I have no problem with the article itself, but am I the only one who is a little offended at the headline "Women Are Now Equal as Victims of Poor Economy?" It's like, women have finally achieved their goal of equality with men because of economic hard times. Congratulations!

As somebody who studies gendered economic issues I must say that this article was problematic to me for a few other reasons. This analysis (the NY Times’) of the Bureau of Labor statistics fails to mention that women, particularly women of color, disproportionately make-up lower paying service jobs and often hold multiple jobs to be able to support themselves and their families. Thus, job loss would not be observable by looking at a gendered breakdown of employment alone. An economist would have to look at a gendered breakdown of income brackets. There is typically a notable trend of women falling to lower income brackets and taking multiple jobs in times of economic hardship. If one was to look at the statistics in a general way it will look like women are retaining jobs when in truth they are working more jobs for less pay. How’s that for a morning dose of economic violence with a side of structural racism and sexism.

I think women and men are both going to have hugely tough economic times in this country if the Republicans keep the White House in November. One of the issues that you very seldom see discussed on the campaign trail is the potential further but sudden devaluation of the US dollar that could occur at any moment if other nations holding our currency and debt (in T-bills, T-bonds, etc.) allow the dollar to free fall. Clyde Prestowitz, economic advisor to John Edwards during his campaign and author of such books on international relations and trade as Rogue Nation and Three Billion New Capitalists, said a couple of years ago that the US dollar could and should fall by 50 - 75 percent ( http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/358/ ). The sudden currency deflation scenario is not likely because the currency and debt holders such as Japanese and Chinese central banks do not want to damage their own balance sheets, but if our relationship with other developed or developing nations should precipitously deteriorate as it is more likely to do so under John McCain, all of us can find ourselves half as well off or worse in a matter of days. I know that this is a blog specifically on feminist causes, but I would ask anyone who is not yet energized about the current Presidential race to think carefully of the implications of a McCain White House and see how she or he can help prevent that catastrophe from taking place. Your M-F (that's misogynist-feminist, not the other kind) pal at http://cnbcsucks.wordpress.com

I don't agree that a stay at home mom is always a luxury and something only the middle and upper class can afford to do. If you live in a city or area where childcare is exorbitantly expensive, like I do, sometimes working is the luxury and staying at home is the default. I often find myself asking my friends who work "How do you afford it?"

People assume that my husband and I can afford for me to stay at home but the truth is that we're hurting financially and barely keeping our heads above water. If I went back to work, however, we'd be no better or even worse off as the cost of childcare, travel, work lunches and work clothes outweighs my salary to the point where we'd be incurring extra costs for me to work, even though I want to. I know plenty of other women in the same predicament.

Tealy: I completely agree with you regarding the cost of childcare. My spouse and I are in the same quandary with our toddler. We would be spending more money for me to go to work also. Hopefully, that will change when I finish up at university in a couple years but for many women it will continue to be real problem.

As for the original article, I found this quote sadly humorous:

"a different explanation is turning up in government data ... that follows the women's story through the end of 2007."

Oh those crazy women were right. Our bad!!

"The excuse for men is not usually that they have chosen to stay home, it is that they can't find work, whereas for women the explanation has always been she chose to stay home, not that she couldn't find a job."

Agreed.

"For working class families the luxury of a stay at home mom has never been an option. It has in the past been an oversight of the women's movement that women merely want to enter the workforce because they have a right to. It is often that they need to."

Thank you so much for recognizing this. I hate the assumption by some that other people have the same choices or lifestyles that they do.

"I have no problem with the article itself, but am I the only one who is a little offended at the headline 'Women Are Now Equal as Victims of Poor Economy?'"

I am very offended at the concept. I know that women and children bear the brunt of poverty. The OP title is the accurate one.

And thank you, Renee R., for looking into the issues of class (also race) along with gender. That situation is so true here in Hawaii, among women who are have immigrated more recently, or among people who have not successfully adapted, likely due to economic reasons like not being able to afford college. Making ends meet in a place like Hawaii with a single job, or a 40 hour week, five days a week, marks one as fortunate.

