Men get lion's share of new jobs, women suffer most from public sector layoffs

[Starry Messenger]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/09/1052996/-Men-get-lions-share-of-new-jobs,-women-suffer-most-from-public-sectorlayoffs

Remember all the what-does-it-mean-what-can-be-done-about-it hand-wringing over the "mancession," the fact men had lost a much higher percentage of jobs in the recession than women? And that women were rapidly heading toward parity in numbers in the labor market? Well, it's over. In fact, it's been over for quite some time.

<snip>

The same thing happened after the 2001 recession. Men lost a higher proportion of jobs than women, but as the economy improved, they bridged the very temporary gender gap that the downturn had produced.

The recent public sector losses for women are especially telling. Women have taken two-thirds of the hits. Those lost jobs are more likely to have been better-paying union jobs than their private-sector counterparts. They have been heavily targeted by governments faced with revenue shortfalls caused by the recession and their failure to restructure taxes. However, ideology has played as big a role as economics, with right-wing politicians seeing the revenue crunch as a perfect opportunity to do what they've wanted to do for ages—weaken or demolish public sector unions, trim the work force and cut benefits of the workers who survive. That has hurt women big time.

Late last year, Entmacher said the reasons for men doing so much better than women in getting jobs since June 2009 is hard to ascertain: "It isn't as if male-dominated industries have suddenly and really rebounded." But she suspects that it has to do with the lingering belief going all the way back to the days of "Rosie the Riveter" that it's more important to put unemployed men back to work.

I thought this OP would probably fare better in here. I remember the "mancession" threads last year and the wildly overbilled "success" women were supposedly having in pushing men out of the labor force.