USA Today columnist David Zincenko had an op-ed today titled "Decline of the American Male":
Like most Americans, I look at the news about the economy, the need for health care reform and our growing national debt, and I worry about how we're going to escape the recession.But as someone who has spent his career working to save an endangered species men I have another worry on my mind: What are we going to do about the Great He-cession?
This troubling trend has been going on for several years, but it really picked up speed at the end of 2008. Of the 5.2 million people who've lost their jobs since last summer, four out of five were men. Some experts predict that this year, for the first time, more American women will have jobs than men. And that's just furthering the decline of the endangered male. (Emphasis mine)
That's right, folks - a "he-cession." While men in fact are losing jobs at a higher rate than women, what the author isn't taking into account is that not only are women paid less and generally have worse jobs than men, but are economically behind men in so many other ways. Dana Goldstein actually took this on last week in the American Prospect:
Historically, men suffer the majority of job losses during recessions, so policy-makers focus their efforts on getting men back to work. But when the economy picks up again, women typically do not share equally in the gains, in part because they aren't equally employed in high-paying fields. And unemployment isn't the only indicator of economic struggle. Women are one-third more likely than men to have sub-prime mortgages, nearly 60 percent of impoverished children are living in female-headed households, and the poverty rate is higher among women than it is among men of any race. Undergirding all that is the stubbornness of the pay gap between men and women, meaning that women still earn just 78 cents on the male dollar--even for the same work, with the same educational background and number of years on the job. Advocates say that given these disparities, it is actually women who are harder hit by the recession, despite more staggering joblessness among men.
What bothers me the most is the author's implication that men are being "left behind" not really because of the recession, but as a sacrifice of women's progression: "Women have gained in the past century, while men have fallen behind."
It's one thing to talk seriously about how the recession has effected the many groups of people who are suffering from it (including so many men who have lost their jobs), but to use it as a way to push some post-patriarchal nonsense is just ridiculous. Or should I say, "he-diculous." Jesus.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Great He-cession makes me want to hu-rl.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14418
I can't believe a respectable newspaper would print something like that.
Good thing it was published in the USA Today instead.
Oh, for some reason I read LA Times. I rescind my comment then.
Oh, for some reason I read LA Times. I rescind my comment then.
That's right folks. Because after all, it's us against all of you. There's no way we could ever be on the same team. That's how grown ups behave.
Great analysis here Jessica. I have to say this phallic obsession with diverting the discussion about economic hardship to a male-dominated conversation is disheartening. How about the fact that 70% of people in poverty are women?? Sounds to me like job loss and economic disenfranchisement only became relevant when men started to become victims.
the thing that irritates me the most about Zincenko's perspective is his bankrupt worldview on power. Apparently if one group gains access to some bit of power and recognition it must mean that someone else is losing it. That ideology has been the foundation of many oppressions in our society. Its bulshit and its destructive ideology.
thanks for sharing.
well, in the US, men are overwhelmingly the majority of homeless people.
all of these stories about "xxxx group hit hard by the recession!" annoy me. one day there's a story about baby boomers, the next there's one about teenagers. someone will note it sucks for women, then later you see total bullshit like this. it's grating as hell.
why can't the bad economy just suck for everyone? everyone is struggling right now.
oh, AND, he's complaining that there are too many women-specific programs, which ignores the very real possibility that these programs exist because the non-gendered programs were failing women.
This man and other people who think like him need to understand the difference between substantive and formal equality. Sometimes to have true equality people must be treated differently.
http://www.equalityrights.org/cher/index.cfm?nav=hr&sub=mod
This is wrong in so many ways. First off, I see a lot of men whining about how males are becoming an endangered species, becoming feminized, etc. Is your ego that fragile that you need people beneath you to feel good about yourself? What's with this "us vs. them" mentality? These are the same men who complain about the "evil castrating feminists" hating men. Now I can't speak for everyone, but every feminist I've met (myself included) just wants equality. We just want everyone to be seen as people. There is no battle of the sexes in my view, at least. Why is it that these men see women's gains taking away from them? It's stupid.
Secondly, I hate it when people talk about how the recession is hurting men more than women. My vagina and I have not been able to find a job since I've graduated. Now I've been lucky enough to be able to go to college and have a support system to help me through this time; but there are so many people, women and men, who are not so fortunate. Aren't most people hurting economically? We're all in this together. Being divisive and bitter won't get anyone anywhere.
And that's what these men wreak of. Bitterness. All the sudden their free ticket to privilege is diminishing. Welcome to how the rest of us live.
One thing this man feels very oppressed by is women’s inequality and having unwanted privilege foisted upon him. When will THAT stop?
This article seems to be a part of a larger trend. White, middle-class men aren't used to struggling as much as women and people of color. This has lead them to feel as if they are entitled to certain "goodies" in life. If they can't manage, it must be someone else's fault (this is where feminists, and women in general, get a bum rap).
Along the same line, I just heard Barbara Ehrenreich on NPR's "Tell Me More." She was discussing how the poor (who are mainly women) are receiving so little coverage during this recession. She notes that she and other journalists have been told that the stories about the truly poor are boring. They are encourage to focus on the "new poor."
Most of the news coverage has focused on middle-class people who have never had the experience of being unemployed and/or poor. Sure, it's a bad time for them but those who were already poor are barely making it.
Back to the men--interestingly more women than men are earning Bachelor and Master degrees. On average, college women earn higher grades than men. Yet, UPON graduation, women earn less than men.
Some blame pay inequity on the women--basically, some claim women chose low paying fields. Now, here's the rub, these "low paying" jobs are in education, health care, admin, etc. Those types of jobs are needed (even though some see some cutbacks in positions and salaries). Men are not trained for these jobs, they have avoided them in the past. Is it a surprise when men in some typically male positions are laid off from a higher paying job? Be logical and do the math, men--some of your jobs aren't essential to the business or the community and your paycheck was inflated!!
I could always cry when I read about all those high earning men. WHERE ARE THEY !!!
I am spooked of marriage because I am afraid I will lose half my stuff to him and will have to pay alimony.
I have to wonder if you read the whole article.
You state that women have "worse" jobs, and completely ignore that the vast majority of workplace injuries and deaths happen to... men (86% and 92% respectively). In addition, men are slated to die 5 years sooner than women on average (11 years for negro men).
You've ignored that 98% of the casualties in Iraq are men, or how many of the men serving in Iraq will arrive home with PTSD and have to cope with that with little or no professional assistance.
With the economic downturn, and jobs becoming harder to come by, many men will turn to the armed forces for work.
As to women in low-paying work, go to the shopping centre (mall) and see how many retail assistants are men. I know for a fact that retail and hospitality are not very highly-paid places to work, and I always see more women than men. This skews the statistics on the wage gap because they use an overall average.
And proudfeminist - either find a man of integrity (ie one who won't take you to the cleaners) or use a pre-nup.
You've got to be kidding me. Men account for 98% of the casualties in Iraq because women are not allowed in direct combat roles (don't get me started on that here, ugh).
Where are you getting your information anyway? It's all seems very anecdotal. The wage gap statistics are for women in the same occupations as men, not in the workforce overall.
Anyway, my problem with the article is the blaming tone it has towards women. The author seems whiny and privileged.
And "negro men?" Seriously?
By looking at your other comments, I can't help but think you're a troll anyway.
I actually had to eat crow on the women in direct combat roles a few years back. The reason that women are not allowed to do so, is because the men cannot view a woman as just another soldier. Instead, they tend to be overprotective of her.
You can say that that's the man's problem all you want, but when it comes to the military politics must clearly take a back seat to effectiveness.
The reason that women are not allowed to do so, is because the men cannot view a woman as just another soldier. Instead, they tend to be overprotective of her.
Do have any studies to back this up--not theories but actual data from a conflict? Because what I've heard is that many women are already "unofficially" in combat, just like gays are "unofficially" represented among all ranks of the military.
Not to mention several countries/factions have had women fighting in combat or militias side-by-side men.
I was going to say the same thing. Well put.
I've spent a great deal of time talking to the people who were at various military places.
Including one person who was in the Navy, another in Vietnam, and one who was a drill Sargent, and led a company at Black Hawk Down.
They all said the same thing. It would be extremely difficult for men to treat women as equal. Sometimes, studies aren't as useful as listening to others and having some logic.
For instance, if we take what this site says is true, which is that women are treated differently, then we can assume that women in direct combat would be treated differently.
Since it's extremely problematic in military missions for anyone to be treated differently, I do agree with the decision not to allow women in direct combat roles.
If, however, in time this could change (that men could view a woman as just another soldier), then so too would my opinion.
Again, in the military I put effectiveness over righteousness every day of the week.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
And the same arguments are made against gays in the military and were made against racial integration under Truman.
Apparently we have more faith in our military men and women's capacity to do their jobs than you do.
And, yes, I have talked to actual military people about this, and many of them do feel that it's a stupid policy that hurts women and the military both.
The racial integration argument here is a poor comparison. Blacks were treated with great disdain by many whites; therefore, they would be expendable in the eyes of many whites. Not a pleasant truth, but there you have it.
Women are viewed by many men as the fairer and weaker sex (they haven't met my sisters). Therefore, it would be in the nature of this man to protect that woman.
Again, though I do listen, my point was primarily that we can use logic to come to some obvious conclusions.
That women would be treated differently in the military if they are treated differently here is an obvious conclusion to me.
So... do you believe it is not men's responsibility to change their attitudes about women in combat?
The wage gap increases with more education and job status. In 2004, a female high school grad earned about 26,029 a male 35,725 --a differnce of about 9000. A female with a bachelors degree earned 41,681 while a male with a bachelors earned 57,220--a difference of over 15,000--a BIG difference. In fact, a woman with a Bachelors doesn't make that much more than a male with a H.S. diploma (only about 6000 more)
Yes, more men experience on the job accidents but MOST men are employed as truck drivers, managers, sales, and laborers--not really dangerous jobs. Overall, it's more dangerous to be a woman. Women, especially young women, are far more likely to be victims of violent crime, sexual assault, and rape.
Additionally, men die sooner because of their life choices. Men are more likely to speed and die in a car accident due to their speed. Men are less likely to see their doctors or mental health professionals. They are more likely to self-medicate with street drugs and alcohol.
Men are also far more likely to engage in dangerous, illegal activities. Check out the prison stats--so many men!!
Sonja, go to the library--you can verify all this info. Take a women's studies class or something. You really should get your facts straight!!!
Laboring, at least, is actually fairly dangerous.
Also, it sucks. I did it for Road Construction for a while. I've not met many women who wanted to do it, though there were a few. I flagged a lot, and was only ever asked by one woman how to get a job working construction.
By contrast, I was asked by a variety of men. So, I don't know one way or the other, but this suggests that women (generally) may be interested in lower paying, but recession-safer, jobs.
If so, it seems logical, and right, that there would be a wage gap, but that women would have less of a hard time holding onto jobs during a recession. And if so, neither side really has any right to bitch. They both made their decisions.
The economy sucks for everybody, and I don't see why this has to be a guy vs girl thing to begin with.
How did women make the decision to get paid less for the same exact job as a man? That's not exactly her choice, that's the wage gap.
Also, did you ever think that the reason more men would inquire about jobs in the labor industry than women is because women are socialized to NOT work in those types of fields and discouraged from applying?
No, and wouldn't bother.
The socializing argument is useless. People are responsible for their decisions no matter what. And indeed, I did not suggest that this was a across the board thing.
I'm only saying that IF women choose jobs with lower pay, but higher security, and men choose jobs with higher pay, but lower security. Then, what is happening now is precisely what should happen.
I don't know if the IF part of that is true. But it bears thinking about.
"No, and wouldn't bother.
The socializing argument is useless."
Yes, god forbid we actually try to use our brains and involve ourselves in some analytical thought. That would just be silly.
That's not analytical thought.
I'm socialized to do something, is just another way of saying I can't help it.
And honestly, it's hugely problematic.
There's nothing I do that I can't help, anymore than there's anything a woman does that she can't help.
It's not analytical at all, just a way of avoiding responsibility.
And it's high time people knock it off, and start taking responsibility.
That's not what I'm saying at all. But thanks for not understanding.
I apologize for misunderstanding.
I have tried to read again and come to some other conclusion, but what I responded to seems to be what you said.
That women will not apply because they feel that society tells them they should not, and therefore it is not their fault they don't apply.
What is it that I missed?
Your argument is already assumed in all critiques of how socialization affects behavior. Yes, 'I take responsibility for my own actions' is Step 1, but 'What are the social forces that affect my decisions?' can be a Step 2.
Saying you are socialized to do something doesn't mean that you can't help it. It means that societal, cultural, familial etc factors tend to influence personal decisions even if you do not realize it. Because women are socialized and expected to be caregivers, they often end up "choosing" lower paying jobs that will offer them more flexibility and stability. Men do not have to make this "choice" because they, naturally, have a woman to raise the kids, do the cleaning and cook the dinner (I'm being facetious here--sexism in this case works both ways, but that's a totally different issue). While this is an individual choice, it is influenced by factors that are beyond an individual's control--societal expectations, girls being taught at a young age that they are supposed to grow up to be good mommies, that kind of thing.
You're also ignoring the fact that women often get paid less for doing the exact same job as men. Women are often passed over for promotions because they "might" one day down the road decide to have kids and that would interfere with their job. Take academia for example--women are earning bachelors, masters and PhD's at higher rates than men these days. But if you look at many universities, there are more male professors, administrators and advisers, and this cannot alone be excused by saying men used to get more PhD's and that's why there's more professors. The starting pay for a female assistant professor at many universities is several thousand dollars less than for a male--where does individual choice come into that equation? It is often more difficult for a woman to get tenure at universities. This isn't unique to academia--you can see trends like this in many other job fields. You can't excuse the wage gap away by saying women just like those low paying jobs. It's not true, and it's ignoring a huge part of the problem.
Actually, as another commenter pointed out here a few days ago, if women are discriminated against in the workplace, even to a small degree (4-7% per year), this adds up to a substantial amount ($2500 x 40 years is $100,000, worth a child's college tuition) and they know this, then their incentive to work hard will be less, because for every amount of effort, the potential reward is smaller. This in turn magnifies the wage disparity, even though women are behaving completely rationally.
Further, the marriage penalty taxes both members in two income households at the rate of the higher earner, further magnifying the potential work benefits of the lesser earning.
Finally, if there is only a 5% difference, it could still affect much bigger decisions. If two spouses' careers take them to different cities, which one do they go to? If one parent is needed to spend more time at home, which will it be? In these cases, the higher earner, even if it is by a relatively smaller amount, has a much better claim.
Socialization arguments can't be dismissed either, because they are external social forces that act on people, regardless of what they do; and they arguably do carry real penalties for violating them. That is the whole point of socialization.
For example, men feel the social pressure to be the breadwinner, hence higher anxiety associated with taking a lower-paying but more secure position. If they do take a job as a nurse or teacher, or any job in which they earn less than their spouse or potential spouse, they may be looked down on by their peers or family, or even someone they are dating. Unfortunately these presures end up backfiring in a recession like this one.
actually men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime. of course they are also more likely to the be perpetrator but as far as the stats we have, men are more likely to be violently attacked. if you delve deeper into specifically sexual assault, as you did later in your list, that changes as far as we know.
All the other points though, combat deaths, workplace fatalities etc dont seem to serve the mra or mra-lite folks as well as they would like to think, as pointed out in other posts they serve mainly to highlight institutional problems we have that generally discriminate against women.
As far as the wage gap, I still simply dont get it. The 78% percent figure is comparing the average salary of full time working women to that of men. There are some other breakdowns from the official dol report and other reports but none of them purport to say that its 78% for the exact same job with the exact same qualifications. It is only an average and doesnt speak to specific things. I am in complete agreement that there is a wage gap but dont understand why the 78% stat gets so twisted and isused to represent things it was never meant to do.
Lastly, on the he-cession bit, as a middle class former military white male it does concern me a bit. I see it as a grand opportunity of sorts but the way we've set things up now, with a lacking of manufacturing, many factions attacking unions etc, we have pretty much erased the world in which a laborer can do well in our country. The stats keep coming with women earning a larger and larger share of degrees. Looking forward I see it getting mighty tough if for whatever reason 48% of our population is earning 40% of the ba's and 30% of the ma's which is a possibility ifthe trend continues. I want everyone to do well and dont get why the rates for men, from high school graduation on are so much lower. The old explanation, they had other options to include the military and unskilled/semi-skilled labor is becoming less and less true though it did make sense to me for quite a while. Tough nut to crack, I would like everyone to have every opportunity.
Women in the army is a contentious issue at best. There are reasons I support it (their body, their choice), and I've heard many good reasons to fight against it, such as the one related by Jeffrey.
The statistics on male injury and death are straight out of the linked article, which refers back to the Bureau of Labor statistics.
And yes, the stats on the wage gap are specific to the industries, but are they specific to the very same job, and are the people equally qualified, with equal and/or equivalent experience? That is what influences pay in my industry (IT), and IMO, is only fair.
Yes, the article does have tones of not wanting there to be more women than men in the workforce. No doubt to the author, this is new and unchartered territory that he doesn't like. Like it or not, he will have to deal with it.
As to the use of the term "negro men", well a lot of people don't like the term "black", either. What am I meant to call them?
"Black" is clearly better than "negro". I have a few black friends and none of them feel badly if I call them black.
I know you had no actual malice in what you said, but it is pretty well established that we don't refer to black people or African Americans as Negroes anymore.
Vanessa,
Did we read the same article? All it seemed to say to me is that although he "applauds" Obama's move in creating an organization dealing with the health of women and girls, he feels the same thing should be done for men.
Is it patriarchal to suggest that men should be helped, and that their health and economic issues are of serious concern?
I either missed something here, or there is something deeply problematic, almost to the point of hateful, in your post.
I don't think Vanessa meant to be hateful-- but I do think she is misreading parts of David's essay. The line about "men falling behind" was not (as I read) a reference to men falling behind in general as a result of women's progression, but simply a reference to the fact of men's lower life expectancy.
She is also reading the essay as sort of a claim that only men are really suffering from the recession, therefore "he-cession"-- which would be an offensive claim, but the text of the article was much more restrained than that. It simply pointed out some areas where men are doing worse-- not necessarily denying that there are other areas in which women are doing worse. So it's an issue of whether you focus on the broader brushes the writer paints ("the decline of the American male" yada yada yada) which is straight out of patriarchal rhetoric, or some of the more specific things the writer is saying.
I know that a lot of people will just use an article like this to sound off about however they feel men are discriminated against-- unfortunately this is the way people think whenever confronted about a complaint that focuses on one gender... battle of the sexes. I see differently, which is perhaps why I am a feminist.
So so SO many things wrong with this article. As Vanessa already said, women have lower paying, "worse" jobs than men (btw Sonja, I think by "worse" Vanessa meant low pay, low status, and low power, correct me if I'm wrong). Sure, men are more likely to be hurt on the job, but I see that as likely being because they choose the more dangerous jobs because they generally pay better. Men could choose the more "feminine" jobs that almost never lead to death/injury, but that would mean a pay cut and for a lot of men the risk is worth it.
The fact that the author says that women will soon be employed in greater numbers as men as if that's a bad thing also grates on me. He seems less concerned that men are increasingly jobless and more concerned that we are beating them and therefore getting closer to TAKING OVER THE WORLD, and taking the power from where it rightfully rests (men). It reeks of fear and is a scare tactic. The assertion that men are "endangered" because they are not as clearly dominant as they were at some point in the past is just frustrating.
Re: health care benefits, again, it would be great if these benefits were available to all jobs, but as of now they're not. Nothing is stopping men from choosing careers that carry these benefits. They are not designated as women only.
Finally, regarding the lifespan gap, perhaps both genders are living longer than they used to, but women just made more gains than men (maybe this has something to do with childbirth, who knows). Not to mention that all over the world women live longer than men, even in societies where women are still clearly with no power and heavily marginalized, and that women are often more health conscious than men and take better care of themselves. Of course that could have nothing to do with the disparity; it must all be because of the he-scrimination. (sorry, ha)
I just had to comment on this. Please read the above part again. What are you saying?
You complain that women have lower paying jobs than men. Than you say more men are dying on the job because they choose higher paying dangerous jobs? Than you advice men to choose the more feminine lower paying jobs? Kind of a contradiction eh? Why didn´t women choose the more dangerous more masculine better paying jobs?
Well for one thing there are those pesky physical requirements that y'all (general y'all) keep holding over women's heads. The argument goes like this:
It's unfair to lower the physical requirements for women for certain dangerous jobs that require a certain amount of upper body strength. This would be discrimination against men. And the price we pay as a society for this reasoning is more male deaths and injuries on the job.
