After the crash, the downturn was dubbed a "mancession." As the meme continues to circulate, we asked leading thinkers to help us sort fact from fiction. Are men suffering more than women in a weak economy? Is Washington doing enough to address female unemployment? How do we ensure a jobs agenda that's fair and equitable? In the eighth part of our ongoing series, "The Myth of the Mancession? Women & the Jobs Crisis", Amy Norquist calls on the green sector to include women from the beginning.

The federal stimulus package earmarks billions of dollars in green technology, primarily renewable energy, for projects that will take place over the next several years. The effectiveness of the funding is still debatable, as it remains the slowest draw down of any category in the stimulus. The White House estimates that close to 200,000 new jobs were created as a result of the funding, but the Department of Energy puts that number at closer to 80,000.

Are women being left out of this sector? I think there is little doubt that women are not being hired in large numbers through this particular focus on the energy sector. But in fact, even though green jobs tend to fall into categories of non-traditional options for women such as engineering, science, and construction, there is far greater opportunity for the inclusion of women in significant numbers than in the past. That's because green jobs are much broader than the energy sector. They are defined as those that provide goods and services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources, or jobs in which workers' duties involve making their establishment's production processes more environmentally friendly or use fewer natural resources.

So how is it that non-traditional jobs in the green sector can somehow be more accessible to women than jobs past? There are more women CEOs in green business -- largely entrepreneurs -- than in traditional construction, and they tend to value authenticity and transparency, which disables the old boys network. Green businesses have the element of being mission-driven and focusing on the triple bottom line: social, economic, environmental. This is appealing to women, and it provides an alternative structure within the construction industry in particular.

Furthermore, new technologies and new industries often don't require particular previous  job skills. (A Berkeley study focused on green employers, for example, found that 86 percent of the green business owners interviewed and hired workers who had no previous direct experience.) This also removes barriers for women entering traditionally male-dominated fields.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

And there are programs out there that focus on training women for green jobs. There is a non-profit called NEW in New York City, which trains women in non-traditional fields but also offers a program called "ReNEW" for green jobs. (Two-thirds of minimum wage jobs in NYC belong to women.) The program does a good job of educating students about what jobs are even available and gives them exposure to these new technologies, industries, and employers.

As the owner of a women-owned green roofing business, called Greensulate, I can say that my company has benefited in significant ways from the stimulus act and from growing awareness of the value of green jobs and the green industry among supporters. The direct benefit to Greensulate came through training funds (using funding from the stimulus act) from NYC Small Business Solutions. This funding enabled us to train and hire 10 people this year.

And the private sector is picking up the slack -- unlike in other male-dominated construction industries -- when it comes to supporting women. Greensulate was recently selected into a program, Growth Opportunity Loan and Services Program (GOLS), sponsored by The Clinton Foundation, Booz & Co., Goldman Sachs, NYU Stern, and SEEDCO Financial. The program provides loan funding for growth (which we were unable to get through our bank) and significant management consulting and mentoring.

I can say that as a green construction industry, green roofing brings women into the fold of some of the few green and white collar jobs available. For my first few years, I was the only woman up on the roof. Now I'm joined by other "greensualtors" -- one of whom is a graduate of the NEW ReNEW program. We are now 35% female, in a non-traditional field for women.

The key to beginning and continuing the trend of hiring women for green collar positions is being continually vigilant in educating women about the opportunities available. And it begins with the value of inclusion. Even in programs whose focus is training women and placing them in currently non-traditional arenas, one still sees quotes like, "It is satisfying doing men's work". Green jobs are not "men's work." They are good work, and there is a chance to integrate parity from the beginning. Emerging industries have the responsibility -- because they are emerging industries -- to break the mold.

Amy Norquist is the President and CEO of the green roofing company Greensulate.

After the crash, the downturn was dubbed a “mancession.” As the meme continues to circulate, we asked leading thinkers to help us sort fact from fiction. Are men suffering more than women in a weak economy? Is Washington doing enough to address female unemployment? How do we ensure a jobs agenda that’s fair and equitable? In the sixth part of our ongoing series, “The Myth of the Mancession? Women & the Jobs Crisis“, Lynn Parramore explains how women business-owners can help lead the world out of economic doldrums.

