By John Hirschauer
Wednesday, May 27, 2020
‘The novel coronavirus seems to be more deadly for men,”
CNN tweeted.
“But in many other ways, women are bearing the brunt of this pandemic.”
More men are dying from the coronavirus, but women, we
are told, have been saddled with a disproportionate share of household chores.
Who has it worse?
Apparently a bit more laundry is a fate worse than death.
The notion that women are “bearing the brunt” of this
pandemic virus is smattered on scores of feminist think-pieces across the
Internet. To pick three: The
Guardian says that “UK women bear emotional brunt of Covid-19
turmoil;” NPR laments
that “Women Bear The Brunt Of Coronavirus Job Losses”; and the Miami
Herald reports that “Women are bearing the brunt of the social and
economic crisis caused by COVID-19.”
The story of women’s COVID oppression is told half by
anecdote and half by data. We are enjoined to pity the women who, confined to
their homes by statewide stay-at-home orders, are engaged in more housework
than their husbands. NBC News speaks with a think-tank official who presents a
five-step plan “to reset the unfair division of labor at home during COVID-19;”
NPR goes further than “unfair,” quoting a source who says that the pandemic has
laid bare the “grotesque” gender inequalities in America’s division of
household labor.
There is an entire genre of articles devoted to the
supposedly benighted women of COVID-19, whose disproportionate attendance to
childcare during the pandemic could, in Vox’s words, “harm women’s
long-term career prospects.” The fact that the unemployment rate among women is
about three percentage points higher than among men has been presented as
evidence that between housework and economic misfortune, women are “bearing”
the proverbial “brunt” of the pandemic — even as men are shown to be far
more likely to die from the coronavirus.
These unemployment disparities and unequal divisions of
household labor have been a subject of myopia among the nation’s most
unpleasant media guild — “gender reporters” and “equity correspondents.” The
very existence of their jobs, of course, is premised on there being sexism to
fight, rampant discrimination to overturn, and looming forces of reaction eager
to reinstall — if it was ever uninstalled — the patriarchy.
When reality doesn’t provide the requisite oppression
needed justify their salaries, they have recourse to the theoretical. CNN’s
Ivana Kottasová, for instance, quivered that the pandemic has “presented some
world leaders with an opportunity to grab more power, sparking fears among
women’s rights activists and researchers.” The mere fact that “fears” are being
“sparked” among “women’s rights activists” can itself become a pretext for a
story, without requiring the reporter to pause and consider whether her
underlying premise — that the Western world’s sun rises and sets around the
subjugation of women — has any basis in fact.
Kottasová informs readers that any deviation from the
official narrative of American female oppression is “dangerous”: “A CNN
analysis earlier this year found that in the countries for which data was
available, men were 50% more likely than women to die after being diagnosed
with Covid-19. But experts say focusing purely on health data is dangerous.”
Dangerous?
The “experts” that Kottasová cites insinuate that
focusing on male COVID deaths distracts from the “existing structural
inequalities in society,” and ignores the “secondary impacts” of the pandemic,
“where women are being disproportionately affected.” The reasoning here is a
bit like the Anti-Defamation League’s “Pyramid of Hate,” which purports to
sketch the path from “biased attitudes” — “microaggressions,” “non-inclusive
language,” “insensitive remarks,” and so forth — through “acts of bias,” overt
discrimination, “bias-motivated violence,” and, ultimately, genocide. Since
every fascistic regime begins with “biased attitudes,” shaming and ostracizing
those who make “insensitive remarks” in casual conversation essentially kills
Hitler in the crib. (“Tax the rich,” however, is never viewed as the first step
on the road to the gulags.) A similar logic explains the aversion to discussing
male COVID deaths: To the “expert,” such discussion could set off a similar
series of dominos — perhaps bringing attention to those disparities inspires a
strain of male grievance, which might foster a mobilized political movement
based on male resentment, which might then get weaponized against women and
minorities, and — voila! — your discussion of male COVID deaths has
enabled the Third Reich.
It is, in any case, remarkable to me that the most
miserable people in our society — many of whom are childless and publicly
extoll the virtues of childlessness — are the same ones writing pieces telling you
how to run and structure your home life. “Some gender scholars are arguing that
this pandemic may create an opportunity for men and women in heterosexual
families to both gain more awareness of how much is involved in managing a
household and raising children,” the sociologist Sinikka Elliott told Vox,
as if “gender scholars” who spend their time calling fetuses parasites know
more about what is “involved” in “managing a household and raising children”
than you do.
It is also remarkable that this same three-headed hydra
of activist reporters, academics, and professional feminists is of one voice in
lamenting the “gendered” effects of the pandemic, even as they go around
telling us that gender is a social construct, that there is no such thing as
“male” or “female,” and that men and women as such are fabrications of the
patriarchy with no basis in chromosomal fact.
Women don’t exist, but they still “bear the brunt” of this pandemic.
No comments:
Post a Comment