On laid-off (high income) males

No so subtle attempt to further stigmatize the stay-at-home-moms.... To feminists like her, current economic crisis is just another opporunity to advance their agenda of gender role reversal and social engineering. All the stuff about pretending to show concern for middle to low income families are just so bogus, and beneath its thin veneer you can see her gleeful smile....

In her continuing vilification of laid-off males, Judith Warner is narrowing down her target to top 5 (or 1%) of (previously) high income males, whose family are more likely to adopt (or stuck) in traditional sex roles in terms of division of family labour and who are less likely to help doing dishes than middle- to low-income males.

What’s her motives here?

Obviously it is a bigger victory for feminists if high-income males change their mind and totally give up their career and be stay-at-home-dads than middle- to low-income dads doing so, because;

-Ratio of males in those high-income industries will decrease, and that of women will increase. Also the income ratio of men and women will shift (albeit slightly) in women’s favour.

-Wives of high-income males tend to be more educated and more likely to have previously held high-income jobs than wives of middle- to low-income males, and when these women go back to workforce, they are more likely to work in high-paying jobs than, say, 11$/hour telemarketers which is one of typical jobs that wives of middle- to low-income males get. Again this will serve to increase ration of women in high paying jobs or senior positions, and shift the income ratio in women’s favour.

So again, it’s all about power and money, the two things gender feminists love most (and the money IS power, according to gender feminists)

By the way, I wonder how the Judith Warner and other feminists would react if the 82% of all laid offs were on women; I’m sure she won’t be too obsessed about pesking women to stop looking for other jobs and instead wash dishes and coffee mugs…