What is a mancession, you ask? It’s not this. It’s a recession that hurts men much more than women, and we are allegedly in the worst mancession in recent history. Eighty percent of job losses in the last two years were among men, said AEI scholar Christina Hoff Summers, and it could get worse.
can one imagine the hue and cry if women were at 10.5% and men at 8%? Instead, the MSM will quietly just pretend that this just doesn’t even exist and wait for it to go away….
And so we enter the ‘Age of Aquarius’….as strength, aggression and manly pursuits are less needed so women rise to the ascendency. Interesting times and sociologically fascinating….
… where all the womyn are strong, the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.
(With apologies to Garrison, if misquoted.)
The trouble with the “Age of Aquarius” is that “strength” and “manly pursuits” have not been evident in the current generation of under 65 men.
It used to be that a “real man” was somebody who would put his family first, and stick to his wife and kids through thick and thin. Strength was measured not in ability to bench press, but in fortitude and self discipline.
Currently, the major folks holding what is left of the family together appear to be mothers, and increasingly grandmothers. The guys are off doing guy things, with fathers increasingly absent.
If I had a job that both a man and a woman could do, with two equally qualified candidates, I would be more likely to give it to the woman. The woman would be more likely to use the money to feed and clothe her children. The man would be more likely to spend it on more selfish pursuits. Certainly I would ask (in friendly interview) if the individual had children, and whom they lived with etc.
#4 Clueless — when I took the interviewer training (i.e., training in how to interview people applying for jobs) at my company, a large part of it was about questions that we absolutely are not permitted to ask… and questions about children or living arrangements are high on the list. Asking the question might give the impression that we are discriminating on the basis of having or not having children, or marital status, or any of a number of things that we are legally forbidden to discriminate on.
The only questions we can ask are things that are actually relevant to performing the job.
Why is anyone surprised? If, as we’ve been told over and over again for several decades, women get paid considerably less for doing the same work as men, then quite naturally employers would terminate the higher cost male employees first. Simple economics.
“The only questions we can ask are things that are actually relevant to performing the job. ”
Character is relevant to performing a job.
You are certainly right #6. Why is anyone surprised? For two generations we have been told that men are hormone driven Irresponsibilities and that women are powerless and that men are not necessary for families, and we all observed that American Christianity is essentially a woman’s religion. MOreover it is important to see that the father is not mentioned even once in the Roe V Wade decision. Hiring a man is now like hiring an appendix or a little toe. Why hire the adventitious? To be sure, the above is hyperbolic, and yet, the effects are much the same as a much quieter appraisel.
Note incidentally who is writing the comment. The author of The War Against Men.
What happens in a country when large numbers of military aged men are denied higher education, employment, and a place in society?
Think about it.
This is ++un-good. Add to that incendiary mix the coming hyper-inflation, resentment over the effects of NAFTA and GATT on jobs, and the loss of national sovereignty and hordes of illegal migrants stealing employment opportunities…all in a nation of over 70,000,000 gun owners.
Think some more, and think long and hard about the socialist direction the country is heading in.
Call me Eeyore, but I believe we are in for some very difficult times as we enter the second downward leg of this inflationary “recession”.