From an article by an NYU sociologist man-feminist:
"It's bad out there. That we know. But amid the economic wreckage, there is a bright spot for women. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -- enabling women and other workers to sue for wage discrimination -- was the first piece of legislation President Obama signed. And a parsing of the grim economic statistics shows that recent layoffs have disproportionately hit male-dominated industries. We have reached a milestone of sorts: Women may be poised to outnumber men in the labor force."
Let's take a deeper look at this article, shall we? Lots of hoopla about the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and how it had righted some kind of cosmic wrong perpetrated against women in the workforce. This is a fiction, and it needs to be addressed. Lilly Ledbetter sued under a provision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act in which there was a statute of limitation of sorts on how long after the acts occurred in which one can sue. Where did that limit come from? Well, it came from the Congress, who wrote the law. Ms. Ledbetter could have sued under a different provision of the EEOA and not had the ticking clock provision. But she and her incompetent lawyers insisted on suing under the article inappropriate to her case. She lost in virtually every venue including the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did in fact speak to some of the negative impact to business should they overturn the law, but the bulk of their finding was that 1) congress wrote the law 2) congress thought about what they wrote before they passed it and 3) their job is to interpret the law, not write it (novel view, huh). They basically told Congress to change their law...this Congress did, and now we have the Lilly Ledbetter Act that all the world thinks is so important and wonderful.
Let's move on now to the rest of the article. Just what is it exactly this guy is trying to bring our attention to? Oh yeah---a widening gap in income between those at the top and those at the bottom. Right. But why again, is that meaningful or important? What does ills does this bring along with it? If the lot of those at the bottom is improving--and it is--then what difference does it make how those at the top are doing? The line that "the increasing pressures put on the marketplace by the rich -- bidding up the price of housing and education, for example -- means that most middle-class couples probably need two incomes also, even just to keep a roof over their heads" is classic class warfare. Middle income families don't need two incomes to put a roof over their heads...they need two incomes to put a roof over their heads with six burner stoves, hardwood floors and 2800 square feet, not to mention a garage to park their SUV with "Hope and Change" stickers on it. Oh and don't forget the Wii/Play station/ or whatever video game it is that was purchased to keep their precious children in the house, rather than outside running around and burning off their growing fat.
Rich people aren't bidding up the price of education...the price of education is being bid up by the ubiquitous sense that everyone has to go to college, and that it is the government's job to provide the money to do so. Increases in availability of college money causes college tuition to rise. Pure and simple.
"These are tall tasks, but if we don't do something to cushion the effects of the social sorting taking place across households, families will continue to face more and more stress." Stress? What stress? Poor people in this country used to be HUNGRY! Where is hunger as an issue? What percentage of the people in this country living below the poverty line do you suppose have a 1) refrigerator 2) multiple color TV's 3) a car or two 4) air conditioning 5) indoor plumbing 6) cable tv? The answers would astound you. The entrance of women large-scale into the workforce has raised our nation's standard of living, and this fellow wants us to address the stress? C'mon. I suppose this is what passes for social science at NYU these days.