Current Account

The Economics blog

Why isn't male unemployment an issue?

By Alex Hern Published 25 May 2012 11:17

Two men enter a jobcentre. Photograph: Getty Images

The last time the male unemployment rate was lower than female was September 1980. Ever since then, men have been more likely to be unemployed than women. At times, like in the boom of the late 1980s, the difference was small -- just 0.1 percentage point between them. Other times, it was enormous. In the early 1990s, male unemployment rocketed to a high of 12.8 per cent, up 5.7 points in a little under two years, while female unemployment was almost unchanged, increasing by just 1.5 points.

Indeed, for men, the unemployment crisis under John Major was actually worse than under Thatcher, peaking 0.4 points ahead. Both recessions hit men worse than women, but under Thatcher the base was better.

This great recession, like the previous two, has also undeniably hit men harder. Trough to peak, the unemployment rate increased by 3.6 points for men and 2.9 for women. True, this is the worst female unemployment for 19 years, and only the worst male for 16 years; but that says less about this recession and more about the disproportionate impact of the last.

Recently, this macro pattern has started to reverse. The six months has been worse for women than men, with the Fawcett Society estimating in March that 80 per cent of the job losses in the previous three months had come from women. But this just represents an expected patterm. As Betsey Stevenson, visiting economics professor at Princeton University, told PolitiFact about similar statistics in the US, "it’s a historical pattern that has held in previous recessions." Just like the other historical pattern that has held: overall, men are hit worse.

All of which makes it strange that, when gender is brought into the unemployment question, it is through headlines like:

Female employment hit by public sector cuts and childcare costs

Women told: your place is on the dole

Female unemployment highest for 15 years; outlook bleak

It's not that there ought to be headlines and leaders declaring David Cameron to have a men problem. For a number of reasons, the broader accusation that this government isn't very friendly to women is accurate. But unemployment isn't one of those reasons. Men were hit earlier, faster, and harder, yet there has been scarcely a mention of that fact.

The problem is, men doing badly isn't politically interesting. No-one gets accused of sexism if it occurs; no-one propses gender-targeted intervention, and no-one really suggests that the problem is distinguishable from overall unemployment. There are two possible ways to read this. One is that, as James Ball comments today, whereas talk of "sisterhood" is a positive image, self-affirming and strong, talk of "brotherhood" is "not nearly such a positive image, reeking of conspiracy and cabal". But I'd suggest it's a different reason: men are perceived by society at large as "normal", while women are still relegated to "minority" status, despite making up half the population.

Usually this phenomenon is seen as anti-women. Look, for example, at the recent furore when Lego announced "Lego Friends", or Lego for girls, turning what had previously been a gender neutral toy into a boys toy by default. But it can hurt men just as much.

We need to be more open about gender in every area of society, so let's talk about men.

Tags: Let's talk about men

More from Alex Hern

View the discussion thread.

10 comments

Wed, 2012-06-20 20:20 — R jones (not verified)

Listening to Peter Hitchens on Question Time the other day I was in complete agreement with him (and that is unusual for me!). I have worked in a female dominated sector and have found a minority of female colleagues resorting to persistent sexist behaviour disguised as assertiveness. Social problems will only get worse as more men are excluded from society, 1.6 million unemployed, a rise in the prison population from 40k in the 90s to nearly 100k now (mostly male). Society is failing men week after week. Women dominate the public sector, Education and Law.

Sat, 2012-05-26 07:34 — heather (not verified)

The fact is, all these authors so far have been feminists (or pro-feminists at the very least), so it is no surprise they wouldn't be critical of it to the point of exposing it as a hate movement, because they don't see it that way, they have their rose coloured glasses on.

bank po coaching in chandigarh

Sat, 2012-05-26 03:01 — Mark Neil

I like what you have to say overall, and it very much needs to be said. But there is one part that generally bothers me, not because you said it, but just in general, I've never quite understood

""But I'd suggest it's a different reason: men are perceived by society at large as "normal", while women are still relegated to "minority" status, despite making up half the population.

I've never understood this line of thought, as it seems to be self deprecating for the purpose of garnering sympathy. And while sometimes I can see it to be true, other times it makes no sense. The general idea seems to always be, if women have their own sex based indicator, that must mean the generic indicator used by everyone must be the male version... Why? Is it not possible that men don't get their own version? Take actor for example. An actor has always been anyone who plays a part, regardless of gender. It wasn't a "male normative" term, as many try to play it off, it is a neutral term applicable to both genders. But women also get their own identifier in actress. So while some will try to play the victim and claim actor is a male normative term, it could just as easily be argued that men are denied a gender specific term for themselves, they must share their terms with women, while women get their own all to themselves. The adage "whats mine is yours and whats yours is your"., but this doesn't make for as convincing a victim story, I supose.

And so, likewise in your lego example, lego's have always been gender neutral, their colouring bright and appealing to both genders. And you even acknowledge yourself "what was once neutral"... so how does giving girls a version all their own, effectively excluding boys, somehow exclude generic lego from remaining generic neutral? Isn't it actually that boys are now being excluded, not girls? So it seems odd to me that women would play the victim here, unless they truly believe they aren't entitled to anything unless it says it's for girls (which is a rather misogynistic viewpoint to take)?

just asking.

Fri, 2012-05-25 20:19 — Evil Pundit (not verified)

Why are men's issues ignored or opposed? Let's put the blame where it lies: Feminism.

