Majority Women in the Workforce is Not Progress
67
Headlines and news stories recently are boasting a positive spin on "Women Soon to be Majority Workers in the Workforce". Some women are seeing this as progress, but I'm seeing it as just the opposite. Here's my reasons:
1. Mostly men are losing their jobs during this recession. This is not a good thing. Many men are the breadwinners in their family while others held a steady position in the workforce only to worry about where they belong now. Industries that are laying off, such as construction, employ men who rely on those skills sets to make a fairly high wage without having an education. They are getting laid off while government still supports a woman getting a free education more than a man.
2. If women are in the workforce, they are not at home. I am not against mothers who work, but I am against the millions and majority of work places that employ women with an expectation that family life will not interfere with their work life. Majority of employers are not family friendly- sad truth. Women are needed at home for many reasons and various stages of a child's life. If the priority is work (usually is) , who is raising our younger generations and how does that impact their self-esteem (usually the root of all problems for children/teens).
3. Women and minorities work for less pay. Along with this- they will also put up with more work abuse (verbal, harrassment, work overtime without pay, etc.). In my area, the hispanics and women comprise a majority of the workforce. It's all about employers getting more money in their growing pockets, not about being "equal opportunity employers". Bull*!#!
We all know a woman in the same position as a man makes up to .35 cents less per hour than him. That's not progress. If you told me that women were making the same pay and are majority in the workforce then I'd call that progress. Why are so many feminists searching for any reason to call women in the workforce 'progress'.
4. Part-time, no benefits. Another positive spin the news is trying to portray is that women are working many of the part-time positions so they can be at home and work. What happens when their husband is laid off and the family had benefits through his work. These part-time jobs are more convenient for the employer than the employee. They don't have to offer benefits and health insurance. Part-time positions have no job security either- employers can easily find a replacement for them.
5. Helping or hurting the recession. How will this effect the recession. Will it help suffering employers be able to keep on some employees whom they pay less (women). But how will this effect fmailies who rely on the man's job for survival. Again, are we talking about the effects on main street or wall street. It seems, if it benefits wall street, it hurts main street, But who has the right to survive this econimic downturn?
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
I disagree somewhat with #2 - given the number of women I know even in this day and age who are literally afraid of leaving their husbands alone with their kids for more than an hour or two for fear that the house will not be standing when they return, I think it will do the male sex some good to spend some time as house husbands and learn exactly how much unpaid work women do every day. Maybe they'll start appreciating us a little more!
The rest of your concerns I agree with completely, however, especially #s 3 and 4. Those are not positive changes by any stretch of the imagination. :(
During the war here in Europe women became the mainstay of the workforce because all the menfolk were off fighting. History books tell us that this is the point at which women first got taken seriously in the workplace. I'm not sure that I agree with that 100%, as I've certainly met plenty of male dinosaurs in my time (LOL!)However, the second world war certainly shoe-horned women into roles that they might only have dreamed of before, even if they're still waiting for the wages to catch up in some cases.
I would love to see women properly rewarded for being home-makers. There is no finer job a woman can do than to make a great job of bringing up her children to be polite, helpful, and useful members of society. But this is a pipe dream of course. Meanwhile the ladies have to work around their kids in under-paid part-time jobs just to make ends meet. Times are changing though, and this is only the beginning of that change.
pgrundy~ I can barely stand to write a hub like this but I finally had to get it off my chest. It all drives me nuts too.
kerryg~ great point about #2. I didn't even think of it that way. But with women averaging less pay than men, it means the household income will decrease, which isn't great for the family as a whole. my husband tried to be a house husband for about a minute (ok 2 months). He made it look easy, but come to find out he used the tv as a babysitter much more than I would ever allow.
amanda severn~ it used to be a choice for women to be in the workforce, and that was progress, but now most households need the woman to work too and many women have no choice whether they'd like to stay home with their children. Times are always changing, but in which direction.
The signs are ominous. Tough times are here and may get worse. Thank you for your thoughtful article.
Sad part of all this was when women first went to work it was to make a better life for the family.... so what happened next? They raised taxes to a point where it takes two to make ends meet. LOL -- What fun life really is. I love it!!! - even with all life's quirks and obstacles it is still a gas!!
somehow there is a way to exploit every progressive or initially positive movement. It is hard on many mothers who are in the workforce because it used to be a choice to work and now it's definitely not. It's not as rewarding working to make ends meet than to be home with your kids- I've been in both positions.
pgrundy says:
4 months ago
When this recession started I thought it looked like the way it was going would be similar to what Britain went through when it lost its industrial base. Most of the men were at home collecting unemployment and most of the people with jobs were women. I'm with you, I don't see this as a good thing--it's an ominous sign. I hate to turn on the news anymore, it's either bad news, people screaming at each other, or stuff that makes no sense. Today they're saying the recession is technically over but there won't be jobs for years. What on earth can that mean??? How can the recession be over if people can't work? It makes me nuts.