Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Rotten Recovery for Women
Three years ago, when President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, he said:
“It is fitting that with the very first bill I sign…we are upholding one of this nation’s first principles: that we are all created equal and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness. If we stay focused, as Lilly did, and keep standing for what’s right, as Lilly did, we will close that pay gap and ensure that our daughters have the same rights, the same chances, and the same freedom to pursue their dreams as our sons.”
To which there was much rejoicing. Since then, the picture for women regarding work, jobs, chances and dreams has grown bleaker.
Take those January jobs numbers. That official unemployment fell to 8.3 percent from 9.1 percent a year ago was cause for good cheer amongst the instant expert crowd, but the light at the end of the tunnel was harder to make out if you were female, young, old or a person of color.
In January, black women (12.6 percent), black men (12.7 percent), Hispanic women (11.3 percent), Hispanic men (10.7 percent) and single mothers (12 percent) all had unemployment rates substantially higher than the national average. For young people 16–19, it was 23.1 percent. For young African-Americans, it was 38.5 percent. Is this the new normal? (You can read the data for yourself here.)
What constituted good news for women in January was that male and female unemployment were the same for the first time since the start of the recession. When the recession began in December 2007, the official unemployment rate for both women and men stood at 4.4 percent. Over two and a half years later, their unemployment rates finally met—at 7.7 percent. But since the start of the recovery in June 2009, men’s unemployment has dropped 2.2 percentage points, while women’s unemployment has essentially flat-lined—rising slightly from 7.6 percent in June 2009.
The bad news is that although men lost 70 percent of the 7.5 million jobs that were eliminated between December 2007 and June 2009, men have won 92 percent of the 1.9 million jobs that have been created since then. From “man-cession” we’ve gone to “man-covery.”
One reason is that women represent 57 percent of workers in the public sector (compared with 48 percent in the private sector, where the gains are). They hold a disproportionate share of state and local government jobs—exactly those levels of government that have been shedding workers by the shipload.
As the National Women’s Law Center reports:
Since the recovery began in June 2009, women have now gained 150,000 jobs—a positive change, but still not enough. Why? Because a gain of 150,000 jobs is equal to just eight percent of the more than 1.9 million net jobs the economy has added in the recovery. Women’s shockingly small share of the job growth is because they’ve suffered a disproportionate share of the job losses in the public sector—nearly 70 percent—and have enjoyed less than a quarter of the private sector gains.
Women are finding it harder to find work, and they’re still being paid less than men when they are working. Across the board, women earned on average 78.2 percent of what men earned in 2009 according to the US Census. Even in female-dominated workplaces, men were paid better.
This winter, the Retail Action Project (RAP) and the City University of New York (CUNY) released a report that showed a dramatic gender gap in wages in the retail industry. In a survey of 436 retail workers at national retail chains (among them Target, Old Navy and Urban Outfitters), the median gender gap between women and men was the difference between $9.00 per hour and $10.13 per hour. Women were also found to be less likely to receive benefits from employers, or promotions. Hit hardest were the 53 percent of black women and 77 percent of Latina women who earned less than $10 per hour. On that, approximately a third of those surveyed supported at least one family member. (As for all that talk about education and training, just over 70 percent of the workers RAP talked to had completed some college or a college degree. Those with an associate’s degree had a median hourly wage of $10 for an annual gross income of $16,640. So much for Newt Gingrich’s associate degree ticket out of poverty.)
It’s no better among the so-called creative class. To quote Richard Florida in The Atlantic (the same publication that in 2010 brought us Hanna Roisin’s ridiculous “The End of Men”):
Women hold slightly more than half (52.3 percent) of creative class jobs and their average level of education is almost the same as men. But the pay they receive is anything but equal. Creative class men earn an average of $82,009 versus $48,077 for creative class women. This $33,932 gap is a staggering 70 percent of the average female creative class salary. Even when we control for hours worked and education in a regression analysis, creative class men out-earn creative class women by a sizable $23,700, or 49.2 percent.
In healthcare, where women outnumber men three to one, Florida finds they earn less than half as much ($49,877 vs. $109,938). In law, women make up 54 percent of the workforce, and also earn less than half as much as guys ($65,886 vs. $137,680).
