Women left out of economic recovery - 90% of new jobs go to men

[iamkeri1]

I was shocked when I saw this on yahoo. Watch the video with Diane Sawyer. Sorry there's a commercial first (nothing is free.)

http://news.yahoo.com/video/business...-jobs-24606247


On one hand various state governments are trying to destroy union jobs, and on the other hand, almost all new jobs are going to men. Are we going to have to start from scratch and fight for womens rights all over again??
Smooches,
Keri

[StillettoDoll]

yes actually saw these report 2 days ago , very alarming! Havent stop thinking about it. It really pisses me off. We still live in the stone age.

[JustJo]

I'm curious though....every report I read said that the recession and loss of jobs struck men much harder than it did women. If so, it would make sense that the population (in this case, men) that suffered the biggest loses would make the biggest recovery...

[gaea]

true as it is men lost their jobs however so did women, men were hit the hardest because the pay scales are unequal, men are still paid more than women for the same job, thus it made business sense to cut them loose first then hire a woman for the same job and pay her less money. This whole economic bs is twisted.

[Blade]

Originally Posted by gaea

true as it is men lost their jobs however so did women, men were hit the hardest because the pay scales are unequal, men are still paid more than women for the same job, thus it made business sense to cut them loose first then hire a woman for the same job and pay her less money. This whole economic bs is twisted.

While I agree with "gaea" let me say also that with the economy such as it is, housing and construction have taken a large hit. The majority of construction workers are men. Also companies that are driven by housing and construction are typically predominately jobs that are done by men. Like my company is dependent on new housing starts...most of our employees are men. Maybe 200 women out of 2500 jobs in the company.

[asphaltcowboi]

Originally Posted by Blade

While I agree with "gaea" let me say also that with the economy such as it is, housing and construction have taken a large hit. The majority of construction workers are men. Also companies that are driven by housing and construction are typically predominately jobs that are done by men. Like my company is dependent on new housing starts...most of our employees are men. Maybe 200 women out of 2500 jobs in the company.

Totly agree.. i would like to see a precentage compairson. female job losses vs male job losses then percentage of men working in typical female fields and women working in typical male fiendls.

[gaea]

Originally Posted by Blade

While I agree with "gaea" let me say also that with the economy such as it is, housing and construction have taken a large hit. The majority of construction workers are men. Also companies that are driven by housing and construction are typically predominately jobs that are done by men. Like my company is dependent on new housing starts...most of our employees are men. Maybe 200 women out of 2500 jobs in the company.

Blade, I worked for a company that went hand I'm hand with construction , I understand this.

this economy is bs no matter what because people have suffered regardless of gender or gender bias or what have you. I see no need for anyone to get upset about anyone who is able to return to work, good for them. economy has hurt everyone not a few and not just one gender.

[Kobi]

I couldn't get the initial link video to open. This is the
written version of the same data from ABC news and
addresses some of the questions that were posed in
this thread:

March 21, 2011 Bradley Blackburn ABC News:

Women are lagging behind men in the nation's slow
economic recovery, new government statistics show.

Of the 1.3 million jobs created in the last 12 months,
some 90 percent have gone to men, according to a
report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Women
have gained just 149,000 jobs.

There's no question that the recession hit men
particularly hard, with jobs slashed from traditionally
male-dominated sectors like manufacturing and
construction. Men have still lost more net jobs than
women have since the start of the recession in
December 2007, with men losing a net 4.9 million
jobs, while women have lost 2.5 million jobs.

While you might expect men to recover more jobs
since far more men were put out of work, there are
some signs that things have gotten worse for women
rather than better. Looking at the data since the end
of the recession in July 2009, men have gained
600,000 jobs while women have lost 300,000 jobs.

"I think that the recession has happened in stages,"
said Myra Strober, a professor of education and
economics at Stanford University. "The first stage hit
manufacturing hard, and that's where men have more
jobs than women do, and now the recession has
moved to state and local government where women
have a higher percentage of jobs."

