As Donald Trump prepared to take office in December 2016, economist Betsey Stevenson warned against pushing men to “cling to work that isn’t coming back,” urging policymakers to make expanding fields more attractive to men as well as women. Her point has taken on new urgency: recent labor statistics show nearly all job gains since the start of Trump’s second term have gone to women.
The Labor Department reports 369,000 jobs created over that period; 348,000 of those went to women and just 21,000 to men. Much of the expansion has come in health care, which added 390,000 jobs in the past year and where women hold about 80 percent of positions. That growth has outpaced other sectors and offset declines elsewhere, concentrating opportunities in traditionally female-dominated occupations.
Stevenson and others say the pattern reflects more than simple economics. Many men tie identity and status to particular occupations, which makes moving into care work, teaching or social services harder. At the same time, the administration has put political weight behind reviving manufacturing — a field long associated with male employment — but manufacturing employment remains below its level when Trump took office, and recent gains are too small to absorb displaced workers.
Richard Reeves of the American Institute for Boys and Men argues the imbalance is predictable and underexamined. He points out that women’s gains in STEM fields were driven by deliberate efforts to break down stereotypes and create pathways into those careers. By the same logic, bringing men into nursing, early childhood education and social work will require targeted policies and cultural change, not just hope.
Practical ideas include reframing some job descriptions and outreach to emphasize aspects that may appeal to men—physical tasks in caregiving, career progression, and the value of male role models in early education. Stevenson acknowledges such tactics risk reinforcing stereotypes and could offend, but she contends they can help show men that caregiving and other growing fields are compatible with a masculine identity.
Both experts caution that this trend is not a sign that gender inequality is solved. Women still confront barriers to promotion and pay that widen the gender pay gap. For men, the challenge is often feeling excluded from the sectors where growth is concentrated. Stevenson argues that occupational segregation and discrimination hurt everyone, and that policy responses should reduce barriers on all sides so job growth benefits a broader cross-section of workers.
In short, the recent concentration of new jobs among women highlights changing demand in the economy and longstanding cultural and policy obstacles. Closing the mismatch will require both efforts to expand opportunities for women where they remain underrepresented and deliberate strategies to bring men into rapidly growing, care-oriented fields.