Build windmills and wipe babies' bottoms

A number of critics have begun to note the macho slant of Obama’s job plan, as it’s being outlined so far. Katha Pollitt, for one, has done so, but then she would, wouldn’t she? (I mean that very much as compliment.) More noteworthy are columns in The New York Times, the Boston Globe, and, believe it or not, Forbes.

The economist Randy Albelda writes in the Boston Globe that although we certainly need bridges, roads, windmills, and efficient cars and the jobs that go with them, those jobs will overwhelmingly go to men. Albelda notes that “almost one-quarter of families with children under the age of 18 are headed and supported by women as are the majority of single-adult households without children.” You wouldn’t think that you’d have to point out that leaving out women leaves out most of the country, and the majority of its breadwinners, but you do.

Writes Linda Hirshman in the New York Times, “Mr. Obama compared his infrastructure plan to the Eisenhower-era construction of the Interstate System of highways. It brings back the Eisenhower era in a less appealing way as well: there are almost no women on this road to recovery.” This column is almost enough to make me forgive her for her earlier polemics.

Neither Albelda nor Hirshman include in their criticism the demand that Obama’s jobs plan should include aggressive affirmative action and efforts to pull women into apprenticeship programs in the construction trades. In Forbes, Ruthie Ackerman makes this point. “The answer is not, as Hirshman suggests, to create more low-paying jobs "in fields like social work and teaching, where large numbers of women work." The solution is redefine what we consider women's work.”

I can’t help feeling that Hirshman and Ackerman both have it half wrong, and both carry some misogyny around, Hirshman in assuming that women will always do “women’s work” in social work and teaching, and Ackerman in rejecting that work as unimportant. Ackerman would do well to read her fellow Forbes columnist Thomas Cooley arguing for investment in education as part of the stimulus package, not because it helps women, but because it will have the biggest long-term payoff.

Ackerman describes the trades as unsexy. Not to me. A person who knows how to build something—that’s pretty sexy. When my sweetie puts on a pair of Carharts, I go a little mushy. That kind of apparel puts me in mind of the men who worked as part of the original stimulus plan, in the Civilian Conservation Corps, building the trails, bridges, picnic tables, and other amenities I enjoyed throughout my childhood and that my children still enjoy. My daughters ought to get a chance to build such things and say proudly to their daughters, “I built that.”

If I had sons, I would want them to be proud of jobs they'd had caring for children, to point to flourishing people and tell their sons, "I helped raise that." If such work were better paid, such a thing would be far more likely.

How about both and? Get people (including women) building trails, daycare centers, and windmills, and give people (including men) well-paid jobs caring for our elders and children. I want it all. We can do it.