4 ms·
Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?
- wongarsu 7mo ago> 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
- malfist 7mo agoAlmost like diversity, equality and inclusion is a net positive thing for everyone
- bill_joy_fanboy 7mo ago[flagged]
- Larrikin 7mo agoThey do not exist What happened was unqualified people stopped getting jobs and found groups of people to blame it on.
- zulux 7mo ago[flagged]
- malfist 7mo ago> while the DEI types waltzed right in with shitty grades And you know that because you checked everyone's grades? I'll also note, you didn't say your "white son" had good grades himself. Given that "local state school" almost as a rule let most people in, I doubt your "white son"'s good grades. And besides, grades aren't what matters. SAT or ACT scores are what matters.
- Larrikin 7mo ago[flagged]
- akramachamarei 7mo agoAre you questioning someone's lived experience?
- yakshaving_jgt 7mo agoThat would be true if those ideals were applied in alignment with liberal values. However, the most common material form of DEI is rooted in postmodernism and its various offshoot theories (queer theory, critical race theory, intersectionality, post-colonial theory, etc) in which colourblindness is inherently racist. So, no, not really.
- malfist 7mo agoSo many boogiemen in your post. Tell me, exactly, why does the study of queer people mean diversity and inclusion is bad? Not even going to touch your idea that colorblind racism isn't racism.
- yakshaving_jgt 7mo ago[flagged]
- malfist 7mo agoYeah, not reading a far right nonsense book. I'm a queer person, I think I know what queer theory is.
- yakshaving_jgt 7mo agoI don't think you do know what it is, and I don't think being queer inherently imbues you with that knowledge. Queer Theory is a philosophy (or theoretical framework) about language (as with all postmodernist philosophy). It's not a "study", and while queer people can be a subject, it's not its primary object. Furthermore, a book written by two liberal scholars is not a "far right nonsense book". --- Why do people insist on taking hard positions on topics despite never having read the material?
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- 7mo ago
- soco 7mo agoFirst hurdle: get a guy accepting the label of "male nurse" in the days of the manosphere.
- williamdclt 7mo agoI don't think you should be downvoted: the article talks about this (kind of). It says there's a need of "framing jobs as more masculine" by eg emphasizing the physicality of them: making job names more masculine is totally in line with this (whether this "masculinisation" is the right solution is very debatable of course)
- intrepidpar 7mo ago[flagged]
- elicash 7mo ago> 1. Give massive preferential treatment to women during university "Some schools are trying to attract male applicants by improving their sports programs; others invest more heavily in buying boys’ email addresses or give incentives to boys that they do not offer to girls — such as free stickers or baseball caps — for filling out information on the school website. Marketing materials are sometimes designed to speak specifically to young men. Heath Einstein, dean of admission of Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, recalls fondly a pamphlet known internally as the “bro-chure,” which featured shots of the football team, a rock climber and a male student shoving cake in his mouth. But the easiest way for many competitive schools to fix their gender ratios lies in the selection process, at which point admissions officers often informally privilege male applicants, a tendency that critics say amounts to affirmative action for men." https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/magazine/men-college-enrollment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/magazine/men-college-enro...
- bill_joy_fanboy 7mo agoNo one believes anything the NYT says.
- elicash 7mo agoIt's not the NYT making the claims, they are merely reporting on them. And I think it's weird to just dismiss all evidence that conflicts with your priors. But fine, how about the NY Post: https://nypost.com/2025/09/11/us-news/schools-may-be-using-affirmative-action-to-solve-the-boy-crisis/ https://nypost.com/2025/09/11/us-news/schools-may-be-using-a... Or how about this quote from a former admissions officer at Brandeis: "We might admit the male student and wait-list the female student because of wanting to get closer to this sort of gender parity in terms of percentages in the class." https://hechingerreport.org/an-unnoticed-result-of-the-decline-of-men-in-college-its-harder-for-women-to-get-in/ https://hechingerreport.org/an-unnoticed-result-of-the-decli...
- jt2190 7mo ago> The lopsidedness was driven by huge growth in health care, where women hold nearly 80% of jobs. Over the past 12 months, health care alone added 390,000 jobs, more than in the economy overall, making up for job losses elsewhere. i.e. Nursing jobs mostly go to women not because men can’t do them because “nurses aren’t men”, per our current cultural norms.