Interesting reading regarding race and poverty from United for a Fair Economy (UFE):

Foreclosed: State of the Dream 2008
By Amaad Rivera, Brenda Cotto-Escalera, Anisha Desai, Jeannette Huezo, and Dedrick Muhammad (Institute for Policy Studies)

http://www.faireconomy.org/files/pdf/StateOfDream_01_16_08_Web.pdf

"We estimate the total loss of wealth for people of color to be between $164 billion and $213 billion for subprime loans taken during the past eight years. We believe this represents the greatest loss of wealth for people of color in modern US history."

"Based on improvements in Median Household Net Worth before the current crisis (from 1982 to 2004), it would take 594 more years for Blacks/African-Americans to achieve parity with Whites. "The current crisis is likely to make it take much longer."

"Homeownership rates for Blacks/African-Americans compared to Whites are already starting to take back recent gains. At the current rate of improvement (from 1970 to 2006), parity will not be achieved for another 5,423 years."

They also see 170 years to parity in the child poverty rate, and an incredible 10,411 years to parity in average household net worth between blacks and whites.

"Black households are more than twice as likely as Whites to have zero or negative net worth!" (29.4% vs. 13% of households)

"Forty-six percent of people of color own homes compared to 76% of their White counterparts"

"A quarter of the Black population lives in poverty compared to 8%
of Whites"

"People of color are three times as likely as their White counterparts to live in poverty"

"White median family income is more than twice Black median family income For every dollar of White wealth, people of color have 15 cents"

I don't know their methodology, but all I can say is yikes. I also see by nearly every unit of their measure, blacks were the target (yes, that is the word they use regarding predatory business practices) of the sub prime housing loan crisis. It is encouraging to believe that attention given and efforts toward addressing the sub prime mortgage crisis means attention on issues affecting people of color.

Also, in response to all the people I see including on this blog, who blame low income people for "taking" "their" tax money, "According to a report released in 2004 by the Corporation For Enterprise Development, the government spends $335 billion on asset-building policies. 'The report stated that federal policies 'disproportionately benefit those who already have assets. Analysis of the largest spending categories shows that over a third of the benefits go to the wealthiest 1% of Americans—those who typically earn over $1 million per year. In contrast, less than 5% of the benefits go to the bottom 60% of taxpayers.'” That's right, only 5% of the funding meant to build assets goes to the "bottom 60%" of taxpayers. My guess is much less than even that actually gets to the poor. So how are they supposed to improve their own situations? Oh, get off their butts and work harder (I've seen that anti-poor attitude here)? One can say the same about women in general, but that wouldn't be tolerated here.

That's right. STOP BLAMING THE POOR (particularly those who dare to have children by choice) for "taking" "your" money. Why not address the issues that brought us these centuries of continuing inequality instead? The UFE has proposals, though they will mainly directly affect the privileged (those with incomes or accumulated wealth in the millions of dollars). How about you?

TEALY and ANYGIRL:
I'm in the same boat. I have a infant son and don't live near any family who could watch him for free or cheap. We are barely getting by (we're sharing the cost of wireless internet with three people, lol) and I'd love to work. But with gas prices and the cost of childcare, working would only put us deeper into the red. I only have a high school education and can't find a job that I'd actually make a profit from after gas+childcare cost. I'm getting pretty annoyed at the whole 'only upper-class, privileged women have the choice and luxury to stay home'. It may be the case with some women, but it isn't a option or a luxury for me or any other stay-at-home mothers I know personally.

I consider myself very fortunate to have my current job as a night charge nurse a 35-50 minute drive from my home. I spend from 10-15% of my salary on fuel and have seen the risk of sleeping behind the wheel on this rural highway. Acquaintances shake their heads when they hear of the location of my job or the drive. I tell them it is better than nothing (or the $12.50 per hour, 26 hr. per week Costco maintenance job I was previously hired to do before being a full time nurse). If she can work out the overlapping 30 minutes at the end of her evening job, so someone can be at home with our children between 10 and 10:30 p.m., my wife will be able to keep both her jobs, as well, resulting in no real loss of her income, and a great addition to mine. Now we cross our fingers to see if she can get that competitive state library assistant job (she has experience), so she can get a single daytime job with a salary higher than both of her current jobs (and government benefits) - hmm, and still have time for that evening job.

Samhita posted at July 22, 2008, at 09:37AM: "For working class families the luxury of a stay at home mom has never been an option."

True, and the "women don't need jobs, they can be housewives" attitude also ignores unmarried women as well as married working class women and their families.