Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: So Hot…Want To Touch The Hayek Previous entry: The Chevy Nova Act Of 2009

I Got That Fresh New Wingnut

EconomyFeminism

Now, apparently, the stimulus bill is bad not because it wastes too much government money, but because it will rob our nation’s menfolk of their vital testicular strengthiness:

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.

[...]

Within living memory, the American feminist movement was a valiant, broad-based vehicle for social equality. It achieved historic victories and enjoys continuing, richly deserved prestige for its valor and success. But it has now harnessed that prestige to the ethos and methods of a conventional interest group.

[...]

A Washington feminist establishment that celebrates the “happily-ever-after” story of its victory over burly men cannot represent the views and interests of many women. Those men are fathers, sons, brothers, husbands, and friends; if they are in serious trouble, so are the women who care about them and in many cases depend on them. But NOW and its sister organizations see the world differently. They see the workplace as a battlefront in a zero-sum struggle between men and women, where it is their job to side with women. Unless the Obama administration and Congress find the temerity to distance themselves from the new feminist lobby, the “man-cession” will deepen and further mischief will ensue.

One might argue that the reason that there was a “man-cession” is because jobs were so heavily gender segregated that a downturn in given industries would inevitably have a stronger impact on one gender than the other; however, being in the land where our Kenyan president is enslaving black youth in order to corral veterans and indoctrinate them with romantic comedies until they beat their shotguns into shoehorns, that argument is rendered moot.  Insane lady feminists want to outlaw the testicle through massive government spending, and Michelle Obama’s puppet will not be stopped by reason, consideration or the fact that in six years, our society will no longer be able to cross the Mississippi River, but will be able to discuss its feelings on the tragedy at length. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Jesse Taylor on 01:31 PM • (44) Comments

I nominate we rechristen this the “bro-cession.”

Just to make sure the name itself is as fucking stupid as the idea.

Comment #1: Zed  on  06/22  at  01:51 PM

“Insane lady feminists want to outlaw the testicle through massive government spending, and Michelle Obama’s puppet will not be stopped by reason, consideration or the fact that in six years, our society will no longer be able to cross the Mississippi River, but will be able to discuss its feelings on the tragedy at length. “

...and don’t forget, they’re all hairy-legged lesbians, with mustaches and unibrows like Freida Kahlo…

And I totally forgot about the dangers of rampant Negrosity to America’s required manliness in a world where Estrogen Rules and Testosterone is considered a plague to be eliminated…

Comment #2: MikeEss  on  06/22  at  02:02 PM

Go figure that collapse of the automobile, construction, and finance ‘banking’ industries would impact men more than women.  None of those - especially the latter two - are particularly known as welcoming environments for female employees.

Comment #3: libdevil  on  06/22  at  02:12 PM

“Man-cession” isn’t even remotely clever. At least call it a “he-cession.”

Comment #4: Lauren O  on  06/22  at  02:17 PM

“One might argue that the reason that there was a “man-cession” is because jobs were so heavily gender segregated that a downturn in given industries would inevitably have a stronger impact on one gender than the other”

Crazy-talk!

Comment #5: preying mantis  on  06/22  at  02:24 PM

Actually its a Republi-cession because these are he-man jobs and all Republican males are he-men, and….

Stop laughing, goddamit!

Comment #6: Magis  on  06/22  at  02:25 PM

Shorter Christina Hoff Sommers:

Let me show you all how dumb I can be after not paying attention in my Econ 101 course.

Comment #7: Dan2108  on  06/22  at  02:27 PM

Its new name will be the “dude-cession” with recovery only happening along the Duder Curve, which demonstrates that as you totally help out dudes, everything gets awesome.

Comment #8: Jesse Taylor  on  06/22  at  02:29 PM

But NOW and its sister organizations see the world differently. They see the workplace as a battlefront in a zero-sum struggle between men and women, where it is their job to side with women.

Being serious for just a sec, I’m sure everyone here recognizes this as classic conservative projection.  That’s how conservatives view the struggle between men and women:  a zero-sum game where it’s their duty to always defend men, even going so far to side with rapists so long as the victims are female.

Comment #9: keshmeshi  on  06/22  at  02:54 PM

OMFG!

Men don’t fail, wimins drive them to ruin!

Men don’t make bad decisions that wipe out whole economic sectors populated by burly men! NO! It must be some femynyst conspyracy!

Comment #10: Ms Kate  on  06/22  at  02:56 PM

If all the women’s sectors of society were thrown out of work ... it would be considered God’s Will.

Comment #11: Ms Kate  on  06/22  at  02:58 PM

One might argue that the reason that there was a “man-cession” is because jobs were so heavily gender segregated that a downturn in given industries would inevitably have a stronger impact on one gender than the other;

And let us not forget that the recession is, at the end of the day, the fault of Obama and his feminist anti-American allies.  All those men would still have their jobs if McCain had been in office.

What’s more, Obama has funneled trillions of dollars into the automotive and banking industries.  And nothing is more female dominated than domestic car manufacturing and Wall Street Banking.  Truly, Obama has it out for men.

Comment #12: Zifnab  on  06/22  at  03:07 PM

Heaven forbid (literally) that men could get jobs as nurses or even become stay-at-home dads while their wives support the family financially!  It’s only worse for men because they refuse to do “women’s work”.  Seriously though, I think it’s horrible that men are raised to believe they are failures if they can’t provide financially for their family.  One of my brothers is struggling with this problem, and it’s hard for him to accept that there are much more important things to being a father than just paying for stuff.  It’s a shame because our own father contributed nothing but money, and so my brother should know from experience that that’s not the best way to do it.

Comment #13: bananacat  on  06/22  at  03:12 PM

“If all the women’s sectors of society were thrown out of work ... it would be considered God’s Will.”

Kind of like how when girls lag behind boys in an academic subject, it’s because girls are just naturally worse at it.  When boys lag behind girls, it’s zomg a huge issue that must be addressed right now because clearly something is actively holding boys back and hurting their educations.

Comment #14: preying mantis  on  06/22  at  03:13 PM

Seriously though, I think it’s horrible that men are raised to believe they are failures if they can’t provide financially for their family.  One of my brothers is struggling with this problem, and it’s hard for him to accept that there are much more important things to being a father than just paying for stuff.  It’s a shame because our own father contributed nothing but money, and so my brother should know from experience that that’s not the best way to do it.

I don’t know any family member - father, mother, daughter or son - that relishes the idea of being unable to carry his or her own weight.  My mom was stay-at-home and hated how her skills atrophied away from the workplace.  It’s less about making money and more about feeling useful.  Even if you turn out a fortune every year, a good spouse - man or woman - isn’t going to feel happy just sitting at home and wallowing in it.

This is doubly true when times are tough.  If (I was married and) my wife had a job and I didn’t, I’d feel like an absolute parasite if we couldn’t make ends meet.

Comment #15: Zifnab  on  06/22  at  03:23 PM

I wonder if Lewis Carrol spent time talking with people like Christina Hoff Sommers.

Probably not, hooka smoking catapillars are at least tangentally related to reality.

Comment #16: cynickal  on  06/22  at  03:32 PM

Its new name will be the “dude-cession” with recovery only happening along the Duder Curve, which demonstrates that as you totally help out dudes, everything gets awesome.

The Duder curve is of course all points X such that Xbros > Xhos.

Comment #17: liminalist  on  06/22  at  03:33 PM

Zifnab, this attitude affects men much more than it does women.  It’s not just about feeling useful.  If your mom was a stay-at-home mom, then she should have felt useful for doing what she thought was best for her children.  If she thought that being a parent wasn’t enough, then she could have got a job.  It’s very common for stay-at-home parents to feel bored or unsatisfied, but that is very different from feeling like you’re a failure if you contribute time and effort rather than money to your children.  I’m not saying that women can be irresponsible leeches and feel good about it.  But a lot of men are raised to think that being a stay-at-home dad is a failure, or even that having a working wife is a failure.  Of course, this all ties back to the idea that “women’s work” is worthless and not as valuable as work that brings in money.  My brother realizes on a logical level that he has more to offer his daughter than just money, but deep down, he still struggles with the idea that he’s a failure for not being a millionaire and not being able to buy all the luxuries his family wants.

Comment #18: bananacat  on  06/22  at  03:38 PM

Since blacks are typically hardest hit by downturns and are usually last-hired first-fired, righwting commentators are willing to call this a “black-session,” too, right? Right?

Comment #19: No One of Consequence  on  06/22  at  03:40 PM

I guess it was crazed feminist bitches who shipped all of the male dominated manufacturing jobs overseas and created the housing/construction bubble. No need to blame the failed financial policies of male dominated banks/corporations or government administrations. Why not pin it all on women to stir up even more resentment amongst the less than enlightened masses?

Comment #20: DC Fem  on  06/22  at  04:01 PM

WTF?

