Friday, March 13, 2020



Women are more likely to have male jobs in POOR countries

The stereotype is of course that in poor countries women are made to "know their place" and stick to traditional female jobs.  But the opposite is true.  If we come across a female engineer, her first name is more likely to be Malgorzata (a Polish name) than Mary.  The finding comes from a study of  80,000 individuals in 76 representative country samples so is hard to argue with.  That's a heck of a big research program.

To make the finding vivid, let me introduce you to the gorgeous Carmen Gorska Putynska:



Carmen obtained her Bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering, specialized in bridges and underground constructions, in 2013 in Poland, at Technological University of Poznań. Then, she was awarded with the “Erasmus Mundus Scholarship” and accepted in the “International Master of Fire Safety Engineering” program.

Cop that!  It sounds like a feminist ideal, does it not?  Yet Poland is still a very traditional society in most ways, with very little acceptance for feminism.

So how come the inversion?  How come it is unequal societies where women take male jobs?  Why do women given easy access to male jobs not take them?

It's only an apparent puzzle.  The key is how rewarding the jobs are.  When females can get good female jobs they choose female jobs.  But when all the good jobs are male-role ones, the more capable women will adapt to male work.  Ms Putynska above is a very clever lady

But we are Left with a paradox:  Do we want women in male-role work?  If so the answer is not to make female access to such work easier but rather to make it harder. It is hard to know what feminists really want but if they want women out of female roles and into male roles -- which they do appear to want -- their policies are going in exactly the wrong direction.

But Leftist policies yielding perverse results are nothing new of course.  They think everything is simple when practically nothing is -- JR




 






Women’s Economic Empowerment About More Than ‘Seat in the Boardroom,’ State Department Official Says

Women’s economic empowerment is about so much more than women having powerful positions, says a senior government economics and business official.

“Economic success for women is about more than having a seat in the boardroom or running our own companies,” Manisha Singh, assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, said Tuesday.

She made her remarks at a presentation, “Advancing Women’s Economic Empowerment,” at The Heritage Foundation in Washington.

“It’s ultimately about controlling our own fates, controlling our own futures,” Singh said. “It’s about moving societies forward for everyone’s benefit. …  Statistics have shown that empowering women in the labor force is simply smart economic policy.”

Singh, the first woman to hold her position, according to her biography, was unanimously confirmed by the Senate as an assistant secretary of state in November 2017.

She said that the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative, established last year by President Donald Trump and under the leadership of senior adviser Ivanka Trump, has three main pillars that seek to advance women in the economy, both at home and abroad.

“The initiative aims to reach 50 million women by 2025, and then focus on three pillars … women prospering in the workforce, women succeeding as entrepreneurs, and women enabled [in the economy],” Singh said. “It’s the very first whole-of-government approach to advancing women’s economic empowerment.”

She added that the White House Council of Economic Advisers found that solely eliminating restraints on women’s economic participation could increase annual global gross domestic product by $7.7 trillion, or 8.3%.

“That’s quite a compelling case for the full economic involvement over the world,” Singh said. “To reach these numbers, we can mobilize platforms and resources to enable women to start their own companies and enterprises.”

She said she’s determined to use her influence to work in both the public and private sectors to elevate economic opportunities for women.

“In my bureau, we are determined to use our best skills and assets, including partnering with the private sector to create the ultimate power tool,” Singh said. “And by power, I mean providing opportunities for women’s economic rights.”

Singh also said her bureau is working with other countries’ economies to advance women’s economic opportunities.

“Our first tier of the power initiative was to solicit proposals from embassies and consulates around the world,” Singh said. “We ask that these proposals identify specific methods or tools to better assist American women entrepreneurs access the market in their host country and vice versa.”

She said she expected to get a few proposals from the initiative, but ended up with dozens more than anticipated.

“My staff and I have combed through dozens on just our first solicitation,” Singh said, adding:

We have drawn on the full breadth … of our diplomatic networks, private-sector partnerships, and existing U.S. government programs.

These connections facilitate business development and investment among women entrepreneurs, leading to better export opportunities, better funding, and very importantly, the ability to hire more workers.

Kay C. James, president of The Heritage Foundation, delivered opening remarks before Singh’s presentation, saying that Heritage will always be dedicated to advancing economic empowerment.

“By giving more women access to that freedom, we can promote a stronger and healthier national economy, lift more families out of poverty, and create more stable and peaceful societies and fantastic trading partners,” James said. “It’s truly a win-win for everyone.”

SOURCE 






Rights Versus Wishes

Walter E. Williams
  
Sen. Bernie Sanders said: “I believe that health care is a right of all people.” He’s not alone in that contention. That claim comes from Democrats and Republicans and liberals and conservatives. It is not just a health care right that people claim. There are “rights” to decent housing, decent food, a decent job and prescription drugs. In a free and moral society, do people have these rights? Let’s begin by asking ourselves: What is a right?

In the standard usage of the term, a “right” is something that exists simultaneously among people. In the case of our U.S. Constitutional decree, we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness imposes no obligation upon another other than the duty of noninterference.

As such, a right imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess simultaneously. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of noninterference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. Again, that right imposes no obligation upon another except that of noninterference.

Sanders’ claim that health care is a right does impose obligations upon others. We see that by recognizing that there is no Santa Claus or tooth fairy who gives resources to government to pay for medical services. Moreover, the money does not come from congressmen and state legislators reaching into their own pockets to pay for the service. That means that in order for government to provide medical services to someone who cannot afford it, it must use intimidation, threats and coercion to take the earnings of another American to provide that service.

Let’s apply this bogus concept of rights to my right to speak and travel freely. In the case of my right to free speech, it might impose obligations on others to supply me with an auditorium, microphone and audience. It may require newspapers or television stations to allow me to use their property to express my views. My right to travel freely might require that others provide me with resources to purchase airplane tickets and hotel accommodations. What if I were to demand that others make sacrifices so that I can exercise my free speech and travel rights, I suspect that most Americans would say, “Williams, you have rights to free speech and you have a right to travel freely, but I’m not obligated to pay for them!”

A moral vision of rights does not mean that we should not help our fellow man in need. It means that helping with health care needs to be voluntary (i.e., free market decisions or voluntary donations to charities that provide health care.) The government’s role in health care is to protect this individual right to choose. As Senator Rand Paul was brave enough to say, “The basic assumption that you have a right to get something from somebody else means you have to endorse the concept of theft.”

Statists go further to claim that people have a “right” to housing, to a job, to an education, to an affordable wage. These so-called rights impose burdens on others in the form of involuntary servitude. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, it means that another person does not have a right to something he did earn.

The provision by the U.S. Congress of a so-called right to health care should offend any sense of moral decency. If you’re a Christian or a Jew, you should be against the notion of one American living at the expense of another. When God gave Moses the Eighth Commandment — “Thou shalt not steal” — I am sure that He did not mean, “Thou shalt not steal — unless there is a majority vote in the U.S. Congress.”

SOURCE 

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

************************************



No comments: