Women are the real losers in the Global Financial Crisis

Stay at home Mum says:

09:12pm | 31/08/09

I am a stay at home Mum. Many women I mention this to consider me a parasite or a moron, lacking in voice and freedom. My partner works a long week to bring the bacon in. I cook it, clean up after it, teach the children for the first 6 years and do all that housewifely stuff. We are happy with this arrangement. I consider that if I don’t actively provide a service at least I don’t actively provide a disservice. My being at home allows another male or female a chance to work. I am qualified as a bookkeeper and business administrator. Without wanting to upset any feminists I sometimes feel that too much is expected of men who are trying to walk a line between sensitive, caring guys or viewed as women crushing neanderthals. In this country we are lucky. Women can vote, gain an education, work, have children or not. Women have been downtrodden through history. So have men. So have children.

Steve says:

12:30pm | 31/08/09

You women had better watch what you wish for because the more you nag men the sooner we will send you to afghanistan to defend freedom in that country alongside womens rights given to them on a silver platter. Now wouldn’t that be refreshing rather than sending 19 year old “men” to do the job?

Steve says:

12:26pm | 31/08/09

<Sigh> Not more from the whinging harpies. Men have a sex role in society 100-fold worse than women, perhaps all these women hellbent on harassing men to the grave with their cries of eternal victimhood can swap gender roles for a day and see how ‘privledged’ men have it. PFFT. I am truly ashamed of Australian women for their total lack of backbone. Thankfully unlike a lot of men, I owe them not a dime!

John Maywall, BCom, MD, DuDe says:

03:53pm | 30/08/09

Dear Lil, context is indeed everything. Comparing single women vs married women is another topic and context completely of course - I’m sure not even you would suggest a women is better off remaining single forever just to live on average to 79 instead of 78 years old.
Yes, Women in underdeveloped countries are indeed worse off, well spotted. Men in underdeveloped countries are alot worse off too of course.
But back to the actual topic at hand, Women live longer, safer, healthier, happier lives than men do. And they work less hours - and therefore they contribute less financially to relationships.  Lucky them!
There are a few people here, I wont mention any names, Lil, but these people seem to think success in life should be measured solely on getting a job with extremely long hours and high stress and high income, Quite the contrary, I would have thought success in life is working shorter less stressful hours and being financially comfortable. And by that measurement Women are far better off.  It is common for educated successful women to take the easier road in life and not climb to the very top of the corporate ladder - they take a more balanced, family friendly lifestyle. Lucky for some I guess.

ron says:

03:34pm | 30/08/09

Kate, the reason why there is a “homogenous mass of men ” in management is quite simple….men are better managers.  What your suggesting is to ignore ability and employ based on gender - this is ridiculous!  Well said Eric!

Eric says:

03:15am | 30/08/09

Kate, how about some affirmative action to redress the gender imbalance in prisons and in lifespan?

Should we jail more women and deny medical treatment to females so we get equal outcomes in terms of death and incarceration?

Outcome-based arguments cut both ways.

Kate says:

11:42pm | 29/08/09

well ron maybe we do need some affirmative action given the limitations on women’s careers in the past - for example the marriage bar which prevented women from working full time once married until 1966 in many areas (public service, unis, banks). those sorts of initiatives have set women back somewhat and whilst I would advocate hiring on merit, given the positive contribution women have been proven to make to productivity and the bottom line, and to levels of innovation within organisations, perhaps we should ensure they are better represented in management.
It’s a crazy idea I know but I do believe that management should not be a homogenous mass of men - rather a reflection of the market they serve and the employees they manage, that is men and women, people of all cultural backgrounds. It seems pretty reasonable to me.

Lil says:

10:30pm | 29/08/09

Well, John Maywall, BSc, Dip Ed [sic], in the western world, research shows that if you are born female you will live a longer, happier life than if you were born male, IF you are single. Married women live shorter and less happy lives than unmarried women. The reverse is true for men.
In many underdeveloped countries, if you are born female, you are the unluckiest of the unlucky.
Context is everything.

Kate says:

08:05pm | 29/08/09

Lisa, that would be because of the following which perhaps the article should have mentioned, which I found just doing a quick search of the EOWA website and have also read about extensively at Uni:
- many women leave executive positions not because of family but because of the male dominated culture many find wanting. Addressing this would boost productivity because talented women would not leave their roles.
- it appears that poor diversity management reduces productivity. Positively managed diversity however, typically fuelled creative problem solving and led to improved work performance.
- equal opportunity in the workplace has been shown to attrract more female customers (improving the bottom line)
- women executives appear to deliver better financial results. a study found a strong correlation between a company’s profits and the number of senior female executives in its ranks. Companies with the highest percentage of female executives delivered earnings far in excess of the median for other large firms in their industries.
-An influential American Management Association (AMA) study compared all-male senior management teams to mixed-gender senior management teams. They found women made a significant positive difference to the financial results of the company, including: improved gross sales revenue, improved market share and overall improved net operating profits.

So let’s stop debating the value of women in the workplace. Women are a valuable resource and equally as productive as men when at work.

Social constructs of leadership have positioned white heterosexual men as our natural leaders. It needn’t be so. Women are just as competent. So why are there only 10% of women in executive management and how can business justify the under-utilisation of this pool of talent? (and of non-english speaking populations). I have nothing against men, I am just all for diversity and we need to look at the current system because if executive women have actually dropped from 12% in 2006 to 10% currently then something is wrong, and it’s not going to fix itself.

ron says:

07:01pm | 29/08/09

Kate quote"Despite over 50% women graduates, only 10% of executive management are women. There is something wrong there. ”  ahhhhh, no Kate there is nothing wrong here other than the right people for the job are being employed.  Or are you suggesting that women should be employed on the basis of their gender only?????  As a GM of major property company for over 14 years i can categorically state that women cannot handle the pressure of upper management! (ive heard all the excuses for poor performance and low work attendance)

jd says:

06:55pm | 29/08/09

Boo hoo…women are feeling the pinch of the GFC?  Maybe the government should have a seperate enonomy for women.  One free of risk.  I mean, why not?  We have the family and criminal courts which clearly favour women.  Not to mention the “equal opportunity” departments run by die hard leso cronies, whose sole purpose is to favor women at the demise of men.  Keep playing the glass ceiling card girls and we might end up like the middle east (where you will have NO RIGHTS).  Ahhhhh, wouldn’t that be great? No more smart ass comments from young women…..no more cutting me off on the road or favortism in the workplace, uni’s, judicial system etc etc.  Just a couple of backhands and your on your way to the dentist…Sharia Law…..brilliant!!!

My thoughts... says:

06:23pm | 29/08/09

“While more men had lost full-time jobs than women, women faced worsening underemployment in the form of limited hours and poor pay.”

I love that contradictory statement (as if it’s supposed to justify what she’s about to say) ... here’s another cited.. study 48% of business owners are women, 80% of those said they would employ a man over a women.

Is there a fundamental flaw in women in terms of productivity in the workplace? Personally I think there’s room for everyone to succeed, it takes a paradigm shift in thinking where the genders work together for one common goal - not opposing each other. Feminists and men’s movement groups technically violate discrimination laws- yet they’re allowed to operate?
I’m sorry but the media really does have a male hate campaign going. Other journalists aren’t even allowed to publish countering arguments or ‘pro-male’ arguments. if it’s not ‘pro-fem’ it’s not allowed.

The great think about energy in all forms, whether it be physical/emotional/mental. is that it seeks balance, and it’s doing so in the next few years…. the truth shall be known..

Lisa says:

05:25pm | 29/08/09

I have to say I too am heartily sick of female commentators, politicians - indeed, even ‘sexologists’ - speaking for me as ‘woman’. I am person first, I am tired of being patronised.
I agree that single women - oh, the irony! - that do not have a solid partner CAN have it tougher in life. I am much better off than my sister, although she works far harder in the work environment, because I am married. Getting hitched helps a woman truckloads, in many cases.
So why not support men more? If you think the middle class business-owner white male is not repressed, perhaps you should pay his quarterly tax bill!
Life is a co-operative exercise. Apparently female medical graduates are about 40 per cent LESS productive through their career than their male peers. The media doesn’t discuss the productivity issue in terms of gender - ever! -  why is that?

kate says:

03:40pm | 29/08/09

I think many commenting here stopped reading after the first paragraph. The crux of the article for me if the findings of the 2008 Australian Census of Women in Leadership. Despite over 50% women graduates, only 10% of executive management are women. There is something wrong there. That figure cannot be explained by women with families or women who do not desire to get to the top alone - there is something else afoot. Women, as well as men from non-english speaking backgrounds are clearly under represented in leadership roles which are primarily held by white anglo males (I am actually doing an essay on this at the moment at part of my MBA).

And for the record, I’m at home with 3 children (4th on the way), and I plan to take over as sole bread winner in 5-10 years so hubby can do the stay at home thing. What we face, in our particular circumstances, will be that because of my time out of the workforce having kids I will have a greatly reduced earning capacity. But that was my choice, and I am more than happy at the thought of full time work when it’s my turn (not that 4 children under 5 won’t be pretty full time!).

I do see a problem here and I do wish that it could be discussed without it turning into a “battle of the sexes”. Naive maybe.

Eric says:

12:42pm | 29/08/09

Fascinating stuff, John.

It’s amazing that with all those facts out there, we never hear a peep about men’s rights in the media.

It’s almost as if journalists are biased, and rapidly becoming irrelevant as they studiously ignore all the stories that really matter.

John Maywall, BSc, Dip Ed. says:

10:04am | 29/08/09

Research shows if you are born female you will live a longer, happier life than if you were born male.
In a relationship you will work less hours yet you will have the spending power. You have a choice to give up work or work part time, a choice men normally do not get.
If you are born male, unfortunately it starts from birth - you are more likely to die from cot death, you are more likely to die from a car accident, you are more likely to have to go to war, more likely to be physically assaulted, more likely to have to work long hours in a difficult, stressfull job, and more likely to die in a job that is dangerous.
Sadly you are more likely to commit suicide, take drugs, become an alcoholic, also more likely to bald, much more likely to go to jail, more likely to feel lonely and helpless.  It’s sad when the majority of the population, i.e. women, keep asking for more more more, when the lesser half are already so disadvantaged.

Karen says:

09:56am | 29/08/09

We have had the push to get equal rights for women in the work place for 30 years now.  I was young when it started, and am now only 10 years off retirement.  If women really gave value for the payroll dollars spent on them, employers by now would not be discriminating against them.  In a downturn, employers must choose which staff to reduce; they are fools if they keep the poor value workers and let the productive ones go.  ERGO—women go first.  In my working life experience of over 30 years, women as a group are less productive than men.  They suddenly can’t show up for all sorts of reasons, right at critical moments in business processes.  It’s just life—we have to accept it.  The exceptions—women who do not choose to put children and husbands and personal life ahead of their careers—they make the same choice the men make, and therefore give the save value for payroll dollar spent.

Mick says:

08:37am | 29/08/09

Formersnag, right on brother, and therein lies the rub! You have a bunch of whining, mediocre women who are all antsy that they don’t get the rewards while putting in none of the effort. It’s no wonder most of these “wimmyn” are all Arts graduates and end up in useless careers like journalism, Media and Communications or similar left wing hot beds of feminist agitation that require little real ability to flourish in.
Go get a degree in Biomedical Engineering, or Medicine, or go build up a construction company and then come back with your whinging, you hippy feminists ! Women get paid less because they do less hours, don’t accept the high pressure positions and they simply don’t have what it takes, in most cases. Lets not even get started on the “leave work, have babies” angle either.

Public Spaker says:

06:46am | 29/08/09

I agree with Eric, women do not have it hard today, and I agree I would put up with less hours and less pay than not have a job at all. Women today work less hours than men, as many work part-time, and most by choice. I always say to my wife lets reverse roles, Ill work part-time, and look after the kids and the house, and you go to work, she does say &**% off, I know I have it good. So please get off your high feminist horse and get to work like most men and work 12 hours sweating, out in the sun. No women want too, and if you say but no one will hire them, ask me and Ill give them a job, but I will expect the same productivity as a man, this being the age of equal rights and all.

formersnag says:

08:47pm | 28/08/09

Everybody dumping on Eric should have a long hard look at themselves. His comments have been neither aggressive nor unreasonable. The media is full of feminist, journalists, telling deliberate, premeditated, lies all day every day.

Eric says:

06:25pm | 28/08/09

Since I’ve started reading The Punch, I’ve seen at least a dozen articles promoting feminist viewpoints.

Not once have I seen an article challenging feminist doctrine.

That says something about the media, and the position of men in society.

Gibbot says:

06:04pm | 28/08/09

PC - I share Tim’s pain. Being a white male with a rewarding career and plenty of prospects, I too know the anguish of discrimination in the workplace. My work is judged entirely on its merits and never on my personal appearance. My colleagues never compliment me on my legs or chest, or bombard me with sexual innuendo. Nobody has ever suggested that I slept my way into my position.

Why lord, why am I not objectified? Why am I not spoken to like a child? Why do I not receive unsolicited sexual advances? Am I unworthy? Why am I promoted into roles of greater and greater responsibility without being given the opportunity to prove my worthiness by working twice as hard and long as my female counterparts?

My partner deeply sympathises with my plight. My work wardrobe is hopelessly impoverished, consisting of nothing more than a few suits, a couple of pairs of shoes and some dull shirts and ties. She, on the other hand, has the enviable challenge of constantly updating her attire, as her female co-workers encourage her with helpful and constructive snide remarks should she slip and wear the same outfit twice in one financial quarter, or under-dress, or overdress in comparison to them. Nobody cares if I wear the same damned suit all week. Their apathy toward me is emotionally neglectful.

Many is the night I have cried myself to sleep lamenting the fact that even though my partner works far longer hours than I, she only pays half the income tax I do.

Where’s the justice for Tim and me? Who’s fighting to lift the yoke of oppression we contend with day after day? If only we were Aboriginal women on a remote settlement, or ‘English second language’ single mothers. We’d have it made.

Mondo Rock says:

05:53pm | 28/08/09

But I do counter. Women are worse off than men in the situation that I have highlighted, and by the fact that cutting their hours cuts their already lower pay packet.

Emma - if you think a woman who earns more than her husband is ‘suffering’ because the burden of financing her family falls more heavily on her then you must be thrilled with the fact that men generally earn more than women.

This would, after all, mean that women generally ‘suffer’ less than men - would it not?

Equally, what do you think of women who decide to be stay at home mums?  Aren’t they causing their partner to suffer by doing so, under your definition?

Tim says:

04:39pm | 28/08/09

Don’t worry pc,
i’m not surprised that someone with your obvious intellect doesn’t understand sarcasm.

pc says:

04:10pm | 28/08/09

Wow Gibbot - Tim,
“Gibbot,your scientific research of the GFC and gender issues is breathtaking.Similar to your opinion,  when i hear women complaining about how the GFC is unduly affecting women, or there is a pay gap,  I naturally conclude that these women are part of the deadwood and are obviously incompetent.”

I think Tim was trying to say something there Gibbot but for the life of me I cant think of what it is. It is a case of a MAN or Tim, being baited - and not just baited - cleaned, gutted and filleted. Perhaps you should send him some flowers.

DG says:

03:38pm | 28/08/09

@Emma (at 2:32)

I’m a fan of argument and avoiding attacking people for their arguments (while I’ll contentedly lay into the arguments) - I saw your point as a

I must say that I agree with your point re: Eric. If he had left out the First and last two paragraphs he would have made the same point without coming across as aggressively.

As to who is in the worst position, I suppose that’s a philosophical difference. My partner doesn’t work and I support my partner without feelings that it is a burden. However if I were the one that was unemployed I would feel like I was worthless and I would certainly be feeling that I was in the worst position - I would rather than I had lost some of my hours than lost my job altogether.

The other point could be made that because person A is not contributing (financially) it can’t be a burden on them, and as a practical reality they are a burden on whoever does have an income (no matter how small).

As for the rights of the mother and father -  I agree that it’s not great for the child but the child doesn’t have a right to two parents (if children did have such a right single mothers would have to hand over their children).

If the mother elects to have the child KNOWING that the father is not required to pay for it (my theory of the prior agreement) and she is not going to be able to provide for it, is it not the mother that is bringing the child into the world recklessly and punishing the child by her refusal to stick to the agreement that she made? If she has an aversion to terminating the pregnancy she can always put the kid up for adoption which will provide for the child and, while not being to the letter of the agreement, will not impose an appreciable burden on the father.

If two people make a mistake (and lets look at it practically, an ‘unplanned’ pregnancy is a mistake whether or not it turns out well, both should accept responsibility for it. If one has denied the other the opportunity to ‘fix’ the mistake, why should that other be punished for it (and 18 years of child support is a substantial punishment for a mistake that can easily be fixed).?

Bitten says:

03:09pm | 28/08/09

As a woman, I’d prefer it if whining angst-ridden social commentators and politicians stopped trying to speak for me. Life is tough. Deal with it. Stop crying and stop adding to the mounting evidence that women are emotional whimpering whiners who can’t handle life’s challenges. I can do it just fine - stop giving employers reason to think that I might not be able to. Don’t speak for me.

Emma says:

02:23pm | 28/08/09

DG,

In the event that two people have had that discussion prior to having sex and agreed upon termination should the need arise I lean towards agreeing with you, perhaps they should not be asked to pay child support. However the one criticism I have of this argument is the fact that you are punishing the child, who is basically an innocent bystander in the situation, rather than the mother who you have the disagreement with.

I was posing the question seriously, not as any kind of bait, so thanks for a reasonable answer.

In regards to the other argument, I seem to have lost my steam because it is mostly just that Eric makes me angry whenever he comments here, but I would agree that if the male and female roles were reversed in either yours or my examples the person still working would be carrying more burden.

Tim says:

01:56pm | 28/08/09

Gibbot,
your scientific research of the GFC and gender issues is breathtaking.
Similar to your opinion,  when i hear women complaining about how the GFC is unduly affecting women, or there is a pay gap,  I naturally conclude that these women are part of the deadwood and are obviously incompetent.

Mommo says:

01:05pm | 28/08/09

Some of the arguments here, demonstrate my view of Feminism, being that it loses a lot credibility when those who seek to articulate the disadvantages facing women in society, downplay the disadvantages and hardships of the male condition.

By all means, women’s position in society should be improved.  But if its at the expense of men (and social indicators are there is poorer health, lower levels of education, higher suicide rates etc among men then women) can it be said in doing so that society has really added value to itself, or rather just realigned what it values?

For once, it would be refreshing to see an ardent feminist champion a male cause (ie: to improve education standards among boys).

As for the workforce issues, there’s no doubt women have the talent to make it to the top.  But as someone (in a top tier law firm), whose seen many of his female colleagues leave the industry, to pursue other life choices or interests (and not because they were married and had children), most have indicated to me, that despite all their qualifications and hard work, they realised making it to the top isnt necessarily what they want out of life.  Im not sure what to make of that?

Gibbot says:

12:37pm | 28/08/09

I think Eric is not bemoaning the loss of full time employment for males so much as the infringement upon the ‘right’ of males to be employed above their capacity. One of the positives to have come from the GFC is that businesses large and small have had to really look at their productivity, streamline procedures and in many cases downsize their organisation. No employer wants to lose a valuable worker, so it is inevitably the dead wood that is first to go. The result is a leaner, more efficient business/company that is in a far better position to profit as the market recovers.

Every time I read males whining about how hard done by they are I naturally conclude that they fall into the ‘dead wood’ category, and are victims of nothing more sinister than their own ineptitude. The more vitriolic their diatribe, the more likely they were replaced by a capable woman. To them I suggest this: Worry about your own abilities and create your own opportunities. There’s always a burger that needs flipping somewhere.

Tim says:

12:28pm | 28/08/09

I haven’t been given my position in senior management yet.
I must be being discriminated against.

Amanda says:

12:21pm | 28/08/09

Voxpop – it’s people like you that make rationalised discussions so painful. You have had several pops at the other commenter’s without - at any point - actually providing rationalised and thoughtful counter arguments. All of the other commenter’s here have begun their opinion actually talking about the pros and cons of the article, while you have simply attacked them for their views. There will always be people who disagree with your own point of view and I suggest you do what most other people have done and get used to it.

Get off your high horse and contribute to the discussion instead of instantly labelling anyone who disagrees with you a sexist pig. I disagree with certain aspects of the article so does that mean I’m a woman hater? Yeah right…

SR says:

11:55am | 28/08/09

“men do have reproductive rights - contraceptively speaking.”

Well this one could open a can of worms! I don’t believe men choose to reproduce, they can choose to attempt to reproduce, but only with agreement from a willing woman – a woman can choose to reproduce without agreement from a willing man.

And even with a willing woman at the time of conception, his choice and the choice of the woman is not binding. The agreement can be lawfully terminated at anytime within an allowed period of time by a woman.

It could be said that this disparity is why often males do not take proper responsibility for their parental duties as males are often left feeling powerless when it comes to their biological offspring.

DG says:

11:55am | 28/08/09

Emma/ED (at 11:22am) - The reality is that it took two people to create the entity and one has a veto power as to whether this will create an ongoing financial and personal obligation for both parties - its ludicrous to suggest that this is a position of equality. Having said that I am all for the right to choose.

I put it to you that if, before the act of intercourse, both parties had agreed to terminate in the event of a pregnancy and then the woman (who has the exclusive power at that point) changes her mind - the father should not be financially or socially responsible for the child (as her decision to keep the baby despite the earlier agreement would infringe upon the rights of the man) - after all he had done everything practicable to ensure that he would not be burdened with that obligation and some other person has intentionally frustrated his plans in their own interests.

And the situation that you have highlighted is one in which:

Person A goes from having a well paying job to being unemployed,
Person B is working part time, earns less than A, and loses a few hours a week.

By your theory: Person B is the biggest loser.  How on earth do you come to that conclusion?

Lets go further - lets also assume A and B are in a relationship:

Person A is no longer able to contribute at all to the household (financially) and becomes depressed as a result of their ‘helpless’ situation.

Person B now contributes the lion share of the household (financially), and has issues with Person A being depressed and feeling helpless.

So Person B is the loser.

No matter how far we go down this path, it keeps looking like person A is the Loser. If we assume that Person A is female. And Person B is male does it change anything? Person A would still be be the one who has lost the most. If both were female: Person A is the biggest loser there.

Even if, we assume A and B don’t even know each other and that B has a child (A does not):

A has gone from being able to support themselves to having no means of support - to way of paying bills, the rent, food etc.

B has gone from a hard existence to a little bit harder existence - but can still make some payments - will admittedly have to tighten the belt a little more, but at least they’ll have a few dollars coming in.

A is still the loser. Whether A is male or female.

Paul H says:

11:42am | 28/08/09

Great to see blokes finally standing up for themselves. How sick I am of typical whining feminist tripe.

The actual facts Ms Henry are that men overwhelmingly take on the hard technically challenging jobs in the mines, petrochemical, transportation, power generation industries etc etc. Women on the other hand are way overrepresented in the useless artsy disciplines which are infinitely easier and make them fit only to be employed by useless Government Departments.

Why is this so? How many women are actively seeking men who want to be househusbands? Facts are of men who are unemployed between the ages of 20 to 50 years 50% are single. Of men in lower paid manual type jobs that figure drops to around 33% and of men in white collar jobs or managerial positions the figure is close to 16%!  Like to see you run a story on the disadvantages of being an unemployed male!  So for all the feminist clap trap to which we have been subjected over the past 40 years social relations between the sexes have hardly changed only when it suits the typically overindulged rights infested white anglo female!

My wife enjoys the indulgence of being able to work part time and laughs her head off at me when I propose that we swap roles. Not a snow balls chance in Hell!!!  Why don’t you start criticising your sisters and demand that they work the hard yards so that their partners can enjoy the priveliges of staying at home or working a couple of days a week! I suspect your efforts would drop like a lead balloon!

Shane From Melbourne says:

11:33am | 28/08/09

Regardless of how ED or Voxpop feel, Eric still has a logical point- better to be underemployed than unemployed. The OP undermined her own argument in the first paragraph.
I’m sure that in the future women will break through the glass ceiling and have the same opportunities as their male counterparts in AIG, Citibank and Fannie Mac to rip off the system. Sue Morphett from Pacific Brands is a shining example of how a woman can succeed in the corporate world by taking government money and still move jobs overseas.

Dan says:

11:31am | 28/08/09

Who cares, we’re all in the same boat, whether it be woman or man.  Why not grow up and start coming up with solutions instead of picking on a stupid web article.

Emma/ED says:

11:22am | 28/08/09

Dave, men do have reproductive rights - contraceptively speaking. Post conception what rights would you suggest a male has that would not infringe on the rights of a female?

Emma/ED says:

11:18am | 28/08/09

But I do counter. Women are worse off than men in the situation that I have highlighted, and by the fact that cutting their hours cuts their already lower pay packet.

