Unemployment is a man thing...

[Im The Truth]

The Slump: It's a Guy Thing
By Peter Coy
May 8, 2008

They eat from the same dishes and sleep in the same beds, but they seem to be operating in two different economies. From last November through this April, American women aged 20 and up gained nearly 300,000 jobs, according to the household survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). At the same time, American men lost nearly 700,000 jobs. You might even say American men are in recession, and American women are not.

What's going on? Simply put, men have the misfortune of being concentrated in the two sectors that are doing the worst: manufacturing and construction. Women are concentrated in sectors that are still growing, such as education and health care.

This situation is hardly good news for women, though. While they're getting more jobs, their pay is stagnant. Also, most share households -- and bills -- with the men who are losing jobs. And the "female" economy can't stay strong for long if the "male" economy weakens too much.

The troubles for the American male worker, while exacerbated by the current slump, are hardly new. The manufacturing sector is in long-term decline, and construction goes through repeated booms and busts. Meanwhile women are graduating from college at higher rates than men. Some analysts even argue that men are less suited than women to the knowledge economy, which rewards supposedly female traits such as sensitivity, intuition, and a willingness to collaborate. "Men have tended to do better in the hierarchies, following orders and relying on positional power," says Andy Hines, a futurist at the Washington (D.C.) consulting firm Social Technologies, who previously worked for Kellogg (NYSE:K - News) and Dow Chemical (NYSEOW - News).

Problem Industries

Whether you buy that argument or not, it's clear that right now men are in a bad spot. The share of all men aged 20 and over with jobs has fallen since last November, when private-sector employment peaked, going from 72.9% to 72.2% in April. For women the ratio rose, from 58.1% to 58.3%. The adult male unemployment rate has risen twice as much as the female jobless rate since November. Those figures from the BLS' household survey are echoed in its separate survey of employers.

To see why, go sector by sector. Manufacturing is over 70% male and construction is about 88% male. Meanwhile the growing education and health services sector is 77% female. The government sector, which has remained strong, is 57% female. The securities business, which is filled with high-paying jobs, is likely to be the next sector to get whacked -- and more than 60% of its workers are men.

Men are having a harder time than women getting back on track after losing a job. "For a man to move from a $20- or $30-an-hour union job to being a Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT - News) greeter is devastating," says Claudia Goldin, a Harvard University labor historian. Men also shy away from some of the growing fields, such as nursing. Only about 10% of nursing students nationwide are male, notes Harriet R. Feldman, dean of the Pace University School of Nursing. Some retired nurses are actually going back to work because their husbands have lost jobs, says Lois Cooper, vice-president for employee relations and diversity at staffing firm Adecco Group North America in Melville, N.Y.

The weakness of the male economy is squeezing people such as Brian Day, 45, a union carpenter in Ossian, Ind., who made about $35,000 in construction last year but only $1,500 so far in 2008. The family of five is living off his jobless benefits and the $35,000 salary of his wife, a supermarket supervisor. Says Day: "I feel guilty about it." Jeff Bainter, 53, a railroad worker in Muncie, Ind., has enough seniority to keep his job but sees younger men getting the ax. He says there's more security but lower pay in what his wife, Cynthiana, does for a living: medical billing.

Stubborn Pay Gap

The Presidential candidates haven't figured out how to play the disparity between men and women. In BusinessWeek interviews, advisers for all three said they want to help everyone. Austan Goolsbee, chief economic adviser to Senator Barack Obama, said: "Because the unemployed are disproportionately men, they may especially benefit from Obama's program to get us out of recession. But gender has nothing to do with the policy's design." Senator Hillary Clinton's economic policy director, Brian Deese, said: "The goal is not to appeal to men more than women."

One reason for the candidates to tread lightly is that even though men have done worse on jobs lately, they continue to earn more than women on average. Over three-quarters of people who earned over $100,000 last year were men, says Queens College political scientist Andrew Hacker. In fact, although the pay gap between men and women has been gradually narrowing, it actually widened a bit over the past year. Median usual weekly earnings for men grew 4.6% from the first quarter of 2007 through the first quarter of 2008, vs. 3.1% for women.

That might be evidence that the jobs women are landing aren't necessarily good ones. Says Eileen Appelbaum, director of Rutgers University's Center for Women & Work: "We had an expansion of jobs for home health aides, retail clerks, child-care workers. They're low-wage, they're dead-end, and they don't have any benefits."

Another reason politicians aren't making hay of the plight of males is that they are well aware that women are in no mood for it. Working-class and lower-middle-class women in particular, whether or not their men have jobs, are feeling economically stressed, says Bill McInturff, a pollster for Senator John McCain. He adds, "In focus groups they talk about how 'I'm taking care of my parents, his parents, buying groceries, taking kids to the doctor.' These women are tired."

There's no easy remedy for what ails the male economy. Edward J. O'Boyle, senior research associate at the Mayo Research Institute in West Monroe, La., says part of the solution is reviving manufacturing -- a gargantuan task. On construction, he favors financial reforms to even out the booms and busts.

Economists are debating whether the overall economy is in a recession. For men, the evidence is clear.

With Maggie Gilmour and Jing Zhou in Chicago and Jane Sasseen in Washington, D.C.

Copyright © 2008 BusinessWeek Online. All rights reserved.

[w.i.s.e.]

Originally Posted by Im The Truth

The Slump: It's a Guy Thing
By Peter Coy
May 8, 2008

They eat from the same dishes and sleep in the same beds, but they seem to be operating in two different economies. From last November through this April, American women aged 20 and up gained nearly 300,000 jobs, according to the household survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). At the same time, American men lost nearly 700,000 jobs. You might even say American men are in recession, and American women are not.

What's going on? Simply put, men have the misfortune of being concentrated in the two sectors that are doing the worst: manufacturing and construction. Women are concentrated in sectors that are still growing, such as education and health care.

This situation is hardly good news for women, though. While they're getting more jobs, their pay is stagnant. Also, most share households -- and bills -- with the men who are losing jobs. And the "female" economy can't stay strong for long if the "male" economy weakens too much.

