Unemployment: A New Boys Club?

The LA Times is calling it the "he-cession." The stark facts show that the economic crisis is hitting men particularly hard: The official male unemployment rate just spiked to 8.8 percent, while the figure for women is on a slower rise, now at 7 percent. So we can add to the old-fashioned gender gap in wages (favoring men, who make one dollar to a woman's 80 cents for the same job), a new gender gap in unemployment, favoring women.

With women working more, there has been a role reversal of sorts, but it's hardly the kind feminists envisioned. As men lose their jobs, households are depending increasingly on the relatively meager wages of women to stay afloat. And the newly unemployed men aren't spending their freed-up time packing lunches and schlepping the kids to soccer games. According to an analysis of time use data by economists Alan B. Krueger and Andreas Mueller, they're more likely to devote those hours to looking for new jobs--and sleeping more, and watching more TV.

The picture of domestic life that emerges is not the gendered suburban dystopia of Revolutionary Road. But vestiges of that old order persist, mixing in new and potentially combustible ways with the legacy of feminism (the increased participation of women in the labor force), its unfinished business (their lower wages, and the lack of social supports for working motherhood), and the vagaries of this particular downturn, which has been especially merciless in male-dominated sectors like construction and manufacturing.

To put it another way, the "second shift" that sociologist Arlie Hochschild described in her classic book of that name is alive and well--even as it's increasingly women alone who are working the first shift.

These complex dynamics were the subject of lively discussion at the symposium "Achieving Equity for Women" last week in Washington, organized by the Institute for Women's Policy Research. A few months ago, feminists were writing skeptical op-eds about President Obama's "macho stimulus package," which emphasized "shovel-ready" projects that would boost employment in traditionally male occupations over investment in childcare, education and health, where women are more likely to be employed.

Now that we know men have lost four out of every five jobs in this recession, the conversation among feminists is focusing on how the jobs women have hung onto weren't so great in the first place. For example, while childcare workers in many states make just minimum wage ($7.21 in Florida), construction workers, when they can get work, routinely earn upwards of $30 an hour. And childcare, meanwhile, continues to be woefully underfunded, with the stimulus package alotting just $2 billion to support care for low-income kids. To build a truly decent universal system--making life sane for all working parents--the price tag would be more like $100-$200 billion.

With women poised to eclipse men the labor force--they're at 49.1 percent and counting--it's nice to have proof that the much-celebrated "Opt-Out Revolution" was the smoke and mirrors working mothers always knew it was. But there's no reason to cheer this milestone if it mainly reflects the obliteration of jobs for men. Likewise, the narrowing of the gender gap in wages (which has been cut in half in the past 25 years) has been in part an illusory victory, since it has reflected not just the advancement of upper-income women, but the fact that the real wages of low-skilled men were eroding.

In other words, if men take two steps back, and women one, we all wind up behind.

Comments (52)

1. Yikes!

   Do you realize as the only remaining demographic the Republicans have a lock on, if male voters don't believe that the recession started at Noon on January 20th, 2009....

   they might actually blame Dubya!?!?!?!?

   And...gasp...hold it against Republicans again in 2010 and 2012, especially if times get better?

   Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 3:39pm

2. well, there's "remember" and "if", mask.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:46pm

3. Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 3:46pm

   True, and the GOP has a whole AM radio band and a cable "news" network to try to convince them otherwise!

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 04/06/2009 @ 3:50pm

4. Identity politics at its finest.

   So with men accounting for 4/5 of the jobs lost, what exactly is the problem with an emphasis on "shovel-ready" jobs?

   Posted by gangpapist at 04/06/2009 @ 4:32pm

5. this has to be one of the nuttier leftist stereotypes threads I've seen in a while.

   Typically from a hardcore feminist view, there has been no societal change with more men staying home and taking care of house and kids;

   Unemployed men helping out at home? No way say these Feminazis (I'm sorry but it's appropriate for garbage like this).

   Childcare workers should make the same as a construction worker?

   "A few months ago, feminists were writing skeptical op-eds about President Obama's "macho stimulus package," which emphasized "shovel-ready" projects that would boost employment in traditionally male occupations"

   Traditionally does not equal exclusively! Get in touch with the real world and take note of the many women in construction including buildings, highways, bridges, and dams.

   April Fools Day was last week. Get real.

   Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 4:39pm

6. My fiance doesn't know how to scramble an egg, so I guess she'll have to get used to eating a lot of pasta. Fine with me.

   But like most working-class gals I know, I don't think she'd be game for this kicking the guys while they're down tactic. Maybe that's why finding an independent-minded woman that would describe herself as a feminist is so hard to do here in proletarian-land.

   Posted by gangpapist at 04/06/2009 @ 5:06pm

7. So, as the breadwinner, who also telecommutes ,while my wife goes to the office, should I put the wet laundry into the dryer or not, Larry?

   Posted by snowball666 at 04/06/2009 @ 4:42pm

   As long as you know how to handle sensitive materials (mainly your wife's).

   I am a stay at home worker while my wife goes to an office.

   I make her breakfast, lunch, and dinner, drive her to and from the train station. I do the grocery shopping, the dishes, vacuum, sweep, and mop. Take care of the dog and the pet birds. take out the trash, water the 100's of patio plants (front and back), the 100 trees on the property, keep the pool and spa clean, give her massages 2x daily.

   My wife has always claimed that she is Cleopatra and Marc Antony must wait upon her every need.

   I get the feeling you are the same kind of person.

   Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 5:07pm

8. Betsy Reed: You ought to consider that women in mid to high positions in technology, finance and other male dominated professions are being laid off at a higher rate than men. Business Week reported on this. If it is a male dominated profession with relatively high pay, women are being laid off at a higher rate than men. I was in a layoff in technology and all the women in my group were laid off, and there were few of us to begin with. As a woman in Business Week was quoted, a whole generation of progress in promoted females is gone in this recession/depression. In high technology, it seems that women are an endangered species and now extinct after these last layoffs.

   The story is not as simple as a "man-cession" with a bow on it. Women who have made strides in male dominated professions have a target on them and companies are getting rid of them, which clears whole levels and management levels of employees of any women whatsoever. How long will it take for women to reappear beyond entry level in these male dominated companies?

   Posted by sofar at 04/06/2009 @ 5:29pm

9. I don't think Betsy fully understands the dilema of paying child care workers more. Sure it is a very demanding job. However the economics of it are a bit complex. For my 19mo old daughter it costs, ~700/mo for full time care. With a $12/hour job after taxes my wife brings home about 1300/month, so half of that goes to daycare. Right now we have decided that it is worth it. If she can get a job? When we have our second child, we would be paying more in daycare then she would be making a month. If you decide to pay childcare providers $15 and hour or double their current rate, the economic considerations would end up with way more stay at home moms, since daycare would be less affordable. I would bet even women with jobs paying 40-50K a year would start staying home as the benefits of full time work would greatly dissipate.

   Posted by Extraneous at 04/06/2009 @ 5:32pm

10. The story is not as simple as a "man-cession" with a bow on it. Women who have made strides in male dominated professions have a target on them and companies are getting rid of them, which clears whole levels and management levels of employees of any women whatsoever. How long will it take for women to reappear beyond entry level in these male dominated companies?

    Posted by sofar at 04/06/2009 @ 5:29pm

    Another one with a chip on her shoulder. When a real man or woman loses their job, they don't whine and complain. They go out and make an opportunity. A new career direction, become an entrepeneur, whatever it takes.

    Grow up sofar and quit complaining.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/06/2009 @ 5:33pm

11. http://voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3421

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 5:42pm

12. I would bet even women with jobs paying 40-50K a year would start staying home as the benefits of full time work would greatly dissipate.

