In December, I wrote a piece on National Review Online about the feminists complaining about the early drafts of President Obama’s stimulus spending bill which focused on creating jobs in male-dominated industries. While the feminist complains were stupid–the overwhelming majority of job losses were occurring among men so it made sense to focus on those industries–it highlighted the basic problem with any government “jobs” bill, which inevitably favor some over others.
It turns out the story doesn’t stop there. In the Weekly Standard, Christina Hoff Sommers details how the feminist indeed were able to convince lawmakers to tip the spending in the stimulus bill toward female heavy industries, instead of things like construction. It’s a lesson in the twisted logic of the feminist movement and the consequences of their influence over public policy. As Sommers concludes:
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.