From the male-dominated world of the military comes the news that while the number of homeless veterans overall has been shrinking over the last few years, the number of homeless women veterans has doubled since 2006. According to the General Accounting Office (GAO) almost two-thirds of homeless women vets were between 40 and 59 years old, over one-third had disabilities, and many supported minor children (and more than 60 percent of surveyed programs that serve homeless women veterans did not house children).
In Washington, the talk has turned now from “recovery” to how government can boost the male-centered world of manufacturing. I’m all for reviving good, US-based industry with all its positive knock-on effects, but as Abigail Adams once wrote to John, Is it too much to ask that someone “remember the ladies”?
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
25 Comments so far
Show AllI am guessing any consideration for the ladies is going to be left up to vague "faith based" inniatives.
'RECOVERY"?
Well, I guess it just goes to show that political speeches are really nothing but hot wasted air. How is this news?
The reason is gender. The author doesn't speaks of the effects but not the cause.
As a male I have spent my life(through a fit of chance) to have wound up working in predominantly female industries and environments.
I started off in the "pink collar ghetto" of food service, customer care and retail. Finally graduating to health care.
And I have plenty of anecdotal evidence that ladies get a great many perks that males do not get in these environments. In actual fact; the men in these environments have their own seperate roles even while being employed to do the same work.
The author isn't look at the whole picture. We cannot have gender parity as long as we have gender in society. Because so long as we have gender we will establish and adhere to gender normative roles.
Nothing like an idiot providing allegedly "anecdotal" data in an effort to refute statistics provided from all across the board, each proving the obvious. Gender is a fact of life, but sexism is taught... and leading the pack are the patriarchal religious authorities who still demand the rites of possession over women's bodies via their reproductive faculties. You're here to make light of something serious. In other words, one of the forum's paid DECEIVERS.
I'd nominate your post for one of the most ignorant items this week. Read "Backlash," and learn something.
Since you've taken to calling me an idiot; I would like to put your intelligence on trial. Fair is fair.
First, your reading comprehension. Where in my post did I refute or attempt to refute the results of a statistical analysis? Bonus if you can cite which analysis I was allegedly trying to refute.
Next I myself am livid over the expectation of the catholic church for preferential treatment. If they don't want to offer contraceptives in their health insurance plans they can simply pay the fine and send their employees to the state exchanges.
I am wondering though just what the heck this has to do with the article above. Which it appears to be...nothing.
Again; the article ignores gender. And it doesn't prove causation. Males getting jobs does not in and of itself prove sexism is at work. What if the women in my generation want to be mothers who don't work or work part time? Many seem to be going "traditional" in my generation. Just a thought.
SR, I'd recommend thatyou read Faludi's subsequent book, Stiffed:
In her 1999 book Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man Faludi analyzes the state of the American man. Faludi argues that while many of those in power are men, most individual men have little power. American men have been brought up to be strong, support their families and work hard. But many men who followed this now find themselves underpaid or unemployed, disillusioned and abandoned by their wives. Changes in American society have affected both men and women, Faludi concludes, and it is wrong to blame individual men for class differences, or for plain differences in individual luck and ability, that they did not cause and from which men and women suffer alike.[3]
-wikipedia article on Faludi
I'd also recommend that you take a deep breath and think a little before you flame on.
I've been doing this and it has definitely improved the quality of my comments. I still flame, but much less often.
Joe: I think you know that I understand how much wages have been depressed for both genders. And I can appreciate how you feel as a man in a nation where labor is NOT rewarded. As I shared with you, I'm viewing the pressures first-hand through the person I date, and plan to turn the matter into a screenplay. However, this article is both very clear and very specific with respect to the ways that today's depressed labor market drectly (and disproportionately) impacts women, especially minority women.
The poster who got a bashing from me deserved it because he attempted to use spurious anecdotal data (i.e. some alleged personal experience) to discount the statistics the article makes clear.
I don't have patience for liars, Joe, nor persons here in this forum with a will to deceive. In a very real way it is LIES that are holding back the flood of consciousness that might force this nation into far wiser, life-saving behaviors. Lies about global climate change, lies about who's responsible for depressed wages across the board (note the people who show up to bash "illegal" aliens on a regular basis), lies about what went down on 911, lies about the safety of nuclear power, the LIE that Israel is the sole determinant of U.S. foreign policy, lies about public education. ETC AD NAUSEUM.
I am tired of the liars, pretenders, 3rd tier think tank paid posters, Watchers, and assorted frauds.
However, I'll take your advice on the deep breath. It's been a busy week, so I never got back to the thread on Haiti. I'm sure we'll pick up the conversation here and there, where it got left off. Thank you for your concern.
Peace.
" this article is both very clear and very specific with respect to the ways that today's depressed labor market drectly (and disproportionately) impacts women, especially minority women."
Actually I think this article is distorted in at least one aspect. The government reported unemployment rate is now equal for men and women. For the past couple of years men have had a much higher rate due to the effects of the banker induced economic crisis, which gave rise to the term mancession.
Now rates are roughly equal; yet, this article cites this equality as an example of how, you put it, "today's depressed labor market directly (and disproportionately) impacts women, especially minority women." The equalization of the unemployment rates prove nothing of the sort. In fact, just the opposite is proven by the stats on unemployment cited: "The depressed labor market has directly (and disproportionately) impacted men, especially minority men."
The author makes a half-hearted attempt to show tthat the enhanced recovery for men in the past year or so is "bad news" while stating that the equlaization of unemployment rates was"good news.' But this is illogical, the rates never would have equalized without a male skewed recovery.
There is an ongoing wage and salary gap, but that exists apart from the bank crisis/recession. The article does not demonstrate a connection between these two phenomena.
So in conclusion, the article provides very weak proof, statsitical or otherwise, to back up the claim that women have suffered disproportionately due to economic circumstances unique to the past four years of recession and "recovery."
So I don't think the poster of the anecdotal evidence deserved to be "bashed." The violence of your word choice aside, the poster needed to be made aware that anecdotal evidence carries little weight in the salary gap debate because so much statistical study has occurred there.
Of course I don't think he needed to be bashed at all for bringing up his personal experience of gender discrimination. I cited Faludi's other, less well known book, because it relates a work that backs the legitimacy and non-sexist nature of the poster's complaint by a feminist author that you cited
duplicate... by accident.
"Gender" is often used as a synonym of "sex" to describe cultural roles and descriptions of a sex; it's easy to see why since saying "sex roles", etc. can lead people to think that the topic has to do with copulation. Of course gender has everything to do with disparity in employment and pay rates so long as misogyny and sexism continue to exist.
The article is pointing out that it does still exist with the clear implication that it is unfair, unreasonable, and unjust. Obviously, any worker fulfilling the requirements of a job should be paid the same as any other worker doing the same, regardless of age, sex, skin color, sexual orientation, sexual identity, country of origin, physical disability, etc.
Sometimes personal experience casts a bit of light on a subject, but that experience must be described. Saying "ladies get a great many perks that males do not get in these environments" is not helpful. What perks? Do they translate as pay?
Sexism (and ageism) are very much alive and well in this new millennium, sad to say, and providing data and proof is step 1 in dealing with such flaws in our society.
the post below is actually my response to your response. I was apparantly careless and did it as a new post.
Thanks very much for the intelligent response. And of course it is obvious to any rationale thinker that is unfair, unreasonable and unjust to treat people in unequivelent difference based upon their gender or sex.
And my reason for focusing on gender is that I adhere to the principle that gender and sex are different(think LGBT community).
Sorry if my anecdotal remarks were seen as attempts to undermine the debate on this issue. What I was referring to were personal experiences where the men were assigned the low level "grunt" work by their female co-workers and managers because they were men. Oh, and circumstances where managers were single mothers and would favor other single mothers(obviously btw) for promotion. As well as giving female employees greater flexibility with their schedules One place I worked at when I was young would collaboratively create the week's schedule with all female employees and then; after the females schedules had been worked out the men would done last to "cover" the areas where the women didn't want to work. Needless to say; male employees were not included in this collaborative process and were basically told "show up or be fired" if you needn't some flexibility.
I am not talking about this to muddy the issue but to try to help craft a better message.
Gender parity is a necessary goal but we need to examine our own culture and ourselves as to why gender matters.
The term “payback’s a bitch” comes to mind. I don’t know you or your circumstances, but I do think that it’s naïve of you as a male to feel free of history and expect an even shot from managers who are single mothers. They will prefer the needs of single mothers, like it or not. When I worked under men as a female, I KNOW I made less than my male counterparts, and when I worked as a single mother, I got NO special treatment given me for the fact that I had a first job as a mother. There’s no perfect rule of justice here. You may be suffering under unfairness—didn’t your mom or dad tell you life isn’t fair? But don’t expect any female manager who has tried to juggle work and children to sympathize with your plight. Most such people have suffered too much under the injustice of the male-dominated system to see any of your complaints as anything but whining. Go get a job in construction will likely be her attitude.
If you don’t understand, adopt a baby or two and then try to get to work every day in a “level” playing field.
You certainly seem angry. I certainly am not. Just fleshing out my original thesis that our social understanding of gender is what is at work here. Not the misandry you seem to be guilty of.
Misandry? Yes. "Payback's a bitch"? Payback for what? From who? Are you educated? Have you learned that ethics and morals are actually based upon the self?
I'm sorry you were denied honest pay for honest work and I would like to mention that the Lilly Ledbetter law is intended to put an end to just that. Oh and then there is this.
A quote from you. "You may be suffering under unfairness—didn’t your mom or dad tell you life isn’t fair?" Again I was bringing up past experience only for constructive purposes. But with a cop out attitude like that we may simply declare Death will make us all equals anyway and that life requires no sense of duty to improve upon itself.
I seem angry? I'm just trying to explain the facts of reality to you. You seem angry, and perhaps for good reason. And you seem shocked, while few women are shocked by the crappy treatment they get from employers. It's been the norm for pretty much ever.
I don’t think it misandry to suggest that a single mother who happens to be a manager has good reason to give more flexibility to a single mother than a man without the responsibility of childrearing. It would be parallel to those millions of bosses who have paid males more because they have families to support (despite the fact that all too often in such cases, the female works full-time, takes care of the children, and does nearly all the housework). And I don’t think it necessarily “right” to prefer a female in a “pink collar” workplace (which is nearly always underpaid in the first place), but I do think it a typical female’s natural reaction to the way that women have been exploited. I’m making a distinction between absolute justice and historical circumstance. You happen to be in a real-world place where you’re seeing unfairness against the usual grain. You’re seeing life as a woman is used to seeing it. Get it? It’s not fair. Yet instead of feeling any solidarity with people in your like position--i.e. women--you act as if your situation is an outrage rather than a commonplace.
Again, I don’t know your circumstance, and you may well be dealing with a greater injustice than I realize. But your complaint strikes me exactly as those who rail against Affirmative Action. It’s a level playing field, right? No, it’s not. It never has been.
Ok first thanks very much for clarifying it was very helpful of you.
Now I must clarify; I am *definately* not one of those people who uses the reasoning you pointed out with regard to affirmative action. I know those people exist and I was concerned that I would be misunderstood that way.
Of course I know women are often not given a fair shot. That's why the pink collar ghetto exists in the first place.I do very much feel solidarity with my fellow workers.
What got this whole ball rolling is I felt the article above wasn't radical enough. I believe the bulk of "gender traits" are mythical, assigned and taught. In short I believe the best way to equalize men and women(in addition to legislation that protects and promotes the value of each workers honest labor) is to make society as androgenous as possible. Separate is not equal. Perhaps my opinion goes too far and I should keep it to myself. However, Germany for example was essentially rebuilt post-WW2 in the image of its women thanks to the deficit male population and even today should you ever visit you will note far less gender inequality.
Random trivia; did you know in germany a mother gets 1 year maternity leave? That's right, an employer must keep a mother's job for up to a year so that she may spend the first year with her child. And want to know something else? Its transferable to the father. So if the mother is the member of the household who is the primary breadwinner she could take 2 month off and transfer the remaining ten to her husband where *his* employer must keep his job for him. So the family isn't faced with undue financial pressures stemming from dilemmas relating to gender situations.
Isn't that clever?
Thank you for helping to diffuse the situation! The problem isn’t worker against worker, but much higher up and much more culturally instilled. Children are all but afterthoughts! Most European countries have laws that insist that the parents, men and women, must have time to tend their babies, but not here. Quality affordable childcare is the norm throughout Europe, but not here. You likely wouldn’t be dealing with women managers who prefer women if this were not the case.
So here’s to you for being a very cool person, whatever your gender or sex! I wish you well!
Nicely argued, Elizabeth H. (It's news to me that you were a single Mom.) I happen to think "Guess Who" is a professional dissembler. Here mostly to play mind fuck games. What a bore. I guess it's the educator in you that thinks it's possible to "show him the light." Good luck with that. Since he may get paid by the post, I'm outta here.
Elizabeth was not showing light. She was using bigoted and hostile rhetorics to make a bulls-t, and typically feminist, apology for employment discrimination.
I've spent a lot of years fighting for equality for all workers in the workplace to tolerate the biased and discriminatory attitude expresseed by Elizabeth.
She definitely needs to read Faludi's other book, "Stiffed," but I'll bet she won't.
Finally I'd like to note that both you and she introduced the pesonal hostility into this thread so please don't engage in the typical hypocritical feminist "whine" about angry rhetoric. Also your constant unsubstantiated mole accusations towards those with whom you disagree are irrelevant and a distraction from the argument; in oher words, they are underhanded tactics.
Under the influence of its bourgeoisie leaders and capitalist founadation sponsors, Feminism in the US has become the Movement the Promotion of Double Standards.
F-ck your "payback" Elizabeth.
Gender bias is always unnacceptable in the workplace and your apology for it illustrates a point that I've made many times before:
Most feminists don't really seek workplace equality. Thet seek preferential treatment for women.
People like you are one of the reasons I oppose feminism as detrimental to men. Clearly bigots like yourself could care less about discrimination against men. You made that explicit in your post.
F-ck your personal attack on guess who also. You reveal yourself as a nasty and angry bigot in your post, and I'll remember that you feel it's acceptable to label claims of gender discrimination as "whines,' you hypocritical assh-le.
Dear Laura Flanders:
If you believe that the drop in the U3 unemployment rate to 8.3% in January 2012 was "good news," then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you at subprime rates.
Zero Hedge does the math:
"Real Jobless Rate Is 11.4% With Realistic Labor Force Participation Rate"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/real-jobless-rate-114-realistic-labor-force-participation-rate
"One does not need to be a rocket scientist to grasp the fudging the BLS has been doing every month for years now in order to bring the unemployment rate lower: the BLS constantly lowers the labor force participation rate as more and more people "drop out" of the labor force for one reason or another. While there is some floating speculation that this is due to early retirement, this is completely counterfactual when one also considers the overall rise in the general civilian non institutional population."
The Bureau of Labor Statistics cites the U6 unemployment rate -- the more reliable, comprehensive, and accurate unemployment rate -- for January 2012 at 15.1%.
You state that since Obama and the Democrats' well-orchestrated fanfare and photo-op surrounding the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, "the picture for women regarding work, jobs, chances and dreams has grown bleaker," and certainly the data and the metrics across the spectrum support that bleak picture for women, not to mention for youth, minorities, and older adults as well.
Perhaps it's time to consider a sequel to your book "Bushwomen" that would map and document the experiences of women (and their children) during the Obama administration.
Actually, "Obamawomen" might be a provocative book title for those of us who still have affection for facts, the data, and critical analysis.
Women might well ask themselves when they go to the polls on November 6, 2012:
"Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"
For the vast majority of women in this country -- certainly for those below the top 5% -- the answer would be a loud and resounding "No!"
Alas, the dilemma facing women this Election Day will be the fact that neither the Democrat nor the Republican will "remember the ladies."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Until the last paragraph, this is a well written article. It's not only important to realize that this is still happening but that we try to figure out what all can be done to remedy it and give credit to those who already tried regardless of the results. Having a war dialogue of "men are also being given unfair pay" vs "you don't understand women" that follows these articles isn't much of any help to anyone other than the PTB. I've been seeing mention of the name Riane Eisler whose works do a better job of moving beyond petty minded insults and convince people that it doesn't have to be this way. Unlike some people who cloak themselves as "feminists" to justify their authoritarian attitude, Eisler is different in that she recognizes places where one gender has unfair advantage over the other and calls for true solutions to balance it all out. No drama king/queen hate talk or anything to turn people off. Her online articles are highly intelligble and helpful so far. I hope more people listen to her and put the war baiters out of business so that women can recover and us guys will actually be satisfied for a change. This might also help more women having to face conflicts within their own gender.
Not mentioned in this article but should be are increases in female vs female employees and in most cases, neither stands to gain any victory out of it while upper management can play "good cop bad cop" and cash in on the fight. Most think that this is minor but what they don't understand is that unlike most of us guys who'll get over it and have a picnic an hour later after fighting, it doesn't work that way with women. It takes more time and energy to push women into conflict and more time and energy to mentally heal after it's over. That said, management has been known to use that weakness against women (through no fault of their own) to make them feel guilty and accept lower wages.