    Posted by Extraneous at 04/06/2009 @ 5:32pm

    Or women who want to have children won't. The fact that real women are so stubbornly non-feminist must be infuriating for feminists.

    Posted by gangpapist at 04/06/2009 @ 5:56pm

13. "From last November through this April, American women aged 20 and up gained nearly 300,000 jobs, according to the household survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). At the same time, American men lost nearly 700,000 jobs. You might even say American men are in recession, and American women are not."

    from Business Week "The Slump: It's a Guy Thing"

    Capitalism: a girl's best friend?

    Posted by gangpapist at 04/06/2009 @ 6:00pm

14. I wonder how many of those men (and women, for that matter) are in their late 40s and 50s.

    Companies love to use layoff time as a way to get rid of those useless experienced employees. Of course it's not age discrimination.

    Posted by Citizen54 at 04/06/2009 @ 6:22pm

15. How much of this effect is payroll trims that prioritize those 'overpaid' men on the other side of the glass ceiling?

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/06/2009 @ 6:07pm

    I have no idea, how would you quantify that? Just pointing out that the invisible hand may be closer to blind than, you know, people.

    As for the 1%, I could care less if they were all white, black, male, female. The up side to most of them being white guys is I can hate them without being called a racist or sexist. That's the one area where I honestly don't give a shit about discrimination. Woman doesn't get Merrill Lynch CEO job, don't care.

    Posted by gangpapist at 04/06/2009 @ 6:24pm

16. New sign for Betsy Reeds desk; "Quiet, genius feminist social engineering at work here!"

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/06/2009 @ 6:25pm

17. Ms. Reed: Could you be so kind as to link to your sources that assert that men are sleeping more or watching more TV? Further, I'd like to see a more interesting analysis.

    Suppose someone loses their job, has to rely on their spouse's income, and after doing everything they can think to do to find another job - finds themselves less excited to send off yet another resume that will get no response. Does the study provide any information on how this scenario plays out by gender? Or is the baseline men's behavior when they had a full-time job?

    My guess is that women that have lost their jobs and have to now rely on their spouses incomes aren't suddenly "spending their freed-up time packing lunches and schlepping the kids to soccer games " - as you put it. But, I cannot verify this fact because you didn't provide any means to track down your source.

    I'll grant that women often make less money and often have jobs with a lower profile. But, I do find it interesting that working mothers frequently do not give a second thought about how their decisions to have a child impact other people - such as the fact that single people have to pick up the slack when "working mothers" stay home with their sick child.

    Or that self-proclaimed feminists do not take issue where women have preferential treatment - such as criminal sentencing, child custody or going into harm's way for national defense. And that's a problem that right people like anti-socialist and people on the left like myself have in common. Rather than equal or equitable treatment, you want to eat the cake and keep it too. Until you let that go, the "women's movement" is going nowhere.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/06/2009 @ 6:35pm

18. "For example, while childcare workers in many states make just minimum wage ($7.21 in Florida), construction workers, when they can get work, routinely earn upwards of $30 an hour."

    Okay, now this genius also wants men and women to pay $30.00 hr. union construction wages to $7. 21 hr. childcare workers! Really great plan for a work force that generally doesn't even begin to make that much at their regular jobs. The chinese limit families to one child so that would encourage Americans to do the same or NOT have children so maybe that is her goal?

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/06/2009 @ 6:36pm

19. Posted by snowball666 at 04/06/2009 @ 6:55pm

    Usually one of the perks of working at a daycare is free day care, no? I think running a backhoe on a site is much easier than looking after 6-10 kids. I have done both.

