NYT article about how we need to remember to create new jobs in social services and teachers not just contruction and engineering projects so that women will have something to do.
That annoys me. The argument isn't without merit. I do think there should be more teachers (or more importantly, better teachers) and social workers. But the reasoning that they should do this because that's what women do, and we need to have women do something really annoys me. For one, it enforces the idea that these are jobs for women. And I think it's embarrassing. It's like saying, remember we should hire more cooks, cleaners, and babysitters, you know, things that women do.
Now, I understand the argument about how construction is dominated by men, although even then, they use so much machinery, is it REALLY true that women can't do those jobs? You can argue that women don't want those jobs, and I surely don't, but maybe they feel pressured not to do those jobs. Anyway, it really annoys me that the author is trying to say that creating green jobs also mostly is for men. Yes, it's true that most engineers are men, but it's not like green jobs are only for engineers. There should be plenty of work in factories or other light industry jobs. Men really have no advantage over women for these jobs. Most of the factory workers at my company are women. Almost all factory workers in China are women. Do we really need to make every issue about gender?
1 comment:
Yea, way to promote gender inequality. Silly woman. "Maybe it would be a better world if more women became engineers and construction workers, but programs encouraging women to pursue engineering have existed for decades without having much success. "
Maybe indeed, and maybe they should have better women-in-STEM programs. But the author has already given up on that.
Post a Comment