. If they both work, but the man expects the woman to still do the cooking and cleaning, things just get out of balance. I think it’s fine that women work, and I did my share of household chores.
MY marriage went downhill when we decided my wife would stay home after our first was born, but then she expected me to still do my “share” of the chores, as though she were still working, even though I was working 60+hr weeks. I didn’t mind changing diapers, bathing my kids, and tucking them in. That was my time with them, and they loved it. I made it fun. I just hated having to cook and clean, etc. I could never get her to see that baseline of traditional roles, although I did get some movement.
See, it works both ways, this imbalance.
Feb 10, 2009 - 3:18 am 34. misanthropicus:RE # 16/Marc Malone: “[...] The problem in this society is that we’ve lost track of what the traditional roles are. [...]”
Marc, a respectful addition here: much of the liberals’ dominance of the public discourse/policies comes from the fact that, by control of education, they managed to:
1) have control of terminology and so, in most instances, liberals are able to pass their description of reality as the only & correct one – and unfortunately, your phrasing “traditional roles” shows that you dance according to their tune.
“Traditional role”, “traditional family” and so on and so forth – what is “un-traditional”? And are there realistic, positive alternatives to these anthropological arrangements predicated by objective biological & social necessities? Methinks not, and any serious anthopologist will support this “side of the narrative”. (Tarzan, Mowgli and Romulus and Remus had indeed edifying careers, yet most people will agree that with a real mother/woman and a real father/man they would have been better off than with the she-wolf and the siminans that reared them. Then… maybe not – I can see Naomy Wolfe or Erica Jong demanding legislation for removing children from destructive “traditional” families into inclusive, tolerant, open-minded penguin flocks or dolphins shoals.)
2) and by the same education control, liberals managed to move this type of (untenable) concepts (i.e. untenable in worlds different of the Laputa or Erewhown where we live now), in the realm of imperative or even mandatory legislative action – diversity, etc.
Best regards -
Feb 10, 2009 - 5:06 am 35. deguello:Does Michelle know about this?
Feb 13, 2009 - 2:16 pm 36. deguello:I thought he liked to stimulate Chris Matthews?
Feb 14, 2009 - 12:33 pm