What I meant to underline was the value of consistency. That if you apply a certain principle when it fits your needs then you probably need to apply it even when it doesn’t, and that’s where many feminists fail.

I don’t think that pointing that out - as a thought experiment - is having your cake and eating it too. What you’re doing then is demonstrating what the principles lead to, without necessarily agreeing with the principles or the end result.

As long as you’re consistent when talking about an alternative vision, then I think you’re doing fine. As soon as you’re being inconsistent in your own way of reasoning and applying principles, then you’re obviously no better than the people you criticize (for example feminists).

My own way of reasoning has led me to write articles about how feminism hurts women, and how feminism overlooks the real issues that women face today. If I only wanted to push some kind of male agenda, then I would have suppressed those insights, but I don’t - I publish them right here on the blog.

Not being an economic expert, I guess creating jobs is a good thing right now. I however don’t think there should be jobs created for men and jobs created for women; there should be jobs created for which men and women should be able to apply for.

Which is basically what Jim said.

When you are talking about education you are only ever talking about children. Education is not supposed to be some jobs program for the benefit of adults. and since when is education supposed ot eb the private reserve of women anyway? Every job created in education for the next ten years would have to go to a man, with not one woman hired, to achieve anything like the gender parity that so many feminists think is so important in so many other fields.

” We’re talking about the women who work in the education sector, whether in classrooms, universities or administration, who most definitely would have been hit by a cut in federal spending”

Unomi, I was very specific about classroom teachers, and that is about the only thing that my reference to ‘children ‘ can mean. M’kay?

“universities or administration’ - actually, these areas of education are where most of the failings in education in the US are. I know, from the inside of the sytem.

In any case, women are grossly over-represented in elementary and secondary education. The problem is not so severe in higher education.

In any case, if women want in on this stimulus program the answer is simple - they need to seek jobs in construction and public works, where the money is going. Sorry if they break a fingernail here or there. It would do them good anyway - women have a lot of dues to pay when it comes to the infrastructure - they didn’t lay a mile of track or roadway in this country.

“Forgets to mention that construction and renewable energy would only have created 10% female jobs. ”

Oh. my.God. Just what the f*ck is a “female job”? One where the doughnut dollies hand out sandwiches and coffee to the real workers? You sound like you think place in the kitchen - I know that can’t be the case? wait - do you think the little damsels are somehow entitled to the comfortable office jobs in the industry while the brutes go out into the weather? Of course paying the brutes more would be “pay inequality.”

“Oh, and by leaving out the fact the the jobs created for women pay less,….”

You keep doing it! Repeat until you grasp until you understand:

“Women can do manual labor”
“Women can do manual labor”
“Women can do manual labor”
“Women can do manual labor”
“Women can do manual labor”

BTW, are you referring to AEI above, the think tank that master-minded Bush’s? It wouldn’t surprise me if they had some contract like that. Skanks. It’s disgusting that she ended up in that sewer. But then again, it’s a big group of people, not really such a monolith, and I wonder who she actually voted for. I might be disappointed there too, though.

These are all facts and/or established economic theory. Not the usual populist “feminists always say this and that” rhetoric that is this blog’s stock in trade.
There’s an awful lot of feminists who say the things that are pointed out here (and a lot of feminists who don’t acknowledge it) for those things to be simple rhetoric. Unlike feminists that like to pass off anecdotal evidence as proof of an all encompassing conspiracy that in which men as a class are trying to keep women as a class under control.

No you’ve shown why you disagree with it.

Really? Because so far I have pointed out that this “very revealing” article:

1. Forgets to mention that construction and renewable energy would only have created 10% female jobs. Maths is hard. But 10% is smaller than 20%, which was the percentage of jobs lost by women, according to the author.
2. Completely twists the meaning of “job creation” by including jobs that aren’t the result of direct investment by the US government. Oh, and by leaving out the fact the the jobs created for women pay less, which is why there are more of them.
3. Ignores the widely held view by economists that building stuff is really not a very good idea if you want to jump start the economy, because many projects take forever to get through planning committees, etc. The “man-cession” could easily have become a “man-pression” that way.

These are all facts and/or established economic theory. Not the usual populist “feminists always say this and that” rhetoric that is this blog’s stock in trade.

So these cuts don’t really have much to do with children.

Good thing we’re not talking about the children then. We’re talking about the women who work in the education sector, whether in classrooms, universities or administration, who most definitely would have been hit by a cut in federal spending

They both need rebuilding. The roads are falling apart in places, bridges fall down here and there, and in the most inconvenient places; schools are falling apart in some places and teachers’ salaries are too low tro attract people across the full range of society and develop a coprs of teachers that are truly representative. 95% of elementary schoolteachers are women, which is obviously unacceptable - OTOH salaries ar enot the only reason men stay out of teaching; they face outright hitring discrmination and other forms of discrimination.

Both are generally funded at local level, which is part of the complexity of using federal money you may be hearing about - the funding has go to state and local jurisdictions first.

Anyway, there is no direct correlation between spending on schools and academic results, within reason of course. Inner city schools spend more on students than many suburban schools do, and sometimes twice as much as most private schools. Funding levels cannot explain why boys do worse in public schools than girls do, for instance.

“Education on the other hand has not been subject to cuts anywhere that I know of

I’m not American but even I know how to Google this stuff:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184005,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3319-2005Feb6.html”

Yes, well it helps if you are able to understand what you are reading. “Bush’s budget” refers to federal spending. Education is funded at the state and local level. Bush’s budget has nothing at all with actual educating of pupils in classrooms. It has to do with grants for studies on education an similar things, and for fundng the federal education bureaucracy. So these cuts don’t really have much to do with children.

Where Bush truly fucked up was in getting the No Child Left Behind bill passed, which imposed all sorts of onerous standards and other burdens on schools, without providing any funding for this. The conservative state of Utah told the federal government they weren’t going to comply, and it could keep the funding it did provide - the feds do provide some eduacation funding, just not teacher salaries or school building funds you know, actual education.

Add to that the money already pumped into the male-dominated banks and auto makers, and I can see why some women would be a little annoyed.
I didn’t realize that a woman’s personal feelings were supposed to dictate policy that affects everyone. And just out of curiosity if everything was the same except that the male and female dominated sectors were switched (meaning women dominated finance and manufacturing and men dominated education and service) would you still hold your current thoughts on this?

I have already shown that this article is complete rubbish.
No you’ve shown why you disagree with it. I find it odd that you try to hold Pelle to higher standard of proof than you hold yourself to.