The recession, Women, and the job market

First, check out this link . . . http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/business/06women.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

This raised three clear issues for me - (1) the article clearly states that women are now forced to work from their homes given the state of the economy; (2) that men are not assuming more of the DAILY WORK it needs to keep a household going although they do not have a job; and (3) that the pay gap is still real.

I have to say that I get seriously irritated when we use statistics about White women and portray that to be the state of women all of the time. Admittedly, I haven't done much research in American history, but I do know this - that Black women often took up doing the laundry or cooking for other people because they were jobs they could do in their homes. Why did they do this? Because they could have their children near them as they worked and to avoid sexual harassment. Even though slavery had ended (and I'm talking well into the 20th century . . . to this very day), Black women were often sexually harassed by "the man of the house" and they would then catch flack from the "lady of the house" for sexual advances they did not seek out. So to deal with this, Black women stopped doing work as domestics in other peoples' homes and would take in the laundry or do cooking for others. I suppose White women can join the rest of us then.

Secondly, how ridiculous is it that when women are unemployed, we have to look for our jobs and make sure everyone has their emotional and physical needs met. I do see this as an opportunity to move something about sexism here. Honestly, looking for a job is not necessarily an eight hour affair. Men need to take on these domestic responsibilities, particularly if women are the ones who are taking home the bacon. Perhaps they could learn to fry it up in the pan. How about making sure the kids needs are met after school? How about making sure that everything is nice, neat, and clean by the time their spouses are finished with their workday. Perhaps NOW we will understand that working at home is work.

Finally, the pay gap. The statistics on U.S. educational achivement grow dimmer and dimmer everyday. Yet, this is a field that is predominantly female and is desperately underpaid. While we're trying to provide economic stimulus, perhaps now is the time to seriously boost the pay for important fields such as teachers. There would be far more medical mistakes if NURSES, who are predominantly female, did not pick up the slack for the male doctors they work with. How about a major pay adjustment for those women? How about putting more money in nursing schools so that we have more direct health care providers for an aging, more sickly population.

I would like to see not only the economy stimulated, but sexism stimulated out of our social and economic structure.

The Stimulus

I have to say I admire President Obama. He has stunning political skills. I am not surprised, just in awe. So while he has to make nice with Republicans, I can offer this critique of our dear Republican party.

Now that our country is a wreck and is falling off of the economic cliff, the Republicans want to critique government spending and tax cuts. None of this is new, but from where have these new balls been found? Where were they when President Bush invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Where were they when these supplemental budgets for massive amounts of money with absolutely no information detailing what for, in the name of national security, were being passed? Did they have any questions about the effect of tax cuts and how it actually cut revenue to the federal government while we were fighting two wars? Nowhere. Nowhere to be seen or heard. So now we have to spend like the wind to get people employed again, ironically, to collect further tax income needed desperately for the government to continue to function.

Tax cuts? Are they serious? Weren't tax cuts responsible for making sure we are in this deficit in the first place? If I recall correctly, it was President Clinton (remember, way back when) who put the country back in a budget surplus? Remember that it was Republicans who gave that surplus money away in tax cuts and then started spending more than they took in because of a war that had nothing to do with the attack on this country? If I recall correctly, while the wealthy were getting tax cuts, none of this trickled down to anyone else because pay was stagnant and working poor and poor people actually had to take multiple jobs to make ends meet. And we want to prescribe TAX CUTS for the solution to this problem? Where have they been for the past eight years?

I honestly think that Michael Steele and the rest of his brigands need to really rethink their orthodoxies. It makes no sense to have them if they do not correspond to what the country needs. Frankly, I would be willing to pay much more in taxes if I could have non-employer dependent health insurance, decent schooling for my son, and a security net so that if I lose my job in May, I would be alright. They can take their tax cuts and stuff it for all I care.

But then again, it's not my political life on the line.