- PessimalDecimal 7mo agoThere's been a lot of talk about "toxic masculinity" over the years but I've heard of and would worry about the female equivalent if I were considering a role in nursing as a man. 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. Seems awful
- joe_mamba 7mo agoOr also being the only male hire in something like HR department.
- hackyhacky 7mo ago> 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?
- throwaway173738 7mo agoAre you saying this should be acceptable behavior? Am eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
- hackyhacky 7mo agoNo, that's not at all what I'm saying. 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.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- torben-friis 7mo ago>Of the 369,000 jobs the Labor Department says were created since the start of Trump's second term, nearly all — 348,000 of them — went to women, with only 21,000 going to men. (...) >The lopsidedness was driven by huge growth in health care, where women hold nearly 80% of jobs. Over the past 12 months, health care alone added 390,000 jobs, more than in the economy overall, How can a part add more than the total? Are pure increase figures being mixed up with increase-reduction in the article? And if so, how is gender balanced in those figures?
- DrJokepu 7mo agoThe rest of the economy could have added a negative number of jobs (meaning lost).
- torben-friis 7mo agoYeah, 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.
- lesuorac 7mo agoNo because the title is using the word "new jobs". 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.
- torben-friis 7mo agoIf there's 100 men and a 100 women, you hire 50 men and 50 women, and separately 50 men are fired, total is +50 growth all women, despite the fact that non absolute job creation was balanced. I'm wondering if the author is missing this effect. The net result is the same, but in the case in my example there is no barrier to men getting jobs. In fact, if you start with a male dominated economy and it gets progressively balanced, you would see years of absolute female job creation, and that would not imply men are blocked from entering the workforce, just that the male dominated generations are exiting the market as they age and being replaced by a more balanced mix.
- cultofmetatron 7mo agopeople are only starting to care because really bad things happen when you start to get a large portion of the male population being disenfranchised.
- bill_joy_fanboy 7mo agoYep. A bunch of unemployed and "unempowered" men sitting around leads to them thinking things like: "Maybe we shouldn't be so cooperative anymore."
- joe_mamba 7mo ago[flagged]
- general1465 7mo agoThe whole manosphere problem shows that with correct leader you can forge your own army.
- joe_mamba 7mo agoManosphere is a symptom, not a problem. And manosphere is a boogie-man nothing burger that has no leverage over men, since it's co-opted by grifters and scammers trying selling you courses. There's no actual "leader" there that men recognize.
- general1465 7mo agoManosphere is perfect breeding ground for your own private army since a neolith. Currently manosphere is abused by grifters, but put there somebody with ideology who actually wants to do as much damage as possible, pool money together and you have terrorist training camp. And just to be clear, it really does not matter what ideology you will wrap your targets into.
- 7mo ago
- jaimex2 7mo agoThey're self employed because workplaces are toxic. Luckily the red flags are usually all over the website and walls of most places so you know not to even interview.
- endominus 7mo agoIt'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 understand people is through the most shallow stereotypes. Yeah, you can totally fix the imbalance in the nursing sector by showing ads with a bunch of male nurses driving monster trucks into the ICU and crushing energy drink cans on patients' foreheads! Or have a cowboy ride his horse into the preschool, smoking a cigarette that he lights by dragging a match across his own thick stubble! This isn't a structural problem, it's just a question of marketing! Insulting.
- Gravityloss 7mo agoPsychiatric wards certainly benefit from burly guy nurses with good social skills and nerves of steel.
- MikeNotThePope 7mo agoOne of my relatives used to be a psychologist who did work in psychiatric facilities. He told me about a woman who was rather petite with multiple personalities. One of her personalities was a bug & burly type with anger management issues. When this personality got physical, it took several orderlies of notable size to restrain her.
- lesuorac 7mo agoIsn't it only a question of marketing? There's only so many lumberjacks needed in an economy. Sure you can depress the wages for awhile but there's still a limit. So you need Men do to something else and the way you do that is with marketing (and also with Men being unemployed until they accept a nursing job).
