Althouse: The economic downturn has been much harder on men. Is that some kind of boon for feminism?

March 5, 2009

The economic downturn has been much harder on men. Is that some kind of boon for feminism?

39 comments:

Lem Vibe Bandit said...: If there is anything to this social silver lining of disaster .. We better get ready for the amazon post Katrina woman of New Orleans ;); 3/5/09, 3:43 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: "World Ends. Women & children hurt worst".

This snarky future headline always cracks me up for some reason.; 3/5/09, 3:44 PM
traditionalguy said...: To the extent that women work for the free market business they are equally affected. The other women plugged into high level Government Jobs by quota hiring policies are safe within the government system where the boss can print money faster than the demand for the work disappears.; 3/5/09, 3:53 PM
holdfast said...: Just 'cause more women work in government and quasi-government (healthcare, education, etc) jobs, doesn't mean they are immune - it will just take longer to trickle to them. Also, those are not wealth creation fields, so good luck re-starting the economy based on those "nurturing" trades.; 3/5/09, 3:53 PM
Beth said...: Lem,

Actually, for months, maybe even the first year, after Katrina, there were a lot more men in town than women, and hardly any children. It was really noticeable. Lots of families, after evacuating, had to get their kids in school where ever they landed, and they stayed through the spring so as not to disrupt the kids' lives any more than they had to.

And so many men came in looking for work! If I were inclined that way, I'd have had a lot of very handy guys to choose from, from carpenters to painters to electricians to plumbers (ech, maybe not plumbers).

The neighborhood that I work in is one that was hit hardest by the floods, and every time I went out to find lunch at one of the very few places open, it was always filled with guys in jeans and tool belts. Likewise the grocery stores, bars, cafes - all the public places.; 3/5/09, 3:57 PM
reader_iam said...: I'm inclined to speechlessness here in light of what the worsening economic situation does and may mean for women, men and children just in terms of the, well, economics of things, alone.

(And didn't married couples, with or without kids, as a household category fall to less than 50% a few years back, according to a Census Bureau survey?); 3/5/09, 4:17 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: We were one country once not just a bunch of little self-interest groups. That was last true around 1945 or so?; 3/5/09, 4:41 PM
lowercase said...: Wow. That took 5 minutes to say absolutely nothing - and the one on my right seemed to know it.

Having less money can suck. ( Insightful!!!) But now you have more money than that bastard you've been living with. (Hah. Fun!!!) Except now maybe he'll get all cranky and pissy-- just like you used to be. (Backlash!!!! Gender differences!!!); 3/5/09, 4:45 PM
SteveR said...: My personal experience has been that these types of things are just as hard on a woman as a man. Women are just a lot better at dealing with it.; 3/5/09, 4:52 PM
The Dude said...: Has to be a boon, as it is a zero sum game, right? Men bad, women good.; 3/5/09, 5:09 PM
paul a'barge said...: Like these two give a fig about the welfare of men? Not.; 3/5/09, 5:10 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: The polls are in on the popularity of Pelosi/Obama economic plan. The market is down again.

I hope the president and her sock puppet are paying attention as we are going to pay for their egregious mistakes.; 3/5/09, 5:10 PM
ricpic said...: Black racist: kill all the whites, then we'll be happy.

Feminist: kill all the men, then we'll be happy.

Homosexualist: kill all the straights, then we'll be happy.

Obama: thank you, class.; 3/5/09, 5:17 PM
Balfegor said...: We were one country once not just a bunch of little self-interest groups. That was last true around 1945 or so?

Yes, when we had Jim Crow segregation, had just put a generation of Japanese-Americans into concentration camps, and had Communist infiltration up the wazoo . . . I don't think it's possible to project backwards a time of unity when some Americans weren't scheming against their countrymen.; 3/5/09, 5:20 PM
George M. Spencer said...: Who are these people?

Rebecca seems particularly worried, perhaps because Emily is looking down on her, so to speak.; 3/5/09, 5:21 PM
blake said...: Oh, not really.

Feminism requires a fairly robust civilization to support it.; 3/5/09, 5:23 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: If President Obama had balls, he would start over on the Stimulus Plan. Here is what I would have done in 2009 in Billions:

Manahattan Energy Proj. $50
Buy a new car $48
Infrastructure $50
State Budgets $75
Unemployment & Cash Ben.$135
Buy a home $150
TOTAL in 2009 $508 Billion

In 2010, I'd suspend FICA for both employee and employer but not medicare tax. Total cost is $650 Billion.

Total AJ's stimulus = $1,108 Billion.; 3/5/09, 5:25 PM
Kirby Olson said...: It's oddly sick to delight in others' misfortunes as these two ghoulish buzzards do.

I think for most people now who are part of families, you just want the best for all the members of the family, irregardless of gender.

They keep talking about how men are attached via their fragile egos to jobs, and it will be fun to watch those egos crack a little more. Maybe they'll even commit suicide. That would be great, because then there will be even more jobs for women, who apparently want just the money, but won't be at all attached to the jobs, they won't mean anything to them, since their egos don't need work.

