The gender-divisive cackling hens who write features articles for newspapers -- which are typcially gynocentric to begin with -- are having a field day with the recession, treating it as just another battleground in the gender wars, little different than the great toilet seat up-or-down debate. Here's a shining example of this yellow -- make that pink -- journalism in its full glory: Women are victors in ‘mancession’
Did you get that? Women are the "victors." Over men, that is. Men are losing their jobs at an unprecedented pace and these clever Pulitzer wannabes have even concocted a delightful little word that manages to pull off the seemingly impossible trick of both belittling men and trivializing the recession at the same time -- "mancession." You know, like a "manwich." Or the "manscaping" that women features writers find so fascinating, in a junior high girl kind-of-way. Or Seinfeld's "manzier."
Never mind that this talk of women's "victory" blinks at the fact that the genders are so interwoven that what hurts a man generally hurts one and usually more than one females, not to mention little males. You see, that level of nuance muddies up a perfectly good tale for the gender divisive crowd who prefer their narratives black and white with the oppressed and subjugated females coming out on top at the end.
Let us be perfectly candid: to many of these folks, the recession is payback time -- hapless and usually blue-collar men (who never heard the word "misogyny") and their collateral damage-families paying for the sins of the patriarchy; the free market's way of leveling the playing field.
But lets not assume features writers are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to capitalizing on the misfortune of men in this recession. That distinction is, of course, reserved for the radical feminists who, as usual, stand at the forefront of having no concern for the suffering of anyone born with a Y-chromosome. As reported last week: "'In times of economic crisis, when the size of a woman's paycheck is highlighted, the focus on pay equity can become more striking,'" said Julianne Malveaux, president of Bennett College for Women in North Carolina."
See? Another benefit of the "mancession" -- it can be used as an occasion to justify pay equity! Gasp! Isn't that just fabulous? (And don't get me started on the reasons for the gender pay gap -- which have essentially nothing to do with discrimination.)
And, of course, we all know about their selfish, hateful efforts to siphon substantial stimulus monies away from the group that needs them most -- men who've lost their jobs -- in an effort to create a feminist nirvana. This is akin to taking money from breast cancer research and transferring it to research for a disease that is almost non-existent and that doesn't need it, such as cancer of the penis. (But please don't get me started on the asymmetrical government funding that favors female cancers over male cancers that really do need more funding, such as prostate and testicular cancer -- that's a related, but different topic.) As one of these selfish women clucked, "We don't want this stimulus package to just create jobs for burly men."
"Burly men." Nice. You see, it's not enough to insist men's suffering doesn't deserve to be alleviated, it's also essential to demean them in the process.
Every man and boy in the world could contract a fatal disease that only strikes the Y-chromosome and features writers and radical feminists somehow would spin it to be about women. They never miss a chance to advance their agenda, especially if it means kicking men in the balls when they're down.