A friend and writer I admire, Jen Nedeau, recently posted this question on Change.org’s Women’s Rights blog. It’s an important question I’ve not seen discussed here or in places the green economy dialogue is taking place around Washington.
What I like is that Jen’s approach is not a divisive one, but rather a perspective that wants to ensure that the question is being asked and that green jobs truly are an economic opportunity for all. Looking forward to reading the thoughts of this community.
**cross-posted from http://womensrights.change.org/ editor Jen Nedeau**
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.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
“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?”
i don’t think a green economy will reward Mother Nature, from my observations and experiences, capitalism and dominant structures of power centered around making money have only provided disrespect and harm towards Mother Nature, and every living thing on the planet, except for the same 12 white guys who are making all the money, thinking things are just fine i guess.
how will women survive?
i’m not sure how i feel about that sentence, but i can tell you that i know plenty of women, including myself actively working to dismantle the oppressive economic system that will continue to do us nothing but harm, and we’re doing just fine. in fact, our qualities of life are better than a lot of women i’ve talked to who still think the system is working for them.
either way, thanks for posting this =), it’s definitely a huge issue that has to be brought to peoples’ attention
Forgive me, but, though I consider myself an avid feminist, this just sends the message to me that more ladies need to diversify and get into the fields of engineering, alternative energy, etc. etc.
The women before us fought so hard to say “we can do anything men can do!” and now we’re chastising Obama and other green stimulus plans because “well, these aren’t fields most women work in”. This really seems to fortify the idea of gender roles and biological determism, and I don’t like it.
Call me a hard-nose, but the economy needs saving right now, and so does the planet. A green stimulus will create jobs, and if us women choose to work in fields that aren’t well-positioned to this broader goal, well that’s our own choice, isn’t it?
Maybe now is the time to branch out and learn new skills… The Canadian government apparently plans to invest in training programs. How about some hard hats and science, ladies? Any takers?
Well, there is a lot to unpack here.
In response to Celeste, I would say that yes, women should go into Alternative energy and engineering, etc. In fact, a number of my female friends did go down that route. However, it is not just a passive choice. Engineering, math, and to a lesser extent physics are academic disciplines that routinely discriminate or have negative environments for women. It isn’t determinism, it is that some glass ceilings haven’t been broken frequently enough.
While many aspects of the green economy will emerge from construction of new buildings and power plants, we also have to manage and educate our communities. A huge percentage of the experts being trained in how to actually develop sustainable communities are women, who have started in college through efforts like the campus climate challenge.
When Nancy Pelosi sought to Green the Capitol, she looked for the experts who had been working at Harvard…and found Allison Rogers, our fellow contributor, not an engineering firm.
However, much of the stimulus package has been based around new infrastructure. What they call shovels in the ground. Well, a green economy is going to need everyone – life sciences, tree planters, construction workers, teachers. Women control the majority of the household economic decisions in this country and if we want to restore consumer confidence and build a green economy maybe we should look there. (Take a gander at The Big Green Purse , if you want)
Ahh, ok. Richard, I understand the point you’re making. I majored in and work in politics, so I really do understand the deterring effect patriarchy can have on going into certain fields; nonetheless, I am still here. It’s up to us women to break through the glass ceiling. It won’t just magically happen on our behalf.)
A “green economy” and a “green stimulus” are two different things. An economic stimulus (in this context) is meant to urgently kick start an economy headed towards recession/depression, so we focus on things that we are able to do most immediately that will spur significant and rapid economic benefits. The typical example is infrastructure (Keynesian economics), as this has both the effect of creating jobs and generating significant return on investment (efficiency saves $)–getting bang for your buck, on top of doing something society needed anyway [arguably, if it's something like roads, imho].
Add the “green” in front of economic stimulus, and you add a second mandatory criterion, that of environmental benefit, on top of immediate economic benefit. ie: investing in water and wastewater infrastructure to improve water & energy efficiency and stop unnecessary pollution.
A “green economy” is a longer term goal that doesn’t happen overnight–if anything, we need this green stimulus to get us there. We need to do what we can in the short term to save the economy and create as many jobs as we can, so we can fulfill the long term goal of having a prosperous and more inclusive (to other fields that wouldn’t be contained in an urgent stimulus package) sustainable economy.
Nancy Pelosi was looking to Green the Capitol; cool. Our present governments, on the other hand, are folding in green measures to their main goal: save the economy from collapsing any further. I think there’s no reason women can’t be a part of that, but there is general consensus that the way to move forward is infrastructure, retrofits, green technology and renewable energy, and if these fields aren’t heavily populated by women, oh well. (I say this as a progressive environmentalist feminist who subscribes to anti-oppression ideals!)
We need to do what we need to move forward. Unfortunately, this temporary set of policies doesn’t help all sectors (and by apparent extension, genders) equally, but you have to recognize that it’s triage, and only a first step to get us all back up on our feet!
The pwoer sector in general needs more people. If it is worth anything, I have seen a large increase in the diversity of our workforce and it has been great. I also volunteer with MentorNet (www.mentornet.net) which works to encourage a more diverse group to study science and engineering. We need new perspectives in the profession as well as increased numbers.
This is a completely legitimate concern, we need to take it seriously, and the discussion here so far seems productive.
That said, my gut is to be a little nervous that this is potential fodder for anti-greens posing as defenders of the oppressed. The same way they’ve tried to say that carbon regulation is an assault on the poor, perhaps now they’ll say green jobs are an assault on women.
I suppose the takeaway is that we need to keep the holistic progressive approach to this clean energy revolution alive and start working now to make green jobs, present and future, more accessible to people of different genders and for that matter all different backgrounds.
Robert Pollin (progressive economist and author of the Green Recovery report) touches on this issue in his recent article, “Doing Recovery Right” which I blogged about here. He writes: