« Meanwhile ... | Donal's Blog | Transition Prez? »

Men Without Jobs


A long time ago, I ran across a review of a play or book about chronically-unemployed Irish men and their infidelity and violence towards their families. The reviewer asserted that the men were trying to prove themselves sexually or physically to compensate for having failed economically. I have no particular expertise in psychology, but recent discord on TPM reminds me of the idea that people, particularly men, might react very badly to unemployment. A quick Google brought me to this rather dry abstract :

Predicting self-esteem during unemployment: the effect of gender, financial deprivation, alternate roles, and social support.

… Arguably one of the most damaging, and certainly one of the most commonly reported, of all the psychological consequences of unemployment is a loss of self-esteem (Sheeran & Abraham, 1994; Waters, 2000; Winefield, Tiggemann, & Winefield, 1992). Among others, Amundson and Borgen (1987) and Amundson (1994) have characterized unemployment as an experience that leads to self-doubt and an internal struggle with confidence.

… the bulk of evidence suggests that gender is an important factor in psychological reaction to unemployment. More particularly, the results often show that during unemployment, men report poorer psychological health than do women (Najam, Ashraf, Nasreen, Bashir, & Khan, 1996). For example, Shamir (1985) found that unemployed men experienced lower morale and higher anxiety than did unemployed women.

Loss of role identity has been shown to be a major contributor to lowered self-esteem during unemployment (Bolton & Oatley, 1987). Hence, one factor that may reduce the impact of unemployment on self-esteem is the availability of alternate non-employment-related roles (Dilnot & Kell, 1988; Fielden & Davidson, 1999). Jahoda (1982) and Warr and Parry (1982) argued that roles such as spouse, parent, and community worker can be used as psychological compensations for the loss of one’s role as employee.

Now we seem to be headed towards a period of high unemployment, both here in the US and in the world. The knee-jerk response to massive economic deprivation seems to be survivalism: Get yourself some guns and lots of freeze-dried goods because the world will soon resemble (pick one):

Lord of the Flies
Mad Max
Zardoz
Children of Men
The Road

I know which one I’d pick:

… but whenever I think about owning a gun, I recall one history professor, who pointed out that during the great American Westward expansion, more settlers were killed by the accidental discharge of firearms than by actual conflict with each other or with the native peoples they encountered.

Rather than jumping the gun on survivalism, I’m more worried about what happens during the transition away from what we think of as a normal society. Orlov described Russian men who, after the fall of the Soviet Union, methodically drank themselves to death. Others were killed in black market squabbles. Crime is of course a concern, political turmoil may be a concern, but getting along with the people in your safety net is probably the more immediate concern.

How are your father, husband, boyfriend, brothers or sons going to handle losing their jobs?

How are you going to handle it?


28 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

If I lose my job, I will be sure and document my changes into a testosterone fueled monster. Maybe I can turn it into is own movie!

user-pic

Well done, Donal.

In a society like ours, where people's worth is based on what they make, and success is assumed to be within the person's power, sudden job loss can lead to self-blame in addition to a feeling of powerlessness. And since men often experience depression in terms of anger and lashing out, your argument sounds, to me, pretty accurate. Putting people down can then, for some, feel like a proof of power, whether it happens in the household or on the web.

user-pic

The company I work for employed about 50 people 8 months ago. We are now down to 8. I presently work over 50 hours a week. Others are doing the same. There is a general feeling that we are trying to bail out a canoe that will sink anyway.

The last 8 are an interesting mix. Some are totally hostage to their employers. Some are not.

Whether the company survives or not involves decisions that are completely non collective on one level and utterly dependent upon a group consensus on another level.

I don't know which way it will go.

user-pic

I wish you the best, moat. It's very demoralizing to be among the ones still left when others have been let go. Sounds like a cliffhanger. Keep us posted.

user-pic

Fortunately, my husband is already retired, and my son-in-law has a secure job...my son? That could be a problem, but the good news for us is that we all live very close, so there will be a safety net, at least at 1st.

Not everyone will be that fortunate.

user-pic

As quinn said a while back, we need to let some people know they have a place to stay if they need one. Scary times!

user-pic

Studies also show that much of the issues began when men moved to factories and offices from the farm fields.

Gangs are blamed on the lack of strong male role models.

As you know, Donal, I posted months ago that much of the "rights" we enjoy in terms of gender, race, etc. are brought about in a stable society. As things destabilize -- and perhaps on a massive level -- it's plausible for those rights to fray and rip away.

Gun sales are already up. Depending on how long we go on this curve, you will ultimately have a choice: own one to protect yourself, or rely on someone to protect you. The latter option is a form of serfdom (the king protects his serfs).

As one meditation on this transistion and the aftermath, may I suggest HAND-MADE WORLD by James Kunstler. It's fiction, but fascinating fiction -- though the story line could be better.

user-pic

It's actually called 'World Made By Hand.' My Amazon review:

I found the initial storyline compelling, mostly based on a few main characters, but I wasn't satisfied with the ending. In high school, the teachers told us that the main character was supposed to go through catharsis, some sort of change or growth. Robert Earle had already fully accepted, even embraced, aspects of his post-peak life, but he exhibited a certain emotional lethargy associated with the loss of his family. Having to deal with outside troubles prodded him to take some actions to help the town, but he should have had to really exert himself to defeat the villains, either by direct action, careful planning or rallying the townsfolk. He was also passive in his romantic relationships.
There were also a few minor inconsistencies that bugged me. Union Grove was entirely too peaceful. Someone would have filled the power vacuum long before the events in this book. Also, electricity surged sporadically, but why hadn't key power lines, and substations, been dismantled to harvest the copper?
user-pic

Yes, my memory was in error. Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I'm not surprised you already read it. ;-)

user-pic

amusing, but invalid.

