Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Men named the official piñatas of the Democratic Party: the top U.S. Senator slams out-of-work men

Last year, prominent Democrats didn't want stimulus money to benefit dreaded "white males" to the exclusion of women and minorities -- the persons that liberals claimed were more severely damaged by the recession. President Obama dutifully complied.  We saw how the stimulus has worked for men: the unemployment gap between men and women has never been this large. 

Despite this, the Democrats don't miss an opportunity to kick men in the balls while they are down: the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate has declared that men who don't have jobs tend to be abusive.

You heard me right.  Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., speaking on the floor of the Senate in support of the jobs bill, made this astounding comment:  "I met with some people while I was home dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand. Why? Men don't have jobs. Women don't have jobs, either, but women aren't abusive, most of the time. Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive. Domestic crisis shelters in Nevada are jammed. That's the way it is all over the country."

The Washington Post sought out the opinion of "experts" to lend support the learned Senator: "Senator Reid is absolutely correct that high unemployment exacerbates domestic violence," said Peg J. Dierkers, executive director of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. "Abusers who lose their jobs are home more often. If they used their income as a means of controlling their victim, they may turn to violence when that source of control is gone. Victims who lose their jobs may feel more financially dependent on their abuser and less able to leave."

First, would any other group tolerate being negatively stereotyped in this manner?  Men have become the official piñatas not only of the Democratic party but of their devotees in the sexual grievance industry.

Second, exactly what have these people done to keep men from being out of work?

Just a reminder, early last year, Obama economic advisor Robert Reich suggested where Mr. Obama should put stimulus money: ". . . if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most — women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed — will be shut out."  And he's quoted here:  "I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And, therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I'm certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be -- criteria can be set so that the money does go to others: the long-term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals."  And see this op-ed, which lays out the feminist manifesto for making sure the stimulus monies are not focused on men.

Sadly, Mr. Obama dutifully complied: "The administration report projects that women would get about 42% of the jobs created or saved, even though they lost only 20% of the jobs in the recession."  See here.

The result?  Read this: "As the job market stabilizes, who is being hired back first?  The answer: older white women. . . . . The unemployment rate for adult white women fell to 6.8 percent in January, down 0.6 percentage points from December, according to a report Friday from the Labor Department. . . . . Unemployment for white women has been falling since the fall of 2009, when it was 7.4 percent. . . . . By way of comparison, white adult males had an unemployment rate of 9.1 percent last month, down from a peak of 9.9 percent last fall. Industries that tend to hire white men, such as construction and manufacturing, have been suffering. According to the Labor Department, out of the 541,000 people who said they found work last month, 178,000 were over age 55. Of that group, 140,000 were women – 26 percent of all the hires that month."

Thank you, Democrats. You don't miss an opportunity to mug for your feminist constituents.

The "men's" movement, like it or not, is political. Countless laws need to be changed to insure gender equity where men's interests are not being protected, and that requires a political effort. However, unlike most other movements, this one seems hellbent on avoiding any suggestion that it is allied with a party that its members should support, and that will, in turn, support at least some of its members' goals. Neither party adequately supports the interests of males, but the Democratic party is beholden to NOW and its ilk, and it is extremely unlikely to do anything contrary to the feminist agenda. Democrats are at the forefront of every feminist initiative, from VAWA to rape reform to making gender discrimination easier to prove to funneling enormous economic support to women's causes. Far left Democratic intellectuals support initiatives as bizarre and as hateful as the "man tax."  The Democratic party can never, ever embrace the interests of men, as a group. Repbulicans, too, have ill served men's interests in many areas, especially on law and order issues where the interests of the presumed innocent who have been wrongly accused of rape and allied offenses are not adequately protected. But, among many other things, the GOP has more respect for the "traditional" family, which is a code word for "families with fathers." And while the GOP hasn't embraced important men's initiatives, part of the reason is that the men's movement hasn't supported the GOP.  Don't forget, before feminism became a political force to be reckoned with, the Democrats did not always serve its interests. Ted Kennedy once even opposed abortion rights.

As a lifelong Democrat, I say to my fellow men and to the women who grow weary of the women-as-victim metanarrative, especially those who belong to traditional Democratic-friendly groups (Jews, blacks, atheists, some Catholics, among others): it's time to back the only major party that might advance our interests, the Republican Party.