Not suggesting that this necessarily invalidates the opinions in this one article, but this IWF site is extremely politicised, and some of the other content is really awful. And it's misleading, I suspect intentionally. For example by offering strong counter-feminist opinions under the title feminism, campaigning against gun control, etc etc etc. Free speech, yes, but be aware where you get your information from.
agree, and I just flag content like this that comes from untrustworthy sources. I would guess a site called "Independent Womens Forum" that goes on to have a story about a "mens crisis" written by a man would propose.....women are the problem? The author (person being interviewed) can't quite hold himself back: "That is not true for women. That has not been as true for women. We’ve got this fantastic existence proof in our society that people can drop out of the labor force for years and years and go back and be productive, because they’re called mothers." Wow bitter much? let's blame working moms.
Except that he later goes on to describe how this is also affecting women more and that we should be paying attention to that as well? I don't think anything the author said is actually disparaging of women, in fact there was quite a bit of the opposite, talking about how vital their role in society has been. He's not blaming working moms, he's using them as the perfect example that a person can leave the workforce for years at a time and rejoin without much loss.
Where is he blaming mothers for this situation in the statement you quoted?
implication that there is supposedly some bias towards giving jobs to moms re-entering the workforce and not to men. which is absurd. the US does not even have any system of state-supported childcare set up. The lives of working moms could not be more difficult.
well, chalk it up to a site that as soon as I go there pops up a giant, screen-covering banner for me to learn about how trans people are horrible (only a few days after a massacre of trans people in Colorado, very tasteless) and deceptively calls itself "Independent Women's Forum" while being an obviously conservative / libertarian site that per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33709488 was founded as a group to defend Clarence Thomas of all people, who not only was indeed a sexual harasser but also just voted to strip the right to abortion for women across the US.
That wasn't my take. He's saying the fact that women in similar circumstances have children, leave the work force for years and then return implies there's something at work beyond the age/demographic bucket. Similarly he also says this experience is unique from foreign-born men of similar demographics.
Agreed. This is typical anti-intellectualism disguised in academic language. They make frequent appeals to the past, talk about the "West" as a unified concept (a favorite of the modern Right that sounds catchy but has no real substance) - and they insinuate that refusal to work is a moral failure of individuals, rather than symptoms of a declining economic system. They cherry pick information to support their points and get more and more preachy as the article goes on.
The Independent Women's Forum (IWF) is a conservative American non-profit organization [1]
the IWF grew out of the ad hoc group "Women for Judge Thomas," created to defend Clarence Thomas against allegations of sexual harassment and other improprieties. [1]
The IWF has been described as "a virtual 'Who's Who' of Washington's Republican establishment."[1]
FactCheck.org labeled the IWF ad "a false appeal to women's fears", finding that the IWF ad relied on "old statistics, faulty logic and false insinuations[1]
Over the years IWF has received funding from Altria, Phillip Morris International, and vaping giant Juul. Without disclosing its its tobacco funding, IWF has defended the vaping industry using Juul's own talking points. [2]
"Being branded as neutral, but actually having people who know know that you’re actually conservative puts us in a unique position. "[3]
IWV made $67,242 in independent expenditures aiding Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin with calls and independent voter outreach in November 2012, after Akin claimed on August 19, 2012 that rape victims couldn’t get pregnant because “if it’s legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”[2]
"IWF has repeatedly defended right-wing talk radio host Rush Limbaugh,[24][25] including supporting Limbaugh after his misogynist comments towards Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke on his show in 2012.
A report by The Nation and the American Independent Institute found that Limbaugh gave about $273,000 to IWF in 2007, making him the group's largest donor that year. The report noted that in later years, "donors to the IWF began cloaking its contributions by running them through the right-wing's biggest donor-advised fund, DonorsTrust," making it difficult to know how much Limbaugh may have contributed since then."[2]
Independent Women’s Forum President Sabrina Schaefer offered to help American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) legislators “sell” corporate-backed alternatives to paid sick leave, equal pay, quality childcare, and workplace flexibility in their home states in a meeting with ALEC in July.[2]
As of September 2020, Heather Higgins, chairman of the Independent Women’s Forum, is a gold circle member of the Council for National Policy.
Council for National Policy. The Council for National Policy (CNP) is a secretive, Christian Right organization of funders and activists [2]
[3] Lisa Graves, Kim Haddow and Calvin Sloan, Independent Women's Forum and Independent Women's Voice Use “Independent” Brand to Push Right-Wing Agenda to Women Voters, ExposedbyCMD, August 17, 2016.
"Independent Women’s Forum President Sabrina Schaefer offered to help American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) legislators “sell” corporate-backed alternatives to paid sick leave, equal pay, quality childcare, and workplace flexibility in their home states in a meeting with ALEC in July.[2]"
^ Well this makes the whole narrative reasoning for going on about people not working pretty clear doesn't it?