Death bringers may be essential for survival in a post-apocalyptic world, but they are both expendable and easily renewed resources requiring little more than a hind brain, extended with a module provisioning a capacity to follow instruction sets. They aren't called "dogs of war" for nothing. Rifles quickly become fancy, less than optimal clubs without the knowledge of gunpowder manufacture and metallurgy.

High value skills in that environment are leadership, diplomacy, EMS, and hard practical science knowledge, implementable from the ground up. Merlins and Arthurs are the cream that gets gently skimmed.

user-pic

Now that sums it up nicely. Well thought out, and stunningly relevant.

user-pic

You mean Donal, that some people at this site have jobs?

user-pic

LOL over and over!

user-pic

What's a job and where do I buy one?

user-pic

I can certainly understand your not knowing what a job is. Probably a family tradition, from what I can tell.

user-pic

The legacy of the stupidity, malice, incompetence, idiocy, and mean-spiritedness of Bush lives on. Otherwise I think the man did a good job :)

user-pic

The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with either survival or self defense. The framers could have cared less if you shot a possum to eat or had the ability to shoo away an intruder. The right of the people to bear arms is a bulwark against authoritarianism.

An armed population is the last defense against tyranny. Then government was set up to govern the people and remain forever in fear of the people. The people as a whole are intended to always be more powerful than the government. Not the government being more powerful than the people as a whole.

The intention of those favoring gun control is to enslave the people in the same way people were enslaved in the former USSR and in contemporary socialist countries.

user-pic
The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with either survival or self defense.
...
An armed population is the last defense against tyranny.

Wow! The cognitive dissonance here is deafening!

But perceiving cognitive dissonance requires cognition doesn't it...

user-pic

Perhaps a closet Luddite, but certainly no closet Marxist.

Kinda lost your purpose in this country, unionization has moved all the textile mills overseas. Thanks for the job losses. Why don't you go to China and bomb a few looms.

user-pic
The right of the people to bear arms is a bulwark against authoritarianism.
That is certainly the case. But the context of calling for a "well regulated militia" was to provide an alternative to a "standing army" for the defense of the Republic. You might enjoy reading Gary Hart's support for your contention. One formulation by the House of Representatives put this matter of defense together with a statement about those who would conscientiously object to fighting wars:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Now there were those who did not agree with this idea of a militia. Hamilton said that a bunch of poorly trained amateurs were not up for the job. He also opposed the movement to include the "Bill of Rights" amendments because a government by the people and for the people shouldn't have to make Magna Cartas with itself.
user-pic

We have lots of land with deer on it. We have lots of guns to shoot the deer (venison chili is awesome). We are the rainwater catch basin of the eastern US at least until the coal companies flatten the place. We have lots of natural gas to help keep us warm in the cold (yes, we know how to tap into the big gas transmission lines to the northeast- I do wonder sometimes how come we pay so much for the gas that lies beneath our land).

Boy am I glad I live in West Virginia right now.

user-pic

Well, Mr.~flowerchild~ lost his job in May 2007. He is a highly skilled blue collar worker, very in demand in normal times, but it took him 6 months to find another job and this one is in danger, too.

How did he handle losing his job? Well, he's a little older, in his 60's, and he was quite philosophical about it...he could always fall back on Social Security. But without that safety net, there's no doubt he'd be a great deal less nonchalant.

We have been through lean times before. To us, this current recession is nothing new. It may last a little longer, but it will end. In the meantime here's a little rhyme my 'child of the Great Depression' 89 year old aunt likes to say.

Use it up
Wear it out
Make it last
Do without

There is always an uptick in survivalism when times get rough. The ones that make it through to the other side with the most money to show for it are the folks in the survival business.

More words of wisdom from my old aunt...'plant some taters'. ;o)

user-pic

I really like this comment Flower. Personal experience and loss and pain is oftimes lost in statistics. Always good to read you.

user-pic

Poor soul ain't gonna fall back on Social Security. Big spending liberals in congress squandered that money long, long ago.

Maybe you ain't heard the news, but Social Security is flat broke. Maybe the dems can find a way to borrow money on the IOUs.

user-pic

"Big Spending Liberals?" Try, "Cut taxes, Borrow and Spend Anyway Neocons."

user-pic

Thanks, Donal for an interesting blog. Now that women's jobs are a necessity rather than for "pocket-money," or "to keep the little lady out of michief" (as an uncle once described my aunt's new job); I wonder what the effects will be of female head-of-households and necessary second-incomes will be as we also are laid off or just fired.

user-pic

They have got to be just as devastating as when the 'man of the house' loses his job. It doesn't matter who brings the money in.....when the money faucet gets turned off, it gets turned off.

I sure hope the effect of women losing their necessary-for-family-survival jobs will not be a return to caveman days. "Hi, honey! I"m home from work! What's for dinner? Have you polished my golf clubs yet?"

I already fought that fight and I ain't gonna do it again. ;o)

user-pic
The intention of those favoring gun control is to enslave the people

Too broad.

Before she entered politics, Congresswoman Caroline Maloney's husband was shot and killed and her son badly injured when they and others were shot on a commuter train. She states that she favors gun control for that reason,not to enslave the people.Do you accept her claim?

Leave a comment

Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address