Then for those sectors that do try to fudge on the physical requirements to allow more women to qualify, women can then face harassment and resentment on the job for it. Pretty scary too, when you must rely on a team of people--who fundamentally believe you shouldn't be there--for your safety. Would you sign up for that?
While I'm sure male nurses and male elementary school teachers etc, have barriers to face, we seem to be doing a better job addressing these issues instead of using them as a reason to keep people out.
The best way to get women into dangerous jobs is the same way a lot men find their way into these jobs. And that is targeted recruitment in high school and community colleges and promoting trade schools as a viable option for women.
Again, which society do we want to be?
I heard an interesting argument regarding this from a firefighter once. He said that the job has gotten safer and the equipment better (and lighter) since women were allowed to join. He felt like society tolerates a higher level of risk when it's men doing the job, and that men tend to take a 'brute force' approach to things. Adding women to the team had, in his experience, really improved things.
Hm not quite what I was talking about, but on physical requirements, there is a simple solution. The physical requirements depend on the job not on the person performing the job. If a fireworker has to lift xyz kilos/lbs he simply has to. It is a requirement. No need for affirmitive action here.
I am not sure that most dangerous jobs have specific physical requirements. I know only about 3 jobs that have, police, firefighter and soldier. Or am I missing something here?
Working on oil rigs and platforms, commercial fishing, logging, some construction to name a few are going to require a certain amount of physical strength. It's not that woman can't do these jobs though with the proper training and equipment.
It's that for certain tasks women are going to be less efficient i.e., take longer to haul in the equipment or instead of 2 men, 3 women will be needed to do a task which requires upper body strength and speed, etc.
Less efficient in capitalism in case you've noticed is no good. So there is already zero incentive off the bat for companies to reach out to women. But to get women in there in the 1st place companies the need to reach out to women by investing in some technologies (new equipment, etc) and specialized training so that women can actually do the job at a better level of efficiency.
Plus some of these industries are not used to working with women in the field, so there is yet another investment in modifications to certain facilities and human resource training especially for dangerous jobs that have people living in close quarters or in isolation.
And what do mean "just" the police, firefighters, and soldiers? For sheer numbers in the US the police force and military employ massive numbers of people. Our armed services are huge! The number of Veterans we have compared to other industrialized nations is massive. A fully integrated military would go a long way in equalizing things.
The biggest hurdle is the perception that women can't do the job yet many keep arguing that women won't do the job. And if one of the goals is to improve the gender safety gap, simply integrating (it doesn't have to be 50-50) the job can mean better safety for everyone. For example there was a studies that point out that mixed gender mountaineering teams see fewer deaths.
I won't get into the proposed theory behind the finding, but there is a lot of gender related "mythology" about emotions and decision-making that is flat out wrong.
There are a whole host of other dangerous jobs (e.g., meat packing) that in my country rely primarily on male migrants and new immigrants to do. But this should is an issue of overhauling whole industries as these jobs are closer to straight up exploitation. Men die or lose limbs on the job needlessly because companies don't have to give a shit about their employees...
Then there are other jobs such as coal mining that have been historically so discriminatory and hostile toward women that you would need some serious affirmative action to get women in there. (Although in the early, early years of mining in the US it wasn't uncommon for women to work in the mines). South Africa for example has implemented an Affirmative action program for women miners and in a serious mining accident in 2007 women were among those trapped deep underground.
Do a little research before you claim that women won't do "certain jobs". This reminds me of how people say Americans just won't do certain jobs. Bullshit. The problem is that companies (and consumers who want cheap goods and services) want people to work for almost free, well duh!
*sigh*
I am not sure where you get this "women won´t do certain jobs" from. Probably from my first answer. I critisized the post because it had a contradiction in it (imho):
Women earn less -> Discrimination
Men earn better and are killed more -> Choice
Okay? That is why I asked why don´t women choose the better paying more dangerous jobs. As a response to the original poster.
Secondly, I do not see that huge amount of jobs where strength is a necessary requirement, as in "you need to haul xyz to get this job". I know a lot of men who fall into the "not so efficient" category in the building and construction buisness as a lot of men don´t fall into this "macho-muscle-superman-can-lift-a-steal-beam-all-by-himself" stereotype. And if jobs go into this direction, say piano mover, there are a lot of persons (me for example) who are not qualified for this job. There will also be some men and women who are. And if a certain strength is a must have, I think it is pretty much a must have. Of course you can say give all piano movers a crane so everyone can do this job, but, as you already said, the costs would outdo the benefits.
Okay? That is why I asked why don´t women choose the better paying more dangerous jobs.
Many higher paid dangerous jobs (even not so highly paid jobs) traditional male jobs have physical requirements either explicitly or otherwise and that is a fact.
Short of being a birth surrogate, I can think of no physical requirements that hinder men from entering into a traditional female line of work, for example.
So where is the contradiction you speak of?
Secondly, I do not see that huge amount of jobs where strength is a necessary requirement
I didn't say huge amount of strength. I simply said that all else being equal there are many, many more men who will be able to perform certain tasks more efficiently compared to women.
The contradiction was not thinking about womens lower pay is because of choice as well. Read it again. Men get hurt on the job (but receive more money)? Choose another job. Why not, women get paid less in their "bad" jobs, choose a better job.
Contradiction:
Men get hurt on the job (but earn more money) - Choose a safer job.
But she forgot to say that women can change their bad job situation as well.
Lesser pay? Why not choose a better job?
Some food for thought. I come from a rural area. Maybe half a century ago, women participated in very hard labour on farms here. Women particularly helped rebuilding Germany after the war. There was no crying about efficiency, nor are men today as effecient as you think they are.
The contradiction was not thinking about womens lower pay is because of choice as well. Read it again. Men get hurt on the job (but receive more money)?
Let's look at some examples of well paid dangerous jobs, such as pilots and firefighting. (Yes, pilots make the list of dangerous jobs last I checked, but probably not commercial jet pilots though).
So keeping it simple with a couple of examples lets ask why women don't chose these jobs more:
Pilots - By far the easiest (and cheapest) route to be a pilot is through the military. See any problems for women there?
Firefighting - We've had a lengthy discussion about physical requirements already. So see any reason why a woman might not make it in that career?
(Now there is a whole other issue about dangerous jobs that actually don't pay that well at all. These would be seasonal jobs or jobs that require less skill. But they are still overwhelmingly male).
Maybe half a century ago, women participated in very hard labour on farms here [..]. There was no crying about efficiency, nor are men today as effecient as you think they are.
Well obviously if you have a minimally industrialized or agrarian community, efficiency won't be that important. You just need able bodies.
But that model is pretty rare in our countries for the types of jobs we are talking about right? If company X needs to hire loggers or commercial fishing company Z needs to hire people for the crab season, time = money.
This is why government entities such as the military and law enforcement have been somewhat more successful in integrating traditionally male jobs because many of these jobs (armed forces, police, etc) are service oriented. They don't have to produce x number of logs or tons of fish.
Big business won't integrate unless they are subsidized or mandated to do so.This effectively results in much less choice for women who do want to do these jobs. Men on the other hand are not as restricted to the same degree for traditionally female jobs.
So I really don't see the contradiction.
Impressive, did I understand you right. You say because women are not as efficient as men in certain jobs, the gouvernment has to force companies in hiring the less efficient worker?
Pretty un-feminist argumentation if you ask me. I do not think that because the average woman is wearker than the average man, women can´t be efficient on those jobs. And honestly there are good, better paying alternatives out there on certain jobs. Women are not forced into that "women jobs that always pay less" which they don´t always do.
Anyhow, some people argue that the reason there are men and women´s job, is because men seek for jobs that pay more, while women seem to seek jobs they are more interested in. I read one post from Ampersand who had an example on a job that suddenly paid far less than before and after a while this men´s job was a women´s job. (Gotta search the link sometimes).
On pilots, can´t women join the army nowadays?
(btw interesting blog of yours...so the answer to world hunger doesn´t necessarily mean humans have to become veg*ns...interesting)
Alot of these comments seriously rub me the wrong way: Many of you seem to be almost cheerful that it is mostly men losing their jobs, and mocking them for being alarmed to cuts in male industries.
Most of these job cuts are from mostly lower and some middle class jobs. The fact that highly educated men make more than women is irrelevant; there is no connection between different classes of men, and feminists often assume there is.
