Yeah I’m not seeing the debate here. NOW advocates for women. The NAACP advocates for blacks. Etc and etc. That’s what they do. I don’t think any reasonable person needs to be reminded that these groups are advocacy organiations for their constituencies and don’t care about equality or fairness or any of that mumbo-jumbo.
Just to note, Christina Hoff Sommers is a notorious anti-feminist who always sides with men/ conservatives in any conflict where women’s issues are involved she is nothing but a younger version of Phyllis Schlafly.
Haven’t they been doing that for decades?
Ogdamn cockblockers . . . rackafrackinrassinfrasss . . .
True, but you also just dont make the buggy whippers teachers and doctors overnight as well either because you need more of those.
Lets say all the jobs lost were housing construction. Housing construction stops. You find jobs those guys (and gals) could do with minimal retraining that serve the public good short term and long term. Which is what you where getting at in the first place, minus my twist at the begining.
If it’s agreed that infrastructure investment in-and-of-itself would be worthwhile for the country, and that providing funds for that type of work could deliver the most bang for the buck in terms of getting people working, regardless of their gender, then I think it’s reasonable to criticize those advocating for a less optimal use of the stimulus money.
The point is to get the maximum number of people possible to start buying goods and services again. Laws and regulations aside, gender equality logically shouldn’t even enter into the equation. If 50% of male-dominated industry A are out of work, and only 20% of gender-equal industry B are out of work, we shouldn’t be stimulating industry B just because it helps men and women equally, we should be stimulating industry A because it gets more people back to work.
So far, we have only your word for this.
As Kimmy said, cite?
(refraining from a shot, both obvious and cheap, about females and heavy lifting.) 
Oh, believe me, there’s a market for buggy whips! :o
Icerigger yes…glad someone noted that. She wrote a book called " Who Stole Feminism?" to which one of my friends always rejoins " You did! Give it back!"
Sheesh, I am sorely disappointed at some of the comments in this thread re: feminism. Feminism isn’t just one belief. There are actually
MANY feminisms. Do you believe that men and women should be equal in all ways? Then you’re a feminist.
Do you believe that gender roles like what a fundie family follows are really dumb? Do you think men can be nurses or beaticans without being labeled gay? Do you believe women should be able to work out of the home and not be forced to take Home Economics? Many of us have the same beliefs that any typical libral has…
No, you’re not. Unless you’re a masculinist too.
So? Look, those are jobs which there’s some natural growth for, & some need for. Whatever jobs the men were doing apparently weren’t that necessary. Maybe more men should go into health care & education, & fewer into manufacturing.
Sommers has an axe to grind, & Teh Weekly Standard is trash.
A global economic downturn means construction and manufacturing workers are no longer needed? Their skills are obsolete and they should all enter the service industry?
So you’re the one who, “see[s] workplace as a battlefront in a zero-sum struggle between men and women”!
No – there’s a long-term trend reducing the proportion of manufacturing jobs in advanced industrial economies. The same may be true of construction, but I’m not so sure about that. Given the trend, and given a choice, it seems reasonable not to prop up a declining sector of the economy. But “they should all enter the service industry” is an exaggeration of that position.
A recession is no time to judge whether an industry is actually in decline.
Do you not agree that America’s physical infrastructure is in need of improvement and investments in roads, bridges, fiber optics, etc. would benefit us all? If our infrastructure is decaying, we’re not going to tackle the problem by pumping money into education and child care.
According to the article, a petition circulated by “notable feminist economists” wanted the stimulus to “institute apprenticeships” to train women for at least 1/3 of the stimulus jobs. Should the stimulus be directed towards righting a perceived social wrong by creating new employment opportunities for women (never mind that more men have lost their jobs in this recession), or should it be directed towards getting people who already have useful skills back to work?
My opinion? Neither. It should be directed toward building things we need. Me, I’d build hospitals, which would create a wide variety of jobs for men & women.
We don’t need structurally sound bridges?
I’m sorry, I left something out.
Of course we need those as well. Maintaining our infrastructure is an obvious thing to do, & one of the first things that did in fact happen in my state. But I don’t think those “80% of lost jobs” were all in the highway department.
Yes, I agree with working on roads, & the electrical grid, & reservoirs–even as a first priority. But past that, we shouldn’t just be creating make-work that sort of resembles the lost jobs. We should be looking to fill needs. It’s foolish to merely “create jobs” based on the desires of would-be employees instead of starting useful projects based on needs–like roads, but also like hospitals.
So let me restate: I’d build roads, but I’d build hospitals & clinics as well.
Actually, I would think it’s one of the best times to judge whether an industry is in decline, because you’re essentially working with a “clean slate” (or as clean a slate as is possible, without an industry completely disappearing). If you create jobs in a declining industry, it might help pull you out of a recession - but only to drop you back in later.
So maybe shouldn’t be so narrow-minded about careers and industry - funding that leads to more jobs for nurses, for example, shouldn’t be seen as “for women” even if historically women have dominated that industry. Particularly as more and more men are going into nursing.
Likewise, I used to be an office worker and I am now a female construction worker. Funding that provides apprenticeships and jobs for construction workers does not bar women from benefiting from those programs.
A major difference, however, is that some construction work requires brute strength that most women just don’t have. All I can say is thank Og for power tools, otherwise I’d never be able to keep up with what I’m currently being asked to do.
We should direct stimulus money to what we need, not for social engineering. It would also be nice if it was easier to change career’s in one’s mid-40’s, but that’s a different topic.