Call it "She-orientation" -- a trend in which women are having an increasingly significant impact on the economic and cultural landscape. The "mancession" meme has outlived its usefulness, but it's high-time for a fresh way of looking at a seismic shift that will shape America's future. Women, it turns out, may be key to economic recovery.

In the last 50 years, women's working lives have undergone an amazing metamorphosis. We're breadwinners. Over seven million families rely mainly or solely on our income to survive. And we're the backbone of the middle class. As President Obama recently acknowledged to a crowd in Seattle, women constitute "more than half of the money that's coming into middle-class families." He reminded folks that "when you talk about what's happened to the middle class, part of what you're talking about is what's happening to women in the workforce."

The President also gave a shout-out to women entrepreneurs, a national asset that's commanding new attention as policy-makers and politicians search for ways to boost the economy. Over the last decade, the number of women-owned businesses grew twice and fast as those headed by men. Today there are over a million women-owned firms in the United States, which generate $1.9 trillion in sales. These companies provide jobs to 13 million people. The female entrepreneur, once a rara avis, is now a prized constituent of the economy whose way of doing business reaps enormous financial and social dividends.

Since the Great Recession, a lot of ink has been spilled about how women are less likely to take risks than men. But I think women may simply view risk differently. For many of us, working for someone else can actually feel riskier that starting a business of our own. We never did have the Old Boys Network to support us, and many of us lacked the mentors and role models our male counterparts rely on to guide them through careers. We're kind of used to getting things done on our own. So entrepreneurship comes naturally to many women.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

During the economic tsunami of 2008, I found this out for myself when I watched a freelance career I had spent years building crumble before my eyes. Suddenly, media outlets around the country closed or went on life-support. "Sorry, we've folded," came the call from long-time editors. I was shaken and afraid. But as a cultural critic, I also saw massive social and economic changes taking place and knew that I had to be part of the conversation. If no one would hire me to write, then I would make a place for myself on the Web. Without much more thought than that, I bought a URL from GoDaddy called "Recessionwire.com". Soon, joining forces with fellow out-of-work journalists Laura Rich and Sara Clemence, I created a place to capture stories and offer support to people like me who were getting pummeled by the economy.

A loss of jobs and income became an opportunity - not only for the founders, but for the writers we hired, the interns we trained, the fellow-entrepreneurs with whom we barter and brainstormed, and the laid-off workers we inspired. I got to experience first-hand how entrepreneurial women support each other, both in their communities and online. We barter skills, pool resources, and offer each other comfort and advice. In a special section of Recessionwire called "Lemonade Makers", we talked to women who decided to start a business for the first time in the midst of a downturn -- women who showed what can be done with determination and resourcefulness. A graphic designer launched a handbag firm. A technology project manager became a career coach. A real estate developer started making cardboard forts for kids. I began to see how these female business owners combined reasonable risk-taking with real collaboration; how they infused profit-making with attention to social values.

Two years after the Crash, women's economic stability is increasingly hard hit hard by foreclosure crisis, the shortfall in social services, and the recent round of state and municipal job cuts. As Eileen Boris pointed out earlier in this series, the burden of carework falls upon us disproportionately. Women trying their hand as entrepreneurs are creating critical jobs for Americans, and need start-up funds, access to affordable education and training, childcare, and a reliable network of social services. The growing pool of female entrepreneurs is a national treasure, and finding ways to capitalize on it will be a critical engine for growth. We are making steps in the right direction: Obama's Recovery Act has awarded 12,000 Small Business Administration loans to women-owned businesses. But there's more to be done.

Female entrepreneurship can kick-start the middle class both in the U.S. and in the developed world. The success of women business-owners is key to both social stability and economic progress -- research shows that women tend to invest 90% of their incomes into their communities, as opposed to around 30% -- 40% invested by men. Countries that do not support women business owners will find themselves lagging behind on productivity, competition and community-building. Around the world, practices and programs that address women's business needs and help remove obstacles that stand in the way will reorient the economy in ways that benefit everyone.

Lynn Parramore is the editor of New Deal 2.0, Media Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute fellow, Co-founder of Recessionwire and the author of Reading the Sphinx.