Many of you seem to be almost cheerful that it is mostly men losing their jobs
You are projecting.
@dan&danica:I want everyone to do well and dont get why the rates for men, from high school graduation on are so much lower. The old explanation, they had other options to include the military and unskilled/semi-skilled labor is becoming less and less true though it did make sense to me for quite a while. Tough nut to crack, I would like everyone to have every opportunity.
Thank you. It's really frustrating to always be in defensive mode when these articles come out. What you've said here is the real issue that we should be discussing.
I think what is so upsetting is that when you look to in some minority communities and lower income white communities, this trend started much longer ago, i.e., women overtaking men in higher education and the job sector.
While conservatives sat back and blamed the pathological nature of folks, nobody seemed to notice that the effect was quietly trickling down to the broader populace.
The jobs in traditionally male sectors medium-to low-wage have been in flux for a long time, starting with laboring, construction, landscaping, etc. Wage inflation was kept down at the expensive of the men working in these sectors. Some moved on, many others gave up.
Now that the higher end manufacturing, labor and construction jobs are falling to the wayside---either being eliminated or exported---now all of the sudden it's the loss of "American masculinity??" Well what about all of the other guys who got screwed 30 years ago? 50 years ago even? The big northeastern car and manufacturing towns didn't crumble overnight...
Also I'm also tired of fighting two opposing arguments as is made in these articles and the comments.
Either we integrate dangerous jobs thereby saving male lives and increasing male longevity, or we keep pushing for an economy that relies on men to sacrifice life and limb--but hey, at least they have a job. Which country do we want to be?
You make some really good points! I have been reading about the He-cession everywhere, but this is the first time, I've read someone put it in a more accurate context. Only thing I would like to mention is that it's not necessary to take the Lord's name in vain at the end. Even saying something like the f-word at the end is less offensive to a lot people, including me. Let's not forget that lots of feminists are Christians :)
I have to agree with Canadianprincess...please refrain form using the name of Jesus in vain. Totally offensive and unnecessary.
And many feminists are not Christians. The bible prohibits taking God's name in vain, not reading or hearing other people do so. So you should be safe, even if we're not.
I'm not worried about being "safe" whatever that means. I find it offensive to see the name of my Lord and Saviour used in the same way that a swear word would be used. I'm sure the writer didn't mean any offense by it, which is why I just wrote a gentle reminder. Thanks for the reassurance though! :)
I never mind a gentle reminder that I've unknowningly offended someone.
However, for those of us who have had negative experiences with Christians attempting to impose their religious precepts on the general population, even a gentle call to change one's behavior (i.e. "please refrain") is offensive.
Of course, I'm speaking from my own experience, and I'm sure you didn't mean to offend.
The anti-choicer wants to come onto the feminist blog and dictate what's "totally offensive"? Really?
http://www.feministing.com/archives/015744.html#comment-262658
Regardless, the vast majority of Christians today do not believe in nor practice this particular concept of self-censorship (Refraining from using terms like "Oh my god!", "Jesus H. Christ!", etc) and I doubt this site, with a large readership consisting of both Christians and people who hold other religious beliefs or non-beliefs, is willing to cater to such a literalist minority view.
This is called a personal attack ad hominem, and it's really bad for reasoned argumentation.
Whatever her opinions on choice are, they have no bearing on her opinion in this matter.
The move to attack someone who has made a point based on an unrelated point is crass, baseless, and cowardly.
Memo to David Zincenko:
If you're going to write a column in which you whine about the "Decline of the American Male" and traffic in a bunch of silly gender stereotypes, you shouldn't write in such a whiny, self-pitying tone. Real men don't whine and cry about their lot in life, they take it like a man -so quit being such a pussy!
Nice use of shaming language here...
It's called sarcasm.
I feel like I have seen thousands of articles on the decline of modern men not being discussed. Gentlemen, your worry has been noted...alot. I'm sorry if you're unemployed but so am I and so is my sister. Men were losing more jobs even before the economy went down because the majority of manufacturing employees were men who had they're jobs outsourced.
Oh and Women's studies doesn't stop any man student from getting a college degree and the fact that the women around you might actually debate you does not mean your opinions are worthless or that you are now being subjugated in a way that your grandfathers were not.