Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Generation Jobless: Young Men Suffer Worst as Economy Staggers

The Wall Street Journal looks at the impact of the current financial crisis on young, the demographic group hardest hit by the job cuts and hiring freezes most companies are enacting, despite rising profits.

Generation Jobless: Young Men Suffer Worst as Economy Staggers

By CONOR DOUGHERTY

 25-year-old Cody Preston has no college degree and had to move back in with his parents after going from job to job and landing in a low-paying and unsteady machinist job. WSJ's Conor Dougherty reports.

PORTLAND, Ore.—Few groups were hit harder by the recession than young men, like Cody Preston and Justin Randol, 25-year-old high-school buddies who didn't go to college.

The unemployment rate for males between 25 and 34 years old with high-school diplomas is 14.4%—up from 6.1% before the downturn four years ago and far above today's 9% national rate. The picture is even more bleak for slightly younger men: 22.4% for high-school graduates 20 to 24 years old. That's up from 10.4% four years ago.

In contrast to those men, Messrs. Preston and Randol are old enough to have had some time in the job market. They worked together installing granite counters before the housing bust.

Mr. Preston married his girlfriend and settled into what he assumed would be a secure pattern of long hours on job sites and enough cash to travel and enjoy restaurants and bars. Mr. Randol at one point felt flush enough to buy a 63-inch television set and a 50-gallon fish tank for his apartment.

Then the recession hit. Neither man has found steady work since that pays as much as he earned before. Mr. Preston's marriage broke up and he moved back in with his parents, an increasingly common pattern for jobless young men. Mr. Randol has made do with help from girlfriends and by living in houses packed with roommates to keep the rent low.

For such men, high unemployment is eroding their sense of economic independence. Their predicament reflects that of a generation of Americans facing one of the weakest job markets in modern history.

"We're at risk of having a generation of young males who aren't well-connected to the labor market and who don't feel strong ownership of community or society because they haven't benefited from it," says Ralph Catalano, a professor of public health at the University of California, Berkeley.

Mr. Preston has a steady job, making parts for recreational vehicles for $11 an hour. And living with his parents rent-free allows him to start paying off debt he built up during the slump, he says. But he keeps looking for work that will pay the $14 an hour he made installing granite. What made construction especially attractive was the potential for lots of overtime, which allowed him to beef up his paychecks.

On a recent afternoon, he sat in his parents' kitchen, combing online classified ads. But construction work remains scarce and other positions available for which he's qualified don't pay more than he makes at the factory.

Sue Preston, his mother, says several of her friends are helping out their grown sons, providing either money or shelter or both. She works in payroll at a telecommunications company, and neither she nor her husband, a truck driver who worked his way up into operations, has a college degree. That wasn't an issue when they were starting out, she says: Trade and production jobs were not only available, in many cases they paid enough that many blue-collar wives didn't have to work.

Now she worries that lower wages—and, more pressingly, the dearth of jobs—has left young men like her son disaffected and depressed. "They're working minimum-wage jobs and a lot of times, they don't have benefits, they don't have a full 40 hours a week. It's such a struggle they're kind of like, 'What for? All I'm doing is surviving,' " she says. "They have to move back home or they have to have multiple roommates. How are you going to take on a wife and a family in that situation?"

The share of men age 25-34 living with their parents jumped to 18.6% this year, up from 14.2% four years ago and the highest level since at least 1960, according to the Census Bureau.

Mr. Randol, an ex-convict who is in irregular contact with his parents, says he doesn't have access to the live-at-home reset button. So the Portland native is stretching his $187-a-week unemployment checks by living in a two-story $1,000-a-month house, 40 minutes away in St. Helens, Ore., that he splits with a couple and a friend whose claim to a small bedroom fluctuates based on whether he has a girlfriend.

Mr. Randol admits that over the past three years he's indulged in too much beer and "Call of Duty," the popular war-simulation videogame. Empty liquor bottles line the top of his kitchen cabinets as decoration. "I just hope stuff gets better," he says as he battles online rivals one evening.

Mr. Randol says he's looking for work but grumbles that the remodeling jobs advertised pay between $10 and $12 an hour, with no assurance of full-time work.

Mr. Randol was a poor student who got in trouble in high school and earned a high-school equivalency certificate in lieu of a diploma. He is the first to admit that a checkered past has hampered his job prospects. In 2004 he served a year for burglary and not long after added an assault charge that resulted from a fist fight during a night of hard partying.

But when the housing boom came, he says, his past wasn't such a big issue. After working fast-food counters and other minimum-wage jobs, in 2007 he landed a position installing granite for Fineline Pacific. He started at $10 an hour and within six months was making $15, with plentiful overtime. Mr. Randol told Mr. Preston to apply. He did and was hired.

"They were looking for anybody who would show up to work," says Ted Sherritt, chief executive of Floform Countertops, the Winnipeg, Manitoba, company that acquired Fineline.

Mr. Preston lived well with his construction money. He took out his girlfriend frequently and paid for a snowboarding trip, during which he proposed to her at the summit of Mount Hood, Ore. Married, they settled in Canby, Ore., about 40 minutes from Portland. "I was in a hurry to grow up," he says.

Both Mr. Preston and Mr. Randol say the first sign of trouble appeared on a white dry-erase board at company headquarters. The list of jobs became short, and then empty.

Mr. Sherritt says sales at the company dropped 40% through 2008 and 2009. When it reduced head count, Mr. Randol was among those let go. Floform acquired Fineline late in 2008.

Mr. Preston was kept on a bit longer than his friend but eventually lost his job, too. Mr. Preston was able to find work at a bike store, a skate shop and other retailers, but at lower wages than at his construction job and often with sporadic hours.

To save on rent, he and his wife moved to her parents' house in Salem, Ore., a 45-minute drive from Portland. Later, when the couple separated, he went to live with friends in Bend, Ore., 3½ hours from Portland. He found occasional jobs—one was at a gas station—but after a few months gave up and moved home.

"I wasn't living, I was surviving," he says.

Monday, April 18, 2011

Can manhood survive the lost decade?


Newsweek and The Daily Beast have taken up (again?) the problems of middle aged and middle class males during the current "mancession" - the hypothesis that the recent economic collapse has impacted men (especially young [18-24] and middle aged [41-59]) more than any other groups.

However, being in that space between these two groups (i.e., in their 30s) has not helped men in NYC, where men in the 35-to-54 "kill zone" are losing jobs faster than any other group, including teenage girls (data from the Fiscal Policy Institute).

These are scary times - I will be 44 when I hit the job market again with a second graduate degree - in an economy where college educated men over 45 are nearly unemployable. On the bright side, at least for me, is that I am entering a female-dominated field (psychotherapy) where men are often in demand.

Dead Suit Walking

by Rick Marin and Tony Dokoupil

If this isn't the Great Depression, it is the Great Humbling. Can manhood survive the lost decade? In this week's Newsweek, Rick Marin and Tony Dokoupil look at what the Mancession has done to the middle aged male. Plus: chat live with the authors Thursday April 21st at 1pm ET about the recession's impact on men.

Brian Goodell, of Mission Viejo, Calif., won two gold medals in the 1976 Olympics. An all-American, God-fearing golden boy, he segued into a comfortable career in commercial real estate. Until 2008, when he was laid off. As a 17-year-old swimmer, he set two world records. As a 52-year-old job hunter, he's drowning.

Brock Johnson, of Philadelphia, was groomed at Harvard Business School and McKinsey & Co., and was so sure of his marketability that he resigned in 2009 as CEO of a Fortune 500 company without a new job in hand. Johnson, who asked that his real name not be used, was certain his BlackBerry would be buzzing off its holster with better offers. At 48, he's still unemployed.

Article - Marin Dokoupil White Men

Two coasts. Two men who can't find jobs. And one defining moment for the men in the gray flannel suits who used to run this country. Or at least manage it. Capitalism has always been cruel to its castoffs, but those blessed with a college degree and blue-chip résumé have traditionally escaped the worst of it. In recessions past, they've kept their jobs or found new ones as easily as they might hail a cab or board the 5:15 to White Plains. But not this time.

The suits are "doing worse than they have at any time since the Great Depression," says Heidi Shierholz, a labor economist at the Economic Policy Institute. And while economists don't have fine-grain data on the number of these men who are jobless—many, being men, would rather not admit to it—by all indications this hitherto privileged demo isn't just on its knees, it's flat on its face. Maybe permanently. Once college-educated workers hit 45, notes a post on the professional-finance blog Calculated Risk, "if they lose their job, they are toast."

Many of these guys may be great on the back nine but totally lack the skill set to get them through anything like this.

The same guys who once drove BMWs, in other words, have now been downsized to BWMs: Beached White Males.

Through the first quarter of 2011, nearly 600,000 college-educated white men ages 35 to 64 were unemployed, according to previously unpublished Labor Department stats. That's more than 5 percent jobless—double the group's pre-recession rate. That might not sound bad compared with the plight of younger, less-educated workers and minorities, but it's a historic change from the last recession, when about half as many lost their oxford shirts. The number of college-educated men unemployed for at least a year is five times higher today than after the dotcom bubble. In New York City, men in the 35-to-54 kill zone have lost jobs faster than any other group, including teenage girls, according to new data from the Fiscal Policy Institute.

As if middle age isn't bad enough. The moribund metabolism. The purple pill that keeps your food down. The blue pill that keeps another part of your anatomy up. Now you can't get an effing job? Stuck in your own personal Detroit of the soul, with the grinding stress of enforced idleness. The wife who doesn't look at you quite the same way. The poignantly forgiving sons. The stain on your masculinity for becoming the bread-loser. The night sweats and dark refuge of Internet porn. The gnawing fear that this may be the beginning of a slow, shaming crawl to early Social Security.

There's been little research on the psychic toll of the Mancession. But this month Newsweek conducted an exclusive poll of 250 unemployed (and underemployed) men ages 41 to 59. Most of them are married, white, middle-class, and looking for work. The results provide a rare window into the BWM and a characteristically male contradiction between feelings and action. As in: I'm never going to get a job as good as my old one, but I refuse to sell the house! Or: I'm depressed, I can't sleep, my sex drive is shot, and my wife now has to support the family, but I don't need marriage counseling! I'll just give Mommy a back rub, do some housework, and we'll be fine!

It might be tempting to snark at these former fat cats suffering lean times. But when Beached White Males suffer, so do their wives and children. Lives, marriages, and futures are at stake. Examining who these guys are, and what washed them up, is not an exercise in schadenfreude. It's a cautionary tale. To quote Arthur Miller on the most famous Beached White Male, "Attention must be paid."

Read the whole article.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Zettler Clay - Is The Emasculated Male An Evolved Norm?

This article comes from Clutch, an online magazine targeted at young Black women:
Clutch is the only online magazine for Black women that is updated numerous times daily and releases a full issue every Monday. Weekly interviews with the biggest names in the world (Russell Simmons, Diahann Carroll, Sheila Johnson, Hill Harper, Sanaa Lathan, Nia Long, John Legend, Suze Orman, among others) are mixed with editorials by some of the most eclectic minds of this generation.
Great - I'm sure there is a market for what they are doing, and it's a slick site.

This piece looks specifically at black men and women. While there are certainly some huge differences in the cultural background - more black men are in prison than college (I think I read that -correct me if I am wrong); black men are less likely to have an in-home father; young black men are more likely to have children outside of marriage; and so on - I think some of the issues about changing gender roles are outside of race, though perhaps they are experienced differently.

Really, it's an issue for all men and women trying to make sense of the evolving gender roles. Things are changing for men, in particular, faster than they are willing to adapt to new ways (if they even know what those ways might be) to be men in our society.

As the author points out, and questions in the title, traditional gender roles for men are no longer relevant or sustainable. Further, it seems that women do not want this type of man. Yet, they do want men to be strong, directed, responsible, and so on - traits which are associated with the older roles.

When men are compliant, submissive, deferential, make less money, etc, they are perceived as emasculated - and they are. They did not grow up with a healthy model of masculine identity - and for black men, they grew up with cultural images of themselves as gang bangers, hit-and-run fathers, lazy, and whatever other racist stereotype you can think up. Problem is, they lived down to those role models.

Men can learn new and better ways to be men - they can be strong, dependable, loving, supportive, and so much more - but they need role models, and they need our help to find those traits within themselves.

Is The Emasculated Male An Evolved Norm?

Monday Oct 11, 2010 – By Zettler Clay


As the shift in our world becomes more palpable by the day and week, there is a vortex of cultural norms that seek settlement.

If cultures are full of organisms which live and breathe and form groups based on habits, then a settlement of a culture would imply stagnation. And if any aspect of our culture has been stagnant, it is the belief in a male-dominated society.

In the context of capitalism and sexism (our favorite “isms”), the gender-hierarchical mindset is persistent.

But in a social context, it’s not as cut and dry. Heterosexual marriage statistics indicate decline. The narrative of the harried single Black woman is still alive and well. And the devolution of what society deems to be a “manly” man is as salient as it’s ever been.

What is a “manly man”? People have tried to define manhood for centuries without regard for individual differences. A Procrustean standard is generally imposed, and any male who deviates from this standard does so at his peril.

In this country, the dominant perception of a “manly man” is one borrowed from the larger patriarchal framework inherited from Greco-Roman culture. Modern traits include:

  • Man as head of household financially, bread winning. Although this is steadily changing, the notion of man being the top earner is still entrenched. Stigmas still arise from wives or girlfriends earning more (more on this later). In a capitalistic society, this is a primary determinant of manliness.
  • Man as the physical head. He should be the first to put himself in harm’s way if the situation so requires, as well as the first to take on the physical chores of the house, such as pushing heavy lawn mowers, fixing leaks in the ceiling, making sure the AC is working properly, etc.
  • Man as the spiritual head. This notion takes its cue from the King James Bible (76 percent of U.S. citizens are Christians). The man should follow God as the woman follows him, because Christ ordained it.
  • Man as the emotional rock. Women as being more prone to act on feelings and intuition and men as being more rational and cool-headed—an idea which rests deep in the collective psyche of our culture. This presents numerous implications, most notably an implicit acknowledgment that women are unfit for leadership over men because leadership requires, well, a rational and cool-headed individual.

In the Black community it’s more complex. A dual-income household was established much earlier in Black households. Many of these families weren’t economically equipped to live off of single incomes during the Jim Crow and mid-20th century. Out of necessity, egalitarianism was encouraged.

This threw the “manly” paradigm out of whack. Men in these environs often followed the Bible or Koran and took their cues from Western capitalism, which makes household partnership a compromise rather than an empowering way of life. When a man is reared in a culture of power and feels he has none—experiencing “compromise” within the home and feeling the weight of White supremacy outside of it—hypermasculinity tends to happen.

What followed was a cycle of fractious relationships and self-destructive behavior that led to men not being present with their wives (or girlfriends) to raise their children. It wasn’t merely the absence of fathers that was the problem. It was a lack of a viable masculine outlook. Even men reared in two-parent households can share this lack.

The absence of Black fathers in the household is a well-noted and targeted reason for weakness among Black males. Over the years, however, other explanations—institutional racism and discrimination—have been cited as causes for the emasculation of Black males in their social interactions with women.

The author Dr. Francis Cress Welsing even asserts that White supremacy is the root of Black male homosexuality. Her heteronormative premise is stark: homosexuality deriving from a social malady. And she goes further to imply homosexuality as defective, a fruit from a crippled tree.

Questionable views about homosexuality aside, Welsing is on to something about the effects of oppression. Oppression has a way of withering the human mind and shaping “norms” among the oppressed. If Black men who grew up in the 60s and 70s—the generation that integrated the school system—were fed various devaluing narratives about the plight of the Black male (remember the Moynihan Report), how does that alter the impressionable mind?

Instead of growing up to be what their fathers were not, it was easier to conform to society’s expectations of them.

Invariably, I come across women who express dissatisfaction with dating men who aren’t “assertive enough,” “too timid,” or “act too much like me.” Much to their chagrin, many women feel like they have to walk on eggshells because of the emasculation they’re confronted with on a daily basis.

This is odd because the term “emasculation” assumes a patriarchal connotation. Many women base their ideas about what a man should be on the same male-centered standard which these same women rail against.

Nevertheless, there are holes that women are prone to point out in today’s men: It isn’t just the typical male definer of aggression that is missing, but an inability to be self-reliant. To be a protector. To not be a pushover. To tone down on the excessive “masculinity.” To be a rock they read about or may have grown up under.

Here, emasculation isn’t the issue at root; the lack of balance in the relationship is. At a time when women are outnumbering men in the workforce, acquiring more degrees than men, and making more money, the opposite is occurring for men.

If women are less apt to do without “weak” men now, men are more apt to continue feeling the sting of their societal niche being co-opted. Does this insecurity make him less of a man?

22 percent of husbands have wives whose income now exceeds theirs, compared to four percent in 1970. According to sociologist and author Christin Munsch, the gender identity of a husband is threatened when he earns less than his wife, leading him closer to cheating to improve his identity and compensate for his insecurity.

So if the current mancession is a result of absentee (both emotionally and physically) fathers and emerging alpha women, where does that leave us?

Gender roles are changing at a more than steady pace, leaving us with the charge to redefine masculinity and femininity in the context of a modern-day relationship.

