It's frustrating that the only suggestion the experts interviewed have here is essentially blue-washing woman-dominated jobs. "For instance, many health care jobs could be framed as roles requiring the strength to lift people. Preschools could highlight the need for teachers who serve as positive male role models." Just reads as that one SMBC comic - "how can we make math pink ?" As if the only way they can understan…
Psychiatric wards certainly benefit from burly guy nurses with good social skills and nerves of steel.
Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
51–60 of 160 posts
Re: Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
#52people are only starting to care because really bad things happen when you start to get a large portion of the male population being disenfranchised.
That's why historically, leaders would send those men to die in wars. Totally not what seems to be brewing right now. Though present day men don't seem to be biting the "let's join the military and fight foreign wars for our corrupt baby-eating pedo leaders" nationalist propaganda, like they did generations ago.
Now you want to lead these males to die in war, while they are fully aware of what you are doing? At best you will get dysfunctional army fragging itself constantly. At worst you will trigger unrest because males would rather should they have an agency than be sacrificed as cattle.
Re: Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many stories where the only man in the room is expected to be, simultaneously, a punching bag, a mediator for drama, and a willing recipient of sexual advances. In other words, men in nursing are treated to the same indignities that women experience in most jobs?
Are you saying this should be acceptable behavior? Am eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Rather, I am pointing out that irony in the hope that men, dismayed by the treatment of men in certain professions, but find within themselves the empathy to appreciate what women go through and to adjust their behavior accordingly.
Re: Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
#54people are only starting to care because really bad things happen when you start to get a large portion of the male population being disenfranchised.
Re: Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
#55> Now Reeves says what's needed are policies and programs to draw male workers into fields such as nursing, teaching and social work. This is also true for an entirely different reason: all three of these fields would benefit hugely from having more balanced gender ratios
First hurdle: get a guy accepting the label of "male nurse" in the days of the manosphere.
Re: Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many stories where the only man in the room is expected to be, simultaneously, a punching bag, a mediator for drama, and a willing recipient of sexual advances. In other words, men in nursing are treated to the same indignities that women experience in most jobs?
Or it might simply be that there is a lot of unreported or unacknowledged mistreatment of men. I recall reading a study about harassment in the restaurant industry. Both genders were harassed but harassment towards men was largely ignored in the analysis because it didn't fit the focus or narrative of the authors. As a man who has worked in a predominantly female workplace, my experience has taught me that harassment…
I am sure that there's a lot of unreported mistreatment of anyone who represents a minority in a given profession.
Re: Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rest of the economy could have added a negative number of jobs (meaning lost).
Yeah, but if we're splitting losses by gender as well then the gender difference might as well be due to men dominated fields getting shredded. As in, balanced job creation + a shitton of mostly male tech workers fired = female growth.
If there's 100 men and 100 women employed and 100 women get fired then you have an equal number of "newly" employed people (0).
If there's 100 men and 50 working women and you fire 100 men and hire 50 women then 100% of the new jobs went to Women. Same is if you didn't fire anybody and just hired 50 women.
Re: Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
#58There are a number of reasons at play here why the premise of this article does not make much sense (without further context). Here are just five points: 1. For years, men have have had a much higher employment rate than women, e.g. 85 million men vs. 66 million women in the US in 2024 [1]. In other words, women are just catching up. 2. Women have a much higher rate of part-time jobs [1]. That is, a certain job would…
> Employers are incentivized to hire women over men in case of equal qualification. You can't say this, unsupported by evidence, in Trump's America, where revanchist 'white guy DEI' is the ordering of the world. > Women earn better salaries than ever before ... This is a clever way of avoiding saying that the gendered pay gap still exists, in favor of men , but has been narrowing. What makes jobs that pay enough 'mor…
I've slightly toned down that statement and added a reference.
> ... This is a clever way of avoiding saying that the gendered pay gap still exists, in favor of men, but has been narrowing.
The argument is not about the gender pay gap (which I don't doubt) however.
I do agree though that increased cost of life puts a bigger pressure on everyone to find sources of income.
Re: Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
#59There are a number of reasons at play here why the premise of this article does not make much sense (without further context). Here are just five points: 1. For years, men have have had a much higher employment rate than women, e.g. 85 million men vs. 66 million women in the US in 2024 [1]. In other words, women are just catching up. 2. Women have a much higher rate of part-time jobs [1]. That is, a certain job would…
The real issue is the opposite narrative. The idea that men broadly oppressed women across history, preventing them from participating in economic roles, and that modern outcomes are primarily the result of that dynamic being corrected.
There are a number of reasons at play here why that premise doesn’t make much sense (without further context). Here are just five points:
1. For most of history, labor was dictated by physical constraints and survival needs. Work like hunting, land clearing, construction, and early farming depended heavily on upper body strength and endurance, which skewed participation toward men. That’s a division of labor shaped by biology and environment, not a simple story of exclusion. As technology advanced, much of that physicality became unnecessary, which is a major driver of why participation has equalized in modern roles.
2. Women’s roles were not an absence from work, but a concentration in different forms of labor. Childbearing, childcare, food preparation, and household production were essential to survival, even if they don’t show up cleanly in modern employment statistics.
3. Many of the institutions we associate with modern economic life, including formalized science, engineering, and large-scale industry, were disproportionately created and originated in contexts where men were the primary participants. That’s not a claim about superiority, but it does mean the structure of what we now recognize as “work” and “progress” was heavily shaped by that historical imbalance.
4. The concept of a formal job market is relatively recent. In pre-industrial societies, most people, including men, were not participating in anything resembling today’s labor market. Applying modern employment categories backward creates a distorted picture of inclusion and exclusion.
5. Modern workforce participation is strongly driven by changes in technology and incentives. As physical constraints decreased and the returns to education and careers increased, more women entered and competed in the workforce. That shift is not well explained by a single narrative of oppression being lifted, but by broader structural changes.
Re: Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why historically, leaders would send those men to die in wars. Totally not what seems to be brewing right now. Though present day men don't seem to be biting the "let's join the military and fight foreign wars for our corrupt baby-eating pedo leaders" nationalist propaganda, like they did generations ago.
The problem is that it became really hard to lead society into a war. See support for Iran war. It started basically on zero and kept cratering. Now you want to lead these males to die in war, while they are fully aware of what you are doing? At best you will get dysfunctional army fragging itself constantly. At worst you will trigger unrest because males would rather should they have an agency than be sacrificed as…
Until the glowies stage a false flag attack on home soil to pin it on Iran.