Via <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/the_end_of_the_man-cession.html">Ezra Klein</a>, an article for anyone tired of hearing about <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/columns/2009/10/06/the-myth-of-the-man-cession/">how hard guys have it in the current recession</a>:
The reason that men are more sensitive -- to recessions at least -- is that they are overrepresented in highly cyclical sectors. Nine out of 10 workers in construction, and seven out of 10 in manufacturing, are male. These sectors generally take the biggest tumble when the economy declines. Women, meanwhile, dominate the most cosseted portions of the economy: healthcare, education and government.
Despite this, the current downturn has been no cakewalk for women. While women have been better at clinging onto their jobs, they have not done so well holding onto their salaries. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women in full-time work saw their annual earnings fall at twice the pace of men in the early stages of the recession -- losing almost 2 percent last year.
The news actually gets worse for women. Most measures of employment and salary suggest the gender revolution has stalled. The gulf between male and female salaries, which narrowed dramatically in the last 25 years, has started to widen again.
The topic in general has been broached here before, but this is a pretty solid article to throw at whiners. Assuming they're willing to read it. Or know how.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Oh noes! The man-cession!.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16472
Geez, don't know what happened with the HTML tags.. I'll try here.
Swann article: http://blogs.reuters.com/columns/2009/10/06/the-myth-of-the-man-cession/
Klein post: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/the_end_of_the_man-cession.html
The news actually gets worse for women. Most measures of employment and salary suggest the gender revolution has stalled. The gulf between male and female salaries, which narrowed dramatically in the last 25 years, has started to widen again.
This shouldn't be surprising if you think about the recession.
Men in the cyclical sectors lose their jobs, these sectors pay reasonably well for their level of experience/education, but they don't pay amazing salaries. Removing these from the average bouys that average but does not mean that earnings are higher. All it means is that the upper quintile earners who are not as affected now make up a larger portion of the calculation and carry more weight.
Further Kleins article still supports that this hit men harder than it hit women, it is merely begining to hit women more equally. Of course this still does not justify the National Organization of Women's effect on the stimulus bill because the reason for that increasing equal burden has been the increasing participation of women in the "macho fields" that NOW maligned. That increased participation is likely to only be further hurt by the fact that the hurt felt by construction and manufacturing workers will primarily be felt by the younger employees. Younger employees such as the women who were making inroads before the narrow and shortsighted input of NOW.
Gawd, you are such an MRA.
Yup, thats why I pointed out that the legislation I objected to hurt women in non-traditional careers.
You got me.
I don't think there is necessarily anything anti-feminist about acknowledging statistics which show that this particular recession seems to be affecting men more heavily than women. Facts are facts, and the fact remains that lower-tier traditionally-male jobs seem to be the first to go and the last to return.
Feminism is about achieving equality of opportunity for men and women, not about claiming that women are universally worse-off or that every occurrence is harder on women. If this recession is affecting men more than women -- ok, fair enough.
That doesn't really affect the overall argument for equality -- it simply shows that recessions suck. They suck for men. They suck for women. They suck for low-wage-earners. They suck for the rich. They just suck. Whether they suck slightly more for one group over another doesn't really seem a terribly important distinction.
kbz
I don't think anyone's argued that pointing out the fact of it is bad. But sometimes it reaches a level where it sounds like people think this is the worst thing that's ever happened to guys, and you just say, geez dude, quit crying, there's a logical reason why the numbers are what they are.
I liked this article because it takes pains to show how the numbers have logically shifted from one recession to the next, and that there's nothing weird about what's going on with this one. That's all.
"Whether they suck slightly more for one group over another doesn't really seem a terribly important distinction."
Oh ho ho, I beg to differ. It sucks more for those who have less to lose, or for whom the stakes are higher.