The troubles for the American male worker, while exacerbated by the current slump, are hardly new. The manufacturing sector is in long-term decline, and construction goes through repeated booms and busts. Meanwhile women are graduating from college at higher rates than men. Some analysts even argue that men are less suited than women to the knowledge economy, which rewards supposedly female traits such as sensitivity, intuition, and a willingness to collaborate. "Men have tended to do better in the hierarchies, following orders and relying on positional power," says Andy Hines, a futurist at the Washington (D.C.) consulting firm Social Technologies, who previously worked for Kellogg (NYSE:K - News) and Dow Chemical (NYSEOW - News).

Problem Industries

Whether you buy that argument or not, it's clear that right now men are in a bad spot. The share of all men aged 20 and over with jobs has fallen since last November, when private-sector employment peaked, going from 72.9% to 72.2% in April. For women the ratio rose, from 58.1% to 58.3%. The adult male unemployment rate has risen twice as much as the female jobless rate since November. Those figures from the BLS' household survey are echoed in its separate survey of employers.

To see why, go sector by sector. Manufacturing is over 70% male and construction is about 88% male. Meanwhile the growing education and health services sector is 77% female. The government sector, which has remained strong, is 57% female. The securities business, which is filled with high-paying jobs, is likely to be the next sector to get whacked -- and more than 60% of its workers are men.

Men are having a harder time than women getting back on track after losing a job. "For a man to move from a $20- or $30-an-hour union job to being a Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT - News) greeter is devastating," says Claudia Goldin, a Harvard University labor historian. Men also shy away from some of the growing fields, such as nursing. Only about 10% of nursing students nationwide are male, notes Harriet R. Feldman, dean of the Pace University School of Nursing. Some retired nurses are actually going back to work because their husbands have lost jobs, says Lois Cooper, vice-president for employee relations and diversity at staffing firm Adecco Group North America in Melville, N.Y.

The weakness of the male economy is squeezing people such as Brian Day, 45, a union carpenter in Ossian, Ind., who made about $35,000 in construction last year but only $1,500 so far in 2008. The family of five is living off his jobless benefits and the $35,000 salary of his wife, a supermarket supervisor. Says Day: "I feel guilty about it." Jeff Bainter, 53, a railroad worker in Muncie, Ind., has enough seniority to keep his job but sees younger men getting the ax. He says there's more security but lower pay in what his wife, Cynthiana, does for a living: medical billing.

Stubborn Pay Gap

The Presidential candidates haven't figured out how to play the disparity between men and women. In BusinessWeek interviews, advisers for all three said they want to help everyone. Austan Goolsbee, chief economic adviser to Senator Barack Obama, said: "Because the unemployed are disproportionately men, they may especially benefit from Obama's program to get us out of recession. But gender has nothing to do with the policy's design." Senator Hillary Clinton's economic policy director, Brian Deese, said: "The goal is not to appeal to men more than women."

One reason for the candidates to tread lightly is that even though men have done worse on jobs lately, they continue to earn more than women on average. Over three-quarters of people who earned over $100,000 last year were men, says Queens College political scientist Andrew Hacker. In fact, although the pay gap between men and women has been gradually narrowing, it actually widened a bit over the past year. Median usual weekly earnings for men grew 4.6% from the first quarter of 2007 through the first quarter of 2008, vs. 3.1% for women.

That might be evidence that the jobs women are landing aren't necessarily good ones. Says Eileen Appelbaum, director of Rutgers University's Center for Women & Work: "We had an expansion of jobs for home health aides, retail clerks, child-care workers. They're low-wage, they're dead-end, and they don't have any benefits."

Another reason politicians aren't making hay of the plight of males is that they are well aware that women are in no mood for it. Working-class and lower-middle-class women in particular, whether or not their men have jobs, are feeling economically stressed, says Bill McInturff, a pollster for Senator John McCain. He adds, "In focus groups they talk about how 'I'm taking care of my parents, his parents, buying groceries, taking kids to the doctor.' These women are tired."

There's no easy remedy for what ails the male economy. Edward J. O'Boyle, senior research associate at the Mayo Research Institute in West Monroe, La., says part of the solution is reviving manufacturing -- a gargantuan task. On construction, he favors financial reforms to even out the booms and busts.

Economists are debating whether the overall economy is in a recession. For men, the evidence is clear.

With Maggie Gilmour and Jing Zhou in Chicago and Jane Sasseen in Washington, D.C.

Copyright © 2008 BusinessWeek Online. All rights reserved.

This article sounds completely off. Where does it mention Afrikan people? If we go by the statistics, we can say that Afrikan men might have low numbers of unemployment, but then there is also the fact that in this capitalist economy, Afrikan womyn have the highest access to the lowest paying jobs. Also, isn't there an increase of unemployed womyn of color who are in low-income in this country?

[Sun Ship]

Originally Posted by w.i.s.e.

This article sounds completely off. Where does it mention Afrikan people? If we go by the statistics, we can say that Afrikan men might have low numbers of unemployment, but then there is also the fact that in this capitalist economy, Afrikan womyn have the highest access to the lowest paying jobs. Also, isn't there an increase of unemployed womyn of color who are in low-income in this country?

First of all, it is proven that there is no way to properly calculate how many Black men are out of work using the standards that are usually applied to the gathering of statistics. Hundreds of thousands of Black men have fallen of the demographic map years ago, especially as compared to Black women.

And in all honesty, in this economy, we as Africans both male and female are being screwed so hard, it’s ridiculous to sit around and compare who is being screwed the hardest, and hopefully we will understand that whatever differences there are statistically between us, they are only minor as compared to what has historically moved us towards this struggle amongst ourselves to begin with.

[w.i.s.e.]

Originally Posted by Sun Ship

First of all, it is proven that there is no way to properly calculate how many Black men are out of work using the standards that are usually applied to the gathering of statistics. Hundreds of thousands of Black men have fallen of the demographic map years ago, especially as compared to Black women.

And in all honesty, in this economy, we as Africans both male and female are being screwed so hard, it’s ridiculous to sit around and compare who is being screwed the hardest, and hopefully we will understand that whatever differences there are statistically between us, they are only minor as compared to what has historically moved us towards this struggle amongst ourselves to begin with.

No, I just remember Manning Marable talking about globalization and the growing number of unemployment in the 90s because of it. The reason that I brought it up was because in Harlem alone in 2004, half of the Afrikan male population was unemployed according to his findings. And what's all this talk abotu me sitting around and saying who has it screwed the hardest? I'm not talking about any oppression Olympics. What I am talking about is sexism within the capitalist economy as well as racism and that while Afrikan womyn may have more jobs than Afrikan men, there is the nature of them being despicable in wages and in terms of survival. So the entire article is absolutely ridiculous to me when it talks about unemployment being a man than when I witness it growing increasingly with Afrikan womyn.

[Sun Ship]

Sister what I’m trying to get you to understand is that there is no way to determine how unemployed, sick, or debilitated African men truly are in this society, for when it comes to being counted and socially serviced through the system (where no doubt those Harlem statistics are being garnered from) besides being enumerated or tracked through incarceration, too many Black men have fell off the charts years ago, whereas Black women and especially those with children are more counted and served (poorly served at that) thorough social services and clinics on a more regular basis.

I’m not so focused on this report as I am your response, for regardless if you intended to or not, your approach to this was with a sort of comparative analysis between Black men and women in your rebuttal.

When Black men are being seditiously removed from the work force in this patriarchally controlled society (which is strongly supported by white women) it is to compromise the survival of the Black family and give Black women not alternative to either take a job at a lower pay once given to her man, or to become absolutely destitute. Even if the job was not traditionally held by a man in this society, it is still the unemployment of Black men that has opened the broader downhill path towards the under paying of Black women.

This is why I tell Sisters, that you are being bamboozled when you see these new low-income houses being built for you, and Habitat for Humanity (mostly white folks of goodwill) constructing these cracker box houses in your community, for these are homes that your men are not being employed to build.

Every ribbon cutting keeps a "white" man employed and a "white" woman fed!

You can only have these social programs building homes for mostly poor Black women, for if these types of construction projects moved past these "ghetto" neighborhoods and a few other charitable situations, these white controlled unions would burn them down to the ground with the white woman lighting the match, and it will be viewed as some form of socialism...These hypocritical white women will only go so far when it comes to challenging their men's way of life, which they depend on, while they have our women hoodwinked to think their men are the problem and not part of the solution...

And as we see the removal of African women from the work force it is in lockstep with a grander plan…for just as this article may not speak to racism and employment practices as related to our community, sexism as generally practiced and exemplified in this country cannot fully speak to the plight of Black women exclusive from the Black experience in America in general.

Originally Posted by w.i.s.e.

No, I just remember Manning Marable talking about globalization and the growing number of unemployment in the 90s because of it. The reason that I brought it up was because in Harlem alone in 2004, half of the Afrikan male population was unemployed according to his findings. And what's all this talk abotu me sitting around and saying who has it screwed the hardest? I'm not talking about any oppression Olympics. What I am talking about is sexism within the capitalist economy as well as racism and that while Afrikan womyn may have more jobs than Afrikan men, there is the nature of them being despicable in wages and in terms of survival. So the entire article is absolutely ridiculous to me when it talks about unemployment being a man than when I witness it growing increasingly with Afrikan womyn.

[Im The Truth]

I agree 100% all these social programs give money, insurance, diapers, jobs, homes, child support, etc are for mostly poor Black women to further separate our families and they've done an great job of it and nobody seems to be complaining and drawing up solutions to fix these family problems. We seem to look too further to solve the most dauting and obvious problems in our communities. When will we learn? Can anyone talk about solving practical relationship problems, gaining employment, maintaining a family, gaining useable skills? All vital skills that supercede racism and oppression.

[w.i.s.e.]

Originally Posted by Sun Ship

Sister what I’m trying to get you to understand is that there is no way to determine how unemployed, sick, or debilitated African men truly are in this society, for when it comes to being counted and socially serviced through the system (where no doubt those Harlem statistics are being garnered from) besides being enumerated or tracked through incarceration, too many Black men have fell off the charts years ago, whereas Black women and especially those with children are more counted and served (poorly served at that) thorough social services and clinics on a more regular basis.

I’m not so focused on this report as I am your response, for regardless if you intended to or not, your approach to this was with a sort of comparative analysis between Black men and women in your rebuttal.

When Black men are being seditiously removed from the work force in this patriarchally controlled society (which is strongly supported by white women) it is to compromise the survival of the Black family and give Black women not alternative to either take a job at a lower pay once given to her man, or to become absolutely destitute. Even if the job was not traditionally held by a man in this society, it is still the unemployment of Black men that has opened the broader downhill path towards the under paying of Black women.

This is why I tell Sisters, that you are being bamboozled when you see these new low-income houses being built for you, and Habitat for Humanity (mostly white folks of goodwill) constructing these cracker box houses in your community, for these are homes that your men are not being employed to build.

Every ribbon cutting keeps a "white" man employed and a "white" woman fed!

You can only have these social programs building homes for mostly poor Black women, for if these types of construction projects moved past these "ghetto" neighborhoods and a few other charitable situations, these white controlled unions would burn them down to the ground with the white woman lighting the match, and it will be viewed as some form of socialism...These hypocritical white women will only go so far when it comes to challenging their men's way of life, which they depend on, while they have our women hoodwinked to think their men are the problem and not part of the solution...

And as we see the removal of African women from the work force it is in lockstep with a grander plan…for just as this article may not speak to racism and employment practices as related to our community, sexism as generally practiced and exemplified in this country cannot fully speak to the plight of Black women exclusive from the Black experience in America in general.

I'm not understanding how what you were saying had a lot to do with my posts. If you want to call is comparative, you may do so, but I do not mean for it to be as I said "oppression Olympics" to see who has it harder. On the contrary: I am trying to say that the article is extremely flawed in describing economic hardship in unemployment as a man thing. The title of the article is that "Unemployment is a man thing." That right there is comparative politics as it is. I simply stated that unemployment is not simply a man thing. I brought up the point that unemployment on our community affects Black men as well as Black womyn. While people say that Black womyn are given more programs simply because they happen to be of the female sex, it is problematic to me. It is problematic to me in the sense because the majority of Black womyn are being cut off from social programs with the increasing cuts on health care, welfare, housing programs and other services that people say that the benefit from. That's why I stated that there is a rise in unemployment for Black womyn and why is it raising to the rate of brothers. I said nothing of Habitat for Humanity or low-income housing newly built or needing to praise them because it is a pacification ploy used by the government to avoid real changes in socio-economics. This is in by no means to be a competition. What I am trying to say that economic hardship in unemployment is not strictly a man thing and I am using Black womyn as an example of why the article has little logic to it for me.

