Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is this a debate? How about people stop having kids, cars, and houses they can't afford instead of blaming equality. Some women don't want to be modern slaves, get over it.
I think women are the equal to or even better than men in many ways and should receive equal pay and benefits in a business setting.
The only detriment to society I see is that many of those career women either do not have babies or they put it off until later in life. This is a generalisation but when you have an educated woman who goes to college, gets a nice job and doesn't have kids the overall gene pool of America is losing out in the long run. Many poor uneducated women who don't go to school or have the ability to get a good job go ahead and have babies instead. This could be a personal choice or one that is made for them by their socio/ economic status.
Once again this is a broad statement but the not so bright women are having multiple babies while the smart women are not. That does not bode well for the future of our country.
How is that even relevant? Your going to have the more educated effluent people and the less educated, lower economic people. People tend to pair up within their own level. Higher educated people tend to have less children than those on the lower socioeconomic scale. Limiting all women's educational and earning potential is not going to ensure more intelligent children.
If you think about it this has been the case historically as our country developed. Poor people generally have more children than wealthy people.
I wonder if people realize just how recent women in the workplace is. Even my father's generation would think it ridiculous that men and women would do the same work. They had a derisionary term for work done by a man that was normally done by a woman: doing woman's work. Like sewing in a mill or teaching or secretarial.
In the context of the thousands of years when men and women had different tasks, the recent incorporation of women into men's work is a historical blink of the eye.
It is going to take a while to work the kinks out: men hitting on women, pay (although equal pay for the same work is near-reality, despite the activists lies), women really working the same jobs as men like jackhammering, lifting, that sort of thing.
Especially when the most important relation between men and women is not as workmates, but as mates. Nature is a powerful thing to overcome. And if it is, it usually expresses itself in another way.
I believe women in the workplace is still a work in progress and is bound to be a source of friction in the relations between men and women for a long, long time if not forever.
I wonder if people realize just how recent women in the workplace is. Even my father's generation would think it ridiculous that men and women would do the same work. They had a derisionary term for work done by a man that was normally done by a woman: doing woman's work. Like sewing in a mill or teaching or secretarial.
Except that teaching and secretarial work used to almost exclusively be the domain of men. Aside from a certain class of women, women have always worked. A woman whose family ran a shop worked in that shop. A woman whose family owned a farm worked on the farm. Women have been writers and artists, seamstresses and laundresses and weavers, housekeepers and governesses, cooks and innkeepers. The only difference in the modern era is that we've put aside this notion of "men's work" and "women's work." Men and women can choose their livelihoods based on their skills and abilities and not their genitalia, and that's a good thing. There's no logical reason why a woman can't be an electrician and and man can't be a nurse.
Last edited by fleetiebelle; 03-06-2015 at 10:43 AM..
Except that teaching and secretarial work used to almost exclusively be the domain of men. Aside from a certain class of women, women have always worked. A woman whose family ran a shop worked in that shop. A woman whose family owned a farm worked on the farm. Women have been writers and artists, seamstresses and laundresses and weavers, housekeepers and governesses, cooks and innkeepers. The only difference in the modern era is that we've put aside this notion of "men's work" and "women's work." Men and women can choose their livelihoods based on their skills and abilities and not their genitalia, and that's a good thing. There's no logical reason why a woman can't be an electrician and and man can't be a nurse.
I recently read about how one city took PC so far that they made the fire department hire many of them, even though they weren't physically capable to perform at the highest level. People could possibly die because it took the female 30 seconds longer to knock that door down and find someone amidst a house fire, all to make people feel all warm and happy about "equal rights." There is also plenty of stories (with video) about female police officers not being physically able to defend themselves when attacked at close range where pulling their gun in time isn't possible. I'm all about people being able to do what makes them happy and be fair, but when it comes to life and death rescue situations that rely on pure physical strength, it should be criminal to knowingly hire a less physically capable female (and same for a very weak man for these roles).
Hiring someone to do a job who isn't capable of performing that job isn't what we're talking about. Not allowing a woman who very well could be qualified for a job to even apply because of gender could be discriminatory. Not all men are capable of being effective police or firefighters, either.
Since human children are so utterly dependent on their parents for such a long time, and since cognitive skills are so vital to success in the world today, there is a clear imperative to provide for the rearing and education of those children. This demonstrably happens best in a 2 parent familial environment.
It would be better for most of us, I think, if married women as a rule did not work outside of the home full-time, and that their husbands pulled in roughly twice their current income. But this is unlikely to happen - big business has effectively succeeded in getting almost double the productivity for effectively half of the wages (while passing on the cost of child rearing and education to taxpayers).
