One often finds magazine articles about independent, glamorous women earning big bucks who are disappointed only by the fact that there aren’t enough “available men.” It’s easy to get the impression that working women are mainly engaged in lucrative, fulfilling careers. Perhaps the women who work in the traditional publishing industry – which is sinking like the Titanic – really believe that their unsustainable lifestyles are enjoyed by a majority of working women. However, all it takes is a walk about town to see that this is far from the case.
Go to a nursing home sometime, and you will see women working for low wages in an undesirable occupation. At the grocery store, girls are bagging groceries. Hospital orderlies who clean up the messes and push wheelchairs are largely female, and even being a doctor – female or not – is far from the glamorous lifestyle portrayed on so many TV shows. In fact, going into the medical profession is something like signing up for indentured servitude.
Most working women have jobs I woudn’t want. Neither would most of my readers, I imagine. Most of their jobs are support for the broader economy, and are drone work. Sure, we’re seeing more and more female managers, but most of them are managing drones in strictly confined institutions. Then there are the waitresses and bookkeepers who work at small businesses, and the government employees at the courthouse, DMV, etc. Most independent, female-owned businesses seem to be preschools or day care, boutique bakeries and small clothing stores. It is all part of a dreary service economy that has grown like so much vegetation around the core engines of economic progress.
Of course, there are women involved in high-powered, important jobs. Most of these, however, are in social rather than creative fields. For example, one can find plenty of women with power in politics, education and even law, but in engineering, building and entertainment they are rare indeed.
What this says to me is that there is still room for men in our economy (if it can regain its health), but somehow we have shifted from creative jobs that produce wealth and economic progress to jobs that sustain the status quo. How did this happen? I suspect it has something to do with government spending, which has thrown us into the deepest debt we’ve faced in generations. Perhaps the recent emphasis on tricky finance rather than productive endeavors played a role as well. Either way, I doubt that this new female-centric economy is actually sustainable. The math simply doesn’t work out, for one thing — how can we rescue the economy by spending more money on the non-productive service sector while the true creators of wealth are failing or moving overseas?
25 responses so far ↓
1 ganttsquarry // Aug 28, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I agree about the unsustainability of a “status quo” economy. Many of the job sectors that women are heavily involved in, are overhead on the larger economy.
Of course some overhead is needed. Police and fireman for example. I think the U.S. left the realm of necessary overhead long ago though.
The larger government becomes, the better it is for women(temporarily), not only because of various welfare benefits, but the jobs “created” as well.
Less government, and less regulation benefit men because it keeps money in the private, more productive sectors of the economy.
Like you say, most women in the private sector aren’t in wealth creating areas either.
I believe we will see a backlash from women in years to come. The pretty lies of being strong, independent and having a career will lose their luster. The life of a working stiff isn’t all its cracked up to be.
Dare I say it might be worse than being a slave in the patriarchy.
2 BeltainAmerica // Aug 28, 2009 at 6:18 pm
I think we have already seen a backlash Gant.
Women have been trying to find ways to work less and less for years. Where I work, which is not a very male friendly place honestly. At least half the women there somehow manage to get on FMLA. There are books and articles all over the place about women working from home now and getting only four day work weeks. They always try to wave the “for the kids” flag out there as a reason too.
Even if there was a more traditional backlash it is to late I think. The feminists have had 30 years to endoctrinate our children and men now expect women to work as well. The final effect is going to be some outside influence which will reset things I think. Exactly what that will be I can;t tell yet but there are a number of possibillities forming on the horizon.
3 ganttsquarry // Aug 28, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Beltain,
I agree we are starting to see it as well. Good point.
Also agree that it will require outside forces. I don’t think we will see women clamoring to be June Cleaver. Just alot more grumbling about living the life of a working drone and how dull and soul sucking it is.
4 Indomitable Thoughts // Aug 28, 2009 at 11:58 pm
It gets back to what I suspect was the ultimate goal of feminism, or at least its powerful backers: To increase the labor pool, and as a result, get more bang for the buck. Two workers for the price of one.
5 Chuck // Aug 29, 2009 at 1:56 am
Welmer:
interesting points. look at it like this…we all know the government is a redistributer of wealth. they take taxes mostly from large corporations and individuals with high incomes and they spend it on social programs or hand it out through entitlements in which people spend money on consumer products and such. “trickle down economics” exists, unfortunately “trickle up econ” hasn’t been invented yet.
this is a major pitfall of “republicanism” or tyranny of the masses.
6 novaseeker // Aug 29, 2009 at 2:04 am
I agree with Beltain in that the backlash is already happening. Earlier this year a book called “Womenomics” was published by two female journalists. The book is precisely the kind of backlash Gantt was talking about: women wanting to do a “workplace makeover” to make it more female friendly (read: fewer working hours in the office). All that this means is reduced productivity, of course, but that’s what is being asked for: pay me a high salary and let me work less. It’s a great gig if you can swing it, I guess.
Working from home is fine every once in a while. Everyone gets a sick kid every now and then. But as a regular thing? No way people are as productive when they are in an isolated setting like that, away from the focus of the office, and surrounded by millions of real life distractions. And everyone knows this. This is why employees who see female colleagues getting paid the same for working 3 days in the office and 2 days at home develop resentments. They know that the productivity just isn’t the same.
But I think you’re right that the backlash against corporate reality is coming — they want to make the female working experience more female friendly. That will mean, as a practical matter, that in order to keep productivity constant, men and women without children will need to pick up the slack and subsidize, in productivity terms, the lesser productivity of women who are on flex arrangements. And that *will* happen. It’s already started in many workplaces.
7 Welmer // Aug 29, 2009 at 3:00 am
Some work is better done outside of the office — writing for example. But working with kids around? I can’t imagine getting anything done, but then my kids are preschoolers and require constant supervision.
8 Elusive Wapiti // Aug 29, 2009 at 7:59 am
“In fact, going into the medical profession is something like signing up for indentured servitude.”
Except that indentured servitude was only for seven years. How long does it take to pay off $140,000? It will take even longer with Obamacare.
“What this says to me is that there is still room for men in our economy (if it can regain its health), but somehow we have shifted from creative jobs that produce wealth and economic progress to jobs that sustain the status quo”
Drucker noted that this shift is part and parcel to the knowledge economy, in which the economy will sub-divide into two camps: service and knowledge industry. Service jobs will remain low-wage, and those without the requisite skills or intelligence will have to work there (Drucker also frets about the demographics of the service industry, and the “social justice” and social instability aspects of that). The knowledge sector will be creative in nature but high-paying. Problem is that the knowledge sector will also be small.
Presently globalization is pushing what remains of outmoded manufacturing–which the mancession is dealing the death knell to–outside of the country. Globalization is also outsourcing a lot of knowledge work as well, which means that those high-paying knowledge jobs will either stall or decrease in salary or off-shore themselves.
The real problem from my perspective isn’t that the chick-conomy is low-paying and stagnant. It’s the welfare state that was built up around it and requires a growing economy and population to sustain. I don’t think we’ll see (a) for quite some time. Our masters will ensure (b) by importing laborers from outside the country, so better to ensure low-cost labor remains. I think it will be futile and self-defeating, but they’ll try it anyway.
Gantt said:P
“Of course some overhead is needed. Police and fireman for example.”
Trouble is that overhead is not needed. Firemen in particular are easily replaced. Police would be even easier to replace if we had the political will and permission to do so.
I’ve seen the reaction from women on Vox’s site when he asserts that they aren’t economically productive. They go from zero to Linda Blair in Excorcist in about 4 seconds.
Re: slave in the patriarchy
I don’t think there’s much slavish about the patriarchy. Yes her “rights” to be as slutty as she wants to be will be limited, but she’s well compensed for the work that she provides.
The real slavery is for men in the matriarchy. Now there is labor without remuneration.
Beltain said:
“…and men now expect women to work as well”
This is a good thing I think. Part of the reason for feminism is that women weren’t being productive, and they were comfortable and bored. Idle hands are the devil’s playground, and Scripture tells us that a woman is to be thoroughly engaged in supporting her household, just like her husband.
9 jz // Aug 29, 2009 at 9:13 am
The math simply doesn’t work out, for one thing — how can we rescue the economy by spending more money on the non-productive service sector while the true creators of wealth are failing or moving overseas?
lower income and corporate taxes. There is little incentive to risk/reward for the entrepreneurs when the marginal tax rate is +/- 50% (and heading higher with Obama plans) in some states.
10 njartist49 // Aug 29, 2009 at 9:49 am
The knowledge sector will be creative in nature but high-paying. Problem is that the knowledge sector will also be small.
The knowledge economy will also be confined to urban areas, for the most part, where there can exist the knowledge businesses and there will be circles of people knowing the correct connections. Telecommuting and working for companies outside that system is not likely to provide job continuity.
11 whiskey // Aug 29, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Color me with Elusive on the Knowledge sector being off-shored for the most part, except for a few lucrative connected people. This is already happening.
Taxes of course come mostly from the middle class in the Federal part, in States it is high-income individuals, but the bulk of revenue to the Feds comes from Income taxes paid by the middle class.
12 Amateur Strategist // Aug 30, 2009 at 12:26 am
May I ask what jobs are in the “Knowledge Economy”?
13 Savvy // Aug 30, 2009 at 1:38 am
Television is the opiate of the people!!!
Have you noticed they have them EVERYWHERE!?
TV made being around junk yards seem cool (Chico and the Man, Fat Albert) and living in the ghetto seem fabulous (Good Times). It made cheap sex and affairs seem to be all the rage–the list of shows would be far too long for this.
TV is ALL KINDS of evil.
14 Savvy // Aug 30, 2009 at 1:39 am
And yes, TV helped things along.
15 Bhanu Prasad // Aug 30, 2009 at 6:02 am
@EW,
–Globalization is also outsourcing a lot of knowledge work as well,–
This is a temporary phenomenon. As corporations in india and china grow, there would be a LOT of demand for knowledge workers. Offshore workers would barely finish the domestic work, forget the outsourced work from the west.
16 joel // Aug 30, 2009 at 8:19 am
Well, I can assure you that the entry of females into the male dominated medical profession has had a profound impact on productivity. DOWNWARD.
Most women docs just don’t put in the time of male docs, and, they retire younger. (Woman wear out sooner. Sorry.) They decide they are tired of working so hard. Women just don’t think they should work hard to support their husband.
Female logic in medicine (fuzzy) also has driven costs through the roof. (Breast cancer is beyond belief expensive to treat these days.)
And, I would guess that 85% of my workload (pathology) is female. Females account for 70% of my cases, and females tend to have more complicated pathology specimens than males, at least in my practice.
So, guys, get used to it. You will have to do more and get less while the ladies do less and get more. And, of course. they live longer and pay less into the pension system, thus reducing your pension benefits.
This is called gender equity.
17 Kevin K // Aug 30, 2009 at 9:07 am
I have a couple of comments on this interesting post :
1) Defense spending is very male-oriented and still a large part of the federal budget. The military is pulling in a lot of the young men that would of gone into manufacturing or agriculture jobs. If we want to reduce defense spending, we should think about what we want all these young men to do.
2) An asset that I think the US has that will be valuable in the next 50 years is lots of farm land and productive agribusiness. The population of the world is going up faster than farmable land and people in the world want to eat better. This is an area I could see employing more American men in the future, whether its in actual farming, or farm machinery or processing, or argichemical production, etc.
18 Zeta // Aug 30, 2009 at 11:26 am
“So, guys, get used to it. You will have to do more and get less while the ladies do less and get more. And, of course. they live longer and pay less into the pension system, thus reducing your pension benefits.