The unemployment of Black men has not, in my opinion, led to the downpayment of Black womyn. You can take a Black household with an employed man and an employed womyn. The brother is paid more than the sister is. Black womyn are not being downpayed because of the unemployment of Black men. It is because of the combination of race and gender that makes them receive incredibly low wages. Which is why a critique of sexism and how it specifically affects Black womyn and socioeconomics has to be discussed when talking about unemployment.

The entire point of my post was to demonstrate that umenployment is not simply a man thing, because it is not taking into effect how sisters are effecting by the combination of racism and sexism as double oppression in the capitalist crisis that we face in this country.

[Sun Ship]

Originally Posted by w.i.s.e.

....That's why I stated that there is a rise in unemployment for Black womyn and why is it raising to the rate of brothers.

The brother is paid more than the sister is.

This statement I don’t believe is factual when applied to lower middle and the lower economic class within the Black community. I don’t think most low paying jobs are making any large discrepancies in pay between Black men and women, and this is the income strata of concern as it relates especially or more so contextually to those who are caught up in the dysfunctional societal loop of unemployment and social services.

Also, like I said, statistics are only useful in part when it comes to tracking Black men (this is well founded) and is much better (not nowhere near perfect) when it comes to tracking Black women who have been dealing with social services and clinics from child birth to their children going to school, for so many Black men are not on the social economic radar at all…you seem to not be able to comprehend this. So as far as you talking about Black women catching up as far as unemployment, based on what statistical analysis? Government collected data?

Also, you cannot look at the plight of Black women in isolation away from the plight of Black men, no more than you can make an analysis of white women plight apart from the plight of white men…for if this white male ran economic system totally tanks it will directly effect all interpretations and analysis of a white woman’s rights and advancement…please don’t be so naive to think anything less.

[w.i.s.e.]

Originally Posted by Sun Ship

This statement I don’t believe is factual when applied to lower middle and the lower economic class within the Black community. I don’t think most low paying jobs are making any large discrepancies in pay between Black men and women, and this is the income strata of concern as it relates especially or more so contextually to those who are caught up in the dysfunctional societal loop of unemployment and social services.

Why do you not think there are any discrepancies? If you look at the examples of lower middle and lower economic classes, there are more womyn who suffer unemployment to the extent of men with the coming recession and the outsourcing of female labor that Black womyn used to occupy in employment positions. And if you look at who occupies the most low paying jobs, it is Black womyn. This indeed creates a great discrepancy. Even in low paying jobs, next to brothers, sisters get the lower paying wage. This also applies to corporate job markets as well, aside from the lowest sectors. It has more to do with gender and racism combined for Black womyn rather than anti-poverty tools that are being taken away.

Also, like I said, statistics are only useful in part when it comes to tracking Black men (this is well founded) and is much better (not nowhere near perfect) when it comes to tracking Black women who have been dealing with social services and clinics from child birth to their children going to school, for so many Black men are not on the social economic radar at all…you seem to not be able to comprehend this. So as far as you talking about Black women catching up as far as unemployment, based on what statistical analysis? Government collected data?

Of course I've comprehended it. You might have not been paying attention to my posts when I stated that while Black men are unemployed, Black womyn have the best access to the worst paying jobs. You have also failed to acknowledge that most services that 'register' Black womyn are being cut by the government. I receive all statistical evidence from studies given by economists and political scientists. The theory has merit to it with the cutting of the lowest paying services jobs that are occupied mostly by Black womyn and the cutting of social services.

Also, you cannot look at the plight of Black women in isolation away from the plight of Black men, no more than you can make an analysis of white women plight apart from the plight of white men…for if this white male ran economic system totally tanks it will directly effect all interpretations and analysis of a white woman’s rights and advancement…please don’t be so naive to think anything less.

I'm not looking at the plight of Black womyn in isolation away from Black men. It has to do with taking sexism into account as to why Black womyn face economic hardship and rising unemployment in part because of their gender. Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't patronize me by suggesting that I am naive. Speaking about sexism in a white male patriarchy that has constantly degraded Black womyn for their race and sex was never apart of any white womyn's movement. It was always part of a Black feminist socialist perspective that was separate and integrated into the experience of oppressed womyn of color. Why when sexism is talked about in Black womyn's experiences, it is considered isolationist, when it is simply experessing another element of our experience is beyond me and seems naive as well as unrealistic to the sum of what sisters experience. Nor do I understand why the white womyn's movement is brought up when I've previously stated that I detest it nor did it have anything to do with my initial point. Gender isn't separate from the Black community and it isn't isolating anything, since Black womyn share racism with Black men. Oppression comes in different packages, other than the racism we experience.

[Sun Ship]

Sister w.i.s.e., I have known too many people working the lowest of the low end and minimum wage jobs, never have I heard of any noteworthy difference in minimal wages between the sexes, and the more important fact that both impoverished Black men and women are struggling to make ends meet should give them some sense of solidarity, instead of being influenced and stymied by the needs of those who have to have a statistically-based, analytical, and rhetorical debate over this, those who in some cases scour the given data and research to find instances whereas poor Black men are making $0.02 more a hour than poor Black women.

And based on your answer, you don’t understand what it means to be a Black man not counted by the system at all and haven’t been counted statistically for decades! This is the untold story of Black men, which has only been alluded to in probably a few books and possibly a documentary. And I don’t expect a Black feminist to be sensitive to this social anomaly because it’s not on your radar of concerns either academically, intuitively, or based on experience. You keep comparing the known data concerning lower-income Black women and their unemployment with data concerning the employment of impoverished Black men which is impossible to verify as it relates to the Black male populations as a whole. Though Black women are now being slowly removed from various social services, there are very large numbers of Black men who plight has never, if ever been included, monitored, or properly documented even within that same failed system, outside of what I mentioned previously as cited, the judicial and penal system (and at best, Veterans Administration).

When the unemployment rate of Black men is erroneously determined, it is usually by using statistical data garnered mostly from social services, i.e., the unemployment office. Men who lives that have been socio-psychologically imploded from drug abuse, alcoholism, unemployable prison records, and other social-ills not readily defined as it relates to men in Black society have become in large numbers undocumented urban nomads and wanderers decades ago. Many of our young men (and of course older ones) went outside of the paperwork trail of school or employment via the drug dealing trade, only being eventually monitored through crime related activity on one end, and suspected gang activity on another, and we should also include hospitalization after being assaulted by a deadly weapon, and of course eventually imprisonment or death.

