The latest C-Poll is closed. You can read all about it here!

February 6, 2009

Our sexist recession

Liberals typically agree with the notion that "disparate impact" is de facto evidence of discrimination. Even if an institution or a policy wasn't intended to discriminate, if one of the politically favored victim classes is disproportionally negatively affected by said institution or policy, BAM! It's discrimination.

The key, of course, is the term "politically favored victim class" -- if the victims are not politically favored, there is no discrimination.

Which is why the following February 6 AHN story is a non-story:
With mass lay offs in the U.S. taking place in the manufacturing and construction sectors, employed female workers may surpass males since 82 percent of the recorded job losses involved men.

Experts attribute the rising male unemployment to more women being employed in the education and health care sectors, which are not as affected with the economic downturn as traditionally male-dominated industries.
If eighty percent of the job losses had involved women instead of men, you wouldn't have to go to a second-tier news site (no offense, AHN) to read about it.

No comments: