Should men be given job priority over women during the recession?

b12mearse

I would like you to give your opinions on this.

Unemployment figures tell us more men are unemployed than women.

It make me questions men and womens roles in society.

Are there natural roles for men and women in society?

mega man

sure why not..if it helped me get a job

Nody

And how big percentage of the female population was working before the recession vs. the male one (due to children etc.)? Hard numbers are all good and fine with two equal populations employed but my gut feeling would point to a lower percentage female employed and hence a lower amount of females that where let go.

the_syco

b12mearse wrote: »

Unemployment figures tell us more men are unemployed than women.

It make me questions men and womens roles in society.

How many more men worked in a trade before the recession? May have been even beofre, but now the scales would be tipped.

Kaybe

b12mearse wrote: »

Unemployment figures tell us more men are unemployed than women.

But of course there are more men listed as unemployed.
There are WAY more women who are at home rearing kids than men.
Whether they are at home with the kids through choice, or necessity (e.g. it was no longer financially viable to work after X-number kids arrived) doesn't matter.
They are at home and not looking for work and thus not eligible for Jobseekers Allowance or Benefit, and thus do not appear on the Live Register
Therefore there are vastly more men on the Register than women.

Gillo

A number of industaries generally dominated by males have been badly affected by the recession take construction for example, so you're gonna get more males sigining on.

In answer to your question, NO.

AARRRGH

I think men and women are different, however I think both should be offered the same opportunities, and treated equally.

It's unfortunate more men are unemployed than women, but women shouldn't be punished for choosing more recession friendly careers.

If I was a construction worker and was currently on the dole, I would be looking to re-skill or set up a company. For example, if I were a plumber I would set up a plumbing company which specialises in evening calls, so workers don't have to take half days/days off to get their plumbing problems fixed. Or something like that...

doolox

If men are exclusively obliged by law to provide for their wives and children then there might be a case for prioritising scarce jobs to men, but they are no longer exclusively responsible for providing material resources to their spouses and families. "Equal rights" has dispensed, legally, with distinguishing between breadwinners and home-makers in the modern family on purely gender grounds.

It is now a matter for men of taking on different roles than they did in the past. Because of the modern emphasis on work on communications, teamwork and service type skills women tend to be better at this and more likely to secure the available jobs.

Men will have to adapt and get good at these skills or lose out otherwise.

All the primary economy sector jobs:- mining, agriculture, heavy engineering, civil eng etc are shrinking in the developed world and these were jobs men were good at.
With our aging population , caring jobs are on the increase.
Also there is a bigger need for education and teachers.
Services are becoming a larger part of our economy.

Guess where the teachers, nurses and secretaries are in the gender divide.......

Agent Smith

well, if i was out of work, then i'd prob say yes, if only to help me get a job....

Gurgle

b12mearse wrote: »

Are there natural roles for men and women in society?

Yes, there are some obvious ones, laboring on a building site for example...
Which might possibly be somehow related to the unemployment figures.

As to your question: No, that would be stupid. Hire the person best suited to the job.

sunnyjim

You can be sure that if women were the greater percentage, a few womens-lib-type quangos would be calling for government intervention to bring about a program for giving women an advantage in getting employed.

Capt'n Midnight

what's the m/f ratio in the public sector ?
as not many of the permemant staff there have had to take 100% pay cuts, compared to the private sector


there is the old chestnut that men get paid 15% [pick a number] more than women doing the same job , so you save more money by firing men than women

Ellechim

Guys, if you look into it a much higher percentage of women hold the lower paid jobs. Only 6% of Irish boardrooms are made of women.....we have one of the lowest rate of women in senior management in Europe. Many women who continue to work after they have children take demotions or decide not to further their careers to facilitate the family - men don't tend to do this....

So, if you want to deny women jobs men, you have to be prepared to build yourselves careers that can support a whole family including get and pay a mortgage. Our economy doesn't lend itself to one salary families and that isn't likely to change in the short term.....

here is the stat on weekly earnings from the CSO website on male/female earnings in 2006 which showed women's earnings then were 31% less......

Tables 1,2 and 3: Average Earnings and Hours Worked by Sex, Broad
Industrial Sector, Year and Statistic
All Industries (NACE 1-4)
2006
Average Earnings Per Week (Euro)
All Persons 601.21
Male 655.68
Female 451.79

All this info is available on the CSO website - there is lots of interesting reading there, go and have a dig around it.........

Eoin

Ellechim wrote: »

Guys, if you look into it a much higher percentage of women hold the lower paid jobs. Only 6% of Irish boardrooms are made of women.....we have one of the lowest rate of women in senior management in Europe. Many women who continue to work after they have children take demotions or decide not to further their careers to facilitate the family - men don't tend to do this....

You could also argue that men aren't really given a chance to do this either, given that there is no paternity leave at all in Irish employment law - unpaid or otherwise. If a woman can take a full year off following the birth of a child, then of course it will affect their career progression.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

there is the old chestnut that men get paid 15% [pick a number] more than women doing the same job , so you save more money by firing men than women

Apart from the cost of maternity pay (if the company provides it), the cost of getting a temporary replacement in if required etc. If the civil service stats are anything to go by, then woman might take more sick leave over men on average.

To answer the OP though - no. I don't agree with positive discrimination.

omahaid

Ooo controversial , best person for the job imo, gender irrelevant surely. I wonder if a lot of the unemployed men are coming from manual labour roles? Nows the time to upskill.

namenotavailablE

I'd agree with the previous post- logically, the best results should be obtained if a job is given to the person possessing the best skill-set/ ability etc rather than on the basis of gender alone.