Ms. Magazine Says It’s Not The Economy, Stupid. It’s Your Girly Bits
Last year, the Left floated the idea that unemployment is really super fun and tried to pass it off as FUNemployment. That spin eventually failed, because people not living in their parents’ basements and fiddling with their iPods realized it really isn’t all that enjoyable not being able to, you know, pay their bills. So, they are now left with inventing new reasons for why people aren’t getting hired. Specifically, we women-folk. Guess what, ladies? It’s not the fact that President Obama has spent more time creating or saving his own golf handicap than he has spent on the economic situation, that is preventing you from getting a job. It’s your girly parts! According to that bastion of enlightenment, Ms. Magazine, at least. In an article entitled “It Wasn’t Your Resume, It Was Your Vagina”, they attempt to make that case. And fail. Miserably, as always.
They first set it up by regurgitating the tired, old “women earn less money” myth. The article then goes on to, of course, praise so-called liberal legislation, then bemoans that it didn’t accomplish enough because we women are still total victims and gender discrimination is nearly epidemic! It’s funny, coming from people who do nothing but base things entirely upon gender. The article is ridiculous enough on it’s face, but one section in particular exemplifies the reality of the faux-problem; it is the left who discriminates against women and it is the left who thinks that women are lesser. The left dislikes women being the fairer sex (heaven forfend that a woman is smart and attractive), but they actually believe that women are the weaker sex. Evidenced here:
For one thing, men tend to fare better than women on job interviews, particularly in male-dominated fields, where hiring managers tend to value stereotypically “masculine” qualities such as intellectual rigor and mathematical ability. The interviewers may have trouble recognizing talent among women applicants, whom they may assume are naturally less savvy. As Jessica Good, a Rutgers University social psychology doctoral student who studies perceptions of women who are the targets of sexism, explained to me in an e-mail:
The traits that society typically ascribes to men are also the traits that society typically ascribes to a good employee. So, men are already assumed to possess a certain level of competence and agency, whereas women must actively demonstrate their competence in an interview setting.
Oh, my. Where to even begin? Firstly, I hate to break it to the chronically willfully ignorant, but there are certain fields in which those characteristics – like mathematical ability – are required, regardless of gender. It’s called, you know, job qualifications. And while some may like to whine about science and math being only “stereotypically” male, the hard truth is that women are not held back in those fields. They just aren’t as interested in that field as men are.
[L]ast year a task force of the National Academy of Sciences concluded from its investigation of 500 science departments that by and large, men and women “enjoyed comparable opportunities within the university.” The task force reported that at major research universities, female candidates “had a better chance of being interviewed and receiving offers than male job candidates had.”
That’s not even the worst part, though. What caused me to stop giggling madly and, instead, start shaking my fist angrily, is the implication that women are not intellectually rigorous. Being intellectually rigorous is a masculine quality? And hiring managers in female-dominated fields don’t value intellectual vigor? So, “woman jobs” are just for dum-dums, huh? I’ll let Ms. Magazine explain that to teachers and nurses, fields that are predominantly female. I’m sure they’ll be glad to know that they no longer have to bother with pesky old thinking and stuff.
Ms. Magazine, much like it’s founder, Gloria Steinem, has proven itself, once again, to be a relic from the past best left collecting dust in doctor’s offices (while they still exist, at least) along with ancient issues of Highlights. It’s not our girly bits that are preventing us from being gainfully employed at the moment. It’s not even our resumes. It’s our President, Congress and their job-destroying policies.
But, you wouldn’t know about that, would you, Ms. Magazine? Issues like that must be “masculine”, I suppose.
cross-posted from newsreal