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.
