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?
they quit recording by gender in 2004 but started again with new format later , your own link above shows figures for men and women dated trailing YTD 7/09
and since you got me looking, this is not unusual...men are usually on the job loss end at a rate of 3-1 over women historically and I think it is for the reasons I mentioned above....women are in less economic downturn sectors..I believe this recession might very well put women ahead numbers wise in the workforce but they don't count military or farm....that I could find. Outside those two sectors it's close....52-48 already.