WEAVE

WEAVE member Eileen Boris, professor and chair of the Department of Feminist Studies at University of California at Santa Barbara, recently published an article in Salon about “pink jobs” — jobs that help advance women’s prospects as well as men’s.

The New Deal funded construction to put men back to work. At the time, its focus on the white male industrial worker and its assumption of a family wage (men bringing home the bacon and the stay-at-home wife frying it up) reinforced inequality by race and gender. To do the same today — in a much more diverse nation, where women compose 46 percent of the labor force, the rates of single motherhood are far greater, and the very safety nets developed in the 1930s (Social Security, welfare and even the right to join a union) are unraveling — would be a much greater mistake.

The Great Society maintained gender stereotypes in its “manpower” training programs, relegating women to poorly paid paraprofessional occupations without revaluing the economic reward of the childcare giver, health worker, teacher or home care aide. Despite a serious effort to increase the number of women in construction, the Carter administration hardly changed the composition of that labor force.

Obama can do better.

WEAVE agrees that Obama can certainly do better.

Eileen Boris has also teamed up with Lisa Levenstein and Sonya Michel, both members of WEAVE, to bring us this article from the History News Service which details some of the flaws of the New Deal and makes it clear exactly why it is so important for the Obama administration to include women in the recovery plan.

But even if the stimulus package guarantees women an equal chance at the new jobs, it still won’t address the occupational sectors in which most female wage-earners are concentrated, such as education, child care, social work, health care and care for elders and those with disabilities. These sectors are also marked by low wages and poor working conditions.

Addressing these issues makes sense in terms of the economy as well as for women’s equality. Any successful recovery plan must focus on jobs that cannot be outsourced as well as those that open up new directions for economic growth. Service work, where women are concentrated, is here to stay. A forward-looking jobs program would recognize the value of the work that women are already doing and pay them at commensurate levels.

Integrating work performed primarily by women into the recovery package and infusing the jobs with new resources would be a way to ensure a living wage for the millions of women who provide the education, social services, and health care that are essential to creating and maintaining a productive labor force.

The Obama administration should certainly gear its recovery plan not only toward the individuals who take jobs directly related to the recovery. If it’s structured right, everyone can benefit, even people who may already have jobs but are struggling to support themselves and their families.

What do you think? What priorities can the Obama administration set that will most help women and minorities?

WEAVE member Susan Feiner has published an article at Women’s ENews titled Three Steps to Women’s Fair Share of the Recovery. The current plan, Feiner says, is “too meager” and “too male.” Feiner — and WEAVE — advocates three steps that will improve the economic stimulus plan and help tens of millions of women and their children.

No. 1: Revive and enforce Labor Department regulations requiring affirmative action for all federal contractors.

No. 2: Set aside apprenticeship and training programs in infrastructure projects for women and people of color. Both groups are seriously underrepresented in the construction trades.

No. 3: Spend recovery money on projects in health, child care, education and social services.

It’s clear that a plan which focuses on traditionally male and traditionally white sectors of the economy will not meet the needs of millions of Americans. What do you think? Is the Obama plan about right, or does it fall short? What changes need to be made to make it more equitable?