by The Son@Night
The following is a question and answer from an interview with Gloria Steinem in the Star Tribune this morning.
Is the recession America is now experiencing disproportionately affecting women?
It obviously is.
Now let’s take a look at that old conservative rag, the New York Times.
The proportion of women who are working has changed very little since the recession started. But a full 82 percent of the job losses have befallen men, who are heavily represented in distressed industries like manufacturing and construction. Women tend to be employed in areas like education and health care, which are less sensitive to economic ups and downs, and in jobs that allow more time for child care and other domestic work.
There appears to be a credibility gap. Just what would it take for Gloria Steinem to admit that women aren’t victims in need of her brand of feminism? When women are still “disproportionately affected” by this economic downturn when men are absorbing 80% of the layoffs this year, I think it becomes clear that there is nothing in the world that would convince her. Or rather, maybe she’s not actually interested in equality for men and women so much as she is in pushing her own political agenda?
Of course this is an exercise in the obvious and will surprise no one. But somehow this type of thinking, that women still have a long way to go to achieve equality, still gets trotted out year after year. We’ve still got to fix rampant sexism! When will we finally overcome this problem? Only when it is politically expedient to let go of it.
While this issue is certainly important, the assumption that Gloria Steinem and so many adopt and how society learns to view this assumption is far more important. The basic assumption is this, that society is perfectible if only we try hard enough and are willing to do what is necessary. That almost sounds noble. But it isn’t. Because “what is necessary” always requires more of your freedom and more of your funding. The noble goal always remains just out of reach.
This type of positivist thinking was prevalent prior to the world wars, as modern society seemed on an inexorable march of progress. As standards of living rose, life spans stretched, and human capabilities shot through the roof, only curmudgeons could possibly deny that societal perfection was a rational goal. The only question was how we might achieve it. The human cruelty of the world wars disabused some of this notion, and the spectacular failure of communism made it even clearer. But it remains a very enticing thought. And it remains the foundation of modern liberalism.
But positivist thinking is bankrupt. Society is not perfectible and humans certainly are not. Every time we try another experiment to reach the noble goal, “unforeseen consequences” swoop down and saddle us with more problems. Social Security, welfare, the war of drugs, etc… are all examples of this. They sound like great ideas, but they cost more than advertised and they work worse. Quick, name a government program that costs less than envisioned and works better! It just doesn’t happen. Yet many persevere in the quest for societal perfection.
That is where we are at today. We elected a leader who campaigned on quixotic positivism. Yes we can! Alas, the “unforeseen consequences” are licking their chops just offstage. Our president, like Steinem, wants to point us to unreachable goals couched in warm sentiment. But it isn’t about reaching the goals, because any fool knows that perfection can’t happen this side of Nadia Comaneci, it is about power and pushing a political agenda.
Beware of noble goals coming out of the halls of government. This world does not know perfect and anyone pushing it is either a deceiver or deceived.
There’s a very old joke about a New York Times headline, good sir. It’s something like “End of the World Occurs: Women and Minorities Disproportionately Affected.” In Steinem’s world, believing that the recession disproportionately hurts women is axiomatic.
She happens to be a feminist because that stream of thought was available to her when she came of age. If she’d been born 20 years before, she might have been a socialist, or a Freudian, or somesuch. If you want to be a humanist and focus your attentions to this world, ignoring the promise of the next, you’ll find you have to believe in something.
Utopias never end well. The thing is that most people eventually get past their intellectual adolescence and start to understand that. Gloria Steinem, not so much.
If I recall correctly (which, I admit, is a bog “if”) the statistics for unemployment and women was a little skewed due to the fact that women were more likely to be “underemployed” than men were. Although, underemployed is better than unemployed!
Still.
While her statements are overly dramatic (and maybe it’s an age thing because I don’t really pay attention to Gloria Steinem) the economy has affected women. But that’s no surprise because the economy has affected everybody. The difference is that it hasn’t appreciably disproportionately affected women.
Interestingly, the reason I was able to find a couple to house sit for the Love Bungalow in the first place was because the recession had massively hit the housing market in Florida. (And most of the contractors, etc. are men.) So now we we have a couple moving in, both of whom were in the construction industry and the husband will be helping us out with improvements.
Male, female, rich or poor, it is as you cited last week, Hayden: “And, we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.”
(Oh, and in case you didn’t notice, there’s a new member of the family who’s “moved in” to more than just my house.)
New member of the family?? Did you finally get that Boa Constrictor playmate for sly?
yes, i see my question has finally been answered.
(i.e.: has this page gained or lost a contributer?)
is picklesworth dead, or just dormant?
Gino – when I first read your comment, I read dormant as doormat. That was funny. Not accurate, but funny.
he’s married now. ‘doormat’ will work as well.
I deny that vociferously and will continue to do so until my wife tells me differently.
The last few posts were quite entertaining.
Regarding Steinem, though, I think of something I heard Janet Parshall say on a radio program (not her own) some weeks ago: She (alone) was debating Steinem and three other renowned feminists on some college campus, and at some point she looked over and realized that all of those women were operating out of their own personal hurt, out of broken pasts, etc., and that their respective positions were all built upon the notion of “protecting themselves,” as it were, on a very personal level. The point of this observation is similar to Mr. D’s above, that Steinem cannot change, not without Christ anyway. She cannot be persuaded because all of her “axioms” are founded on something of which she cannot let go because it is too personal and too subjective.
That said, I wonder how much real influence Steinem has outside her own generation. In my view, while the liberal media still trots her out when they need a quote, and while she still “campaigns” for the Democratic party, the sway she holds over the public opinion of women in general has waned substantially.
As to positivism and perfection in the original post, I could not agree more (which is perhaps why we have more to fear from Oprah than Gloria). And while perfection is not possible now, perhaps some intermediate redemption is possible. These are dark days, indeed, but 350 years ago folks were finding a place here on this continent to escape the persecution of the Old World, and 130 years after that they managed to put together a government that did–for some time, anyway–a fair job of providing safe harbor for those seeking to escape tyranny. If there could be a degree of institutional redemption then, perhaps there can be again.
“Put down the government and back away slowly from everyone’s lives.” Now there would be some “institutional redemption.”