President Obama declared on November 4th at Hyde Park, "Change has come to America!" I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about this: America's latest recession has been a "man-cession." (as stated in Rampbell 2). Catherine Rampbell is a well-known economists who keeps up a blog called Econmix at the New York Times. The latest shocking economic news (in the midsts of other bad signs) is that Women may surpass the amount of Men in the work force. In December of 2008, Men accounted for 83.1% of ALL jobs lost. The entire situation is staggering. Since the beginning of the recession in December of 2007, the United States economy has shed 3.6 million jobs. Though 83.1% is the highest percent of job loss that has been all men, the numbers have been consistently high (Rampbell Para. 5). Towards the bottom of the post, Rampbell analyzes two different graphs which track the status of job losses. The first shows the amount of Women/Men being fired each month (in a measurement of what appears to be 1 = 1,000. Thus 100 = 100,000 jobs lost). Its interesting to note how many more jobs Men are losing each month--and even towards the beginning, Women are GAINING jobs while Men are losing it. On the lower graph, there is a comparison between percentage of men and women in the work force. While it started at 52 - 48 percent, it is slowly creeping towards what is a dynamic equilibrium of sort (Rampbell Econmix Blog). Due to the current nature of the recession, Women may soon hold the majority of work for the first time in United States History... and perhaps all of History.
There's a lot here to digest. I think there are a few intelligent questions to ask about the situation:
Firstly, does it really matter if its a Man or Women who hold more Jobs? I think as America has moved forward, the "content of one's character" is more important than the "color of their skin". Dr. King's words ring true for gender issues as well. Women over the past 50 years have advanced in many ways unbeknownst to us. Still it is impossible for a true equality to actually exist. For example, though Women want "equal rights" they have never supported an equal rights amendment which would have given them complete equality to men--including the rights to be drafted. In a sense, Women want to be "separate but equal." They want the benefits of an equal society (and arguably they should) but then why should they scoff at the potential to be drafted? Rampbell points out in her blog that, "men are more likely to work in industries more sensitive to the business cycle." (Rampbell Para. 3) Thus, Rampbell is suggesting that because its easier to see large-scale cuts in construction or finance as opposed to "safer industries [which women work in] such as healthcare, education and government work." The difference in jobs basically suggest
Secondly, is it "sexist" that men are being cut from more work or is it just the will of the "market"? When it comes to American politics, it seems that there have always been too different groups of worship: One led by conservatives that believe more in the "capitalistic" portion that makes up America; the idea that money will make up for all issues and that the "free" market will always work out. (On the flip side, look at where deregulation and the "free" market has gotten us.) The other group argues for more of a social aspect of the American Culture. I think a fair name to call these are the "American Dreamers." The Dreamers are made up of more-so liberal Americans who at times jump from logic and think that anything is possible without analyzing the situation. This dreamers, for example, are the ones that see that it would be possible to make everyone equal when it clearly is not.
What comes to mind additionally when discussing these two groups was the recently passed Lilly Ledbetter Act (The actual documentation is included in sources). The Act makes it possible for Women who have been "pay discriminated against" to sue for discrimination up until 180 days after their LAST paycheck. Previously, it had to be from the initial act (which meant that those like Lilly Ledbetter were unable to sue because they never realized what was going on until way after they started working. Her suit was thrown out of the Supreme Court). The Dreamers suggest that this bill will bring more "equality" while the Marketers cry how this will kill the hirings of women. There really is two outlooks to every situation; especially in this economic crisis. Certain acts that seem like no brainers fall under intense scrutiny because of what is happening.
I think until President Obama (or whoever succeeds him) is able to right this economic crisis, the status of "equality in the market place" can't move forward. The Market followers have a point, in a volatile state that the market currently exists in, it is impossible for progress to be made overall (though the ground can be laid for future growth). But beyond all the economic questions the issue is: How equal can the job market get?
The answer to that question is likely this: We can reach a "plateau" of equality but unless we want to end up like a society like that in Harrison Bergeron. There will always be a level of inequality but as long as we are equal when it comes to pay in equal jobs, crime and justice then there isn't that much more we have to do. The law should be equal when it comes to gender but human philosophy should never preach equality: Then we'd be all be "handicapped". Humanity should be One in Spirit, not in substance. Where's the fun in that?
*Additional Sources in Post:
1) Job Loss