For half a century, feminists have progressed through academia, politics, and media to attain a dominant position in society. Feminist ideology is either indifferent or hostile to men, and that is why men's problems don't get coverage.

Fri, 2012-05-25 22:43 — Feministsmakethingsup

But, they have given feminist men permission to talk about men's issues in this feature, there does however seem to be a requirement that all the articles contain the massage that feminism isn't to be criticized and the mens movement shouldn't be speaking for itself.

So its mens issues with the legal discrimination, fathers rights and gendered abuse propaganda and other feminist lies swept under the carpet.

Sat, 2012-05-26 03:15 — Mark Neil

I don't suppose you can tone it down with the conspiracy schtick, it isn't helpful. The article on the second sexism was very much critical of feminism. Perhaps not to the levels you would like, but it was there. And the idea that feminism is a single unified, controlled consciousness that "allows it's men" to do it's bdding under conditions is rather hard to swallow, and I'm quit opposed to feminism myself. The fact is, all these authors so far have been feminists (or pro-feminists at the very least), so it is no surprise they wouldn't be critical of it to the point of exposing it as a hate movement, because they don't see it that way, they have their rose coloured glasses on.

So while I agree the articles are clearly very biased and promote the feminist ideological viewpoint exclusively (so far anyways), the idea that there is some controlling consciousness that grants permission and assigns duties and criteria is taking it to far. The ideology can be opposed on it's concrete, demonstrable factors alone, you don't need to go off on some conspiracy theory.

Sat, 2012-05-26 13:31 — Feministsmakethingsup

@Mark Neil

I'm not promoting conspiracy schtick.

You don't know much about feminist discourse. Men have been traditionally expected to "check their privilege" and talk of mens issues in feminism has been suppressed, derided and mocked in feminist safe spaces and limited to men's issues only as in how they impact women and through the feminist lens of the privileged male/oppressed female ,for decades. Men taking part, are expected to be advocates for women's issues / feminism. "What about teh menz (that are abused, marginilized, raped etc) lol!" is how people that bring up men's issues have been traditionally treated in feminist areas, its characterized as men trying to make the discussion about men and therefore problematic. Anyone that's been in the debate for any amount of time knows that there is a hierarchy in that regard and that people that talk about mens issues have been systematically bullied, silenced and falsely accused of "misogyny" and so on in feminist spaces.

And the central message here, that's present in all the articles is that perhaps mens issues should get some attention, the mens movement is wrong and feminism should not be criticized. So the likely hood is that its part of the writers brief given that the theme repeats itself in all the articles.

The exact same theme has emerged in some feminist controlled media outlets in the US, male voices and some of the issues that the mens movement talk about are being allowed a platform, but only when its feminists talking and talk of feminist legislation, feminist anti-male propaganda and false claims about abuse being gendered and disproportionate resources allocation organised by feminism negatively impacting men, is not on topic. The same narrative, that the men's movement is wrong and feminism cannot be blamed for any of the problems, which is a blatant lie, fathers rights are frustrated and obstructed largely by feminism, and the discriminatory abuse services and dishonest PSAs and research data showing abuse as being mainly gendered are feminist in origin, for two examples.

What I'm saying isn't outlandish at all, and I resent you characterizing it as conspiracy theory.

Sat, 2012-05-26 12:55 — Feministsmakethingsup

[deleted]

Fri, 2012-05-25 17:27 — Hu Ru (not verified)

....or to be more precise.....'Why isn't working class, white male unemployment an issue?
Traditionally the defendants of the above group were Unions, the same Unions that are vilified by the right, and castrated by the left, for fear of scaring the floaters.
In terms of quoting ethnicity above, I do so only because it seems every one who is not white is 'black' in the sense that they are a minority and afforded extra help and detailed statistical analysis.
Unemployed Managerial (eg Middle Class) are treated separately from day one, although it can still be a struggle for anyone over a specific age (varies from industry to industry).
Then again, this view has been widely held by many for a generation......but who really cares?

Fri, 2012-05-25 13:39 — Feministsmakethingsup

"with the Fawcett Society estimating in March that 80 per cent of the job losses in the previous three months had come from women"

The women's lobby tell lies, whatever the issue, they claim that women have it worse, that its really a female issue, women must get on the lifeboats first and they cite their dishonest studies, feminist "journalists" and duped men all circulate the lies to acquire disproportionate resources for women. A group of feminists derailed the jobs for "burly men" bailout in the US, and diverted a substantial portion of the job creation money, into female dominated sectors that were growing, not shrinking in the name of "equality".

Another thing is that men are conditioned to help others and be stoic. One of the main reasons there is backlack against the mens movement, is that it is breaking out of the role of keeping quiet and being stoic, and strongly asserting that the life boats are not just for women, and isn't buying the women's lobby's constant damsel in distress act and demands for more and more state chivalry and lifeboats for women, this results in backlash from both men and women, that find the idea of men having and talking about problems and being angry, outside of the problems that society and feminism declares are acceptable for men to have - comical, cowardly and deserving of derision.

Another issues is ingroup bias. There is at least one study that has shown that women have an in group bias and the that the same ingroup bias does not exist for men, they are more likely to have a bias towards women. This stops men from collectively advocating for themselves as a group.

Its a pretty efficient system of oppression really, making it socially unacceptable and a taboo for men to gether in their own best intrests.