Green Jobs = Good for the Environment, Bad for Women?
Published January 24, 2009 @ 08:17PM PT
Green jobs are the 21st century version of the New Deal to many supportive of Obama's economic stimulus plan. But have you realized that most of the green jobs - building infrastructure in particular - will likely be given to men?
This is a concern that was just brought to my attention by an elected official from the state of Kansas. At first I thought he was just overlooking the other opportunities beyond construction work that can be filled by females in the green sector, until I read this December 2008 Op-Ed by Linda Hirshman:
Mr. Obama compared his infrastructure plan to the Eisenhower-era construction of the Interstate System of highways. It brings back the Eisenhower era in a less appealing way as well: there are almost no women on this road to recovery.
Back before the feminist revolution brought women into the workplace in unprecedented numbers, this would have been more understandable. But today, women constitute about 46 percent of the labor force. And as the current downturn has worsened, their traditionally lower unemployment rate has actually risen just as fast as men’s. A just economic stimulus plan must include jobs in fields like social work and teaching, where large numbers of women work.
The bulk of the stimulus program will provide jobs for men, because building projects generate jobs in construction, where women make up only 9 percent of the work force.
It turns out that green jobs are almost entirely male as well, especially in the alternative energy area. A broad study by the United States Conference of Mayors found that half the projected new jobs in any green area are in engineering, a field that is only 12 percent female, or in the heavily male professions of law and consulting; the rest are in such traditional male areas as manufacturing, agriculture and forestry. And like companies that build roads, alternative energy firms also employ construction workers and engineers.
While I think a green economy will reward Mother Nature, it is also clear that it rewards more men than women as well. With the fiscal crisis hitting women the hardest, how will women survive? Particularly, with a stimulus plan built to assist men in finding jobs, but leaving women in the dust.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
EmailRelated Posts
-
Women Getting the Short End of the Stick in Economy Recovery Plan
-
What Do You Want to Know About Financial Regulatory Reform?
-
70 Cent Raise Helps Workers, But May Hurt Businesses
Comments (13)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Jen Nedeau is a social media consultant, progressive activist, feminist speaker and writer. She currently lives in New York City, where she works full-time as the Director of Digital Strategy at Air America Media. Additionally, Nedeau volunteers as the Chief Technology Officer for New Leaders Council, a non-profit that offers exclusive training for young leaders. You can follow her on Twitter @HumanFolly or learn more here: www.jennedeau.com.
Equal pay for equal work. However, it seems that some would suggest that there should be be a need for economic stimulus based specifically on gender. I thought that the focus should be based on needs instead. Am I wrong?
When the selection for stimulus centers on gender specific occupations, there is sure to be a concern in the amount of compensation those occupations typically garner. Are the wages also going to continue to be at issue with regard to parity? It would seem unfortunate that this centers around gender when so much had been discussed as far as parity without regard to it.
Posted by William Pointer on 01/24/2009 @ 11:50PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm New to a line of work that is predominately Men. It has opened up a vast new world of Ideas to me of other unknown fields including "Green" , it will be reletively new to everyone. I write my blog about the Challenges I had going into this job which I found to be from a lack of training & support internally. To form the New Green Industry good initial preparedness to include everyone should be devised early. After all , great minds are not gender specific
Posted by Desiree Wood on 01/25/2009 @ 05:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It sounds like an education and choice problem is being described here. It sounds like 12% of the women chose professions that would be in demand with this initiative. We are all squirming.
Posted by jowey styxx on 01/25/2009 @ 09:34AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Jowey,
To an extent, that is true. It is one of the main reasons students are being steered towards math and science fields while in school. There are needs for individuals with skills in these areas and females are typically underrepresented, as a percentage, as well. If those areas are where growth and need exist, why artificially manipulate stimulus or compensation based solely on gender? It is a choice that our students should be aware of when they make choices about their futures.
Further, this is an issue with using statistics to justify arguments erroneously. Despite women constituting 46% of the labor force, there are concentrations in certain fields. What is being lobbied for is not justice, but monies towards areas not deemed as critical to our long term survivability. Social work, and teaching, are not labor intensive fields and do not necessitate the levels of direct support that construction and infrastructure do. They tend to operate on a more personal scale.
Posted by William Pointer on 01/25/2009 @ 10:24AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree about the steering. It sounds like social work and teaching are getting some more recognition.
What is being lobbied for is the survivability of our society. We "need" our infrastructure upgraded anyone that can fill those niches should be used - woman or man.
Women should also thrive in the fields of math, science and law. In the past they have been steered away from these fields through propaganda and choosing to comply to it (except for a few). I hope that this is changing.
One could look at this as an opportunity to expand into the fields where women are poorly represented as the demand for labor increases.
