No Country for Burly Men
How feminist groups skewed the Obama stimulus plan towards women's jobs.
by Christina Hoff Sommers
06/29/2009, Volume 014, Issue 39
A "man-cession." That's what some economists are starting to call it. Of the 5.7 million jobs Americans lost between December 2007 and May 2009, nearly 80 percent had been held by men. Mark Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan, characterizes the recession as a "downturn" for women but a "catastrophe" for men.
Men are bearing the brunt of the current economic crisis because they predominate in manufacturing and construction, the hardest-hit sectors, which have lost more than 3 million jobs since December 2007. Women, by contrast, are a majority in recession-resistant fields such as education and health care, which gained 588,000 jobs during the same period. Rescuing hundreds of thousands of unemployed crane operators, welders, production line managers, and machine setters was never going to be easy. But the concerted opposition of several powerful women's groups has made it all but impossible. Consider what just happened with the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Last November, President-elect Obama addressed the devastation in the construction and manufacturing industries by proposing an ambitious New Deal-like program to rebuild the nation's infrastructure. He called for a two-year "shovel ready" stimulus program to modernize roads, bridges, schools, electrical grids, public transportation, and dams and made reinvigorating the hardest-hit sectors of the economy the goal of the legislation that would become the recovery act.
Women's groups were appalled. Grids? Dams? Opinion pieces immediately appeared in major newspapers with titles like "Where are the New Jobs for Women?" and "The Macho Stimulus Plan." A group
of "notable feminist economists" circulated a petition that quickly garnered more than 600 signatures, calling on the president-elect to add projects in health, child care, education, and social services and to "institute apprenticeships" to train women for "at least one third" of the infrastructure jobs. At the same time, more than 1,000 feminist historians signed an open letter urging Obama not to favor a "heavily male-dominated field" like construction: "We need to rebuild not only concrete and steel bridges but also human bridges." As soon as these groups became aware of each other, they formed an anti-stimulus plan action group called WEAVE-- Women's Equality Adds Value to the Economy.
The National Organization for Women (NOW), the Feminist Majority, the Institute for Women's Policy Research, and the National Women's Law Center soon joined the battle against the supposedly sexist bailout of men's jobs. At the suggestion of a staffer to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, NOW president Kim Gandy canvassed for a female equivalent of the "testosterone-laden 'shovel-ready' " terminology. ("Apron-ready" was broached but rejected.) Christina Romer, the highly regarded economist President Obama chose to chair his Council of Economic Advisers, would later say of her entrance on the political stage, "The very first email I got . . . was from a women's group saying 'We don't want this stimulus package to just create jobs for burly men.' "
No matter that those burly men were the ones who had lost most of the jobs. The president-elect's original plan was designed to stop the hemorrhaging in construction and manufacturing while investing in physical infrastructure that is indispensable for long-term economic growth. It was not a grab bag of gender-correct programs, nor was it a macho plan--the whole idea of economic stimulus is to use government spending to put idle factors of production back to work.
Link to all of the article..
1 comments:
Germany heiress wins 'landmark' pre-nup case in Britain
Agence France-Presse
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25726274-23109,00.html
July 02, 2009 11:33pm
* Text size
o +
o -
* Print
* Email
* Share
o Add to MySpace
o Add to Digg
o Add to del.icio.us
o Add to Fark
o Post to Facebook
o Add to Kwoff
o What are these?
ONE of Germany's richest women won a British court case today upholding a pre-nuptial agreement that denies her ex-husband a slice of her fortune, in a ruling hailed as ground-breaking.
Katrin Radmacher, 39, a paper industry heiress, and Nicolas Granatino signed the agreement in Germany before marrying in London in 1998 that stipulated they would not claim money from each other if they split.
A court last year awarded Frenchman Granatino £5.6 million ($11.39 million) of her £100 million ($203.48 million) fortune after they divorced in 2006 despite the agreement.
Ms Radmacher asked the Court of Appeal to overturn the ruling on the basis of the agreement, which was recognised in France and Germany but had not been legally binding in Britain.
In backing the pre-nuptial agreement on Thursday, Lord Justice Matthew Thorpe, one of three judges hearing the case, said courts should give "due weight" to such agreements when deciding future cases about dividing assets.
He said he believed it had become "increasingly unrealistic" to regard such contracts as void.
Related Coverage
* Mel's girl sues on sexy lingerieDaily Telegraph, 5 Jun 2009
* Is it dating or de facto?Courier Mail, 2 May 2009
* Gibson shows off new girlfriendThe Australian, 29 Apr 2009
* Life's just a beach for MelHerald Sun, 21 Apr 2009
* Cooling off period for GibsonsHerald Sun, 15 Apr 2009
The court also cut the earlier figure awarded to Mr Granatino to about £1 million as a lump sum, in lieu of maintenance.
He will also receive a £2.5 million ($5.09 million) fund for a house to be returned to Ms Radmacher when the youngest of their two daughters, who is now six, turns 22.
Ms Radmacher said she was delighted with the decision, saying she and her ex-husband had made a promise about their financial arrangements, which had been broken when they split.
"I am delighted that the court accepts that the agreement Nicolas and I entered into as intelligent adults before our marriage should be honoured," she said in a statement.
"Ultimately, this case has been about what I regard as a broken promise.
"The arrangements the court has ordered will enable our daughters to live comfortably when they are with their father, and that is the way it should be.
"Nicolas and I made each other a promise and all I have been asking is that he be kept to it."
The couple's marriage reportedly floundered after Mr Granatino, 37, gave up a lucrative job in the finance industry to become a low-paid biotechnology researcher at Oxford University.
Mr Radmacher's solicitor hailed the ruling as a legal milestone, saying the court had recognised that such agreements made by couples were decisive in Britain.
"Now, in a landmark judgment, three of the most highly-respected judges in the land have ruled that pre-nups can be decisive in determining the financial division on divorce," solicitor Ayesha Vardag said.
"From today grown-ups can agree in the best of times what will happen in the worst of times."
The High Court ruled last year that it would be "manifestly unfair" to hold Mr Granatino to the pre-nuptial agreement.
The court also said then that the arrival of the couple's children had "so changed the landscape" that the pre-nuptial agreement should be set aside.
But lawyers for Ms Radmacher argued in the Court of Appeal that the freedom to agree a contract was "at the heart of all modern commercial and legal systems."
Ms Radmacher had earlier agreed to pay off her former husband's debts of about £700,000 ($1.42 million).
Post a Comment