What I don’t think you take into account is that in a “white” patriarchally dominant system like this one, the threat to the controlling males rule first is another man of another ethnic group, race, tribe, class, or social grouping. The authors and inheritors of this Western style or Indo-European derived patriarchy see no solidarity pertaining to commonality amongst the male gender when it comes to race.

And as far as being deemed "patronizing" by asking you to not be so naïve (...pleaze), I’m suggested that based on what you have postulated in your statements. Regardless of how you view the divide based on latent and recently expressed misogyny and chauvinism coming from amongst Black men or specifically directed at Black women from the more dominant and controlling patriarchal “white” society, let me be clear how these ruling “white” patriarchs work, “so go your man, so shall you follow.” The slowly growing downward spiral of the health and well-being of the Black family and the Black women who have always defined our civility and socio-cultural structures is the evidence of this.

Either, Black women will be disposed of at even a more alarming rate than what we see happening now, or they will adjust to survive for their children sakes and give themselves over more and more to their oppressors as usable chattel both domestically and sexually (deconstruct the collective subconsciousness of white men in the subliminal message from Halle Berry’s award –winning performance in Monster’s Ball…if that wasn’t theoretically a Francis Cress Welsingian 101 performance I don’t what was).

The history of imperialism proves all of what I just said.

This is time for solidarity not a splitting of ideological hairs….

[w.i.s.e.]

Originally Posted by Sun Ship

[B][COLOR="Yellow"]both impoverished Black men and women are struggling to make ends meet should give them some sense of solidarity

That was my whole point. I've already exhausted the number of times that I've stated that this isn't about competition. It is about what is worse. It is just about what's different in the methods of oppression that are enacted and people coming together to understand those differences. Naming them doesn't equate to divisiveness; acting as if sex differences don't exist isn't contributing to solidarity because it is not taking into account how Black womyn are specifically effected to the extent that Black men are and that they have less issues because they are seen to be more taken care of the the state with social services and more jobs. Speaking about the experiences of Black womyn in relation to sexism and racism combined isn't stopping solidarity; it is enforcing it on the basis of understanding all facets of oppression that every community member faces.

And based on your answer, you don’t understand what it means to be a Black man not counted by the system at all and haven’t been counted statistically for decades! This is the untold story of Black men, which has only been alluded to in probably a few books and possibly a documentary. And I don’t expect a Black feminist to be sensitive to this social anomaly because it’s not on your radar of concerns either academically, intuitively, or based on experience. You keep comparing the known data concerning lower-income Black women and their unemployment with data concerning the employment of impoverished Black men which is impossible to verify as it relates to the Black male populations as a whole. Though Black women are now being slowly removed from various social services, there are very large numbers of Black men who plight has never, if ever been included, monitored, or properly documented even within that same failed system, outside of what I mentioned previously as cited, the judicial and penal system (and at best, Veterans Administration).

Your argument is hypocritical. You suggest that I don't understand the plight of Black men then go on to cite how Black men have never been documented in a failed social system as opposed to Black womyn, when I never stated that this is a comparison thing. Now, that suggests that if anyone is doing anything by comparison, it is you. I understand very well the plight of Black men in a socioeconomic oppressive situation and racist exploitation that creates unemployment. That ties into the argument with Black womyn being oppressed in different circumstances because of the additional factor of their gender. You keep mentioning social services, but a large number of social anti poverty tools for Black womyn are being cut and the majority of services go to white womyn instead, which puts Black womyn in the same position as Black men. Many Black womyn who are cut off from these services are becoming invisible just as brothers are and subjected to unemployment. This isn't any comparison of the two. That's where your argument is extremely flawed when you study the increasing changes in social services and how they are unevenly distributed, leaving more Black womyn in the unemployment circle. It is simply saying that unemployment isn't just something that happens to "brothers" and that sisters somehow have it easier. To say that on your part is indeed creating a comparison which isn't what I was trying to accomplish.

When the unemployment rate of Black men is erroneously determined, it is usually by using statistical data garnered mostly from social services, i.e., the unemployment office. Men who lives that have been socio-psychologically imploded from drug abuse, alcoholism, unemployable prison records, and other social-ills not readily defined as it relates to men in Black society have become in large numbers undocumented urban nomads and wanderers decades ago. Many of our young men (and of course older ones) went outside of the paperwork trail of school or employment via the drug dealing trade, only being eventually monitored through crime related activity on one end, and suspected gang activity on another, and we should also include hospitalization after being assaulted by a deadly weapon, and of course eventually imprisonment or death.

Well, there is no need to explain the oppressive measures that white supremacy has had on brothers, including drug dealing, imprisonment, the rising police state, and the increase of racial oppression to Black men because I understand that completely. What I am talking about is that racial oppression isn't just effecting brothers that harshly. It is effecting sisters just as harshly, but in different ways. Social services that are taken away by the government don't mean a damn thing. You forget about the increasing imprisonment of womyn, the eradication of social tools for formerly imprisoned womyn, drug abuse, alcoholism, racialized gendered police brutality and issues that effect us just as much as they do for Black men. You ain't hearing me past what you want to hear. I'm stating that sisters are oppressed just as much as brothers and the different accounts of how that occurs must be studied. That ties back to the entire paragraph that no socio-economic problem such as employment is simply just a man thing when gender and race works differently for sisters of color. It's a cop out to state that social services lessen the bruise of any oppression that Black womyn face when such a statement isn't realistic when applied to our lives as sisters.

What I don’t think you take into account is that in a “white” patriarchally dominant system like this one, the threat to the controlling males rule first is another man of another ethnic group, race, tribe, class, or social grouping. The authors and inheritors of this Western style or Indo-European derived patriarchy see no solidarity pertaining to commonality amongst the male gender when it comes to race.

If the first threat to the controlling white male is a Black male, why are sisters under so much attack from the system? Why was rape used in slavery as a tool of private repression and humiliation for sisters? Why was sterilization used specifically on Black womyn? Why are sisters being given inadequate services, subjected to poverty, and given less access to antipoverty tools? Both genders of the Black community are both looked at as threats. Being female doesn't diminish you from being perceived as a threat. The annihilation is simply carried out in a different way. It's not either or. We are both under equal attack and scrutiny because we both represent a threat to the white supremacist capitalist system.

And as far as being deemed "patronizing" by asking you to not be so naïve (...pleaze), I’m suggested that based on what you have postulated in your statements. Regardless of how you view the divide based on latent and recently expressed misogyny and chauvinism coming from amongst Black men or specifically directed at Black women from the more dominant and controlling patriarchal “white” society, let me be clear how these ruling “white” patriarchs work, “so go your man, so shall you follow.” The slowly growing downward spiral of the health and well-being of the Black family and the Black women who have always defined our civility and socio-cultural structures is the evidence of this.

Dog, come off that shit; of course you were being patronizing. Calling me naive is a personal attack and isn't needed when two grown people are debating. I will not ask you politely to refrain from doing so again. Also, checking to see where I receive information doesn't include the white womyn's movement, which I didn't make any mention of, but you did for the sake of argument that I didn't appreciate. Also, I said nothing of chauvinism in the Black community by brothers at all. I was talking about the combination of white supremacy and sexism on Black womyn. I said nothing about Black men. I targeted my frustrations and blame to a racist and sexist society that oppresses Black womyn. Simple as that.

Either, Black women will be disposed of at even a more alarming rate than what we see happening now, or they will adjust to survive for their children sakes and give themselves over more and more to their oppressors as usable chattel both domestically and sexually (deconstruct the collective subconsciousness of white men in the subliminal message from Halle Berry’s award –winning performance in Monster’s Ball…if that wasn’t theoretically a Francis Cress Welsingian 101 performance I don’t what was).

It's the former. The latter suggestion, excuse my language, bothers the fuck out of me because it always suggests that Black womyn are predisposed to selling themselves out more as sisters and are always the oppressor's tools for sabotage.

The history of imperialism proves all of what I just said.

This is time for solidarity not a splitting of ideological hairs….

There can be no solidarity until we can address how we are differently affected by oppression and honestly begin to arrive at a new discourse with solutions. Addressing sexism that is perpetrated by a white supremacist government combined with racism is asking for solidarity to address that kind of oppression that effects Black womyn. Thinking that unemployment and economic problems is just a man thing is what is destroying the chance for solidarity and ignoring the different oppressions in the lives of sisters in the struggle.

[Sun Ship]

I've already exhausted the number of times that I've stated that this isn't about competition. It is about what is worse.

You say you’re not attempting to compare but it’s in half of your rebuttal. You say, “it is about what is worse.” Obviously you don’t understand what the term “comparison” means…

And then you're on this disingenuous campaign of misconstruing my point in reference to the social services that Black women were utilizing, as if I was saying this was a big plus for Black women or an advantage, whereas it is obvious that I’m only making note of social services as it applies to how groups are tracked demographically. Since many poor Black women are not surveyed, or are too many times outside of other marketing and credentialed processes which are pertinent in maintaining a capitalistic system, it is usually social services statistics that are leaned upon.

The only…let me be clear…the only point I was making is that Black women over the years have had more of a tendency of being more involved in some type of government sponsored and monitored social program then most Black men were, be it because of children as in childbirth, schooling of their children, and other medical care, as well as receiving assistance for their family in general. You can ask almost any physician at almost any clinic, they will tell you that Black women will deal with their most basic health care on a regular basis way more than most Black men. I just heard this comment a few months ago coming from a Black female physician, and this is a well studied assertion. My argument is not about the quality of care or those services, but that these associations many Black women have had with social services most of their lives skew any analysis if we ask the question you asked, “…what is worse?” And I would ask, "related to what?" And based on my observations and even what statistics that could have some validity worth noting, “I don’t see this white racist patriarchal system treating or denying Black women any more worst than Black men!”

Now I do think that there is a tremendous extra burden that poor Black women with children must bear, because a single Black woman with children to be responsible for have more unique hurdles to transverse in a patriarchal system that has no socio-cultural constructs that accommodates the well-being of women and children without husbands, especially the women of the "supposed" conquered foe. You only have this situation because it is obvious that the Black male population has been decimated, however you want to define this event. You need to read the Yurugu (if already read...read it again)...it was written by a Black female scholar, for you need to get a primer on how seditiously patriarchy works and why it is so imprinted in the American and western psyche. Like Biko said, "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed. "

If the first threat to the controlling white male is a Black male, why are sisters under so much attack from the system? Why was rape used in slavery as a tool of private repression and humiliation for sisters? Why was sterilization used specifically on Black womyn? Why are sisters being given inadequate services, subjected to poverty, and given less access to antipoverty tools?

And here you go with this comparison stuff again… it is you who is into what you call, an “oppression Olympics” not me! When “white” men were doing this to Black women, what do you think they were doing historically to Black men? Sister to understand what I mean, you need to get a grip on patriarchy and world history.

Dog, come off that shit; of course you were being patronizing. Calling me naive is a personal attack and isn't needed when two grown people are debating. I will not ask you politely to refrain from doing so again.

Dog...? When did I bark at you…and you’re insulted because I warned you about being naïve??! For one, this is no street corner conversation, and if I had called you the female version of that term you would've been livid… And after you say, “dog, come off that shit”, do you think I’m bother about how polite you are, will be in the future or not…LOL …this is laughable…

It's the former. The latter suggestion, excuse my language, bothers the fuck out of me because it always suggests that Black womyn are predisposed to selling themselves out more as sisters and are always the oppressor's tools for sabotage.

You don’t get it…I can see that. You’re right…naïve is not the word… Look, when a woman has a choice between feeding and saving her children or taking a valiant political stance, innately they will many times attempt to keep their children alive “by any means necessary”, even if those choices humiliates and demeans them. This is why so many poor Black women have found themselves in some of the most compromising situations. And no matter how a Black man postures, or have the ability to defend his woman and family from tyranny, he cannot protect someone who has no idea how the enemy works or who the enemy is.

You're talking about white patriarchal oppression, where were the Black feminist when Monster’s Ball was released? Where was the outcry, where was the protest? Maybe you're spending to much time trying to debate the brothers instead watching the real enemy’s maniacal hand at work.

[w.i.s.e.]

Originally Posted by Sun Ship

You say you’re not attempting to compare but it’s in half of your rebuttal. You say, “it is about what is worse.” Obviously you don’t understand what the term “comparison” means…And then you're on this disingenuous campaign of misconstruing my point in reference to the social services that Black women were utilizing, as if I was saying this was a big plus for Black women or an advantage, whereas it is obvious that I’m only making note of social services as it applies to how groups are tracked demographically. Since many poor Black women are not surveyed, or are too many times outside of other marketing and credentialed processes which are pertinent in maintaining a capitalistic system, it is usually social services statistics that are leaned upon.

This is tired as hell: I'm not comparing anything. Comparing implies competition to see who has it harder, which is not what I'm doing. You seem to have a problem with me bringing up sexism and how it relates to the article being false when taking into the account of Black female experiences. I'm merely attempting to explain the differences in oppression in the Black community. Stating differences doesn't equate to saying one is worse than the other or is comparing. Comparing is stating blatantly that one is worse than the other. It is only insecurity and misunderstanding that makes people want to believe that a Black feminist critique is trying to say one is worse than the other by pointing out sexism. In any case, it isn't diminishing any plight that Black men face. It is only pointing out more elements of exploitation in the community. That's that.

I'm not misconstruing your point in the least. You stated that it's harder to track it and that more social services are leaned on. I get that. What I'm also saying is that you might want to recheck that because of social services because more sisters are getting cut off from that "safety net." The problem that I had was when this argument was used to support the idea that unemployment is a man thing in relation to the article.

The only…let me be clear…the only point I was making is that Black women over the years have had more of a tendency of being more involved in some type of government sponsored and monitored social program then most Black men were, be it because of children as in childbirth, schooling of their children, and other medical care, as well as receiving assistance for their family in general. You can ask almost any physician at almost any clinic, they will tell you that Black women will deal with their most basic health care on a regular basis way more than most Black men. I just heard this comment a few months ago coming from a Black female physician, and this is a well studied assertion. My argument is not about the quality of care or those services, but that these associations many Black women have had with social services most of their lives skew any analysis if we ask the question you asked, “…what is worse?” And I would ask, "related to what?"

Yes. Over the years. That's the key term. My analysis is on the past couple of years and the gradual decline that I have observed. The point that I was making was that these services for Black womyn are declining with the rise of neoliberal politics and that the lack of anti poverty tools is increasing. That's what led me to say that the article is wrong in terms of unemployment. It has a gendered element to it in the present day and the terms of it is changing with the cut of these services.

And I never asked what was worse; that's blatantly incorrect. You only assume that from what you want to hear.

And based on my observations and even what statistics that could have some validity worth noting, “I don’t see this white racist patriarchal system treating or denying Black women any more worst than Black men!”

Let me ask you a question: are you actually reading what I am writing? I've specifically stated numerous times before that I've never stated that one is worse than the other. I've only stated that Black womyn's experiences must be taken into consideration. They are affected differently because they are in a white patriarchy that targets them because of race as well as gender. Now, how do you take this to be saying "one is worse than the other?" It isn't doing that. The only comparing has been yours and how you've tried to make it seem as if Black men have it harder. I've never stated either one was worse, but only different and if progress were to be made, gender had to be taken into consideration. Nothing is a man thing in a gendered society.

Now I do think that there is a tremendous extra burden that poor Black women with children must bear, because a single Black woman with children to be responsible for have more unique hurdles to transverse in a patriarchal system that has no socio-cultural constructs that accommodates the well-being of women and children without husbands, especially the women of the "supposed" conquered foe. You only have this situation because it is obvious that the Black male population has been decimated, however you want to define this event. You need to read the Yurugu (if already read...read it again)...it was written by a Black female scholar, for you need to get a primer on how seditiously patriarchy works and why it is so imprinted in the American and western psyche. Like Biko said, "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed. "

No, I still disagree. The majority of services that have been given to womyn have in part, fluctuated back and forth from Black womyn. While you state that Black womyn have services, these services have not always been provided to them. You can see examples of this in the Jim Crow era were the majority of social programs were afforded to white womyn. Health care, education and welfare distribution has been cut to Black womyn and other social funds in different times in society. However, I still disagree. I've read Angela, bell hooks, pearl cleage, flo kennedy, and kathleen cleaver on the issue of how Black womyn are affected by patriarchy.

And here you go with this comparison stuff again… it is you who is into what you call, an “oppression Olympics” not me! When “white” men were doing this to Black women, what do you think they were doing historically to Black men? Sister to understand what I mean, you need to get a grip on patriarchy and world history.

Dude, how is that comparison? Read where I said that both Black men and womyn were the equal targets of racial repression" Apparently you were. So it looks as if you can point that finger around to who is doing the comparisons because it has not been me.

Dog...? When did I bark at you…and you’re insulted because I warned you about being naïve??! For one, this is no street corner conversation, and if I had called you the female version of that term you would've been livid… And after you say, “dog, come off that shit”, do you think I’m bother about how polite you are, will be in the future or not…LOL …this is laughable…

I was insulted because the tone of your words were borderline condescending when none of that slick shit was said to you. I've already explained that shit to you. Dog is equivalent to homie where I stay and is apart of my lingo. It's not the same as the word bitch, which is intended to be disrespectful. Calm down.

You don’t get it…I can see that. You’re right…naïve is not the word… Look, when a woman has a choice between feeding and saving her children or taking a valiant political stance, innately they will many times attempt to keep their children alive “by any means necessary”, even if those choices humiliates and demeans them. This is why so many poor Black women have found themselves in some of the most compromising situations. And no matter how a Black man postures, or have the ability to defend his woman and family from tyranny, he cannot protect someone who has no idea how the enemy works or who the enemy is.

Pray tell, what does this have to do with the topic of unemployment being a man thing? This is a whole other subject where another archetype as Black womyn as the typical perpetrators for Massa is used once again. Not only is it off the subject, it is incredibly overused as a generalization to paint the image of Black womyn as being easily swept away into a life of self hate and manipulation out of their own ignorance.

You're talking about white patriarchal oppression, where were the Black feminist when Monster’s Ball was released? Where was the outcry, where was the protest? Maybe you're spending to much time trying to debate the brothers instead watching the real enemy’s maniacal hand at work.

