Posted On: Wednesday - September 9th 2020 6:47PM MST
In Topics:   Feminism  Economics
(Continued from Part 1.)
I'm sorry, readers. Any donations sent in over the last few days will be sent back with interest accrued. I can't fisk this stupid broad Chabeli Carrazana's feminist article for money and still hold my head up high. This is like shooting fish in a barrel or beating up on the KISS pinball machine that'd give me one credit and a quarter out the slot when I kneed it in the cash-box even though I could kick it's ass without any help. I'd feel dirty taking any money for this. [Just SHFU! - Ed.]
Yeah, they'll be a Part 3 too, as this is easy blogging, and the article doesn't have one single paragraph without enough stupidity to deserve mention. Let's just start off on the last sentence we left off on:
She [could-have-been-happy-Mom Ellu Nasser] was collateral damage in what has become America’s first female recession.Yes, men NEED to be the primary breadwinners. Otherwise, girls will not usually marry them, and for most, it will not be so easy to get laid. Then, any kids produced will be illegitimate and raised partially by The State. Most men and real women don't want that.
For the first time since they began a consistent upward climb in the labor force in the 1970s, women are now suffering the repercussions of a system that still treats them unequally. Men are still the primary breadwinners. Women are still the primary low-income workers, the ones whose jobs disappeared when coronavirus spread. Mothers in 2020’s pandemic have reduced their work hours four to five times more than fathers to care for children in a nation that hasn’t created a strong caregiving foundation.
When the economy crumbled, women fell — hard.
What's with this "caregiving foundation"? That's absolutely not "a nation"'s job, it's YOUR job. You are a woman, right? (No offense, but you gotta do your due diligence these days...) "Caregiving foundation"? Oh, yeah, that's the People's Daycare of Mao-era China or something Pol Pot may have come up with, isn't it? No thanks. How about your acting like a woman, and problem solved? (Oh wait, sorry 'bout that, I will just listen some more.
This year, female unemployment reached double digits for the first time since 1948, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics started tracking women’s joblessness. White women haven’t been such a small share of the population with a job since the late 1970s. And women of color, who are more likely to be sole breadwinners and low-income workers, are suffering acutely. The unemployment rate for Latinas was 15.3 percent in June. For Black women, it was 14 percent. For White men: 9 percent.Unemployment numbers don't mean a lot when you look long term. The BLS goes by unemployment claims. Who goes down to that shithole government facility to begin with?* Anyone who has passed the point of getting payments is off the rolls, and Whá-lá (as the French write), he is no longer unemployed. Where is the unemployed man? I beg of you, show me unemployed man. [/Babu Bhatt]
All the while, women continue to earn less than men, with White women making 79 cents on the White male dollar, Black women making 62 cents, Native American women making 57 cents and Latinas making 54 cents.
Going back to 1948 and right on through 1972, most America women were happy to be at home raising their children, supporting their husbands, and participating in the community. They did not seem to think of themselves as unemployed, and, yes, their folks WERE overjoyed, as a matter of fact.
OK, so you want white woman to be a bigger share of employed people and "women of color" (more about them coming) to be a bigger share. Hey, just what the heck are you gettin' at here?
Now we hear this 79¢ on the dollar bit again, oh, and 62¢, and 57¢ (wait, what, for stringing beads or serving drinks when I push that button on top of the one-armed bandit? That'd be easy money for a paleface), and 54¢ on the dollar. Can we put this stupidity to rest right in the here and now, please? If I could hire a white woman for 79%, or better yet a squaw for 57%, of what a man makes, for the same work, taking the same number of sick and maternity days, with no 4-day bad spells during which I must hang out on the corner of the roof of my plant**, why wouldn't I do just that? Are businessmen just trying to lose money? No, this has always been an apples-to-oranges comparison. Check out data for the exact same jobs and same experience level, and even with the "women troubles" you'll be paying the same or higher - it's often higher to land this token woman employee to begin with.