This is called gender equity.”
Well said, sir, well said. As more men become wise to this (and the lies they’ve been sold concerning “being a nice guy” and a “team player”), we can expect more and more to simply opt out of this process altogether, going the thuggery rout. Why work your ass off when it’s not rewarded financially, nor with a woman by your side? Heck, thugging it up offers both of those things, and respect to boot.
Here’s to the bright future that “equality” shall bring!
19 Coffee Catholic // Aug 30, 2009 at 1:04 pm
A tiny percentage of women hold positions in “hot” careers. What of the rest? They face the daily grind that husbands always faced in order to provide for their families. Women are finally catching on…
I ditched college and left the “Must…get…a…career…” mindset. Now I’m a pregnant housewife cooking roasts and popping out babies.
I’ve never been happier in my life! (And my life wasn’t exactly miserable. I was quite happy before, although I became disillusioned with my Feminist brainwashing.)
20 Coffee Catholic // Aug 30, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Women clamoring to be June Cleaver, and Jermaine Grear b*tiching her head off about it:
http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=824791
As if we owe you anything, Ms. Greer???? Phhhht!
(P.S. I’m not “wanting to go back to the 1950′s” ~ I like living here and now but I personally do believe that we women need to return to our normal roles in society. Also, June Cleaver was good but I’m just not good enough to vacuum in high heels…)
21 whiskey // Aug 30, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Bhanu –
Outsourcing is NOT a temporary phenomena. First off, China and India have a thin coastal wealthy elite layered on top of illiterate, not very productive, and caste discriminated against inland masses. Thus the growth of both is predicated soley on exports.
Next, the WSJ reports Japan is also outsourcing production and design of its industrial products just as the US has done, and with software too, along with basic legal and accounting work, tech support, and pretty much every service that can be done more cheaply.
Globalization means race to the bottom in wages as capital is mobile but labor is not, at least not to the same degree. This is why the global economic order is unsustainable — too many First World men being jobless due to outsourcing, or underemployed.
22 Savvy // Aug 30, 2009 at 8:17 pm
joel–Interesting opinion about men putting in more time as doctors? really? I’ve had some bad ones who didn’t put the time in and didn’t ask enough questions. When I challenged their opinions they became irate.
23 Lukobe // Aug 30, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Anyone got any solutions?
Joel’s talking in generalities. I can’t say I necessarily share his opinion. I’ve mostly had male physicians, but my mother was a physician and my sister is in medical school. Both put in very long hours and worked extremely hard to get where they got. But I take it he’s in the profession himself.
24 WZ // Aug 31, 2009 at 8:05 am
‘Anyone got any solutions?’
There are various solutions. Some of them would count as seditious speech, so let’s assume I won’t incite you to overthrow anything or hurt anyone.
2009 has already seen some shocking revelations. For example, in 2008, if I had said that the mayor of Hoboken was in league with his coreligionists to steal the kidneys of gentiles, I would be laughed off as a madman – and an impolite one, at that. Now, in 2009, it just means that I read the newspapers.
http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/4444-the-rabbis-the-kidneys-and-the-jewish-crime-wave.html
The edifice of political correctness depends on proper reverence to various victim classes. If Israel takes a nosedive in popularity, it will become politically possible for ordinary Westerners to criticize the Jews in their communities.
Without the Jewish element connecting the Western media, how long can the status quo be maintained?
Without Israel being propped up with its precious pipeline out of Iraq, how long will the USA occupy Iraq?
25 Lukobe // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:24 pm
WZ, what does this have to do with the topic of the post?
BTW, the Pacific Free Press is not a newspaper. You’ll have to do better than posting a link to something that puts the word anti-Semitism in scare quotes, and contains this ridiculous proposition:
Can you imagine your local priest or Imam trading in ‘body parts’? Can you think of a Muslim cleric or a pastor trying to buy your kidney or sell you one in a ‘parking lot’ or in a ‘diner’? I do not think so.
Leave a Comment