Hardly, in fact Google has scores of articles about this "made up factoid". Second source (Economix) claims Men have lost 83.1% of the jobs since the recession began. Here's one from Foriegn Policy:
The death throes of macho are easy to find if you know where to look. Consider, to start, the almost unbelievably disproportionate impact that the current crisis is having on men—so much so that the recession is now known to some economists and the more plugged-in corners of the blogosphere as the “he-cession.” More than 80 percent of job losses in the United States since November have fallen on men, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. And the numbers are broadly similar in Europe, adding up to about 7 million more out-of-work men than before the recession just in the United States and Europe as economic sectors traditionally dominated by men (construction and heavy manufacturing) decline further and faster than those traditionally dominated by women (public-sector employment, healthcare, and education). All told, by the end of 2009, the global recession is expected to put as many as 28 million men out of work worldwide.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has two different measures for the job market. (Alan B. Krueger, one of Economix’s Daily Economists and a former chief economist at the Labor Department, explained some of the differences here.) For now let’s look at nonfarm payrolls. As of December, the last month for which we have a male/female jobs breakdown for this measure, men accounted for 83.1 percent of the lost jobs.
You are quoting the same source cited in the article as proof the fact is real which does not provide any verifiable data to fact check the source. That is usual circular argument typical of most Internet factoids. Your are arguing that because everyone cites this same source the source must be factual. Not at all sound methodology
One person claims something, with NO background data to verify it then, then everyone else cites each other as "proof" of the fact veracity.
Think for even a heart beat here. The number cited "83.1%" is entirely too large to be intellectually credible. It is one of those made up numbers where some clown with a political axe to grind, using the most suspicious computer model based on wild assumptions to verify their pet dogma.
The assumption here, it seems, is that most manufacturing and construction jobs are 100% male dominated. WRONG assumption. What about all the female dominated administrative staff that works at those construction firms and industrial concerns? Do they still have their jobs?
I went to the supposed source. Guess what BLS doesn't have any documents on Unemployment by Gender. They apparently do not track it. So how is it the supposed source quoted here does have any such data available to cooberate this claim?