What women in America are living now is the consequence of years of occupational segregation that kept them out of managerial positions, stuck in low-paying jobs with few safeguards like paid sick leave. When a third of the female workforce — the grocery clerks, home health aides and social workers — became “essential workers” this year, they were faced with difficult decisions about preserving their health or keeping their jobs. The rest found themselves more likely to be in positions that vanished overnight, like the housekeepers and the retail clerks, or on the margins, in the jobs at risk of never coming back.Whoa, wait a minute. These "essential"*** workers are the ones that didn't get sent home. Haha, so at least they got to decide whether to get hysterical or not. OTOH, men in these positions were thankful to keep their jobs because they don't want the wife and kids to leave on them later in the year. There was no decision for them to make. Those housekeepers would be better served heading back to Guatemala, and the rest making that little money could think about being really nice to a man, so she might get married or stay married. There. Problem solved, or was that not what you wanted?
Oh, "occupational segregation", I like that! It rolls right off the tongue like "Yes, Mrs. Nasser, I too enyoyed the Carrazana article" off the tongue of the Guatemalan housekeeper. That's what they pay writer Chabeli Carrazana the big bucks for over at The 19th.
I noticed that in every single part of this article that there's absolutely no concern for what men need to work for and how their employment prospects are. I guess married women who DO depend on a man so they can live as a woman are of no concern either.
Together, the losses threaten decades of steady, hard-won progress.Good! One woman's progress is another man's destruction.
Nasser felt her loss most on the days when the constant run of doing dishes and cleaning up meals made it feel like her life was on hold. For the fall, she’s patched together some homeschooling with a retired teacher for her kindergartener and a handful of other kids from her Austin neighborhood. Her 9-year-old will return to private school.I guess the husband gets tired sometimes of fixing things on the house, or getting the bills in order, or other chores, but he probably doesn't complain - no time to. For the high-class working woman though, doing dishes and cleaning up meals is for the
Having a child care option is what helped her say “yes” when the call came in late July re-offering the position she passed up in June. She acknowledges again and again that she is luckier than most. She was able to make the difficult decision to leave the workplace — and then return — because her husband earns more than she does and they could afford to send their kids somewhere. Many women won’t have that this year.
“It’s a simultaneous feeling of guilt that we are able to do it,” she said, “and sadness that this is the situation we were in.”
Hey, I did like that one part about getting other kids into a homeschooling group. Why not keep that up? Oh, it's not part of the narrative - she was likely worried about being called a "Bible Thumper" or worse for that. So send them back to the $15,000/year school and pay for child care from someone who is no relation. Your husband can always up the hours to 120, but you say your job can do it. Did you work out how much you'd save by staying home with the kids, not needing a fancy 2nd or 3rd car, and then there's
Mrs. Nassar could do worse than to buy a 16 y/o book by a former blue-squad Presidential Candidate and former Indian squaw called The Two-Income Trap. That would clear this all up for her, and support another Socialist to boot.
OK, I intend to fisk every single paragraph of this feminist article if it takes all month. There will be more than 3 posts.
* I had one opportunity to collect some money during a summer, but I went in, and the smell of bureaucracy depressed me so much, I just walked right out ... and bought more Top Ramen, Mac and Cheese, and green Jello.
** For the reference, the reader could either read an old Peak Stupidity post or Proverbs 25:24. (This is the King James version of Peak Stupidity, if that helps you decide.)
*** Quotes are around "essential" because it's a bullshit Totalitarian term, not because just because it's in the excerpt. I give credit where credit is due, no matter what stupidity it's embedded within.
**** Withholding will be lower than it ought to be if she's making less than her husband, as her employer doesn't (and shouldn't) know how much he makes. The withholding gets levied on her total, a smaller amount by far than their combined income, so the husband gets a big surprise when he sees that W-2 with the 2 numbers - "Wages, tips, and other compensation" and then "Federal income tax withheld". Uh, oh, we're gonna need a