    I know child care is hard work. I just feel that affordable childcare is critical to enabling both spouses/parents to work. If you paid childcare workers more, you would have to increase the cost of childcare. This would have a negative feedback on women in the workforce. My wife is currently looking for work, we moved for my job and she left her old job. The cost of daycare has increased in our new location, so my wife is struggling finding a job that pays enough to justify the costs of daycare. She has had several offers but after factoring in daycare her net after taxes would would only be sereral hundred a month. She does not want to work full time for 3-4 hundred a month. If you raise the wages for daycare employees the cost of daycare would go up and it would be even harder for her to find a job. So the end result would be more women staying home to take care of kids. So what is the answer? I don't know but it is not as simple as just paying child care employees more even though they likely deserve it.

    Posted by Extraneous at 04/06/2009 @ 7:27pm

20. I take issue with your statement that the men are home watching tv and sleeping more....facts please. It's statements like the one above that just infuriate me. my husband's been out of work for months, he is 50 years old, upper management,engineer. He spends all day long and half the night sending out resume after resume. it is a losing battle, as all the engineering jobs are going to H1B's being paid 1/4 of the pay guys of my husbands experience and expertise are being paid, or, are being outsourced. If my husband decides he wants to sleep in one morning after hours and hours up all night sending out ignored resumes, so what. I think he deserves it. After supporting his family, and enabling me to stay at home for 15 years raising my children, and to see him looking for work like this, is hard.

    And there are thousands of guys like my husband. I decided to go back to school for nursing, while working as a nurse assistant at a whopping $10/hr. We never lived beyond our means, we have 4 children and are barely holding on. Our savings are running out, in fact, are almost out. The jobs in this country are JUST NOT THERE anymore - they have disappeared overseas. In my part of the country, it is mainly men who are unemployed.

    Posted by mariamsally at 04/06/2009 @ 7:41pm

21. Posted by srjenkins at 04/06/2009 @ 6:35pm

    You have captured my feelings entirely. Modern "feminists" don't want equality, they want dominance. They want all the preferential treatment and more. And I completely agree. Until women let go of the want of preferential treatment and ask simply for equality I'm less inclined to fight for what they want.

    This is coming from a man who was raised by a single mother who owned her own business. I have seen what strong women can do when they are concentrating on asking for more and instead just make more. While I agree women should be paid equal wages to men in skilled and unskilled labor the rhetoric and the demand for preferential treatment needs to be dropped. It is in no way helping women get ahead.

    Scarily enough I agree with LVL also. Construction work is not men only. If a woman can do the work they can join the construction workforce. The reason construction workers are paid $30/hour is because their work is dangerous. They can easily get hurt and will likely get hurt. My grandfather was a construction worker. He got hurt a few times including having his index finger cut off by a wheelbarrow. While childcare is a difficult job and I by no means disagree that they deserve to be paid more you are less likely to suffer a job ending or potentially life ending injury handling children. Like garbage men, construction workers get paid a lot because it is an incredibly physically punishing job and you are likely to be taken out of the field very early by a repetitive stress injury.

    Also despite the stereotype construction work is not unskilled labor. I would consider it skilled labor. This isn't bias either. I just beg any of you to tell me if you could build a house with your own two hands and it not fall down.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/06/2009 @ 8:03pm

22. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/06/2009 @ 8:03pm

    An assload of posters are now going to say that they have in fact, by themselves, built many houses, with their own two hands, while raising quintuplets, working three part time jobs, and playing minor league baseball.

    Posted by gangpapist at 04/06/2009 @ 8:10pm

23. Posted by gangpapist at 04/06/2009 @ 8:10pm

    Not me. When my boys were very small, I stayed at home. They had daycare back then, but I didn't trust strangers to look after them. My babies would have had nightmares if I left them with folks who were not kin to them.

    Mind you, money was very tight, but my husband and I managed.

    Posted by ACook at 04/06/2009 @ 9:02pm

24. It's funny how so many knob non-feminists claim to define what feminism is.Hey, how about feminists defining what it is? Feminism isn't about hate.

    There's a lot of creative solutions to child care, and it's not all about comparing their wages to garbage collectors and how it's impossible to pay them like those with manly jobs.

    Hey, how about giving child care businesses tax exemptions? We give all sorts of exemptions to pharmaceutical companies and your local Walmart.

    Hey, about about giving employee credits? We give credits to companies for all sorts of reasons to encourage business and hiring. If the welfare of kids is not as important as off-shoring businesses, bridges to nowhere, and tax credits to your local Walmart, it's the voter's fault - the voters who say family and children are sacred. It's time to get creative. It's time to quit bitching about the dag-nab "feminists," grumbling like Yosemite Sam, and push for change that will support child care and elder care. They deserve it.

    We can do it: we've certainly get so creative about laws and finances for big business, financial institutions, energy companies, and the pharmacy business.

    Posted by sofar at 04/06/2009 @ 9:07pm

25. It's funny how so many knob non-feminists claim to define what feminism is.Hey, how about feminists defining what it is? Feminism isn't about hate.

    There's a lot of creative solutions to child care, and it's not all about comparing their wages to garbage collectors and how it's impossible to pay them like those with manly jobs.

    Hey, how about giving child care businesses tax exemptions? We give all sorts of exemptions to pharmaceutical companies and your local Walmart.

    Hey, about about giving employee credits? We give credits to companies for all sorts of reasons to encourage business and hiring. If the welfare of kids is not as important as off-shoring businesses, bridges to nowhere, and tax credits to your local Walmart, it's the voter's fault - the voters who say family and children are sacred. It's time to get creative. It's time to quit bitching about the dag-nab "feminists," grumbling like Yosemite Sam, and push for change that will support child care and elder care. They deserve it.

    We can do it: we've certainly get so creative about laws and finances for big business, financial institutions, energy companies, and the pharmacy business.

    Posted by sofar at 04/06/2009 @ 9:07pm

    I am not telling feminists how to define feminism. I am telling you the example I have seen given by feminists. I have seen true feminists. The feminist movement nowadays is a bunch of hacks who aren't trying to get equality but superiority. I have met real feminists and I have met feminists in name. On average the majority of self proclaimed feminists I meat are feminists in name who want superiority not equality.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/06/2009 @ 10:06pm

26. Posted by sofar at 04/06/2009 @ 9:07pm

    On the other notes you posted, I don't disagree. Like I said in my post, which you seem to have conveniently glossed over, I agreed that childcare providers deserve to paid more. The reason I drew the example between construction workers and childcare providers was not because they are "manly" jobs but because that is what the author of this piece drew a comparison to.

    Next time try reading my posts with open eyes and an attention to meaning instead of looking for something to attack. And take the chip off your shoulder and look around you. I can pull up numerous example of self-proclaimed feminists exuding a want of superiority. And whether you think it or not and whether you like it or not the feminist movement will be defined by it's actions not by it's rhetoric. As long as the loudest amongst you are asking for superiority or are out and out man haters the longer your movement will find little actual support. I think most people are for equality but I don't think they are for being told what to do by self-righteous people who aren't even aware of the image they are projecting.

    I will say it again just so you don't get confused. I am for childcare workers making more. My example has nothing to do with which job is "manlier" as you so wrongly said. Instead my example was given to show why construction workers make 30 dollars an hour and child care workers don't since the author of this piece brought up that point I thought I would address it.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/06/2009 @ 10:13pm

27. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/us/politics/07poll.html?_r=1&hp

    These stats don't bode well for the Republican party. They better start getting their stuff together or they are going to have a bad time come the midterms.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/06/2009 @ 10:19pm

28. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/06/2009 @ 10:19pm

    I think they'll be in the wilderness for awhile.

    Q: Is it possible that it doesn't really matter? I'm starting to think that there was a quiet, gold lame', fascist revolution in the waning days of Dubya, and Obama, Jindal, and Jesus don't have the power to upset the new order of La Cosa Nostra.

    If so, maybe the best we proles can hope to do is to not let them set us against each other. I'm fighting premonitions of miscellaneous tribal malaise. Does that sound leftist? Maybe it doesn't matter anymore.

    Posted by gangpapist at 04/06/2009 @ 10:53pm

29. encourage Americans to do the same or NOT have children so maybe that is her goal?

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/06/2009 @ 6:36pm

    that would be awesome.

    we make so much frikkin' garbage.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 11:01pm

30. you want to eat the cake and keep it too.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/06/2009 @ 6:35pm

    well,

    they made it.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 11:02pm

31. While childcare is a difficult job and I by no means disagree that they deserve to be paid more you are less likely to suffer a job ending or potentially life ending injury handling children.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/06/2009 @ 8:03pm

    what?!?!???

    them critters got TEETH!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 11:04pm

32. http://ftp.iza.org/dp3490.pdf

    SRJ,

    this is an interesting summary of how the unemployed spend their time.

    table 3.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 11:11pm

33. You're not afraid of fairness, are you Rio?

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/06/2009 @ 6:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    That is what market driven enconomies are all about as I understand it. One thing is for sure we don't have to worry about those jobs being outsoursed elsewhere! Of course that may be another venue of employment for illegal alien workers as it is vertually impossible to find even Americans with H.S. education or less willing to do ANY job considered menial!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/06/2009 @ 11:31pm

34. Those of you that have a Yosesite Sam rant about feminism, claimed to have seen feminists and can speak authoritatively about it, claim that the feminist movement is crap and wrong...well, you can become a feminist yourself! I mean, it seems like you'd know how to run it and what all is wrong with it. Join up with NOW. Became the ideal feminist you dream of.

    As an extra club benefit, everyone will be defining what you are. I mean, people who believe in the women and their right to individual ambitions and equal value...well, gosh..it's not like feminists should have the right to speak out about it and point out how non-feminists are wrong about the definition of...what is feminism. I mean, we're talking about valuing...women...it's not like valuing, er.. their right to define themselves....

    well...sweeties (as Obama often uses the word), join the movement. Become the correct and rightful feminists that you know so much about. Don't be afraid of the word. Come out of the closet.

    Posted by sofar at 04/06/2009 @ 11:34pm

35. Posted by sofar at 04/06/2009 @ 11:34pm

    Nah. I'm not about bailouts.

    Posted by gangpapist at 04/07/2009 @ 12:01am

36. Join up with NOW. Became the ideal feminist you dream of. Don't be afraid of the word. Come out of the closet.Posted by sofar at 04/06/2009 @ 11:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    NOW...NOW...NOW, say is that the women rights group that came to the aide and rescue of Lewinsky, Tripp, Willey, Broderick, Jones, Flowers etc. etc. during the 1990s? I thought they disbanded back then?

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/07/2009 @ 12:06am

37. hey, MASK.

    the right must be pretty dispirited.

    they're turning to mr. carter for inspiration:

    http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/apr/06/00014/

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/07/2009 @ 12:31am

38. The unemployment rate is nowhere near 8.0% or 8.8% for men. Why does the Nation quote these figures? These numbers are false and not even close to the actual unemployment rate. When you factor in rates for the "underemployed", the picture changes.

    "Underemployed" is the rate for those who have had their hours reduced to the point where they cannot survive and are seeking full time employment. Or have to take on two or three jobs just to make ends meet. And of course they get no benefits as they are working less than 40 hours a week on each job. These people are not included in the "official" unemployment rate.

    When this is factored in the rate is more like 14.8%. Then if you factor in the unfortunate individuals who have entirely given up on finding gainful employment the numbers rise to 20%-25%.

    Those are depression rates of unemployment. Why do you think guys are walking into convenience stores with their daughter in tow and robbing the clerk? Or burning down their houses and killing their families? The weakest links in the chain are starting to break. And we are only as strong as the weakest link.

    We are in serious trouble here. But everyone just keeps chugging along and turning a blind eye. Fools..

