Majority Women in the Workforce is Not Progress
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?