Stimulus Spending Favors Male Workers

While government spending has gone toward
investments in infrastructure like roads, there have
been cuts in public education and other public-
sector service jobs. Women make up some 57 percent
of the public workforce, but between July 2009 and
Feb. 2011, they lost a far higher proportion of the
jobs. Nearly 80 percent of the public-sector jobs cut
during that period were held by women, according to
the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

As unemployed women look for work, experts also
point to cultural biases that may hinder their search.
While anti-discrimination laws prohibit the practice, s
ome employers may believe that male workers will
clock longer hours or be more dedicated to their
jobs.

"Women undertake more of the family work than men
do," said Frances Rosenbluth, a professor of
international politics and deputy provost for the
social sciences at Yale University. "Despite laws,
people won't hire women for jobs that require long
hours or travel."

American Families Depend on Female Earnings

An out-of-work man may also benefit from an
employer's sympathetic assumption that he's his
family's breadwinner, even though American families
have come to depend on income from women far
more than in decades past. Strober said that wives
now contribute roughly 30 percent of a married
couple's earnings, and nearly a quarter of children
under 18 live in single-mother households.

"There's a lot of evidence that historically when jobs
are scarce, employers favor men because they feel
that it's up to men to earn a family wage and support
their families," said Strober. "That is still true, but it's
also true that women need to support their families."

At the high end of the employment pool, women may
have been affected more by the recession than many
realized. Female leaders at the most senior levels of
companies were three times more likely to lose jobs
than men during the recession, according to Catalyst,
a nonprofit organization focusing on women and
business.

Catalyst found that part of the reason for that
disparity is that women's mentors were less senior
than those of men, and when it comes time to lay off
employees, that can be a disadvantage.

"A lot of those discussions happen behind closed
doors. Your mentor is a person who, behind that
door, is saying, 'No, we can't lose her,'" said Jan
Combopiano, vice president and chief knowledge
officer for Catalyst. "What you need is an advocate, a
champion in your corner."

--------

Very sobering information and a tad worrisome in terms of
the sexism and racism that was addressed.

On a brighter note, Newsweek did an article in the summer of 2010
that paints a more optimistic outlook for women around the world in
the future called "Women will rule the world". Catchy title. Check it out here:

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/06/w...the-world.html

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by JustJo

I'm curious though....every report I read said that the recession and loss of jobs struck men much harder than it did women. If so, it would make sense that the population (in this case, men) that suffered the biggest loses would make the biggest recovery...

Well, the report said that in the public sector 57% of jobs are filled by women and that 8 out of 10 jobs lost in this sector was lost by women.

Personally, this shit pisses me off. Why I am surprised it is so high (90%), I don't know. But, it really ticks me off. Perhaps I need to learn more about it (noting Jo's comment) before shooting off, but it does make me angry if this is the case.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by cody

Totly agree.. i would like to see a precentage compairson. female job losses vs male job losses then percentage of men working in typical female fields and women working in typical male fiendls.

Well, the report said:

1) ACROSS ALL JOBS: 7/2009 - 2/2011 - Men have gained 600,000 job and women have lost 300,000

2) Retail (historically 50% men, 50% women in field): 7/2009 - 7/2010 - men have gained 100,000 jobs, women have lost 100,000

[JustJo]

This is a little off base, I know....but I'm getting ready to turn 49 this week, was raised by a mother we called "the feminazi", and my first (unsuccessful) political efforts were directed at pushing the ERA through...

I guess that's the long way of saying that none of this surprises me.

I'm a single mother, and have worked my whole life. In fact, I've never been supported by a man...not even a father. For me, women have always been the breadwinners...and have never made pay on par with men, even for the same work.

About 8 years ago I decided that, to get out of the "female pay" rut, I had to either get an advanced degree, or grow a penis. I opted for an MBA. I'm sure I make less than most men with MBA's, but at least it gets me in "male pay" range in general.

I was also struck by what was said about powerful mentors. That's the truth. And, I just lost mine when she resigned this week. My immediate reaction was to seek out another one....and I've initiated that relationship. He's higher ranking and better connected than my last one...and that's on purpose.

Women aren't going to be handed pay equality. We have to be tough and smart about it personally, while we continue to advocate for it politically.

[C0LLETTE]

I just learned a new word ( to me ):" misogynoir"

Black lifestyle influencer and blogger Sasha Exeter explained how, when she posted a generic call for Instagram influencers to speak out on Black Lives Matter and the anti-police brutality protests, Jessica Mulroney – stylist, heiress to the Browns Shoes fortune and daughter-in-law of Canada’s 18th prime minister – took offence.