Throughout this land and abroad, evolving norms in manhood are taking place. Living and breathing cultures tend to have evolutions because of macro changes. Financially, there has never been a time in U.S. history when women have been more dominant. A trickle down effect was bound to occur.

Will men find other ways to affirm their “manliness?” Will women accept these new ways? New masculine paradigms are being delineated and carved out before our eyes. Perhaps it’s time we pay attention.


Saturday, July 10, 2010

Center for American Progress - Low-Income Fathers Need to Get Connected

The is a report from the Center for American Progress on how Low-Income Fathers Need to Get Connected, a look at the issue and what needs to be done. I don't agree with all of this, but we need to do something to help fathers be a central part of their children's lives.

Low-Income Fathers Need to Get Connected

Helping Children and Families by Addressing Low-Income Fathers' Disconnections from Employment, Society, and Housing

Low-income fathers need to be brought into family policy. They are able to financially contribute to their children’s well-being, and provide care and emotional supports that can improve children’s life outcomes.

Download the full report (pdf)

Download the executive summary (pdf)

Download the report to mobile devices and e-readers from Scribd

Many poverty programs serve families by trying to improve children’s lives, and helping children often translates into “family” policy. After all, children don’t stand on their own—families provide for their needs including housing, food, and clothing. But far too often, the notion of “family” translates into a focus on mothers and children. This needs to change.

Low-income fathers should definitely be a part of the family policy equation. Men are able to financially contribute to their children’s well-being and help lift them out of poverty in the short term. They also provide care and emotional supports that can improve children’s life outcomes and help break the cycle of poverty in the long term.

Low-income fathers should definitely be a part of the family policy equation.

Unfortunately, far too many low-income men, and especially men of color, face barriers to playing these roles in their children’s lives. They are disproportionately disconnected from some extremely vital domains, and that harms them, their children, and families more generally.

These domains are examined in this paper and include:

  • Employment. Shifts in the economy have decreased low-skilled workers’ job opportunities and wages over the last couple of decades. This impairs some men’s ability to financially support their children and families. The related financial stress drives wedges between family members.
  • Society. More than 2 million people are in the nation’s prisons, and these are mostly low-income men. Their absence deprives children and families of income and emotional connections. And even after fathers are released, families continue to experience such negative consequences as income-impairing employment barriers linked to criminal records and reconnecting emotionally after a long period apart. Fathers are more likely to recidivate if family disconnections persist.
  • Housing. Housing is unaffordable to the lowest-income workers throughout the United States. Spending a disproportionate amount of income on housing depletes resources families have available for other needs associated with childrearing. Low-income families are also at risk of housing instability, which often physically divides families and harms their relationships with one another.

It’s clear that low-income children can’t afford it when their fathers experience these disconnections. Their mothers, who are low-income women, are the poorest of the poor and earn less than their male counterparts. Low-skilled African-American women and Latinas are at the absolute bottom of the economic ladder, with incomes that are less than similarly situated white females.

This means policies should seek to maximize the level of financial help fathers provide in addition to increasing women’s earnings and available work supports. Additional income from husbands, cohabiting fathers, or nonresident fathers via child support payments financially benefits children. And repairing men’s disconnections that impair their ability to provide care, love, and attention also benefits their children.

The United States ought to be concerned about the status of its low-income men. It is undesirable and unacceptable for an entire segment of the population to be disconnected from one or more basic domains that most people in this country enjoy—freedom, income-producing work, and a stable roof over one’s head. When these disconnections contribute to depriving men of stable connections to intimate partners, children, and families more generally, the realities that some face appear even more bleak. Not only do these factors dramatically depreciate men’s quality of life, but they deprive the nation of these men’s productivity, ingenuity, and other contributions. Policies at all levels should recognize that the lives of these men have value.

These concerns about fathers and families were brought up in debates about the Responsible Fatherhood Program and the Healthy Marriage Initiative that occurred in 2005 when the legislation creating the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program was last reauthorized. It is now time for Congress to both reauthorize that legislation and make relevant funding decisions for the next fiscal year. The legislation has encompassed cash assistance, funding for employment services, and work supports such as child care, child support enforcement, and marriage and fatherhood programs.

As this process moves forward, it is clear that TANF must be a viable safety net that provides income support to low-income families when necessary. But it must also aim to ensure that more and more families will not require public assistance programs in the first place, which means it should strive to reduce poverty. Job training and work supports must be strengthened, for example. For some families, such services are all they need to overcome poverty.

We should pay far more attention, however, to parents who face the greatest challenges— mothers and fathers who experience continued barriers to employment and effective parenting. That is the role the administration’s proposed Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund should play. The fund, which could be connected to TANF’s reauthorization, would provide two equal streams of funding for custodial parents, who are largely mothers, and fathers. Future CAP products will discuss how the fund should benefit mothers who are facing the most significant challenges, but this paper focuses on the fatherhood side of the equation.

The paper offers the following recommendations for how the fund should be used to help low-income families based on the areas of need explored in the paper:

  • Further include men within the notion of “family” for policy purposes
  • Reduce poverty by addressing the known disconnections and challenges of fathers
  • Offer comprehensive solutions that address the complexities arising from men’s various disconnections
  • Relieve stressors that divide families, which would provide them with greater freedom to make personal choices about family formation and maintenance based on reasons other than those associated with poverty

The best results will require more than the $500 million the administration recommends for the Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund. And while increasing the amount of the appropriation is important, greater resources can also be garnered by better coordinating existing programs, including other comprehensive service models that are reaching families facing similar challenges in such systems as homeless services, child welfare, and reentry/crime prevention.

Download the full report (pdf)

Download the executive summary (pdf)

Download the report to mobile devices and e-readers from Scribd

Monday, November 23, 2009

Responses to "A New Vocabulary for Men"

I posted the original article a week or so ago. Since then Douglas Todd has received quite a few comments on his article.

His argument was that men have been hit hard by this particular recession and that we need to be able to feel the pain and anger - and sadness - that come with job loss and economic struggles - in fact we might even want to support each other through men's groups.

Not every seems to agree.
The savage intensity and tender vulnerability men and women feel about gender issues came out in response to last week’s article, "A New Vocabulary for Men," about new efforts to support men during this emotionally battering economic downturn, which some are calling a “mancession” since so far it’s been hitting North American males harder than females.

Most of the comments had an openness and honesty missing from much of this blog's more customary commentary on religious, spiritual or ethical issues, as reader Billy Pilgrim accurately noted. It was also interesting to hear from Freemason Jack Barr (33rd degree) about how his organization has in its own way been trying to support "good" men for centuries.
I’ll just respond to a few of the offerings the blog has received from men and women. The issues surrounding gender could become a lifelong study. It is endlessly fascinating and provocative, for good reason. Much is to be learned from understanding what Carl Jung would call the ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ parts of our society and ourselves. I’ll begin with the most bitter responses. The readers' comments are in boldface, with my responses in italics.

SEADAWG59 said:
{I’ve cleaned up the spelling. DT}
“We all have ambitions and many of us will not succeed in gaining them. The article is a lot of crock, if you don’t like your job quit look for another job that you do like. There is an old military adage, tough t**** said the kitty but the milk is still good.”


Douglas responds: I could be wrong about the gender, but Seadawg seems to be an old-fashioned male. He believes life is all about sucking it up and being tough and not showing one’s emotions, certainly not grief, fear or sadness. Only anger and repression is allowed in “seadawg59’s” real-male world. There is something to be said for being strong in the face of adversity, but I find “seadawg59s” emotional authoritarianism to be chilling. DT

Here’s something from "Damned Straight," showing how, for some women, rage at men remains dominant. Although clearly intelligent, Damned Straight's comments offer a very disturbing insight into how far (some) women and men need to go to come to any hint of mutual understanding and appreciation.

DAMNED STRAIGHT says:
"Quote from article: 'Many have been calling it a "mancession." The word has been coined because this recession is hitting North American and European male workers far harder than female employees.'
Who are you kidding?

Women still inhabit most of the lowest paid jobs in Canada, not to mention it's mostly women who are in temporary, part time or casual jobs in Canada. Most women also hit the glass ceiling, never hoping to make anything near $300,000 a year, no matter how qualified they are. Women are always at the lowest rungs in employment, during good times and bad. Even in bad times men still get higher paying jobs than women, because other men are still willing to hire them, over women.
Most people of power in Canada are men. Top politicians, top union leaders, top CEO's, and it goes on and on. Everywhere you go the men are in charge.


Douglas Interjects: Damned Straight has not provided any statistical data for her “facts,” other than we know most “top” figures in politics and big business are males. What about all those males who are also low-paid, many doing unpleasant or dangerous work? There is a cold, furious lack of empathy from Damned Straight for average men and their issues. For her it’s about blaming – all men. DT
Go read more of the comments he received about his article.