Please. I don't even think of Halle Berry as Black, let alone intelligent for playing that role. Halle Berry's individual decisions don't concern me when there are impoverished sisters in the community who are being offered less services, increasing imprisonment, increasing gendered policing, and the political attack on Black womyn that needs our attention immediately. Quick question: Why are you focused on a ridiculous biracial womyn in the first place when I'm talking about realistic crises that your sisters are facing? There were quite a few Black feminists who despised the role that Halle played and were angered because of the stereotypes. That and other focuses have been on pushing for political and economic justice for sisters in a Black feminist critique. I was speaking to you because I hoped that as a brother who is supposed to be understanding the issues that hurt Black womyn as a revolutionary, but egotism and pettiness is your main focus when it comes to me trying to get you to understand a message. But fuck it. It's your responsibility as to what you do with the message.

There is one way that we can solve this problem. Refrain from quoting me in the future, thanks.

[Sun Ship]

I’m going to quote you again:

I've already exhausted the number of times that I've stated that this isn't about competition. It is about what is worse.

No, it is not a “competition”, but again, you do not have a learned idea concerning what it means to “compare”. You need to eat these words and digest your contradictions. The one thing I love about a forum is that one’s statements and all counterpoints are documented. You are more emotionally engaged in this conversation than you are focused on reason to the point you are consistently and constantly contradicting yourself, and you do it repeatedly. I don’t assume this because you’re female, I assume this because you might be quite young, for I see you refer to yourself as a girl and not a woman. I respect the fact that you read distinguished Black female writers and may need to read some other material, but life experiences trump them all.

By the way, I know from whereth the term “dog” derived, it’s an old negro slang or “negro-ism”, and I probably once used that term in my youth more times than you have properly addressed a brother as a “Black man” , as well as owned the word before you were able to pronounce it, but overtime I have rejected seeing myself as someone’s domesticated pet or referring to fellow Black men as such, and I have attempted to place that term with a lot of other nonsensical terms that you may still enjoy. Also, even the word “bitch” can be subjective as I have heard plenty of Black women use this word to either demean or happily assert their friendship and sense of female aggressiveness, but again this is also a demeaning word to be expressed by anyone. You’re barking up the wrong tree with this lingo jive.

Years ago being in various situations whereas I have had to work in one slummy and dilapidated apartment after another on a daily basis, apartments almost always rented by impoverished Black women, while also working for decades in some of the worst sections of the Black community, it kept me dialogging with the most rejected of Black women, but from a whole different perspective than I was use to, for I grew-up in a neighborhood that was to some degree not too much different than what I was experiencing, and with a single hard working mother. And on the other hand, I talked to many well-educated Black women, some who moved beyond those beginnings and were either very conscious, or financially successful, and sometimes both. One thing I started to realize was that there was a big class chasm between Black women that was more profound then that found amongst Black men or that which could be even found between relatively successful Black men and poor Black women. When I posed this observation to some profession Black women and I would ask them, “outside of social programs how often do you come in contact with Black women below your income or class strata”, "how often have you spoken to the crack heads, prostitutes, and sister's struggling and hustling out there?" They themselves had to admit that there was an obvious divide, and their coming in contact with these sisters were minimum, if at all.

The point I’m making is that the intellectual arm of activism, and in this case of Black feminism is intellectualizing and dramatizing something they no longer connect to, even though they may have once come from those same beginnings, and we also know many of them did not. And unfortunately, some of the sisters who are lesbians in the forefront of that movement have lost their balance as it relates to relating to the common-ground needed between both genders, and even those who attempt to speak to issues of oppressed Black women, as well as oppressed Black men, do this in isolation and rarely make the leap of reinforcing the family unit, which is paramount to the advancement of Black people and especially when we are battling within a patriarchal cultural paradigm that punishes or ignore the needs of poor "manless "Black women with children. I don’t need to read a book to understand this (though I have quite extensively studied over the years), this comes through observation and my intuitive African Way of Knowing.

Quick question: Why are you focused on a ridiculous biracial womyn in the first place when I'm talking about realistic crises that your sisters are facing?

First of all, you need to get off of that demented "biracial" kick as you preference your comments...it has no merit here or anywhere else in the progressive Black community, neither now or historically....you are really starting to show your ignorance

And as far as Halle Berry is concerned (as she is portrayed), it does subliminally influences, and should openly matter what she represented herself as for most Black women, and as well as, how she was rewarded for her behavior, for it is what this blatant distorted imagery and other subliminal messaging has done to the minds of most poor Black women historically going back to mammy figures like Butterfly McQueen, and Ethel Waters who song “Darkies Never Dream” in an 1934 Hollywood movie, that has been so profound. You don’t understand that the first and last defense to oppression that Black women have is the way they think, and the images they consume, which start before they can form words and ideas. Once an oppressor can alter your patterns of cognitive thinking and diminish your intuitiveness then it’s easy to get you to succumb to any and all of his devious machinations.

The socio-political stances Black feminist have been taking over the years have done nothing to slow down this ruling misogynist craftiness. Right now, in the name of “goodwill” more poor Black women are being tested and diagnosed with the HI virus as a “death sentence” so they and their babies can be pumped with the poisonous AZT drug, and if this fails, the others are slated to be given HPV vaccinations. This lost of knowledge of self, is not only the reason that white patriarchs many times cloaked as Black women loving liberals can induce our women to adhere to these phony so-called “community-based self-help health programs” but it’s the reason why a Halle Berry is more influencing in our communities than a Angela Davis, bell hooks, Pearl Cleage, Flo Kennedy, and Kathleen Cleaver…(for whatever it's worth)

Sister, I will assume you are the Real Black Girl as you deem yourself to be as posted in your signature, but I hope one day you will mature into a Real Black Woman in your thinking...

[Majadi]

I love ya'll to death, both of you and this conversation has made my day here at work, yes I work in corporate Amerikkka. Seeing this type of debate is healthy for us but the question is what is the solution to the problem. Job creation, training, entrepeneural efforts? This is the stuff of Nationbuilding, you both are brilliant writers, and excepting insults the analysis show a very astute understanding of our crises. I am pro Nation building and you are both sounding like very eligible warriors for Nationbuilding efforts. You are a credit to our people. Once again I love you and without the insults this is awesome stuff, I may reread this again and again, damn, I love Afrikans!!!