- throwaway173738 7mo agoWell yeah but the real problem is a lot of jobs that go to women are not considered high status jobs. That’s the source of all of the gendering and gender imbalance of those jobs. Even computer programming was low status, which coincided with it being women-dominated once upon a time. We could fix the whole problem if we just convinced people to treat the people holding nursing, teaching, and childcare positions as if they we’re important members of society. And I mean this would fix the pay gap too.
- kleiba2 7mo agoThere 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 employ more women than men if women typically work part-time while men typically work full-time. 3. Employers are sometimes incentivized to hire women over men in case of equal qualification, e.g. [2] 4. Women earn better salaries than ever before, making it more attractive for them to apply to more jobs. 5. The statistics doesn't say anything about job migration: if I'm a woman who got a good job today but could get an even better one in half a year, will that be counted as two jobs given to a woman? [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1378067/number-employed-workers-gender-work-status-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1378067/number-employed-... [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4418903/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4418903/
- lkey 7mo ago> 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 'more attractive', generally, is rising fixed costs, like rent and energy, and stagnant wages.
- kleiba2 7mo ago> You can't say this, unsupported by evidence, in Trump's America, where revanchist 'white guy DEI' is the ordering of the world. 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.
- 7mo ago
- guzfip 7mo ago- nursing: I don’t want to work 60-70 hours a week at your horrific body shop of a PE asset - teaching: unruly kids. Bully’s get protected and those who stand up get punished. There’s some level of societal distrust of men around children not their own. - social work: you’re exposed to some of the worst most horrific side of society constantly for peanut pay. You’re constantly in a position where you want to help people, but are constrained by things far outside your power. Yeah I don’t care how “masculine” you try to frame them, just not interested.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- williamdclt 7mo agoThat's a shallow analysis. These reasons (which are very reasonable) aren't inherently gendered, yet don't seem to deter women as they make up something like 80-90% of these jobs, they're not "just not interested". So... seems like gender _does_ have something to do with that? Maybe just maybe more women gravitate towards these roles because these roles are associated with traditionally-feminine values (care, empathy, nurture)? Maybe you're "just not interested" because as a man, you've been educated with traditionally-masculine values (strength? protection? power?), and if you had grown up in an environment where these roles are associated to these values, you'd be potentially-interested in them despite their obvious downsides
- vharuck 7mo agoMen are also often the primary breadwinners in families, so they feel the need to take a higher paying job. In families where the husband's job pays well, the wife's career can be decided by personal fulfillment. Teachers are respected (but not paid well), nurses are respected and can earn a good amount, and social work is a very self-fulfilling role (I don't think society holds them in esteem more than other professionals). If we want men to take up certain roles, we need to pay more. That's the simplicity of capitalism and free markets. We bend ourselves into knots trying to find clever and (maybe) cheaper solutions to thorny problems.
- rirze 7mo agoHere's another explanation. My hypothesis goes deeper than gender imbalance. Most job interviews are theater nowadays. It's about conformity, performative culture fitting, agreeableness (read, willing to slave away without complaining). On average, women tend to better suited for such processes. Along with immigrant groups.
- soared 7mo agoPlease further explain this unabashed racism and sexism.
- malfist 7mo agoSchrödinger's immigrant, both actively refusing to conform to the host country's culture and best able to show host country's culture to get jobs
- yakshaving_jgt 7mo ago> On average, women tend to better suited for such processes. Along with immigrant groups. This is quite the claim, and I would understand anyone taking deep offence by it. Can you substantiate it?
- array_key_first 7mo agoNot the commenter, but my take: Women are taught from a young age of how to engage with their role in a patriarchal society. This includes caretaking, nurturing, and having patience for men. It's not uncommon for young girls to be given household chores that they must "suck up" and do while they're brothers get away with not doing chores. In addition, we associate politeness and pleasantness with femininity. A woman ought to be kind and softspoken, and must not swear or raise her voice. We associate masculinity with abrasiveness, stubbornness, arrogance, and rage. In most jobs and, in fact most social processes, the former is more useful to take advantage of. This could be why women, on the whole, would do better in interviews. In addition, it is well-known that women socialize much more, including more conversing. They are probably much better at being social on the whole because of that. Meaning, women are much more likely to be charming and likable than men.