After the crash, the downturn was dubbed a “mancession.” As the meme continues to circulate, we asked leading thinkers to help us sort fact from fiction. Are men suffering more than women in a weak economy? Is Washington doing enough to address female unemployment? How do we ensure a jobs agenda that’s fair and equitable? In the fourth part of our ongoing series, “The Myth of the Mancession? Women & the Jobs Crisis“, Eileen Boris calls the reevaluation of carework a national priority.

When it comes to women's place in the economy, is equality enough? Most feminists have long argued for equal treatment: pay us the same for the same work, hire only on the basis of qualifications, train us for the jobs that men have, give us access to capital just like men. Remember Rosie the Riveter? She showed the nation that women could "do it." Now the Obama National Economic Council has come out with "Jobs and Economic Security for America's Women," a report to counter claims that its recovery programs left women behind in addressing the "mancession."

The report clearly owns up to the increased centrality of women's employment -- as half of the labor force, the majority of college graduates, and the "primary or co-breadwinner" for two-thirds of families. The persistent gender wage gap (77 cents to a man's dollar) becomes more devastating when households must depend on women's earnings alone. And more of them are doing so during these hard times.

The report contains credible numbers about the impact of the Great Recession. Women constitute 42% of the long-termed unemployed, and, among single heads of household, unemployment reached 13.6% at a time when many solo mothers were hitting lifetime limits on welfare. African American and Latina women, as well as older women from all races, have felt the crisis harder than their white counterparts, as they have historically. The black female unemployment rate is twice as large as that for white women.

Despite inadequate funding, Obama certainly has gained measures that, while under-promoted as being "for women," disproportionately benefit women because they predominate in targeted sectors. The list is impressive. Small Business Administration loans go to women three times more than to men. Recovery, Education Jobs and Medical Assistance Acts save jobs of teachers, nurses, and other public sector and health employees, three-quarters of whom are women -- and who also are half of the students at community colleges, the beneficiaries of training monies. The funding of public assistance and expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit reaches poor women.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

Despite such support, moving women into better jobs currently dominated by men and insuring their equal treatment remains the Presidential solution for women's advancement. Obama's first signature went on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to rectify the Supreme Court's undermining of equal pay enforcement. Like other recent Democratic presidents, he wanted to train and educate women into higher wages. Carter encouraged women to move into the construction trades, though their numbers stagnated. Clinton promoted training for poor single mothers, though workfare hardly prepared for living wages. Obama proposes pushing girls into STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) programs.

The administration certainly recognizes that women's responsibilities for families curtail their labor force participation. Following Clinton, who signed the Family and Medical Leave Act, Obama lauds workplace flexibility but offers only dialogue, best practices, modest funding for states to pay benefits, and a larger dependent tax credit.

It isn't that this response ignores carework. There has been investment in health professionals. One initiative continues home health care and provides relief for family caregivers. But these efforts fall short of the massive investment needed to reorganize how we as a society undertake care.

Does the dominant equality discourse -- that too often equates equality with a white male standard -- interfere with the hard task of revaluing carework, labor too often associated with unpaid maternal love and familial duty? Is this work underpaid because women of color and immigrants perform it? Where are the calls for boys to enter home health, social work, nursing, or early childhood education? Where are the initiatives to raise wages in the carework economy? As long as we merely seek to make women equal with men by getting women into men's jobs, then we disdain the work of daily life as unskilled toil, below the dignity and worth of Americans. With carework the growth industry of the present and future, let's rethink what equality means. By turning our gaze to the dependency that marks the human condition -- our equal fate despite unequal access to sustenance along the way -- let's reconfigure the meaning of equality and improve the living and working conditions of women where they work today. Not as a stealthy initiative, as Obama has begun, but as a national priority.

Eileen Boris, Hull Professor and Chair, Department of Feminist Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara and Director of the Center for Research on Women and Social Justice, is the co-editor with Rhacel Parreñas of Intimate Labors: Cultures, Technologies, and the Politics of Care.

