Women are getting most of the new jobs. What's going on with men?

wongarsu

> 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

jt2190

> 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.

torben-friis

>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?

cultofmetatron

people are only starting to care because really bad things happen when you start to get a large portion of the male population being disenfranchised.

jaimex2

They'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

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 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.

kleiba2

There 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-... [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4418903/

guzfip

- 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.

rirze

Here'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.

yakshaving_jgt

Postmodernist 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-theorie...

csomar

> 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.

belorn

It 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.

boogieknite

> 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

i wonder why this link got flagged. it's from npr, not some random substack.