Recent job gains have skewed sharply toward women, raising questions about how men will fare as the economy shifts. Between the start of the current presidential term and December, the Labor Department reports 369,000 net new jobs: roughly 348,000 went to women and only about 21,000 to men. That imbalance largely reflects a surge in health care employment—women hold nearly 80 percent of health care roles, and the sector added roughly 390,000 positions over the past year, more than the net growth for the overall economy.
Economist Betsey Stevenson has argued that the policy conversation needs to broaden. For decades the emphasis has been on getting women into traditionally male occupations, especially in STEM. Stevenson says the reverse deserves attention now: instead of urging men to cling to vanishing manufacturing jobs, policymakers and employers should make caregiving and other growing, female-dominated fields more attractive and accessible to men. She points out that many men are less likely than women to retrain or switch careers because they often tie identity and status to particular jobs.
That identity barrier matters against a political backdrop that has emphasized bringing back factory jobs. The administration has highlighted manufacturing gains—when the sector added 15,000 jobs in March it was touted as progress—but manufacturing employment remains well under its level when the term began, roughly 82,000 jobs short. Stevenson’s view is that there simply aren’t enough manufacturing openings to restore employment for men as a group.
Richard Reeves, who leads the American Institute for Boys and Men, says the shortage of men in certain occupations has been underexamined. He cautions against alarm, but urges policymakers to recognize that labor-market change could leave many men behind absent deliberate steps. Reeves points out that moving more women into STEM required targeted programs to break down gender stereotypes; similar strategies could be used to recruit men into nursing, elementary education, social work and other people-focused roles. Those fields should mirror the populations they serve, he says, and expanding men’s access would help them take advantage of growing opportunities.
Stevenson has suggested practical ways to make caregiving fields more welcoming to men—reframing aspects of those jobs to align with masculine identities, emphasizing the physical, technical or leadership components of care work, or highlighting the value of male role models in early childhood settings. She acknowledges such messaging risks reinforcing stereotypes or offending some audiences, but argues that pragmatic outreach can help men envision a place for themselves in these professions.
Both experts stress that the current pattern is not evidence that women no longer face barriers. Stevenson warns that discrimination still limits promotions and contributes to a widening gender pay gap. For men, the immediate risk is being sidelined because they don’t see suitable roles in the changing economy.
Their common prescription is policy aimed at reducing occupational segregation and expanding mobility for everyone: targeted training, outreach, and cultural change to make growing fields accessible across genders. The goal is not to pit one group against another but to design interventions that help all workers adapt as demand shifts across sectors.