Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
NY Times: 'The New Gender Gap'
Submitted by anthony on Mon, 2009-10-05 20:09
Article here. Excerpt:
'Under other circumstances, that would be cause for celebration. But women have gained this latest bit of ground mostly because men have lost it — 78 percent of the jobs lost during this recession were held by men. So not only is it unseemly to rejoice over a larger share of a smaller pie, it is also unsettling to face the fact that so much of the history of women in the workplace (both their leaps forward and their slips back) is a reaction to what was happening to men.
...
Now they seem to be returning. Women will soon be the majority of workers because some are opting back in, and many others, who never left, are more likely to find and keep their jobs than men. Once again, the reasons for this are not a function of the clout of women but of the predicament of men and less a sign of how far women have come than of how far they have left to go.
...
Primarily, women are still cheaper. They earn 77 cents to every dollar earned by a man, and in a flailing economy employers see that as an attractive quality. Women who are returning to the work force after several years at home raising children are particularly cheap. Sylvia Ann Hewlett, an economist and the founder of the Center for Work-Life Policy, has estimated that the penalty is 10 percent of income for every two years out of the job market, a loss that is never recouped. From the hiring side of the table, that may be a good bargain.'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
"They earn 77 cents to every dollar earned by a man..."
Really, it never ends. This statistic will be touted even if we see a day when the lowest-earning woman outearns the highest-earning man. Truth is meaningless when it comes to this topic, at least to feminists.
Gee, you mean they're
Gee, you mean they're supposed to get raises while they're off too?
-ax
Can anyone?
Here's an observation: last night I watched MNF. Many players were wearing pink attire to help the cause of raising money/awareness for breast cancer in women. Fine by me.
But can anyone think of an example of a similar event in which women wear clothing\colors\ribbons\whatever to help men? I cannot.
In this piece, women are getting all the jobs, and the author evinces no concern the men who lost their jobs. Tough titties, I guess. Hm, now I understand where that phrase comes from.
manonthestreet I have heard
manonthestreet
I have heard this story before. I think we all have. But can an economy really function on a base of just female jobs? What are these jobs? Administration, education, health, running soup kitchens for unemployed men. Can this really be an economy?
It seems to me this just compounds the thinking of the past where consumption was regarded as the same as production. Now we have jobs that produce employment but nothing else. For an economy to survive there must be production.
Sooner or later those who do produce will not sell to the USA as you have nothing to give in return.
good points
el cid said:
But can anyone think of an example of a similar event in which women wear clothing\colors\ribbons\whatever to help men? I cannot.
Damned if I can.
And TMOTS' analysis seems prophetic.
There's no question that men
There's no question that men will always be needed to do the real work. The problem is that eventually, that's all they'll be doing (construction, mining, etc.) - they will have become the 'second sex', if radical feminists get their way.
-ax
Exactly
Ax, you're right. I think that men will eventually become a labor caste, not much more than slaves to female masters if present trends continue. Already, the average divorced dad is little more than a serf\slave to his ex-wife. That arrangement is the feminist model for male-female relationships, a unilateral obligation on his part with no reciprocal obligation on her part.