After the crash, the downturn was dubbed a “mancession.” As the meme continues to circulate, we asked leading thinkers to help us sort fact from fiction. Are men suffering more than women in a weak economy? Is Washington doing enough to address female unemployment? How do we ensure a jobs agenda that’s fair and equitable? In the second part of our ongoing series, “The Myth of the Mancession? Women & the Jobs Crisis", June Carbone and Naomi Cahn explain the challenges women face in the wake of new job cuts and changing family dynamics.

It's time we faced up to the consequences of growing income inequality. In the Great Recession, the top income earners have recovered, while the poor have gotten poorer. And the disparities in family life make things even worse. The average family requires two incomes to get by. In a recession, two incomes may cushion the effects of a layoff. Yet, increasingly, the ability to manage marriage and wage-earning has become a marker of class.

First, let's look at the employment numbers. The Great Recession disproportionately affected construction and manufacturing, and therefore it disproportionately affected men. Between December 2007 and October 2009, non-farm jobs dropped by 5.8 million for men, but only 2.5 million for women. The result produced the largest unemployment gap between men and women in the post-war era.

Second, think about what may happen next. In September of this year, local governments laid off workers at the fastest rate in thirty almost years. The layoffs disproportionately affected those involved in education, a field that includes more women than men.  Economists predict that without renewal of stimulus spending or greater assistance to the states, more cuts in government employment should be expected next year. It's clear that a family with two incomes is in a better position to keep some income coming in; a family with one wage-earner is more vulnerable to downturns that affect some sectors more than others.

Third, examine the distribution of two-income families. It used to be that the more education a woman had, the less likely she was to marry, and women's workforce participation did not vary much with the husband's income. Today, marriage rates have fallen most dramatically for the least educated, while the most educated have become much less likely to divorce. As a result, the likelihood of raising a child in a two-parent family has become more closely associated with education and class. College grads enjoy divorce and non-marital birth rates that approximate those in the mid-sixties; for those who don't graduate from college, marriage rates have fallen while divorce and non-marital birth rates continue to rise. In part because of the changes in marriage, poor women's family income has decreased by almost a third over the past 30 years (28.8%), while professional women's family income has increased (7.4%).

So what should we do about it? The answers require long term changes.

First, college for everyone is not a panacea, but increased educational and training opportunities should be part of any solution. A larger percentage of the next generation will be raised by single parents and escalating tuition will place higher education beyond the reach of a larger segment of students. Employers should seek ways to work with high schools, colleges and universities to train workers for more specialized skills.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

Second, the erosion of the wage structure for less educated men and the increase in family instability for the bottom half of the American population make the least-educated men less attached to the labor market and less attractive as husbands. Comprehensive services that provide job-related skills, beginning with interviewing through maintaining a job, should be addressed to them as well as to women.

Third, dual parent workforce participation requires more family friendly workplaces. While the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 allows eligible workers to take unpaid, job-protected leave to care for a new child or a family member with a serious medical condition, only slightly more than half of all employees work in businesses covered by the law, according to an estimate that the Labor Department published in 2000. Moreover, while federal law protects workers from discrimination based on sex or pregnancy status, it doesn't explicitly protect against discrimination based on caregiving responsibilities -- so some state and local governments have begun to pass laws that do. Researchers at the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law report that the number of lawsuits claiming discrimination based on caregiving responsibilities has increased by almost 400 percent during the past ten years.

Finally, young marriages have become riskier and greater preparation for family responsibilities helps. But delay involves a greater commitment to the widespread availability of contraception than we have today. In the late nineties, unintended pregnancies were falling for college grads while they rose for less educated women. There is every reason to believe those trends have gotten worse. The 2008 teen birth rates in Arkansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas were the highest in the country, with more than 60 births per 1,000 teens. Yet, each of these states emphasizes abstinence be stressed over more effective programs.

American policies that fail to invest in the human capital of the next generation, pointlessly encourage early marriage and childbearing, and perpetuate workplaces ill-equipped to adjust to family needs make workers more vulnerable during recessions.

June Carbone is the Edward A. Smith/Missouri Chair of Law, the Constitution and Society at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

Naomi Cahn is the John Theodore Fey Research Professor of Law at George Washington University Law School. She is the author of numerous books and law review articles on gender and family law.

Cahn and Carbone are the co-authors of Red Families v. Blue Families.