Uh-oh: Trouble in Paradise.

by Little Miss Attila on June 5, 2011

Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds may be about to get into it over his Examiner editorial.

I agree with Althouse‘s second point, which is why I didn’t link Glenn‘s editorial last night.* Overall, I think moving the “unions vs. individuals” conlict into the realm of paper and intellect is a good thing. I’m always happy to see people “use their words” in the industrialized world.

But Althouse’s first point imputes a certain sexism to Glenn’s article:

Reynolds says in the old days, union protests involved “miners, steelworkers and the like,” who, working together, developed a mindset like combat troops. The unstated implication is that these were macho men.

But miners and steelworkers are one thing. When the public employees of, say, Wisconsin hit the streets, it looked more like a bunch of disgruntled DMV clerks and graduate teaching assistants, because, well, that’s what it was.

He doesn’t come right out and say, now we’re talking about females and less manly men, but isn’t that the implication? I’m sure Glenn would acknowledge (and encourage) women to take on mining, steelworking, and combat, but it seems clear that he is valuing the traditional male stereotype over the traditional female stereotype.

Are men who don’t work in mines really “less manly” than men who write or think or litigate? And are white collar men to be equated with women? I like women–I’m a woman myself, and have been for decades (before that, I was a girl). But it’s generally considered insulting to men to imply that they are woman-like, so Althouse is saying something quite dramatic, here, in the way she interprets Reynolds’ editorial.

The fact is, men have been clerks and intellectuals for centuries, so trying to tie Glenn’s point to gender issues seems a tad far-fetched–particularly given the fact that, um, Glenn is (to put it mildly) neither a miner nor a steelworker. I doubt that his own point was to call himself unmasculine; he was only saying that union muscle used to mean something quite different when the unions’ most passionate defenders came from these very specialized (and highly physical) industries.

* Unless he’s reading this, in which case I forgot, am lowly slime, please forgive, etc. etc. blah blah blah

UPDATE: Typo fixed; thanks, Dad.

{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }

ponce June 5, 2011 at 4:58 pm

“…despite the talk from many right-leaning pundits about “union goons,” the actual danger posed by the union members appears to have been very small by labor-historical standards.”

A rare bit of honesty from Instacracker?

No wonder the shrill smear artist of the right don’t like this piece.

Reply

Darleen Click June 5, 2011 at 5:38 pm

goodness, peckerwood, don’t you ever tire of the racist labels?

Reply

ponce June 5, 2011 at 6:03 pm

Do you ever tire of being ineffectual, Lurleen?

A third rate assistant on a D-List blog?

Reply

Little Miss Attila June 5, 2011 at 10:53 pm

Where do you blog, Ponce? ‘Cause I’ll be right over to support your efforts!

Reply

ponce June 5, 2011 at 11:16 pm

I’m right here, LMA.

Support me 🙂

Glenn Mark Cassel AMH1(AW) USN Ret. June 5, 2011 at 5:33 pm

And are those in the Armed Forces who are in clerical, office and disbursing ratings any less?
I knew some pretty tough YNs, PNs, DKs and RPs in my day. And these ratings were filled by men in the days before the Fleet went gender integrated…………
YN=Yeoman
PN=Personnelman
DK=Disbursing Clerk
RP=Religious Programs Specialist
And almost forgot AZs, Aviation Maintenance Administration Man!!!!!!!
Yup, Greenwald has a short between the headsets. At least in the mind of this Old Retired Petty Officer.

Reply

Little Miss Attila June 5, 2011 at 5:41 pm

Hey–it was Reynolds, not Greenwald! Do those Glenns all look alike to you? 😉

Some of Althouse’s commenters are suggesting that Dr. Reynolds is simply trying to taunt the new “paperwork-oriented” protesters. And, again–I think it was Althouse who brought gender into this.

Reply

Glenn Mark Cassel AMH1(AW) USN Ret. June 5, 2011 at 9:55 pm

Especially when I are one!

Reply

Jerry Whittemore June 5, 2011 at 6:03 pm

Really—“I doubt that is own point….”

Reply

Little Miss Attila June 5, 2011 at 6:23 pm

All right, all right–you know you could have done that via email, fer crying out loud . . . 😉

Reply

Roxeanne de Luca June 5, 2011 at 10:04 pm

I think that Prof. Althouse is seeing sexism where there is none.

Part of the reason that unions came about was because of truly deplorable and dangerous working conditions. Doing a “manly man’s” job is more dangerous than filing papers in an office, or being a receptionist; thus, people who did those jobs wanted benefits like health care and life insurance, and felt as if they had not been adequately compensated, or that their workplaces were much more deadly than they had to be.

Now, I say this as someone who left the lab in part because of the safety issues – people in the chemical industry often die sooner than their socioeconomic peers, and that’s a 21st century laboratory, not a coal mine – I really understand where the first union workers were coming from. At some point, you want your employer to make your working conditions safer and to compensate you for the increased risks, as well as to care for your family if something happens to you. Equating that danger with the danger faced by a receptionist in Town Hall is, IMHO, ridiculous – and sexism has nothing to do with it.

Reply

Little Miss Attila June 5, 2011 at 10:57 pm

Yes, that was the thing–I just didn’t see it as a gender issue at all–more like deskworkers vs. these highly physical men in the past who were part of this very specific subculture, and were in amazing shape.

Reply

ponce June 5, 2011 at 11:21 pm

“and were in amazing shape”

Um,

Having been a “highly physical” union union worker, I can tell you’re practically a cripple in your off hours, just resting and hoping your pains and injuries heal before your next shift began.

Real “highly physical” work is quite damaging.

Reply

Roxeanne de Luca June 6, 2011 at 3:18 pm

That’s the point, Ponce. If it were not damaging, then workers wouldn’t need to be compensated for doing it. But when it destroys your body, you want more out of the company that profits from the destruction of your body than you would if you were risking a paper cut. Hence, unions that worked to get more job security and benefits for employees – things which do not apply to desk workers.

Reply

John Hitchcock June 5, 2011 at 11:57 pm

Sometimes it’s a good idea to sit back and ruminate on the words in context before throwing one’s knee out of joint… or so I’ve heard. 😉

I am of the opinion that the hypersensitivity of a certain group of women has led to the unfortunate over-abundance of beta males and omega males and the unfortunate placing of alpha males on the endangered species list. When comparisons of Palin, Bachmann, Haley, etc to Romney, Boehner, etc have a certain result…

If you spend more time trying to figure out how to parse your words to avoid hurting anonymous people’s feelings than you do working out cogent subject matter, there’s a problem.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: