Check out this NY Times article about a truly historic economic event. Women are about to make up the majority of the U.S. labor force. Read the article and see what you think. Is it time for a little role reversal. Is it time to redefine our beliefs about gender responsibilities?
65 comments:
Well this is definetly a sign of the times. Women have ventured out of that stereotypical "housewife" role and have pushed the envelope in terms of social matriculation leaving behind modern anachronisms once held. The idea of women becoming a majority in the workplace is a great thing in the sense that it will enable others to break social stigmas and make a difference in this ever changing world
I was surprised to learn that women earned 80 cents for each dollar of a male's income. As one can clearly see, women are still not treated equally in terms of wages. Hopefully, as more women enter the workplace, there will not be any strains in family life as husbands might be forced to take care of the children as women become the breadwinners.
Although I'm not a radical I am a women's right supporter; so I personnally see nothing wrong with that. Change isn't always bad but that speaks on the behalf the women, not the men. In my view, I believe that a good number of men don't really deserve the title of being called a man because that has certain requirements. Men aren't the same as they use to be as far as it goes with their responsibilities. In most cases, women mature faster and their is no time to wait for something to happen; so we go out and handle our business ourselves. If a man can't go out and support his family like he is supposed then the woman has no choice but to get up and wear the pants. One of the reasons I'm so passionate about becoming an architect is because I think that women deserve more respect than we actually recieve. Now Mr. Pye, don't get me wrong because I'm not a sexest; I'm simply answering your blog.
It seems that the reason that woman are surpassing the men in jobs during this time is because women are more common to have jobs that are mkkore secure during the economic crisis. For exanples jobs in education and in medical fields. With the economic crisis that is occuring anything is possible and I believe that the roles that woman are believed to have such as being a housewife do not matter.
some jobs are best suited for women, and some are best suited for men. Last semester, Leilah said that it would be better if gynecologists were women, but the practice is free to anyone. Jobs requiring a lot of manual labor are generally a man's job, but nothing specifically prohibits a woman from making her own career choices in whatever field she wants. teachers (mostly in elementary school) and nurses are both generally female jobs; we discussed this in Mrs. Jay's class. It might just be that there is a motherly trait that men just don't have, but men are still able to have these jobs.
Even though women are becoming the majority in the US work force that does not necessarily mean that more women are leaving their houses and becoming primary breadwinners. According to this article women have become the majority because more men are being laid off because the man dominated fields of industry have been harder hit than women dominated industries due to the recent economic times. I'm not saying that women shouldn't leave their homes and get jobs, but women are generally better at household tasks then men. When men lose their jobs and their wives have to take up the role as "breadwinner," the men tend to start looking for a new job instead of filling the role of 'househusband.'
I believe it is unfair to view the overall way that women and men have as "roles" anymore. Each woman, or man, has his or her own opinion about what he or she wants to do. There are women who continue to believe in raising children and house care to be a part of their gender, but a person's opinion is his or her own, not to be viewed that women as a whole want to work. It is definitely acceptable and happens such that a man is the stay at home dad while the mother is the "breadwinner" of the family. Also, school, where social education is changing with the times, is providing women with a stronger want to work. In school today there is virtually no difference between a girl or a boy in school. And, as the article states, much of the percentage change has to do with the recession's layoffs belonging mostly to men.
I personally do not see the gender ratio of the work place deviating from today's modern norm. It would not really make sense. if a job is available to one group it should logically be available to all groups. its the only fair way that makes sense.
If women do surpass men in the job force, I believe it will be a short lived "victory." When the recession ends and unemployment rates drop again, most of the jobs lost will go back to men. Like the article said, women usually take part time jobs withouth health benefits. The men will take those jobs back when companies aren't forced to lay off their workers. It has not come to that point in time where women will dominate construction and manufacturing jobs; it is just not going to happen anytime soon. Also, lots of women feel that their big duty is to be mothers (this feeling is beyond me). This will likely never change and women will put off their careers or jobs to be mothers, at least for a few years and then take up part-time jobs. Men rarely, or a very small percent, feel the same way.
Of course women will not gain a "sexual hegemony" over the construction industry - there were layoffs meaning that capital doesn't exist anymore. Secondly, the presumption that men and women have demarcated "roles" reiffies heterosexism - the notion that sex is irrevocably linked with particular putative characteristics (women with maternity, men with masculinity). There are not roles that homogenize women in one group separate from man because that would require an indictment that, anatomically, women are suited for education or healthcare while men are not, which is ridiculous either because of (a) the fact that it is empirically denied - our Economics teacher is male - and this classification anatomically makes no sense or (b) if this is true somehow, someway, then there is nothing to debunk the fact that men can possess afeminite character making a claim to totality non-sensical.
P.S. anachronism means disjunct from time meaning that "modern anachronisms" is a contradiction in terms as it is logically happening now meaning that it doesn't fit the literary character of juxtaposing a quality from another time sequence into the modern time sequence because it is a constituent of our time sequence even if that has transcended time meaning all this is is a progression. The article is a progression due to economic stimulus.
The jobs that women typically have are alot more stable because they are in constant demand such as education and healthcare. Unfortunately, these jobs fail to pay as much as the jobs that their husbands are losing. Even though women have more pressure on them when their husbands lose their jobs, they are expected to continue to maintain the household as they did before. I was surprised to read that women earn 80 cents for each dollar of a male's income. That also puts alot of stress on a family when the male loses his job.
While women may be the majority of the workforce, it is more important to earn more money than be the majority of the workforce. As all the women said, their income was pennies compared to their husband’s income. I don’t think it really matters if the women are the majority of the workforce, if they still receive such little incomes compared to their husband. Since the husband is supposed to be the bread winner in the families, the women will still most likely be housewives and take care of the house instead of the unemployed husband.
-Court Rod
(Courtney Rodriguez)
In the view points of business owners and corporate men are seen as a less liability because there is no maternity leave which is why I think this is not a very big concern. Also, there will always be a need for blue collar workers which are made up of mostly men. I guess u could call me “old school” but I would want my wife to stay at home and take care of the babies and food and house hold upkeep.
I think that this statistic is not really as significant as it at first seems. Yes there may be just as many women working as men, but the article stressed that women often work part time of with not as many benefits. Therefore, women are still playing the role of caretaker, but with the recent economic crisis, they now have to do it while also working on the side. I do think it is definitely a sign of the times, but I do not think that this is anything for anybody to get worked up, angry, or mad about. I can not wait to see what Caleb has to say about this.
I don't think this whole thing is really a big deal. The article already gave reasons for women making up an increasingly larger percentage of the work force. A lot of the jobs that have been really affected lately are held predominantly by men, while many jobs commonly held by women are more "recession-proof." It makes sense. I don't think we should read too much into it.
I definitely agree with Ross Henry. I believe everyone deserves an equal chance in the work force. Sure, some jobs are more well suited for men and others more well suited for women, but that doesn't mean that members of the opposite sex don't deserve a fair opportunity.
This article really says something about the recession. I don't think its saying much about some crazy change in women's attitudes towards working, because each gender is still being somewhat traditional regarding the jobs they chose. Men, because of society and evolutionary traits, are more likely to be construction workers or build cars, and companies related to those markets(i.e. Nissan and Caterpillar) are the ones that are laying off people right now. Women traditionally tend to be teachers and nurses, and those jobs are just more secure because they are neccesary services.
What bothers me most is that women have to balance work and household responsibilities while men aren't expected to, even if they are not working. Hopefully our generation can change that
Women make up a majority of the people on the planet. I think it is a (55 - 45) split, but I believe it is a natural trend, since technology has been substituted for many roles that used to be considered traditionally for women. I personally accept the granola movement, gender equality does entail taking different responsibilities. The way the author cited "government data" for his statistic on gender salary comparison was very vague, and I was quite suspicious of it.
While I was suprised to find that women held that high of a percentage in the work force, I honestly don't believe it is that big of a deal. The jobs that women tend to hold, such as in education fields and nursing, are generally more stable in a recession seen as they are always needed no matter what. More men tend to be employed in labor intensive jobs and industries that suffer from our current economy. I believe that while women may temporarily surpass men in the workforce during the current recession, once the United States gets back on their feet and men regain their jobs everything will return to normal.
I don't see this as a big issue, men have less stable jobs working in fields like the automobile industry, which as we all know is laying off workers left and right. While on the other hand women work in more stable environments. Women may have stable jobs and support their families for the time being, but as the recession comes to a close, men will regain their unstable jobs and everything will balance out once again.
I don't really think women have gone out searching for jobs since their husbands have lost theirs. It is obvious that a woman is not going to be a construction worker or some other job along that line. I do think it's nice to see that women are getting some credit for maintaing a job and taking care of the children. I think once the unemployment rate drops men will go back to obtaining the higher paying jobs... I don't feel like there was any sort of "gender reversal".
I think the topic is not a big deal In todays society where women in the work force dominate men. However, it's just the fact that since the formality of a woman being more than a spouse and mother is broken, there has been not enough women working as there is now. With this recession, everyone saw it coming. Ww2 housewives would be proud =]
Paul rabalais left last post
The fact that women could become the majority of the work place is a very good thing. Not too long ago many of the women in this country were stay at home workers. However I do not believe that the men to women ratio matters too much as long as things are done. Whoever is the best for the job needs to occupy it, or else the workplace will fall short of maximum effectiveness. Also the idea of women in the workplace shows how many barriers we have broken down over the past century.
Times are definitely changing. Men and women always seemed to have these set rules that they had to live in. But as time passed, women began to venture out of the norms that society placed them in. Now, women have the option to stay home and take care of the house and kids or become the breadwinners of the family or do both. Roles could be reversed for men as well - staying home instead of bringing home the bacon. I think that gender shouldn't be a barrier that keeps people from pursuing what they want.
If I read the article correctly, isn't this all relative? Since the jobs that are laying off employees are male-dominated, that just leaves the women's jobs, so of course we will end up having a higher female to male employment ratio. However, in times like this, since the moms' jobs are staying strong, dads will have to take up some of the responsibilities to take care of the children when moms can't. Who says they can't do that and job-hunt at the same time? I'm pretty sure that's what the women did because how else did they get their jobs?
As most people have already stated before me, this percentage just shows that the jobs that women hold are more resistant to the recession insofar as they are jobs that are more "necessary". People looking at this like it's a victory for woman's rights are dellusional.
People that think this is a good thing that women are going to have a majority of the jobs just seem to be perpetuating gender rolls, which is contradictory to the general idea of feminism. I think that it should be completely up to the individual to decide whether or not they want to be the "breadwinners" in the family.
However, this article does a good job at showing the magnitude of the recession while still showing the impact that the woman's rights movement has made.
This article definately shows how women and men in the workforce are still not treated equally, since women only earn eighty cents for every dollar a man earns. Although, in a recession, women are beginning to hold more jobs than men, I'm sure that as soon as the recession is over, men will go back to their typical role as "breadwinners."
I think its possible for women to become much of our economy's work force especially wit high percentage of lay offs most companies are expierencing. I'm not trying to sexist in anyway but when you think about it women mainly occupy educational postions or other kinda jobs that dont seem to be affected by the recession. Men occupy jobs tht require more physical abilities and therefore require health insurance, and men seem to make more and work more in industries then women. So it seems kinda logical that companies would lay-off what seems to be more males than females
Dang, Im gonna get slapped. The trend of salaries for the two genders is not suprising at all, nor is the fact that more women are having to step into the work place to help support the families, nor that it is mainly the men who are getting laid off (considering the jobs that are being hit the hardest). As for the price difference, I believe that it really does come from the way the two genders think. They are not the same. Women are, generally speaking, more compassionate and emotional, whereas men are more analytical and cutthroat. If either of those two is more respectable, it is probably the women's side, but they are different. Women are more likely to take the jobs that help people and improve the community, like librarians or teachers. Men are more likely to squish people on their way to the top and to actually focus on and get there and more effective at dealoing with stress. Again women are better people than men, just not in the workplace, but that's where the social distinctions are coming from, nature. But in other news, YAY end to discrimination. Maybe soon they can find a way to let men have the babies, since we're all just as motherly.
Kenny says.....
The roles of women have steadily changed as time has passed. Now more are joining the work force and rejecting or not solely caring about the jobs society assigned them in the past. But is it a good thing that more women are joining the work force and leaving their homes? It seems to me that in the past few years as women joined the work force in greater number, families have become less able to stay together and more conflicts arise. This is due to the lack of a parent that’s sole responsibility is the children. As the article stated (if we are to trust the New York Times, personally I am skeptical) men for the most part do not take up these responsibilities, whereas women do. Now I am not saying that women have no place in the work force or should only stay at home, I am just concerned that the change is happening to quickly without the parents being able to adjust to their new roles, thus hurting the children.
I believe that in this day and age, gender differences should not be a big deal in the workforce. This article seems slightly over-exaggerated to me. Although it is true that the recession has probably hurt the males more that the females, I don't think it will be such a big change that there will be way more women working than men. It shouldn't make a difference whether the husband or wife makes the money, as long as they are happy with their jobs.
When I read the title I instantly started trying to think of reasons that this shift would occur and I could have guessed that the difference in careers chosen by men and women would be it.It's so interesting that men and women always gravitate towards certain choices.The change in roles suggested by the article doesn't surprise me in the least, people are great adjusters, we adapt to whatever is thrown at us and do what we must for things to function properly. Change is always a part of life. Social adjustments occur when they are appropriate. I do however, think that some things will never completely transform, some roles are carved into instinct. There are reasons that men gravitate towards being the breadwinners. Long ago, it was what they were physically built to do. But then again, we've changed physically as well so, you never know what the future will hold.
I find that the "roles" that used to come with being a man or woman have long since disappeared. The responsibilities of the mother and father are so similar now that it doesn't matter if the woman of the house brings home the bacon. It's simply equality showing up in one of the last places for our country. Since the recession has hit the "Manly" jobs of construction and industry, women now have a reason and right to go out into the job market in search of survival. Maybe women are going to be the end of the recession.
Women's rights are huge to me. I strongly support women being equal to men. Although many women are not as physically strong as men naturally, it does not mean they are weaker. Both men and women have the same ability to learn. Men and women just have different natural talents, which should be put to use. Men are physically stronger, therefore in general should occupy the manual labor force. Women, on the other hand, tend to be better at the intellectual and less physically exhausting jobs. Many teachers are women for this reason. Although nowadays, I can not think of one job that is designated to any specific gender. Both men and women can be whatever they choose. That is the beauty of our society these days. The one thing that bothers me is the fact that so many men and women get judged for being in jobs that are generally reserved for the opposite sex. For example, guy dancers tend to be discriminated against because that supposedly means they are "gay." Maybe the guy just did it so he could be surrounded by a bunch of women? You never know. Also, women are not really thought of as becoming business owners, or even just the head of any corporation (or event the country). Women have just as much talent as men, and they deserve the chance to prove it.
There is no need for considering “role reversal” nor redefining our beliefs about gender responsibilities. As the article says, this increase in proportion of females in the workforce is probably due numerous males being laid off. If and when the recession is over, I am sure the proportion of men in the workforce will start rising again. On a side note, I do not see defined roles of women and men fading any time soon. I think our society will generally see it as normal for women to be the ones who raise children and men as those go out and “bring home the bacon”.
I love that women are breaking the stereotypical "housewife" persona. It never occurred to me that education and healthcare were jobs that many women work in, I mean I know a lot of women teachers and nurses/doctors/etc. but never really thought about the constant demand we have for them. Although women do not get paid as much as the men, it allows women to bring in the money and as read in this article it puts a lot of stress on husbands who have lost their jobs and need to find another steady job and the family especially.
So long as the granola movement continues i believe that women and men will both find their point of ecstasy in the work place. Its not all about eighty cents to the dollar and 49.1 % . It shouldn't be a contest of who is the more profitable gender it should be about who enjoys their job the most and is the most efficient at producing the final product.
ADarsey
Perhaps women lose their jobs at slower rates in a recession because they’re paid less than men. Although striking and unfair, women still earn only 80 cents for every dollar men do and therefore are more affordable to retain. With that in mind, this new finding doesn’t seem as great as it sounds.
While women do normally tend to have seperate or different jobs compared to the majority of men, this gives them the chance to make a change and allow them to become more powerful. We've come a long way from when women were not given the same rights as men and now there's a bigger opportunity. Although layoffs and such have not affected working women on the same scale that they have affected men, it's still something they have to deal with. This gives women a positive chance in achieving higher goals and showing others that they're worthy of being in the same position as men.
I think that this was probably inevitable, recession or not. Women have been breaking out of the homes more and more as society has given more rights to women. Because women make up the majority of the population, it also makes sense that they would dominate the work force. However, I have to agree with Kenny's points about women in the home. Because women are generally seen as the more compassionate, gentle beings, they obviously have an important place with thier family. I'm not saying that they shouldn't work. I'm just saying that the family and children should not be forgotten, whether the mother or the father works.
I really do not think this is something that was unexpected. In increase of women in the workforce only means that society is becoming more modern and the social norms of the past hundreds of years are beginning to diminish. We have seen women astronauts, women running for president and women doing "mens" jobs. Even if they did become the majority of the work force, why does it matter? It seems like this article is making it a big deal, when really it is just a sign of the times.
While I am excited at the prospect that women are gaining as a percent of those in the paid labor force, I wonder if this is as good as it sounds. Occupations traditionally held by males have been more highly compensated in our society. If there is a decline in the number of men working is that an indication that higher paying jobs are disappearing? If women merely account for a higher percentage of those who participate in the paid labor force without also gaining in terms of compensation I'm a bit more reserved in my excitement about this.
I guess what I'm saying, in a round-about way, is that it is not enough for women to be employed as frequently as men, women also need to be paid just as much as men. We need to re-examine how we value work.
Women now adays are more inclined to find a job. In the past women would be housewives and take care of the kids. As the economy worsens families need more money and perhaps these housewives are now having to find jobs. With the economy worsening, businesses are more willing to hire women then men because one, they don't have to pay women as much, and two, women tend to work better with others. Also, the article says that more and more men are being layed off. So with the hiring of women and the firing of men it would only seem right that the article is correct and the lobor force in the United States is changing.
I doubt that any large change will result from women possibly becoming dominant in the workplace. The roles of men and women have blended together so much over the past few decades that if one overtakes the other it is no big concern. This is actually evidence in of itself of the blending of roles. The biggest concern seems to be about family life, but given that instead of both parents being at work instead of parenting there will now be only one unavailable parent, I believe that this will be a benefit if anything. There's a 50% chance that the parents will be separating soon anyway, so does it really matter if they're working or not?
Over time, women have become the majority of getting a college degree so I can see how more women are in the work force than men. I imagine that women may be in the safer job market, but because they get fewer work hours than men, it's harder for women to support their families. Women may think that supporting their families mean they need to get more into their job and less into their families. But I think it should be equal for work and home.
Women's jobs are typically more recession proof than mens, so that is a big part of women becoming the majority of the work force. But according to the information this is a bad sign because women's jobs typically don't provide good benefits which means there will be more people without proper healthcare.
Despite the recession partly being responsible for this trend, the steadily increasing number of women in the workforce has virtually erased their stereotype as a "care giver." It means our country continues to democratically evolve. Our current economy's status points out the importance of women in the work force as well. Education and health care are both vital to a growing future for out nation and the hope of better decision making as far as out economy is concerned.
This does not really surprise me because every time the gender ratio is shown for a college, most times there are more women enrolled. And it is because of this that women are starting to get more jobs in the work force than men in this society that is evolving to further itself from the previous standards.
Well I think women are going tobecome a majority of the work force because more women are becoming accustomed to the modern lifestyle of women everywhere. The traditional roles still exsist but a modern twist has beend added to them. Men still work, and women still cook and clean, but now women work too. And I think it also depends on a persons opinion. Some women love to stay at home and cook and clean and take care of the kids. While others love to cook and clean and take care of the kids... and WORK. Also men are now blending roles as house dads now exist. The traditional roles are ever present but slowly changing.
Jessica Rodrigues
While a lot may being made out of this, it really isn't that suprising. The society we live in today doesn't see gender or race like it did in the past. And although women are becoming the majority in the overall workplace, there are some places where men sill have their job security just as there are places where women have theirs. But as the competition for jobs tightens up and the economy begins to falter, employers cannot be as biased as they once were and have to choose the best employee, and right now it seems as though they are begining to be predominantly female. Although it has been said multiple times in all the comments, it truly is a sign of the times.
Its not totally surprising women are starting to surpass men in employment, especially since many jobs women are likely to be employed in are secure. Two examples are teaching and a medical practice like a nurse. Also, something that is starting to become fairly common is women raising children as single parents and in order to provide a decent life for them and thier children, they need to get jobs. Also, people are not getting married later in life than they used to so women need to support themselves.
Being in the current economic situation that we're in, the statistics that were given by this article sound extrememly accurate. I feel that women have come a long way and the fact that women prefer the more economical, yet less paying jobs has worked in their favor. Women becoming a majority in the workforce should not be seen as a negative change, but a change none the less. Maybe this will motivate men to be a bit more strenuous in their search for jobs. This nation is ever-changing and any possible alteration to our society can help us move forward.
Although it is interesting that the female gender commonly stereotyped as the "house wife" is now the bread winner, I don't believe that it will last very long. As the article says, the main reason for women being the majority of the job-holders these says is because they're mainly in "recession-resistant" jobs. So even though it is refreshing to hear that women are able to keep their jobs during these tough ecnonomic times, it's not very surprising. Mostly men, obviously, are holding the more physically strenuous jobs, and as the article says, they are the ones who the recession is affecting--not the women in education and healthcare. I'm glad women's statistics and stereotypes are stepping out of the norm, but it won't last long. Men will eventually, hopefully soon, get their jobs back and things will be back to normal.
It seems like women are about to take over in everything that is out there. I think, this is mostly because more girl babies are being born. One time it was all about the men and how they get to do whatever they want, I think now it is the women's time to show what they got. It all started with Women's suffrage, and now one can see that women are being successful in every job industry that is out there. And I think it is pretty cool.
Ann Tharakan
I believe that the article is right about how women have more recession proof jobs because they have an innate instinct to be the caregiver of a family. Therefore more women work in the medical fields. It seems natural for a woman to pursue a career in this field. However, when the article said that ‘women earn 80 cents for each dollar of their male counterparts’ income’ I believe that this statement would soon change on the basis that Obama recently passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which means that female will no longer be paid less than male employees at work.
Well in my opinion the current economic status has forced women to seek employment. With males being the typical head of the household and facing hardships at work, women are pressured into seeking a source of income to support the family.
I believe women are going to become a major part of the work force in this country. Women are finally taking action after realizing that they are not treated equally as men in the work force. Especially with the current economic status, women are being forced to seek employment to support their families.
WEll Women already have careers and stuff. Plus its the low paying jobs that people dont get fired from during a recession. Like nurse or teacher. lots of times women fulfill these jobs and they dont make enough to live off of. They need their husband or whatever to also have a job so they can live comfortably. Plus if the man is out looking for a job all the time, then he cant help out around the home. this puts a real hardship on the woman who probably has to work and take care of the kids and clean. recessions are crappy for everone.
I believe that it's a wonderful thing that more women are entering the workforce these days. It futher shows the independence they have that has not always been accepted in society. I'm also happy to see that more women are also getting recognized for their accomplishments. Go women! :)
Jen Iles
I think it is cool that women are now begining to dominate the workforce. It makes me feel better about my chances of holding onto a job in an economy like this. I plan to go into business, which is mainly though of as a male dominated field. I wonder if this female domination applies to the business world also? This all just goes to show you that times have truly changed. There once used to be a time where women were looked down upon for having jobs. Now it looks like the men are actually more dependent upon these women having their jobs and supporting the family.
As of now, women still have yet to achieve equality in the work field, but hopefully, as time goes on, there will be more women working and their wages will eventually equal to those of the men. However, one downside of more women entering the work force is the resulting decrease in the number of housewives. It is all fine and well that women become more independent and find jobs to help sustain the family, but the husbands might not be completely ready to take over the household duties formerly designated to women.
Althoug women are still not treated entirely as equals in the work force, the nations is taking strides in the right direction to achieve this equality. However, i still believe it is the choice of that woman regarding whethere she should join the work force or be, as they call it, a "stay at home mom/housewife". Neither choice is right or wrong, but the great part about our country now is that women have the ability to make that choice.
Post a Comment