- yakshaving_jgt 7mo agoPostmodernist movements like DEI were never about objective reality — in fact the idea of an objective reality is outright rejected. It doesn't matter if men are being left out of jobs (statistically) — they're [according to the ideology] the eternal benefactors of invisible, omnipresent systemic privilege. This is of course the complete opposite of the ideals of liberalism and the human rights movement, which is why so many people are fundamentally at odds with common illiberal corporate policy today (although it's often difficult to articulate why without being dismissed as a bigot). For more on this, I recommend Cynical Theories[0] by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay. [0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53052177-cynical-theories https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53052177-cynical-theorie...
- soared 7mo agoParagraphs like this use a lot of words to not actually saying anything. If you don’t mind elaborating: What about DEI rejects reality? How have men /not/ been the clear benefactors of gender for effectively all of history, which negatively impacts women in the workplace today? Human rights is about equality, and DEI achieves that through pulling up the mistreated to reach parity, no? Are you saying “it’s not equality unless everyone is treated equal”? (IE building a wheel chair ramp is not equality, because we’re treating disabled people different)
- yakshaving_jgt 7mo agoOof… It's a big topic. That's why I referenced a book. You'd have to read some of Lyotard's or Foucault's work to understand the roots of this. The idea is that all knowledge is shaped by language, power structures, and cultural context. This is where we get the idea that there isn't "the truth", but that instead there is "my truth". > Human rights is about equality, and DEI achieves that through pulling up the mistreated to reach parity, no? Equality is an overloaded term here, which is also a device prevalent in this ideology. Similarly, the term "normal" is taken to mean either statistically common or morally acceptable or both, depending on the argument and who's making it. That's where we get the idea of the problematics of heteronormativity, for example. It is of course debatable (and has been hotly debated for decades) what qualifies as "mistreated", and to what quantity. As is what counts as "pulling up" versus paradoxical discrimination. --- I'm sorry, but I can't boil down decades of philosophy into a neat paragraph for you.
- csomar 7mo ago> That parity masks the significant gains women have recently made in the labor market. Of the 369,000 jobs the Labor Department says were created since the start of Trump's second term, nearly all — 348,000 of them — went to women, with only 21,000 going to men. That's nearly 17 times as many jobs filled by women as by men. ... > Over the past 12 months, health care alone added 390,000 jobs, more than in the economy overall, making up for job losses elsewhere. The article and journalism research should have been about the absurdity of this number. If there has been a 10% increase in the total number of nurses in a single year in the USA, either there is an on-going health crisis to be covered; or you know, the numbers are just garbage.
- wongarsu 7mo agoRather than a health crisis it might just be the aging population. The generation born during the baby boom is getting pretty old right around now
- boogieknite 7mo agoand boy do they not like being told theyre old
- belorn 7mo agoIt amazing how the language differ in this kind of article when the roles are reversed. In the past we talked about inclusion, discrimination, and industries that excluded women. Now we have statements like "make girly jobs appeal to manly men.". I can just imagine how well received the statement "make manly jobs appeal to girly women" would had been around 2010. It seems unlikely that the success of women in STEM was based on making STEM more feminine, and helping women understand that they can have STEM roles and still stay feminine. It seems more plausible that affirmative action, privileged opportunities, exclusive spaces, and preferential hiring practices had more to do in making women in STEM successful than words about femininity and masculinity.
- damnnigga 7mo ago[flagged]
- damnnigga 7mo ago[flagged]
- boogieknite 7mo ago> The lopsidedness was driven by huge growth in health care, where women hold nearly 80% of jobs. Over the past 12 months, health care alone added 390,000 jobs, more than in the economy overall, making up for job losses elsewhere. read a lot of backward assumptions for why "women hold nearly 80% of jobs" in health care. ill offer that its simply because when men fought in war, women worked as nurses. women used those skills to be nurses professionally. their kids saw women as nurses, making great money, and kids often try to do what they see adults around them do. over and over theres nothing inherently feminine about nursing. its gritty job
- znpy 7mo agoi wonder why this link got flagged. it's from npr, not some random substack.