    Posted by chaoszen at 04/07/2009 @ 02:47am

39. As far as women taking up the slack in providing some form of income for the family. That is because we live in a minimum wage service industry and women have traditionally been at the forefront of these jobs. These have always been second income type jobs where women have typically been the sex of choice. Men are often not even considered for these jobs.

    Im not trying to be sexist, just expressing a reality. Men have historically worked in higher paid blue collar jobs that carry most of the weight of a family's economy. Now because we don't manufacture anything anymore and those jobs are gone, women are having to take over the "breadwinner" position with underpaid service industry crap jobs.

    Meanwhile men, who for the most part are entirely unequipped to deal with domestic care of house and home languish on the couch watching T.V. and playing video games. And when the significant other comes home tired from a long day on her feet, what does she see? A lazy fat slug. Domestic violence ensues or worse.

    We are havin fun now eh?

    Posted by chaoszen at 04/07/2009 @ 03:19am

40. The solution is of course for men to hit the streets. Protest! It is your new job now. We are the ones with the lions share of testesterone. Get off your lazy ass, find a babysitter and hit the streets! Go downtown and throw some bricks! Organize! Protest! Your hard working service industy women will no longer look at you as a lazy slug. You will be their Hero and they will tend your wounds and bail you out of jail.

    Get busy you fat ugly couch potatoes!

    Posted by chaoszen at 04/07/2009 @ 03:36am

41. Posted by gangpapist at 04/06/2009 @ 10:53pm

    I wouldn't know if it sounds leftist. I'm not a leftist. Maybe ask some of the leftists on here.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/07/2009 @ 07:16am

42. Posted by sofar at 04/06/2009 @ 11:34pm

    Aparently you still retain the inability to read. I will post this one more time. I have met REAL feminists. People who want nothing but equality. Then I have met what represents the vast majority of the feminist movement and what defines how the public views it, which is what LVL so accurately described as Femi-nazis. Man haters who want more than equality and who blame every man for every problem they have. I have not attempted to define your movement I am simply relaying to you how many people view your movement based on the loudest members of it's ranks.

    You need to get that substantial chip off your shoulder and stop playing the victim.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/07/2009 @ 07:19am

43. what?!?!???

    them critters got TEETH!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/06/2009 @ 11:04pm

    This is very true frosty. Could easily take off an ear or a finger.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/07/2009 @ 07:19am

44. From reading the posts on here, it seems that virtually everyone defines feminism as whatever parts of the women's movement they personally disagree with. Boys, feminism means that you think that women are a)equal to men in terms of their moral and intellectual capabilities (yes, we all know there are physical differences) and b) under the intellectual constructs of the Western Enlightenment on which this country was founded, deserving of equal rights under the law and freedom from discrimination on the basis of gender. It's complicated and tricky working this out in real life, but the extreme hostility towards feminism leads me to believe that there are alot of people who just plain don't believe the principles above (I know not all of them are men).

    As to the topic, if you read the post, Betsy gave a citation for the research showing that men were watching more TV instead of doing more housework. As someone who recently got laid off from her job at a civil engineering firm (there's no work), I also am spending time goofing off that I could be using alot more constructively, and I think it's a natural human response. On the other hand, I've always done most of the housework, even when I was working full time. As to construction jobs being paid more highly because they are more dangerous, I was at a safety meeting at a construction site, and we were told that statistically, workers in nursing homes have more injuries than construction workers. Fun facts to know and tell.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 04/07/2009 @ 07:32am

45. workers in nursing homes have more injuries than construction workers. Posted by cdlepthien at 04/07/2009 @ 07:32am

    Must be from wrestling with all those used up cantankerous wheelchair and walker bound half dead and sedated forgotten withered prune people...

