https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synops...
Men have the exact same long-term unemployment share (50%) in the 50-64 range. So, it's an equally large problem for older men. I 'm baffled by the chauvinism of the author.
It does look that the article has hugely overstated the issue. But there are still two interesting findings, that the article doesn't quite say properly because it hides the numbers, which is a shame:
* Older women's long-term unemployment is now on par with older men. The interesting thing is that earlier, it was much lower. Now, it has reached parity, and fairly quickly. So in terms of the change, there has been a significant change, but in terms of where things stand, this isn't a gender issue.
* The main issue is one of age - older people are at much higher risk of long-term unemployment. Looking at the long-term unemployed, we can see that they are becoming mostly older people. And because in the group of older people, women significantly outnumber men (because women live longer), the group of older women becomes significant.
In other words, older women are a very big proportion of the long-term unemployed not necessarily because of gender issues (which the article focuses on, like taking time off to care for children 20 years earlier - which seems like a stretch anyhow), but rather because older people are most of the long-term unemployed, and there are just a lot more older women than older men.
The woman in the article said she was told 'they want someone younger'. Anyone who can prove they did not get a job cause of their age may want to check with the EEOC and potentially a lawyer.
If you were to mention Fox News I would get the referene since Fox News is mostly a racist, sexist, xenophobe pile of dung. I'm of course exagerating for dramatic effect. They are still quite bad on the things they say(twist) though.
But my experience has been that NYT frequently fails to report meaningful data. For example a few days ago, they compared the propensity of people to marry others of similar income to "eugenics". http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/upshot/marriages-of-pow... But then totally and completely failed to show that income level transfers generations, which is crucial for eugenics. They also failed to look at it even mention confounding variables.