It's been fascinating to watch the media coverage of the economic meltdown as it relates gender (and class) in our society.
In January, data showed that men's participation in the workforce was declining faster than women's. Basically, in recessions, more men tend to lose their jobs than women, hence there is a greater percentage of women in the workforce. (Hmmm... if what's bad for the economy is also bad for traditional gender roles, you'd think the right wing would have clamored a little harder for the stimulus package.)
The New York Times was inspired to publish an article on the implications for masculinity:
Mr. Steuer, 43, was recently laid off from his job at a small research business. "It's hard not to imagine yourself as the breadwinner," he said. "A lot of your ego eggs are in the job basket. I can't shake the psychology that I'm supposed to provide."
The article takes great pains to portray Steuer as a modern man, presumably to highlight the level to which these outmoded views of masculinity are ingrained in our society. (Say it with me, now: "Patriarchy hurts men, too!") New research also shows that the incidence of domestic violence rises along with unemployment. I have a hard time believing this is unrelated to issues of control and masculinity. And, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, lack of money is a common reason why a woman may refuse to leave her abusive partner.
As Emily Bazelon writes, "I'm skeptical about the broad claim that men feel the pain of layoffs more than women do." Me too. As the Times article notes, near the end:
YET while men may appear to reel more socially and psychologically from job loss, they fare far better when it comes to re-employment.In a 2002 study, two sociology professors at Wichita State University, Charles S. Koeber and David W. Wright, found that women who were laid off and went on to look for another job were re-employed less often than men in the same position.
The realities of layoffs are just as bad -- or even worse -- for women. The Times does not provide actual data on the psychological effects of layoffs on men versus women, but I'd wager that a significant number of upper-middle-class women DO strongly see their job as tied to their identity, and are likely suffering psychological effects of joblessness as well.
A nagging problem with this article -- as with so much coverage of the economy -- is that it focuses on people of one economic class (upper-middle or upper class), with the same family dynamic: two-income families with mixed-gender partners, where the male partner earns (or earned) more. I'm guessing the gender dynamics play out differently in families where the female partner is already the primary breadwinner, in families with much lower total incomes, in families where there is a single breadwinner (yes, I think there are still gender dynamics in play when there is only one head of household). But we're not reading much about them.
I understand that it's more interesting for the Times to write about gender dynamics in two-partner families where the male is the breadwinner. But, after awhile, the disproportionate coverage of impact of the economy on the upper-middle-class sends the message that these are the people who are most affected. That simply isn't true.
UPDATE: Girl w/ Pen has more links on this subject.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Gender implications of the recession.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11797
Something in here caught my eye...
"New research also shows that the incidence domestic violence rises along with unemployment."
I work for a network of emergency shelters for women and one month when the news said there was an 81 percent increase in foreclosure filings (from 07 to 08)on that EXACT day we discovered an 81 percent increase in our hotline calls over the same period. Every time the economy does something bad, DV mirrors it.
In my household I'd be the one with the "breadwinner" mug. And that's always been the case.
Sweet!
I hate to be picky, but this comment got me:
"I'm guessing the gender dynamics play out differently ... in families where there is a single breadwinner (yes, I think there are still gender dynamics in play when there is only one head of household).
C'mon, being a SAHM doesn't mean you're not a feminist/embracing traditional roles. I have chosen to stay home with my children but that doesn't make my partner 'the head of the household' or anything like that.
Actually what i meant by that aside, by "only one head of household," was not in reference to SAHMs, it was about single-parent or single-adult households. Sorry if that was unclear.
I apologize if I'm stating something obvious, but when I read that men lose their jobs more in a recession, I immediately thought it must be because they make more and so companies save more by getting rid of them. Maybe there isn't actual evidence of this but it seems intuitive. And it's overwhelming to think how enormous the problem of *money* is when the issues are all inter-related and everyone's looking out for number one.
Interesting, Theresa. And, I think it a perfect place to repeat for emphasis:
Say it with me, now: "Patriarchy hurts men, too!"
I like your logic - I can see how a boss or manager would think in such a way that when it came time to let go of some employees, they would choose so that the business quality could be sustained for the least cost. This way of thinking doesn't work, however, when we consider the article's claim that when you look at "re-hiring", men will tend to be re-hired into the same position at a higher rate than women. But that's a whole other can of worms I'm sure.
In a way this doesn't surprise me, and in another way it does.
I can imagine situations were a company is going out of it's way to "prove" it doesn't discriminate against women by laying off more men.
And at the same time I can also see the reverse, especially in industries that have big back-lash against affirmative action. I was laid off in the fall. At the time, 46 people were laid off, 23 women and 23 men, despite the fact that the division started with only about 20% women. Also they had to publish a list of everyone over a particular age and it turn out to be exactly 23 people, despite the workforce being skewed toward older. We were told that the original list of lay offs was not approved by the company lawyers and was changed specifically for diversity. We were not told the details of how it was changed. My suspicion is that women and younger workers (and younger women especially since there weren't too many older women to start with) were added to the list to "prove" that the company wasn't discriminating against men. Since then its been announced that the whole division being laid off so this time it will be mostly older men because they're the ones with jobs.
The man should be the getter and the supporter, and the woman - the keeper of the centre and mother of children!
The supporter - the society engine, it represents an archetype of force of the adult man: it is concentrated, sensitively reacts to necessity, it is active and purposeful. On the other hand, the Supporter is also a part of any man or the woman which understands importance to throw down a challenge to existing borders that the opened new horizons have benefited all society as a whole. But, I so suppose thought, that the new trend, the new tendency of division of gender estate on the keeper of the centre and the getter - is already a little obsolete...