Well your little one-liner screams that you don't understand many things that have happened.
No, it simply addresses the here and now.
1) what happened o the economy
It took a nose dive.
Because we were, and continue, to run on debt, which is to say, future earnings...and the biggest accumulator of debt in the US is the housing industry...this many other industries were involved, under the guise of securities, which is just double speak, because they were anything but secure, but no one knew, because the rating agencies gave them all clean bills of health, allowing the banks, who KNEW they were bad, to pass them along. And when one card fell, it started a chain reaction that brought down the house. More or less.
3) how failing and struggling businesses responded
By continuing to struggle and fail, or by petitioning uncle sam for a big sweaty wad of money. The former made cutbacks on payroll and other expenses, while the latter got nice bonuses.
4) what made them fail or struggle to begin with
Because when people started foreclosing on houses they couldn't afford, those "securities" became toxic, over night, wherein money "vanished" because it was never there to begin with, which hurt the stock market, which hurt businesses, which causes layoffs, which caused more foreclosures, which hurt more and more and more. Oh, and some failed and struggle because they were too big for their own good...but it's OK, they got a bail out.
5) the sectors that were affected
Just about everywhere.
6) how men and women are situated differently in regard to the effect the collapse(s) have had on them
Statistically, men get paid more than women counterparts, ergo, they are a higher expense. Now, included in this is the fact that there are more senior management and CEOs that are male than female, which would cause you think my brief assessment about more women employed is wrong...senior management and CEOs make up a very small minority of the work force. Mid managers and below make up the majority, which is what I am talking about...majorities.
7) education and how it varies (everthing from learning patterns to degree choices)
Fine. More women go into nursing than men, and since there are more nurses than doctors, THAT'S why there are more women employed than men. But I don't care about any one specific field, I care about the picture as a whole.
And so forth.
You actually opted for the one thing that has no bearing on this at all: the false notion that women are paid less and thus were the ones kept around because it saved money.
Pay Equity
Male
Equal Pay and the Gender Gap: Men Still Outearn Women - TIME
A 5 second google search yielded contradictory information to what you assert here.
Reality: When some companies have pancaked it has been to decrease surpurfluous numbers and restructure the entire bsuiness structure to become more streamline and fluid. . . which didn't just affect the 'little guy on the bottom' - it affected managers, supervisors and even CEOs and executives . . . men and women alike and the higher up you go - the more men were affected in many sectors of employment.
And these were the people who's pay was most closely scrutinized. So, thanks for backing me up, here.
Pay? Most companies reduced overall numbers and reworked their business structure which put a heavier workload on the remaining staff - and thus those staff actually, on average, received and increase in pay or benefits. . . because the ywere doing more work. Now - they weren't paid as much as two were paid before . . . but on average it was an increase. Now - if your opinion was true: this wouldn't have happened.
Those staff did not get raises, they got more hours. And if they were salaried, they got nothing...MAYBE another grand on the bonus, that year. Ask me how I know. If my opinion were true, this still would have happened. I'm wondering what the logic was that led you to this conclusion? It's simply...you restructure to cut out all shrink, or waste, pinch pennies, and cut some corners. You look at who you need, and who you don't. If you are getting the same amount of work from both employee A and employee B, but employee B makes 10% more, employee B is the one you're gonna cut, if you can afford to lose them. It ain't quantum physics.
and on and on . . . i could rattle on all night and pick your statement apart: I think you get the point: there's far more to what happend and how businesses responded that 'boys vs girls'
I never said it was boys vs girls. I merely offered ONE reason why female employment is higher now, than male, while less females were laid off than their male counterparts, and why MORE females are being rehired. And I'll repeat, from the previous post, just to be thorough, that on the rehire subject, or just hiring in general...skill sets and qualification play the most important role...BUT, pay is there as well. As an employer, I'm always going to hire the best, cheapest person I can find. And typically, depending on the area of business...that's women. Now, if you want to go into the reasons WHY women make less money, that's an entirely different thread, and could go on and on and on.
Next time, before you post, don't make assumptions.