Trends and Entertainment
So Much for the Mancession
In the 1970s, women and minorities got bashed by the downturn; they were most vulnerable to LIFO—“last in-first out,” a principle that labor unions swore by. In 1974, when GM laid off 2,400 workers, that included almost every woman on the assembly line, since they had not been hired until four years after the Civil Rights Act was passed.
This time around, we’re seeing a Mancession. The vast majority of the jobs lost in the downturn have been held by men—manufacturing and construction have been hit harder than health care and education. Women now make up 49.83 percent of the American workforce—more than ever before.
But reality isn’t all simple and shiny.
- At Newsweek, Nancy Cook points out that even though women might be less likely to lose their jobs, they’re not exactly flush. “The jobs that women are hanging on to typically lack benefits, retirement savings, or pensions,” she points out. And they still earn less than men do.
- In related news, the National Women’s Law Center says that while men are more likely to be unemployed, jobless rates for women are surging—especially for women who head families.
- In a developing countries, women are still more vulnerable to downturns. They already make up the bulk of the poor population. They have fewer safety nets and less power. And now, there is less aid money around.
- Roles are said to be shifting in families, with men taking on more child-care and household responsibilities. Great strides for gender equality? Not so fast. Unemployed men spend about the same amount of time as working men looking after kids, according to the New York Times. And Heather Boushey, a senior economist at the Center for American Progress, told the Christian Science Monitor that in the 1950s, post-Depression and after World War II, there was a backlash against women working outside the home.
The biggest reason to hold off on celebrating: Do we want more work or do we want more choice? They’re not the same thing. If women are occupying a bigger portion of the workforce because they’re being forced to take (or keep) a job just doesn’t seem like a positive development for women. I’d far rather they have the freedom and financial wherewithal to decide whether—and how—to be employed. Maybe that will come in the “shecovery.”
Tags: Discussion
2 comments for “So Much for the Mancession”
Post a comment
Special Sections
“I’d far rather they have the freedom and financial wherewithal to decide whether—and how—to be employed. Maybe that will come in the “shecovery.””
You do realize that men have never had that freedom. Certain feminists have portrayed men as living the life of Reilly … reclining at make-work jobs at very high salaries and coming home to their wife-maid-servants. Nonsense. Men have never had the freedom to decide whether to be employed, and this is whether the men are married, divorced paying child support, or even single (as government services are generally not available to able-bodied men, neither is mother’s basement). And there have long been powerful economic and other incentives forcing men to remain at a single position rather than hopping around from job to job: health insurance, family stability, retirement plans, etc.
This freedom that you are describing has only been available to two groups of people: 1) the very rich (which incidentally has always included women) and 2) the spouses of males who earn enough to maintain the households off their income and thus working for the wife is an option, not a requirement to keep food on the table or to maintain a standard of living.
Gerald, you raise a very good point. Men certainly face financial (and therefore career) pressure that most women don’t experience in the same way. I remember several years ago, when I realized that I had been raised with the understanding that I had to be able to support myself–but my brother had learned that he had to be able to support himself AND a family. A big difference, no?