Posted by jowey styxx on 01/25/2009 @ 02:37PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"What is being lobbied for is not justice, but monies towards areas not deemed as critical to our long term survivability. Social work, and teaching, are not labor intensive fields and do not necessitate the levels of direct support that construction and infrastructure do."
William, are you seriously arguing that teaching and social services are not critical to long term-survival? Roads trump education and health? Seriously??
Posted by Leigh Graham on 01/26/2009 @ 10:03AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I've known women who did factory and construction work, it's not impossible that some of the blue collar sort of jobs discussed in the program could go to women, especially if training programs are made available.
And I think progress has been made on the number of women in math and science, but the right thing to do I think is to encourage more girls to choose these fields early on, and make it easier for them to stay in as a career path. Many who go in don't stay, because higher level careers aren't very family friendly, and the time when you're expected to establish yourself is also right about when many women want to become parents.
Posted by Natasha Chart on 01/26/2009 @ 10:21AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Leigh,
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my post. What was meant was that monies are being funnelled towards areas of more immediate imact. Additionally, infrastructure and construction tend to be visible and demonstrative. Working with things, as opposed to people, tends to also be more readily quantified. Success and results become easier to quantify. This is especially true in the short term.
Posted by William Pointer on 01/26/2009 @ 03:58PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Natasha - that's a good point - we definitely need more women to embrace careers in these fields and make sure they can find success, both professionally and personally.
But how can we help women who are being hit by the tough economy now and help them find long term jobs? I do believe many will in fact find some work in the green economy, but I am nervous that we will be setting up a mechanism that effectively leaves many women - particularly older women and mothers - without many options.
Posted by Jen Nedeau on 01/27/2009 @ 07:02AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I am in this career and wish I could embrace it more but after being out of work for 6 months I am losing my like for the job. Then hearing all the negative stories it is tough to be positive. All I wanted when I got in this field was to learn as an apprentice find some good people to work with and continue learning. it seems that every avenue is met with more difficulties.
Posted by D M on 01/27/2009 @ 12:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Unless you are living as someone in the affected group (for this discussion women) it's hard to explain the differences that spring up in our careers or job paths, why we are directed toward one field vs. another, because it's not like your college advisor sits you down and says, "You're a woman, you should be a science teacher" or "You're a man, you should be a doctor." It's the culmination of many years of social stereotyping seeping it's way into everyones lives.
There are very few options for women who a single parents or have less than a high school diploma. In our society, men are expected to continue with their jobs same-as-always when they have children, women struggle wtih juggling parenting & work regardless of their marital status.
Any economic stimulus is pointless when we look at it as black & white. There are so many facets to the issue, that it's blinding.
Posted by Lisa Smolen on 01/27/2009 @ 01:04PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I have a story that may be relevant to what I am reading here, the employment problem is not endemic to gender.
In the eighties I lived in Riyadh Saudi Arabia for over a year. During that period we interfaced with many cultures, ex patriots servicing the King's infrastructure development.
There they had full service gas stations, we would pull in and talk to the attendant. One conversation stands out with a Filipino, who was looking forward to his first vacation in a decade. He fluently spoke six languages and had a PHD in the sciences, Physics if I remember correctly. I asked him why he was working in a Saudi gas station thousands of miles from home. Apparently an education and a willingness to work did not guarantee a job. He stated that when he finally did go home his family would be affluent.
It could be argued that his educational credentials may be lacking, his language skills could not be argued against though.
We have low end positions being filled by machines and populations that leverage their positions by hiring only their own. Skilled jobs dealing with information outsourced to other countries such as India. Unskilled jobs in manufacturing outsourced to China. Moving up one runs into "networked" groups, those that come from various populations, colleges and military stand out - positions are given to their own. Only exceptional individuals can break through such barriers, our President is a notable example. For the average Jowey, the knowledge derived does not mean as much as what demographic one can claim to be part of.
Guess the bottom line is to identify that one is being "directed" down a path and turn from the path. Find others that are experiencing similar "barriers" and leverage your demographic. This Internet provides opportunities to "out grow" the barriers - the problem is to connect.
Posted by jowey styxx on 01/28/2009 @ 07:14AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think that we should create whatever jobs are necessary to shift the American paradigm into an environmentally sustainable paradigm regardless of what gender ends up getting the bulk of positions created by the initiative. If most of the "green" jobs that are going to be being created are physically demanding then so be it, that is not discrimination against women as a gender but rather just the the way the cards fell in terms of what it needed and who has the skills to perform the tasks. Women, along with the rest of the world population and the environment (and its other inhabitants) will all be better off in the long run from the alteration in infrastructure if it proves successful in making American economic activities (from resource harvest to end use consumption) more sustainable.
Posted by Amanda Nichols on 02/18/2009 @ 12:32PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.