I’ve been looking for this article since it was published in 2009

InstaPundit just reposted it. “No Country for Burly Men” – “How feminists skewed the Obama Stimulus Plan towards women’s jobs”.

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.’ ”


Filed under Uncategorized

3 responses to “I’ve been looking for this article since it was published in 2009

  1. Fred2

    Because none of that “tough guy” money ever filters back anywhere as taxes, heavy equipment, groceries, child care, – after leaving decent infrastructure that will last for decades. As opposed to spending on “womens” equality stuff which generally flows immediately and leaves nothing behind except a bigger class of government dependents.

    “all money spent is the same” is like saying “all calories are equal”, so eating 2500 cal of steak is the same as 2500 calories of sugar.
    Er. No. It. Ain’t.

    Life ain’t fair and equality is not the answer. Morons.

  2. Anonymous

    It’s a crime that those projects didn’t get funded, if they had we’d be left with infrastructure improvements to show for the spent dollars. Now? We have teachers and other government workers getting laid off three years later and nothing to show for it.

  3. Balzac

    Hey, if you give money to women, it gets spent fully and quickly.
    At least that’s how it works in my house……….