USA Today published a lead article Thursday that is one of those now-I-understand-what-socialism-is-all-about articles. The essayÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s pretzel logic is so outlandish that I promise to keep a straight face as I explain it to you.
And the articleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s original title was so outrageous that within hours the USA Today editors felt compelled to tone it down. But IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m getting ahead of myself.
ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s no secret that men been hit hard in the current recession. The USA Today article acknowledges that men have lost 74% of jobs since December 2007, with women losing the remaining 26%. The reason is men predominate in construction and manufacturing, sectors that have suffered a massive hemorrhaging of jobs.
Most would view these numbers with dismay and even alarm. In many families men are the primary breadwinners and menÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s job loss hurts their wives, children, and dependent parents. And unemployment is emotionally devastating to many men.
But socialists view massive male unemployment with undisguised glee. After all, if we canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t force more women out of the home into the workplace, then we can achieve numerical workforce equality by throwing millions of men off the assembly line.
USA Today quotes economist Heidi Hartmann of the Institute for WomenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Policy Research: Ã¢â‚¬Å“It was a long historical slog to get to this point.Ã¢â‚¬Â Apparently HartmannÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s only regret is the recession didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t hit a few years sooner.
And wait, thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s more good news!
Not only have men lost 4.75 million jobs, but now that the economic stimulus plan is kicking in, men are having trouble getting back on their feet.
Why? Because federal stimulus money is being directed to education, healthcare, and social services, sectors that tend to be female-dominated. (This didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t happen by accident — hereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s why: www.renewamerica.com/columns/roberts/090723 ). Local jurisdictions have cut 86,000 men from payrolls during the recession, while hiring 167,000 women, a transformation USA Today applauds as Ã¢â‚¬Å“remarkable.Ã¢â‚¬Â
For those who have a remaining scintilla of concern over the plight of men, University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan assures us, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Unemployment among men isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t going to last forever. People will move from construction and manufacturing to industries that are creating new jobs.Ã¢â‚¬Â
ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s right, guys, if you got laid off as a $35 an hour crane operator or tool-and-die worker, not to worry. With a little training you can become a home health aide, social worker, or teacherÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s assistant!
ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not just the article itself that created such a fuss. Its original title, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Women Take Over Job Market,Ã¢â‚¬Â was seen as overtly gender-baiting. So within hours it was changed to read, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Women Gain Historic Shift as Men Lose Jobs:Ã¢â‚¬Â www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-09-02-womenwork_N.htm
But on one point, the reporter commendably veered away from the predictable liberal lies. For years Democrats have claimed that women have been subjected to wage discrimination, noting that women earn 77% of what men make. But this time USA Today admitted the true cause of the gender gap: Ã¢â‚¬Å“On average, women work fewer hours than men [and] hold more part-time jobs.Ã¢â‚¬Â
And if there is any doubt about the radical social agenda that lurks behind the USA Today article, flip ahead to the articleÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s concluding sentence: Ã¢â‚¬Å“The image that the man has to be the breadwinner has changed.Ã¢â‚¬Â
For millennia, men have been the providers and protectors of their families. But now we are being instructed to sweep that shibboleth into the dust-heap of history. USA Today has decreed it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter how much anguish and misfortune families suffer from the lay-off of male breadwinners.
All that matters are the green-shaded tallies of the social bean-counters.
Letters to the editor: email@example.com