Although Ms. Exeter never named the socialite specifically in her call to action, she says Ms. Mulroney reacted as if she did and, over the span of a week, launched into a textbook display of bullying and harassment tactics to excuse her lack of support for the protests, making herself the victim and Ms. Exeter the aggressor for posting her initial call. Ms. Mulroney then allegedly even threatened her livelihood, claiming that she called companies about Ms. Exeter and musing about suing for libel (or, as she wrote, “liable,” because white fragility is not mutually exclusive from bad spelling).

Ms. Exeter’s words – and the fear and anxiety behind them – expressed what Black women have experienced from white women in the professional space for decades: bullying and abuse that turn Black women into the nail for the hammer of white supremacy, which is then wielded by powerful women. This is made possible by intersections of race, class and gender that have underpinned our socioeconomic hierarchy since First Contact. The privilege that Jessica Mulroney wields is a power that places white, cis-gendered, heterosexual males at the top, followed by their female counterparts; they are second-in-command in a hierarchy of white supremacy, in which Black women are near the bottom. Ms. Mulroney, bolstered by the elite connections of institutional power that Ms. Exeter lacks, felt comfortable enough bullying a Black woman for a perceived threat to her brand – which is, of course, just another way she amasses power. “Listen, I’m by no means calling Jess a racist,” Ms. Exeter said in her video. “But what I will say is this: She is very well aware of her wealth, her perceived power and privilege because of the colour of her skin.”

White privilege is the necessary and sufficient condition for the perpetuation of white supremacy, but this situation seems like a case of misogynoir. The term, introduced into the lexicon by queer feminist scholar Moya Bailey, is "an attempt to force black women into boxes and make us more palatable. It’s the idea that we should never scream, never fight, never take ownership of ourselves, because the minute we do, we’ll be painted as ‘angry black women’ and dismissed.” As Black feminist activist Chanju Mwanza wrote in Medium, “Black women are seen as threatening, loud and angry every time they try to make a point.” Ms. Exeter acknowledges this reality in her video, saying that it “wasn’t enough” that Ms. Mulroney went after her career: “She made herself the victim, of course, me the villain.”

We saw a version of this weaponization of white women’s innocence in the story of Amy Cooper, a white, Canadian-born woman who called the police on a Black bird-watcher in New York’s Central Park when he asked her to leash her dog, making explicit on that call that he was “an African-American man threatening my life.” “Now, not only is Jessica very well aware of her white privilege,” Ms. Exeter said, “but, just like her fellow Canadian Amy Cooper, she spewed out that threat so effortlessly.”

Ms. Mulroney also deployed a classic defence: that she had a Black friend. “As I told you privately, I have lived a very public and personal experience with my closest friend where race was front and centre,” she wrote in response to Ms. Exeter’s video, referring to Meghan Markle. But even before she met and married Prince Harry, Ms. Markle represented a comfortable level of Blackness that didn’t threaten the white social order; she’s biracial, and therefore light-skinned, and can easily mix amongst Canada’s elite. Now, as the Duchess of Sussex, her proximity to the epicentre of white, colonialist power overshadows that of Ms. Mulroney’s, so she gets invited into the latter’s circles.

As Canada grapples with its own productive capacity for perpetuating structural racism as a function of white supremacy – amid global protests against police brutality and anti-Black racism – the swift action taken by Cityline, CTV, Kleinfeld and Good Morning America to part ways with Ms. Mulroney is more indicative of the changing social attitudes toward anti-Black racism and, more specifically, Black Lives Matter. The New York Times reported that “by a 28-point margin, Civiqs [an online survey research firm] finds that a majority of American voters support the movement, up from a 17-point margin before the most recent wave of protests began.” (I would rather cite Canadian data, but that would require, well, data.)

But it is also only logical that Ms. Mulroney, who has enjoyed a solid career as an influencer, has lost work. In her field, success is measured by one’s ability to recognize and capitalize on trends – and Black Lives Matter is, if nothing else, trending across the culture. By failing to do her job well, Ms. Mulroney has tied her brand to the infamy associated with pivoting to wrong side of history.