As a former journalism student, the more I read about the recession, the more disgusted I am. I realize that in this field we need to report the most topical, current news. My problem isn't with what this news is but, what information is actually considered news.
Recessionomics is the new buzz word. It's all over the Net. And with a few simple tips, we hyperconsumers can learn to be recessionistas (there's no word for men cuz ya know, they always knew how to spend their money wisely). Buy generic! It's cheaper! What a shocker. Skip the Starbucks; brew at home. It's cheaper! Really?!
Well here's a new one. I hope you are as appalled as I am: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-job-for-laidoff-moms-apf-14597194.html. The recession allows women to be mommies again. Isn't that great? Being all career-driven obviously prevented women from carrying out their female duties. Having and taking care of babies. Making dinner. Cleaning the house. I just feel like this article takes the most extreme example of a woman who was unable to balance work life with family life. It definitely is a struggle to be a working mom. And there are a lot of sacrifices to be made. But there is such a thing as career satisfaction. And having a life independent of your kids.
So now that so many people are getting laid off, apparently women finally have the chance to focus on the private sphere. What did they think they were doing in the workforce anyway? That should put them in their place. Serves them right for thinking they were equal with men. Maybe they'll like staying at home so much that they'll decide not to re-enter the job pool. And then there will be enough jobs for the men out there. And they can regain their machismo by being the sole breadwinner for the family. No more unemployment! We can return to the post-WWII time, when jobs were ample for men, women were pushed out of the labor force, we weren't so dependent on credit, and things were just peachy keen.
Sorry for the rant guys. It's just, I expect more from my fellow writers.
Posts
2 comments:
I wasn't offended by the article. I think it is about exactly what you are saying, the women who were in extreme job positions that didn't allow them to spend much time with their children. Now they get to experience their children's lives, and their love for their children makes them appreciate the joy of spending more time with them, which is only natural. It wasn't telling all women that they're back where they are supposed to be. I think that the women of which they speak were not spending enough time with their children in the first place. Yes, it's great to have a career and I think we all deserve the right to that form of happiness, but we all have parental instincts (both mothers and fathers do, or should) and it would be impossible not to enjoy actually being present in one's child's life. So, yes, it is a change from one extreme to another for these women, but the ideal would be a balance; having a great worklife but being able to share quality time with your children as well. These women did not get this balance when they had jobs, but now they are being balanced by having being laid off, so there is a plus side to the situation.
Ok, yes. I guess offensive was taking it a little too far. :)
I think I was just due for another feminist rant.
But I still hate the recession-themed articles that pass for news these days.
Post a Comment