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.
Since women entering the work force simply resulted in 2 people working full time to make what one person used to, it didn't help society as a whole. The whole problem is too many workers, with businesses (forced by government) constantly reducing the number of jobs.
Anything we could do to restrict the numbers in the workforce (stopping immigration, making early retirement EASY instead of impossible, reducing natural population growth by not incentivizing having children, etc.) would help America. On the other end, increasing jobs by removing the barriers to new jobs (i.e., government regulation and taxes) should also be done.
And to state the obvious, hiring by the government is NOT a substitute for private sector job growth, since every penny government uses to pay a government employee must be confiscated from a wage-earner, after paying a huge percentage for the cost of the government itself.
I think this is a topic to rattle people. Its also my hunch that the pole is unrealistic because it would seem apparent that the vast majority of city data people are women.
Not to mention, the topic would typically serve as a target for women to zero in on. An Oprah style invitation.
None the less, its ridiculous other than the interesting observation that society could do with a wake up call on gender talent and natural abilities for consideration re designation.
Its my opinion that leadership is not a strong element in female contribution. Could go on about it, but whats the point...? Its what Iv'e noticed .
Last edited by stargazzer; 08-06-2010 at 02:55 AM..
Some argue that the women's movement has caused more problems than its been worth, even claiming that dual-income families have driven up the cost of living.
What do you think?
Not all women are married so the premise is flawed. Also, didn't I recently read there are more women graduating from college than men? That tells me on average your (not you, the poster) wife probably has a better shot at a higher salary than you do. It's only the whinging women's movement that makes women think they are victims of society. Women are a majority and should start acting like one not some sniveling minority that needs government help to get ahead.
The problem isn't women, it's women put in positions they are unqualified for, just put there to satisfy a quota. I worked for a woman who didn't know her arse from a whole in the ground. She was promoted just because she was a woman.
The problem isn't women, it's women put in positions they are unqualified for, just put there to satisfy a quota. I worked for a woman who didn't know her arse from a whole in the ground. She was promoted just because she was a woman.
And no MAN has EVER been promoted unfairly...and, of course , they all are superior employees.....
Some argue that the women's movement has caused more problems than its been worth, even claiming that dual-income families have driven up the cost of living.
What do you think?
I think that misogynists are exactly as destructive/hateful as racists. Women have equal rights as human beings no matter how many sexists think women are something "lesser than" males.
Citing a few incidents of unfairness towards males does NOT erase thousands of years of oppression of women.
But really ignorant people ALWAYS have to find some other party to demonize, whether it's the poor or blacks or women or gays....
Some argue that the women's movement has caused more problems than its been worth, even claiming that dual-income families have driven up the cost of living.
What do you think?
Have you seen the male unemployment numbers lately?
Depends, there are a lot of angles you can come at it which would be as you say.
From a simple analysis of economic viability, there may be some arguments for it. Studies have shown (take them with a grain of salt), that the influx of competition of women in the work place has raised the requirements to live.
That is, two incomes have set the standard and our economy reflects it.
On the other side, there may be some positive sides to it as well.
Point is, the issue doesn't have to be looked at from a discriminatory view.
I am not saying that we should go back to such, but there has been some negative (as well as positive) results from such in those terms.
I can understand the idea of having one of the parents take care of the children and the other working, but I think that's something that can be switched off. My wife and I have already agreed that there will be times when she is the primary breadwinner and times when I'm the primary breadwinner, but that neither of us would be completely set in one role. I don't see why the care-taking role needs to be aligned with one gender or one person in the relationship.
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.
I worked for a woman who didn't know her arse from a whole in the ground. She was promoted just because she was a woman.