It was incredible to see these two ghoulish buzzards rubbing their talons together as they watch the economic death of families across the country and what it might mean for their focus group.; 3/5/09, 5:27 PM
Joseph said...: I think Kirby must have watched a different video than I did. No one was delighting over anything. It was a sober, if not especially insightful, consideration of how more women become breadwinners as men lose jobs. That has real implications for pay equity and the fact that the average woman still only earns three dollars for every four a man earns.; 3/5/09, 5:44 PM
Joseph said...: But by calling them ghoulish buzzards, you demonstrate how someone who cares about all Americans without regard to sex should behave.; 3/5/09, 5:45 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: I have no idea what the people in this video actually said. Too bad the video format doesn't work.

Lots of blogs will actually tell you what the people say instead of creating a possibly false illusion.

Did the women in this vid actually claim progress for women because men are harder hit by the recession?; 3/5/09, 6:29 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: OK, I watched the damn thing.

Well that was a nuanced conversation. And what came out to me from Emily Bazelon is a greater understanding of the stresses families are going through.

So, more men are losing jobs, more women are breadwinners and that's a lot of change and stress in their personal lives. In the 1930s we had men who couldn't get jobs leaving their families so they wouldn't be a burden or to find work.

The discussion over historical trends and patterns in gender relations was innocent and I don't think the word "boon" or "victory" were used, though "silver lining" only as a way of saying "not so much." SO the vid doesn't answer Ann's question, or maybe says "no."

Still don't like the format.; 3/5/09, 6:42 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: Kirby Olson, did you just say irregardless?

-10 points for you.; 3/5/09, 7:53 PM
Daryl said...: Men are more willing to put up with women's bullshit if we're capable of earning a living.

If you send us back to the Stone Age, then don't act surprised when Stone Age ideas resurface.

Further, women are going to have a harder time collecting alimony/child support.

Yet still further, it's our service-based economy that has been so good to women. As that shrivels, women will find their progress set back a few decades.; 3/5/09, 8:07 PM
Anonymous said...: the average woman still only earns three dollars for every four a man earns.

Which is why companies prefer to hire women instead of men because it reduces their labor costs 25%.; 3/5/09, 8:10 PM
Stephen said...: Wow, two women facing a national economic meltdown can chit-chat about their feelings. About how women should feel about losing fewer jobs than men have lost. And they conclude that gloating might be unseemly.
God love 'em.; 3/5/09, 9:12 PM
KCFleming said...: the fact that the average woman still only earns three dollars for every four a man earns.

Complete bullshit.; 3/5/09, 9:12 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Obama: thank you, class.

Wrong. Very wrong.

Obama: eh, ah, em, hah, er, agh, um,…

There, fixed it.

Obama makes Bush look literate.; 3/5/09, 9:30 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/5/09, 10:11 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: Most presidents are judged by their first hundred days in office. This guy is failing badly less than half way thorugh. When is Nancy Pelosi- the real president going to bitch slap the snow pussy and tell him what to say and do?; 3/5/09, 10:42 PM
Emily Carson said...: You're all full of crap.

Actually, the statistic is that the average woman earns $0.78 per dollar that men earn.

Unfortunately that also includes women who work for Barack Obama.

So the first place we should look for leadership in pay equity is in the Obama administration.; 3/5/09, 10:46 PM
former law student said...: I guess this means there are still plenty of low paying dead end service jobs?

During the Depression, my grandmother could find work while my tool and die making grandfather stayed home and babysat my mother -- people simply were not buying durable goods back then.; 3/5/09, 11:29 PM
former law student said...: Unfortunately that also includes women who work for Barack Obama.

So the first place we should look for leadership in pay equity is in the Obama administration.

Especially we should find out how little Hillary makes as a secretary.

Obama's a typical male, putting Hillary in a traditional female job. Who can forget her predecessor, wearing a smock with "Condoleeza" embroidered in an oval over the right pocket?; 3/5/09, 11:32 PM
Eric said...: Sigh. When will they stop with the seventy-eight cents thing? Once you adjust for things like hours worked and commute distance there's no statistical difference. None.; 3/5/09, 11:57 PM
blake said...: And hey, we can always outsource the child raising to some minimum wage workers or something.

No need! The government will take care of that for you! And with highly trained professionals who can do the job better than your government-hating, racist, cracker ass!; 3/6/09, 1:18 AM
Revenant said...: Once you adjust for things like hours worked and commute distance there's no statistical difference.

Most of the $0.22 difference comes from the fact that the jobs women tend to take aren't ones that earn good pay (teacher, for example). Within the same job there's little difference between the sexes. When you control for hours worked and consistency of labor (i.e. not taking time off to have some kids) the difference drops to something like one or two cents on the dollar.; 3/6/09, 1:45 AM
Doug Smith said...: In corporate drone jobs that don't really matter, women outnumber men. However in the jobs that truly matter like science, engineering, architecture men absolutely dominate. The few women that are in the field tend to be Asian women who manage to get along well with the men.; 3/6/09, 3:10 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: And with highly trained professionals who can do the job better than your government-hating, racist, cracker ass!

LOL Now I wish I hadn't deleted my comment.; 3/6/09, 5:42 AM
Unknown said...: "I don't think it's possible to project backwards a time of unity when some Americans weren't scheming against their countrymen."

Well, there was September 12-14, 2001, not that I want to project back to that time.; 3/6/09, 9:07 AM