How Obama Stimulates Feminists
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.