The best alternative, I think, would be to aggressively facilitate the bearing and rearing of children, with mandated maternity leave of 12+ months (and paternity leave of 6+), regardless of job title, salary, etc. This needs to be aimed at the middle and upper middle class specifically, as there is a clear national and civilizational interest in having the most productive and stable people breed, and its not happening nearly enough. As the more productive people have less than 2.0 children per couple on average (because of the cost, career penalty etc), and thus fall below their own replacement rate, and as those population who are breeding above their own replacement rate in the West tend to produce a lot of unemployables through both the lack of wise investment in education and dysgenics alike, workforce replenishment has to come from somewhere, hence the Big Business / elite consensus that immigration, whether legal or illegal, is good.
The only way around this are the incentivization of child bearing and rearing of the cognitively above-average, or the rationalization of immigration policy to recruit the best people in the world here (including even cash incentives). I predict that the powers-that-be in the next 15-30 years will gradually agree on the latter - its still cheaper than the potential productivity loss of less workforce participation of women, and its not as if Westerners / Americans have the confidence to stand up for their culture. Perhaps the guilt/privilege narrative is designed for this very end.
I'm certainly not. The point is that "76% of what men make" you hear repeated so often is an average of the entire population of women. That would include many women who put their careers on hold completely, may not take on more responsibility which requires more time or may be forced into flexible lower paying part time jobs so they can raise children. When they reach the age of retirement they are going to have years less experience.
Exactly. I have a coworker whose wife is a pilot with a major airline. She complained to him that her male coworkers made much more than she did. He reminded her that when they had young children, she chose easier routes in order to be home more with her kids. She also turned down a few transfers that would have bumped her up the chain in seniority and skill.
Since human children are so utterly dependent on their parents for such a long time, and since cognitive skills are so vital to success in the world today, there is a clear imperative to provide for the rearing and education of those children. This demonstrably happens best in a 2 parent familial environment.
It would be better for most of us, I think, if married women as a rule did not work outside of the home full-time, and that their husbands pulled in roughly twice their current income. But this is unlikely to happen - big business has effectively succeeded in getting almost double the productivity for effectively half of the wages (while passing on the cost of child rearing and education to taxpayers).
The best alternative, I think, would be to aggressively facilitate the bearing and rearing of children, with mandated maternity leave of 12+ months (and paternity leave of 6+), regardless of job title, salary, etc. This needs to be aimed at the middle and upper middle class specifically, as there is a clear national and civilizational interest in having the most productive and stable people breed, and its not happening nearly enough. As the more productive people have less than 2.0 children per couple on average (because of the cost, career penalty etc), and thus fall below their own replacement rate, and as those population who are breeding above their own replacement rate in the West tend to produce a lot of unemployables through both the lack of wise investment in education and dysgenics alike, workforce replenishment has to come from somewhere, hence the Big Business / elite consensus that immigration, whether legal orintellectual thingsis good.
The only way around this are the incentivization of child bearing and rearing of the cognitively above-average, or the rationalization of immigration policy to recruit the best people in the world here (including even cash incentives). I predict that the powers-that-be in the next 15-30 years will gradually agree on the latter - its still cheaper than the potential productivity loss of less workforce participation of women, and its not as if Westerners / Americans have the confidence to stand up for their culture. Perhaps the guilt/privilege narrative is designed for this very end.
The problems with your ideas
1. People are getting married less
2. People just want do not children like before
3. American Businesses are not support this
4. Illegal immigration is always bad
5. Politicians are not support this either
The problems with your ideas
1. People are getting married less
2. People just want do not children like before
3. American Businesses are not support this
4. Illegal immigration is always bad
5. Politicians are not support this either
1. Yes, people are more selfish today than in the past, and are less willing / able to hold up their end of a marriage.
2. AS I mentioned, having children is disincentivized now for those of us who actually work for a living. Plus, people are less willing to put in the immense effort to rear children.
3. Businesses care about labor that can do the job as cheaply as possible. Of course they don't support it.
4. Illegal immigration, like points 1-3, is bad for the commonweal, but good for businesses as long as they don't have to bear the cost of it.
5. Politicians tend to be concerned with keeping the gravy train going for themselves and their entourage.
I am trying to diagnose the problem and offer solutions. We are headed towards civilizational suicide.
To answer the OP's question - its been a mixed bag. But we can mitigate the negatives if we acknowledge and facilitate womens' biological role in the renewal of our species.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