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/508827

    I drive a big truck and everytime I run over an escapee from a nursing home I risk a bad back from lifting the deceased and their wheelchair off the roadway..:)

    Posted by chaoszen at 04/07/2009 @ 07:56am

46. chaoszen, ha, ha. Thanks for the link - I'd always wondered if what the safety guy said was true.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 04/07/2009 @ 08:21am

47. Posted by sofar at 04/06/2009 @ 11:34pm

    Nah. I'm not about bailouts.

    Posted by gangpapist at 04/07/2009 @ 12:01am

    Good one!

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/07/2009 @ 08:55am

48. 'As someone who recently got laid off from her job at a civil engineering firm (there's no work), I also am spending time goofing off that I could be using alot more constructively, and I think it's a natural human response.'

    Posted by cdlepthien at 04/07/2009 @ 07:32am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Well...I have heard that there are psychological differences of unemployment between men and women, i.e., that men define themselves and their self worth by their work and so suffer more trauma from unemployment. I am not so sure that those differences are so pronounced nowdays as women hold better and more meaningful jobs.

    The author of this article could have made reference to what you have pointed out that loss of employment is traumatic, can lead to depression and avoidance behaviors, etc. The impression that this is a feminist slam against men who are now trying to get women to both support the family financially and do the housework while they watch TV is understandable given the author's lack of foundation and explanation which she very easily could have laid but did not.

    Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 09:09am

49. Posted by OneVote 4/07/2009@9:09am

    You're right, she could have pointed out that people (and really, probably men in particular)are often at a loss when they lose their jobs. The problem with big generalizations, even researched ones, (men watching tv instead of doing housework) is that they never seem adequate to particular situations.

    That said, the other side of the story is that many men (of course not all) really do tend to skate on life's less fun chores. And one of the reasons that it pisses women off so much is that it appears to stem from a perception that a woman's time is just worth less than a man's. Men who don't skate shouldn't take the observation personally. I imagine that there are some things that women as a group tend to skate on, like car maintenance, and I guess if I read an article about it I'd like them to mention the mitigating factors, but I wouldn't think they were slamming women. Of course we're so used to getting slammed we barely notice.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 04/07/2009 @ 09:54am

50. Of course we're so used to getting slammed we barely notice.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 04/07/2009 @ 09:54am | ignore this person | warn this person

    But through it all - we still seem to find each other. And the pandora's box of the women's movement - suffrage - was supported by a few men as I recall.

    We will make it. Some of the best mechanics are women and some of the best housekeepers are men (Felix Unger...lol). Stereotypes are stubborn. Just like women!

    Posted by OneVote at 04/07/2009 @ 12:41pm

51. funny how mask and the other nuts complain about the repub. lock on am radio and fox news, as if that covers the entire spectrum of media. Let me see: nbc,cbs,abc,msnbc,cnbc,cnn,NPR,newsweek,time,hollywood,academia,vitually all print media (NYT,LAtimes), the music/rap industry etc. are all dominated by LIBERALS! But, little liberal dictators like mask, don't think that's enough, because the other side still has that gigantic medium of propaganda: AM radio, which reaches far more people than all tose other outlets of liberal propaganda! PLEASE!!!!!! Fairness doctrine...MY ASS!

    Posted by barry25 at 04/07/2009 @ 5:57pm

52. I'm sorry, so you're implying what? Did you see the list of lib outlets that I just posted? And you're still complaining about ONE outlet? Sure, it's viewership far outnumbers any one of those outlets of liberal propaganda, but again, when I turn on the tv, I have 99% of all news OUTLETS/STATIONS being liberal, and one, now two (FBN), being conservative. I'm hard-pressed to find ANY conservative publications on the newstand, and absolutely nothing conservative coming out of hollywood. The music industry is 99% lib, except for them rednecks. But yet, this lunatic, number of the beast loving idiot, seems to have a problem with little ol' Fox news! My god, GE-NBC got Obama elected dumbass! I bet you favor gov't run media, don't you?

    Posted by barry25 at 04/08/2009 @ 10:40am