I know that in my past employment in industry, the jobs that seemed to involve sitting around a lot and getting away with playing solitaire and discussing Lost were almost universally held by men. In some cases they were management, in some cases not, but in general, women tended to be actually working most of the time, one battleaxe of a secretary who seemed to have something on everyone standing out as a stark exception.

Companies making actual cuts with a sincere desire to actually stay in business tend to trim the people who aren’t doing a lot first.

Hmmm….

Then add in the entire sectors of the economy that seem to be predominantly boys clubs to start with (I know that there are women in investment banking, but again, I think they’re the ones working.)

Add that to the fact that to most of the people who would seriously consider even the concept of a “man-cession” a man out of work is a tragedy and unnatural, while a woman out of work is a housewife, it’s like the original census plans for slaves to count as 3/5ths of person. If you only count the people who are “really” affected, and you only consider men to be really affected….

Comment #21: Lymis  on  06/22  at  04:02 PM

Next up: wingnut columnist blames wymyn for any and all cold weather (caused by their frigidity, of course) and how that leads to shriveling balls. 

That same fymynyst cuntspyrycy is trying to stop global warming.  Not because rising sea levels and cataclysmic weather are a problem, but because global warming doesn’t really exist and they just really want to make it colder so men’s balls will shrink!

Comment #22: Ms Kate  on  06/22  at  04:08 PM

I don’t even understand the point of this. Last time I checked, NOW was not dancing around the fire skyclad at their witches’ coven celebrating the fact that the recession is hitting men really hard; all the updates *I* get from NOW refer to the recession as a Bad Thing For Everyone. What, exactly, does this wingnut think that NOW is doing that’s celebrating their victory over men *in the context of the recession*?

Comment #23: Alara J Rogers  on  06/22  at  04:42 PM

Sticking up for Teh Menzz is this Christina Hoff Sommers’ shtick, right? I mean, didn’t she make her rep by fulminating about how boys are discriminated against in school because they’re told to sit still, or something?

Comment #24: Bitter Scribe  on  06/22  at  05:16 PM

But a lot of men are raised to think that being a stay-at-home dad is a failure, or even that having a working wife is a failure.  Of course, this all ties back to the idea that “women’s work” is worthless and not as valuable as work that brings in money.

“Women’s work” doesn’t bring in an income.  I mean, I worked for a charity for a few months between college and employment, and I wouldn’t say the work I did was worthless, but I was still living in my parents’ house basically subsisting off their charity.

When you don’t have a job, you give up a great deal of status in a household.  The breadwinner sets the budget.  How many stories have you read about the husband giving his wife an “allowance”?  How demeaning did that strike you?  Do you think it works radically different when the wife is the sole source of income?  You think John McCain gets full authority on how he spends his wife’s money?  I don’t.

This isn’t to demean the occupation of child-raising, but it’s hard to put a price on an income-less profession.  You can buy groceries with a paycheck.  You can fill up your gas tank with a paycheck.  You can take a vacation on a paycheck.  There is a level of fulfillment and purpose in being employed that - once you’ve started doing it - leaves you feeling hollow when you stop.

And it’s why home-bound parents form and join the PTO, attend church functions, take part time jobs, do soccer clubs and Scouts and school projects.  Because people need stimulation.  The idea of sitting at home and vegetating - which is how most men perceive the domestic life - is horrifying.  They don’t know how to do the job, any more than a newly minted housewife.  And they are prone to the same traps as their housewife counterparts, exacerbated by the fact that most communities don’t have a group of stay-at-home dads to learn from and socialize with.

Comment #25: Zifnab  on  06/22  at  05:59 PM

“Women’s work” doesn’t bring in an income.

Know any nurses or teachers?

Comment #26: Ms Kate  on  06/22  at  06:02 PM

“Heaven forbid (literally) that men could get jobs as nurses or even become stay-at-home dads while their wives support the family financially!  It’s only worse for men because they refuse to do “women’s work”.  Seriously though, I think it’s horrible that men are raised to believe they are failures if they can’t provide financially for their family.  “

It is, but then until this recession, how were you supposed to compete for the attention of a successful single woman as a 30 year old male nurse or teacher, when your competitors are yuppie junior investment bankers or intermediate level engineers or whatever. 

Or put it this way, let’s say you’re a 30 year old female surgical resident, and you’re single.  Is your first choice of a man a peer of comparable earning potential and education level?  Or a teacher earning 40K a year?  Are many women willing to choose the latter scenario? 

I considered becoming a nurse for a while, but I abandoned that idea for exactly this reason.