Jessie says:

11:07am | 28/08/09

So wait . . . unless women just take every hit that comes to them without complaint we are basically just whingers who can’t cop it? Seems particularly riduclous as an assumption. So anybody facing a difficult situation should just keep their head down, shut their mouth and get on with it? It must be fun living in a state of Totalitarianism then . . .

Dave says:

10:29am | 28/08/09

“While more men had lost full-time jobs than women, women faced worsening underemployment in the form of limited hours and poor pay.” So the facts are men are suffering most but let’s claim the opposite.
“...women are simultaneously exposed to elements of social and economic disadvantage, including limited access to basic health, education, and general life opportunities.”
The facts are women far outstrip men in being provided with health services by huge margin and their life expectancy and quality of life reflects this. Education is tailored to girls at the expense of boys and more women are at university than men. Women have more rights, opportunities and choices than men across all of society. When did you ever hear about men have reproductive rights?
Every single statement in this diatribe is contrary to the facts. At no point anywhere does the author show that women have unequal opportunity. That is because she can’t.
Her lament is that marginally less women are choosing high flying boardroom careers over their wealth of other life choices. I guess she wants to dictate to everyone what their choices should be rather than have people get there by merit.

DG says:

10:22am | 28/08/09

So Males went from having an income to having no income, while females went from an income to a lower income - and women are the big losers? That’s nearly as bad as the middle aged white male complaining that he’s being repressed.

Note that due to the GFC the financial sector lost a large number of employees, an industry that is 54% female (according to the ABS, 2005), yet more males lots their jobs than females. Interesting.

On a side note: There is no information given to indicate whether women happen to choose ‘part time’ or casual roles as they juggle other interests interests in addition to employment (ie having a family), or whether they are simply more willing to carry out part-time duties for any number of reasons. (if the former then it is inevitable that they will be paid less, as an employer I would want to reward employees who put the job above everything else in their lives). 

There is no information given as to a relationship between a persons time with the employer and the wage that they have - it is quite conceivable that those that have worked in the place longer are paid extra as a reward for their loyalty and commitment. In the absence for of such information the statistics do not represent the range of factors that affect a persons income. To suggest that gender is the trigger is, perhaps, premature.

I agree with a comment above that it’s a nice sentiment to have flexible work hours but if your job involves working with clients and your clients work 9-5 its just not practical to accommodate other arrangements (without reducing the persons wages to reflect that part of their job that they can no longer perform during the course of their working day). If a person is unable or unwilling to work the required hours they can negotiate to be flexible - but I would argue that if the employer is allowing you flexible arrangements that is an improvement in working conditions and could fairly be met with a lower income.

@ED - if these things are happening in the same household then it is the household that has suffered, not just the woman. If the woman had lost her job and the man had his hours cut you would claim that the woman was the victim and she was now completely dependent on the male.

Secondly, while I haven’t seen the figures, I suspect that it is primarily part time/casual employees that have had their hours cut rather that persons working full-time going to part time. This would reflect the decrease in hours for women (being as they are primarily in casual/part time positions to begin with). It would also suggest that the household that was surviving on 1 and a half incomes is now on less than half an income - again it is the household that suffers trying to claim that it is no unfair that the woman has to be the primary bread winner is strange - are you suggesting that she should have to be the primary bread winner and support her partner. While a man would be expected to do exactly that if it had been the part time employee that became unemployed.

Eric says:

10:09am | 28/08/09

MAC: I’m as consistent as the Punch writers who constantly promote feminist talking points.

MAC says:

10:04am | 28/08/09

As a side comment:

As I was reading this page, I was thinking to myself, I wonder what Eric will say about this? And low and behold, ” Typical feminist whingeing” is the first sentence I see..
(I’m not going to lie, it made me smile with confirmation of your predictability)

I have only with Punch for three weeks, every time there is something “sexist towards men”, I can be assured you have something to say.

Thanking you for your consistency.

Voxpop says:

09:50am | 28/08/09

Peter - I dare say many women are in fact out there just getting on with it. 

So Christina didn’t complain and yet we know all about her ‘lot’ - what is so wrong with this author highlighting an issue - she’s not complaining about her own situation but telling us about others that are doing it tough.

So if this piece were written by a man and only talked about the men’s employment issues you’d be happy?

