Demagogue

Vox Day's column at WorldNetDaily.com is even more ridiculous and sophomoric than Zoe noted in her recent post. There are a few points worth adding to the observations that Zoe made about this cretin's column. Day plays fast and loose with history when he writes:

... few indeed are the women who understand that their present need to work is inextricably tied to the societal expectation that they will do so.

When women began to enter the work force en masse in the latter half of the 20th century, the overall supply of labor increased, obviously.

Yes. Obviously.

But nowhere does Day mention the factor that prompted the initial surge of women into the workforce in the second half of the 20th century. Citing a nebulous "societal expectation" is utter nonsense, designed simply to cover his ideological tracks.

The key factor that spiked women's participation in the full-time U.S. workforce was none other than World War II. It was an absolute necessity -- not a cultural "expectation" -- to have women fill many of the wartime jobs that couldn't be filled by the hundreds of thousands of men who were enlisted in the military.

So if Day is looking to blame an institution for the root causes of (ooo-mah-God!) women in the workplace, he should lay the blame at America's armed forces.

Another silly assertion by Day is the economic revisionism he uses to essentially blame women for the fall in real wages:

As per the iron law of supply and demand, over the last 60 years, this increase in supply has somewhat outstripped the growth in the economy and the attendant demand for labor, which is why real wages are still lower in 2005 than in 1973.

Combined with the ever-increasing tax burden, this decline in real wages is why both husband and wife must now work when previously the husband's labor alone would have sufficed.

It's laughable that Day would refer to the period cited without even mentioning a host of factors that most economists agree played a significant role in wage and workforce trends during these years.

No mention of the steady deterioration of the U.S. manufacturing sector during these decades? No mention of the decline of unions during the 1973-2005 period? And no mention of the inflationary 1970's, which cut into the purchasing power of wages, thereby prompting many couples to move from one-earner to two-earner households?

Perhaps Day might want to explore relocating to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or numerous other countries where civil and religious authorities share his view that "women's rights [is] a disease that should be eradicated."