It’s not just that men are socialized to be the breadwinners, it’s that women are socialized to believe that men with lower income have less value as well.

Comment #27: PeterZeroOne  on  06/22  at  06:11 PM

Waitwaitwait. So:  you feminists have gotten all equal and shit so now you have lots of jobs that pay well but now the men are losing jobs and OMG all you laydeez who caused this problem have screwed yourselves, too, because you DEPENDED on those men to…to…

um…

Right.

Is there any non-self-contradictory way to interpret her worldview?

Comment #28: hanna  on  06/22  at  06:15 PM

Its new name will be the “dude-cession” with recovery only happening along the Duder Curve, which demonstrates that as you totally help out dudes, everything gets awesome.

I’m sick of the reflexive male-bashing that goes on on this blog.  And it’s only going to get worse as the estropression deepens.

Comment #29: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  06/22  at  06:52 PM

PeterZeroOne:

It is, but then until this recession, how were you supposed to compete for the attention of a successful single woman as a 30 year old male nurse or teacher, when your competitors are yuppie junior investment bankers or intermediate level engineers or whatever.

Or put it this way, let’s say you’re a 30 year old female surgical resident, and you’re single.  Is your first choice of a man a peer of comparable earning potential and education level?  Or a teacher earning 40K a year?  Are many women willing to choose the latter scenario?

Yes, because the first thing I did when I met my partner was demand to see his bank statements.

Or, you know, maybe we had shared interests and hit it off instantly, and stuff? Nah, that couldn’t be it.

It seems to me that you “compete” for someone’s “interest” by being an interesting person, not by trying to schmooze them in bars based on the amount of fake money you traded today - a tactic I’ve been on the receiving end of from (hey!) investment bankers on two or three occasions. Astonishingly, I could not have been more bored, and edged away as quickly as I could. At least a teacher is likely to have read a few books. grin

(TBH, in your hypothetical scenario I’d probably go for the teacher, because those of my friends who are junior doctors and try to have relationships with other junior doctors tend to find that their time off coincides all too rarely. Also, what’s stopping your hypothetical male teacher from meeting a female fellow teacher, with whom he’s likely to have more in common anyway?)

PIATOR: lol, you’re on a roll at the moment!

Comment #30: Nic_C  on  06/22  at  07:27 PM

It is, but then until this recession, how were you supposed to compete for the attention of a successful single woman as a 30 year old male nurse or teacher, when your competitors are yuppie junior investment bankers or intermediate level engineers or whatever.

And yet all of the male nurses I know are married, so there must be some women out there for you somewhere.  Sure, you may have to settle for another nurse or someone in middle management instead of the high-flying Wall Streeter of your dreams, but these days most people marry at the same economic level anyway.  The days of the young student nurse marrying a rich doctor and becoming a happy housewife have been over for 30 years.

Also, you seem to be a bit confused about what nurses make.  Since there’s a pretty major shortage, an RN fresh out of school starts at $50K and can do much better, depending on one’s specialty.  Nursing is still high-stress, but it’s a fallacy to call it low-paid these days.

Comment #31: Mnemosyne  on  06/22  at  07:32 PM

They’re talkin’ bout the bro-cession, brought on by all that bro-pression.

Comment #32: realityfighter  on  06/22  at  07:36 PM

Are many women willing to choose the latter scenario?

I continue to be slightly weirded out by PeterZeroOne’s comments. Really, who decides whether or not to have a serious relationship with someone based on their earning potential, rather than your ability to actually have a conversation with them? I know a few women who’ve gone on a date with a man because he had a profession they found interesting/alluring (e.g. fireman - don’t really get it myself, but it was a source of some excitement…), but without exception they grew out of that pretty quickly when it became apparent that the job does not the person make.

And frankly, if someone is shallow enough to not want to date you because you’re a nurse and don’t earn to their ridiculous standards? So not worth the hassle.

Comment #33: Nic_C  on  06/22  at  07:59 PM

I continue to be slightly weirded out by PeterZeroOne’s comments. Really, who decides whether or not to have a serious relationship with someone based on their earning potential, rather than your ability to actually have a conversation with them?

Didn’t you know?  All women refuse to date men who make less than $200,000 a year.  Sure, that means that 70 percent of the couples who get married every year must have done so without ever having dated, but you can’t let that get in the way of Peter’s absolute certainty that women won’t date guys who make a teacher’s or nurse’s salary.

Comment #34: Mnemosyne  on  06/22  at  09:29 PM

It is impossible to land a shallow woman who will date you and totally put out despite your personality defects because she’s only interested in your money if you don’t have money.

So if you’re an unattractive asshole with a massive sense of entitlement, you’re not getting laid on a teacher or nurse’s salary.

Of course, if you have something to offer a woman besides your bank account, you could find a woman who’s interested in more than your money, but the NiceGuy-MRA industrial complex wants to keep guys who *do* have something more to offer from figuring this out, because the best way to keep men from being able to compete with you on personality, if you’re a guy without one, is to persuade them all that the way to win the ladeez is to have a ton of money and act like an asshole. That way women are *forced* to choose men on the basis of money, because all the available men are acting like assholes in the mistaken belief that this will get them laid. Thus the endless drumbeat of “women will only date you if you have money!”

Comment #35: Alara J Rogers  on  06/22  at  09:46 PM

Yeah, I’m always hearing that women only want high earners and I keep waiting to meet these women. Most of the single women I know look for chemistry: someone appealing, intelligent, kind, that they love to spend time with. Financial responsibility is attractive but it is to any sane adult; no one wants to build a life with someone who runs up massive unnecessary debt and then has to dodge the repo man and creditors. But that’s responsibility, not wealth, and I don’t know any women who would disqualify a guy in a low-earning profession. Apparently I live in an alternate universe because the dynamic I often encounter is the opposite: the high-earning single men I know often seem more interested in women with undemanding or less prestigious careers.

Comment #36: Veronica  on  06/22  at  09:46 PM

Interesting how during the past “expansion” none of the usual suspects fretted about how the few jobs that were being created were massively gendered and in heavily cyclical industries. Also of course interesting that the conservatives complaining now are simultaneously opposed to stimulus funding, even the the infrastructure component of that is heavily skewed toward male employment…

Comment #37: paul  on  06/22  at  09:58 PM

when i “look for a man”, you know what i want of him, financially?

that he be able to pay his own bills.

that’s all. that he doesn’t always borrow money from me because he can’t pay his bills (this sounds weird, because right now my boyfriend owes me a lot of money - but he owes me a lot of money because of a huge emergency that he is still recovering from. aside from emergency, he can pay his bills) i don’t have to support him.

because i see *that* dynamic a whole hell of a lot more often than i see “woman only dates rich men”. i see, ALL THE TIME, guys who get a girlfriend who has a good job, they move in together, and then guy somehow loses his job (but it’s not his fault!) and “can’t find another one as good” and the girlfriend is now supporting her boyfriend.
generally with a side of “why don’t you do any housework? this house is a mess!” from the boyfriend, too. because if *he* starts cleaning the house, it will mean that he is being demeaned even further by his lack-of-job-itis - it’s only reasonable and proper that she work overtime, pay all the bills, *and* do all the housework, because he doesn’t deserve to be be punished like that…

(wow… i am more angry than i thought. /rant)

Comment #38: denelian  on  06/22  at  10:55 PM

I considered becoming a nurse for a while, but I abandoned that idea for exactly this reason. It’s not just that men are socialized to be the breadwinners, it’s that women are socialized to believe that men with lower income have less value as well.

Nursing doesn’t pay you enough. Whatever you say, Mr. Rockefeller.

Comment #39: Tyro  on  06/23  at  01:21 AM

when i “look for a man”, you know what i want of him, financially?

that he be able to pay his own bills.

Ok, so I charged the hookers and the rehab to your credit card, but I swear I intended to pay you back, honey. Can’t we *talk* about this?

Comment #40: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  06/23  at  04:49 AM

That is at the top end, Tyro - but tell me, what other jobs pay $70K right out of school if you don’t mind working 4 shifts (48 hours) a week?

Comment #41: Ms Kate  on  06/23  at  08:32 AM

A Washington feminist establishment that celebrates the “happily-ever-after” story of its victory over burly men cannot represent the views and interests of many women.

We scrawny men remain UNCONQUERED!!!11!!1!!

Comment #42: PhysioProf  on  06/23  at  02:28 PM

PiaToR -

you made me A) laugh out loud and B) have to explain all of this to my boyfriend. who, by the way, wants me to tell you that i am taken, so get your hands off of my credit card :D

Comment #43: denelian  on  06/24  at  01:51 AM

That’s only cuz we don’t want your job, PhysioProf. You see, we femynists earn more points when we steal a more highly sought-after job. Think about it: Burly (tm) construction worker, or professor of physiology - which would you rather be?

Exactly.

Comment #44: Zef  on  06/25  at  02:55 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.