Voxpop says:

09:42am | 28/08/09

The trouble is Eric you have such a distorted view of the world that you think everything is feminist propoganda - anything written by a female journo, even a discussion about effectiveness of shock advert safety campaigns (WTF).  It’s you whose lost credibility due to the sheer number of posts where you show so much more than just hate for women - you’ve taken it to a whole other level and it aint healthy.  I’m not a man hater and I’m not a feminist and I also don’t really want to insult you but really - take a long hard look at yourself…

Peter says:

09:33am | 28/08/09

Oh, the delicious irony!

The article is accompanied with American Realist Andrew Wyeth’s famous “Christina’s World” - the subject of which was a woman who, despite a debilitating disease which left her a paraplegic, successfully ran a farm in Maine.  She would, literally, crawl across her fields, as depicted in the picture.

In other words, here was a woman who didn’t bitch and moan about her lot, or complain about the unfairness of it all, or plead for Big Government support or intervention - she just got on with the job.

As Wyeth said:  Christina “was limited physically but by no means spiritually ... The challenge to me was to do justice to her extraordinary conquest of a life which most people would consider hopeless.”

Ms Henry may wish to ponder that for a moment.

Jo says:

08:50am | 28/08/09

While I have no problem with the content of the article - opinions are opinions after all - you’ve just used the GFC in the title and first bit to justify a rehashed article in inequalities in the workplace.

Is there actually evidence targeting the impact on women? Or are you just making assumptions following your understanding of the current work situation for women vs. men in today’s economy?

Eric says:

08:50am | 28/08/09

ED: You fail to counter my point.

Even though men are worse off than women, Ms Henry still tries to portray it as the reverse.

Voxpop: As long as writers put out feminist propaganda, I will continue to counter it with facts. You can’t argue my points, so you insult me, and thus you lose credibility.

Voxpop says:

08:34am | 28/08/09

Oh gee surpise, surprise Eric is the first to reply to a women’s issues piece yet again - toxic woman hater.  You need help mate, seriously.
http://www.menslineaus.org.au/

ED says:

08:22am | 28/08/09

“So even though more men are losing their entire job, women are somehow worse off because they only get a cut in hours? I bet those unemployed men just wish they had so much luck.”

Did you consider the fact, Eric, that maybe both situations are happening in one household?

In most cases both male and female householders work fulltime, in most cases the female would be earning less than the male. So male loses job, female her gets hours and pay cut back even further, and suddenly she is the sole breadwinner on a menial wage.

So while I agree with your observation that male workers would prefer that they only had their hours cut rather than unemployment forced upon them, the resounding factor is that since our pay rates are still uneven in this country the male workers will obviously be the first to go. Leaving the burden on women not only to support a household, but most probably to support the ego-damaged male on the couch.

Greg says:

07:38am | 28/08/09

“One of the major barriers explaining this trend is the lack of adequate family and childcare support structures in Australian workplaces. Employers need to implement policies and practices which help women and men better balance their work and family responsibilities, such as flexible work hours, parental leave, and home-based work options.”

Some do. I’ve worked for one small business that provided extraordinary amounts of time to parents wanting to cut back their hours. I think the business is suffering a bit as a result.

Everyone who brings up the “Employers should provide child care facilities or appropriate leave argument” have obviously never run a business. I’m sorry to say but that is the last thing that most bosses would want or provide. Unless a new building is being built that incorporates child care facilities, most small-medium sized business cannot provide the space or the means to do so. If leave is provided, less hours will be worked, predominantly by women and then presumably you can start the “less pay for the same work” argument despite the fact that it is actually “less work for less pay”.

Own and run a business and then come back with how it can be done.

Please also remember in many areas of the service industry and presumably manufacturing and goods industries as well, opening hours are from 9am - 5pm. Working outside those hours will normally mean doing internal work only, as external businesses will not respond.

Eric says:

06:44am | 28/08/09

Typical feminist whingeing.

“While more men had lost full-time jobs than women, women faced worsening underemployment in the form of limited hours and poor pay.”

So even though more men are losing their entire job, women are somehow worse off because they only get a cut in hours? I bet those unemployed men just wish they had so much luck.

As for health and education, women get the best of both—with more high school and university graduates, more years of life, and more money spent on their needs.

It takes some chutzpah to claim that women are oppressed when all the main social indicators show they’re better off than men.