March 2002
Posted March 18, 2002
Are American employers anti-family? January 23, 2002 -
As more women entered the workplace, wages went down. Contrary to what feminists would have us believe, sexism had less to do with it than simple supply and demand: the supply of labor went up relative to demand, so the price (wages and benefits) went down. Employers took advantage of this to weaken union contracts, which weakened unions and paved the way for the globalization of labor, with all the penalties for Americans that entails:
"The United States, despite passing legislation in 1993 for unpaid family and medical leave, remains an outcast in the industrialized world. It is the only advanced country on the planet without paid family and medical leave. It is the only advanced nation in the world without federally mandated paid vacation days. And the state of U.S. health care is an embarrassment: 44 million Americans lack any health insurance coverage at all."
This has harmed American families in other, more subtle ways, as well:
"Private corporations in the United States have also failed to address the needs of workers trying to meet their responsibilities at home."
The libertarian argument, adopted as Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinism once was by American corporations, is that it's the business of business to make money, not to care for their employees' personal lives. Such as family obligations. So, to an increasing degree, we are left to fend for ourselves.
We could counter that, through military service and with taxes, Americans defend and sustain the corporate domain with their personal lives, therefore corporations owe us more than just jobs. But as long as the Golden Rule - "He who has the gold makes the rules" - prevails, such arguments will fall flat like a moan in the mist.
What is needed is political action and economic activism. As long as most Americans remain preoccupied with the likes of Jerry Springer and struggling to pay their debts, however, there is little chance of that.
- Women's eNews.
Posted March 18, 2002
Is sexual harassment running rampant? February 5, 2002 -
More than 10 years ago, hostile environment sexual harassment exploded into the American consciousness through the confrontation between Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. Despite years of litigation and sensitivity training since then, sexual harassment is still pervasive:
"This year's national survey by the Employment Law Alliance, the world's largest network of employment and labor lawyers, reveals that 21 percent of the women polled say they've been sexually harassed at work."
Although the rate is high, it was probably higher 10 years ago. The real difference is, now more women know about the "reasonable woman standard," they know when they're being harassed, and are more likely to report it. Contrast this with men, who, in the absence of any similar effort to inform them of sexual harassment under the "reasonable man standard," report a much lower rate:
"21% of women polled said they have encountered sexual harassment, that contrasts with 7% of the men surveyed."
But this could change very quickly.
Several years ago, I asked Sarah Weddington if, as hostile environment sexual harassment is (1) conduct of a sexual nature which is (2) pervasive and (3) has the purpose or effect of creating a hostile environment, and as (1) most men agree a short skirt or tight sweater constitutes conduct of a sexual nature, and that any such conduct is (2) pervasive and (3) can create a hostile environment for any man who takes notice, could such conduct therefore constitute sexual harassment under the "reasonable man standard." In reply, Weddington, the lawyer who won the famed "Roe v. Wade" decision, stammered and fell silent.
Since then, it appears feminists have worked hard to keep this legal fact quiet. But they can't keep a lid on it for long. Eventually, in 10 years or less, this will be widely understood among men and, unless women's behaviors change, the number of men reporting sexual harassment will climb as well.
Right now, women hold the advantage. Men once held the advantage. They held it until, persuaded by the hope of real equality, they let it go. In the liberation which, though still incomplete, followed, feminists snatched the advantage and turned it against men.
For this betrayal, a male backlash is growing. Before it gains much momentum, women can take the initiative by turning the women's liberation movement into an equalitarian movement, in which men are embraced as equal partners rather than condemned as the enemy.
- US Newswire.
Posted March 6, 2002
The late lamented gender gap! February 25, 2002 -
According to the American Association of University Women, there is a gender gap that shortchanges girls:
"In 1992 How Schools Shortchange Girls found that girls were less likely than boys to take the most advanced courses in math and science." - Gender Gaps Fact Sheets
Although the AAUW now admits the gap was small and decreasing, in 1992 they made it sound like the gap was huge and growing wider. Now, new evidence indicates the gap is miniscule:
"Researchers at UNC Chapel Hill who set out to discover why boys do better in math than girls were surprised to find that the gender gap doesn't add up. ... While boys do show a faster acceleration in math skills as they get older, the largest difference between boys and girls was late in high school, and it was only 1.5%."
This is good news for women as it eliminates support for injecting gender politics into the public school curricula, and excellent news for equalitarians, who support a curricula that encourages everybody to excel.
- TIME.
Posted March 6, 2002
Kathleen Parker - We're not worthy! February 18, 2002 -
For a while, the debacle of 9-11 and the collapse of Enron dominated the media as the Twin Towers once dominated the New York City skyline. But concern with such large matters didn't last for long:
"When terrorist mass murder and precedent-setting corporate crime invite debates of gender superiority (hint: the Enron whistleblowers were women; 9-11 heroes were men), we're back to being fat 'n happy, otherwise known as schtupid."
Although equal rights and responsibilities regardless of sex (race, or whatever) are hardly trivial, since the feminist bandwagon began to drift over into the Looney lane in the late 1970s, the majority of their assertions, far from being profound, have been misleading, contrived or outright lies, and the entire movement has taken on the nature of a smear campaign against men. One result is that a once serious discussion over the course of our social evolution has devolved into a cross between a bar room brawl and a playground scuffle:
"Such silliness explains nothing except why John Gray is rich and I'm not. ... Even as we bicker over who suffers more, who loves more, who nurtures more and, in my case, who cares less, Gray is on tour with his latest, Mars and Venus in the Workplace."
Most Americans agree women and men should be paid the same for the same work, respected the same, loved the same, given the same opportunities for career and family, and that we should implement equalitarian policies across the board. The time for us to move on to put such policies to work is overdue. Yet we linger, nattering, thanks to the feminists' hate male campaign, over which sex is despicable and which is worthy:
"All of which explains why I work alone and, just possibly, why hungry people everywhere hate our guts."
- Orlando Sentinel.
|
