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.
Pookie, the only reason most people are 2 income families is because they want to buy stuff. Stuff they don't need, but are convinced they are supposed to have. Sorry...the 'ruling classes' aren't responsible for that.
Bwaaaaaawwwww hahahahahaha..
Oh that's a killer...
advertising doesn't work....Industrialists have nothing to do with it...
Though the slogans have changed over time, the tobacco industry's targeted marketing of women can be traced back to the 1920s. While women were depicted in cigarette ads as non-smoking admirers of smoking men at first, by 1927 advertisements with women smoking began to appear in women's magazines.3 One of the most famous early cigarette advertising campaigns directed at women was Lucky Strikes' "Reach for Lucky Instead of A Sweet."
Despite the advent of targeted advertising, smoking among women did not really gain social acceptability until World War II. During that era, cigarette companies began to target women more directly, using the fashion, beauty, and sophistication themes that still continue today. The companies also used images of women in the military and the work place. For example, Camel's ad slogan during World War II was "First in the Service" and highlighted successful women in the military. While these new advertising campaigns focused on women's growing role in the American workplace, they still portrayed smoking as a stylish and feminine act. This theme of smoking as a way of achieving independence, while at the same time remaining stylish and attractive (especially to men), became less popular after the war ended, but would later reappear.
Since you'll probably avoid the question I'll give you the answer:
Men gave them the rights and privileges they now enjoy.
Women didn't magically get the right to vote and equal employment and all that jazz. It came about from decades of legal wrangling and back room deals, aka politics. The ones who stood to gain the most in the late 19th & early 20th, the industrialists, were the ones who in fact convinced congress (and the public at large) that women entering the workforce was a Good Thing
Men did not GIVE women the right to vote. Rights are rarely given freely by the ruling party. Yes it took decades of WOMEN picketing, going to jail, marching, pleading, using the media. Pretty much the same way civil rights were won for blacks. Again, women were already in the workforce before 1920.
Yeah, I had heard that feminist were preyed upon, and their wide eyed revolt was actually manipulated by larger businesses and govt. to procure a larger source of tax revenue. I doubt this was the only reason feminism was successful, but it had its hand in it.
Last edited by solytaire; 02-03-2010 at 12:02 PM..
Yeah, I had heard that feminist were preyed upon, and their wide eyed revolt was actually manipulated by larger businesses and govt. to procure a larger source of tax revenue. I doubt this was the only feminism was successful, but it had its hand in it.
Hi solytaire,
That is because most people don't know that self interest drives the system more than virtue. Jackson had help killing the Central Bank from other wildcat banks. In South Africa, who was for racial equality and who was against it? Why is was white capitalists who were interested in ending Apartheid while labor was against it. Why? It was cheap labor for the capitalists and competition for labor.
Feminism isn't the only thing where industrialists had self interest to do the "right thing". We have delusions of spontaneous virtue.
The South African gold rush made the natural synergy between white-owned capital and abundant black labor overpowering. The gains from cooperation between eager British investors and thousands of African workers were sufficient to bridge gaping differences in language, customs, and geography. At first, however, the white capitalist could deal directly only with the few English and Afrikaner managers and foremen who shared his tongue and work habits. But the premium such workers commanded soon became an extravagance. Black workers were becoming capable of performing industrial leadership roles in far greater numbers and at far less cost. Driven by the profit motive, the substitution of black for white in skilled and semiskilled mining jobs rose high on the agenda of the mining companies.
White workers feared the large supply of African labor as the low-priced competition that it was. Hence, white tradesmen and government officials, including police, regularly harassed African workers to discourage them from traveling to the mines and competing for permanent positions. Beginning in the 1890s, the Chamber of Mines, a group of employers, complained regularly of this systematic discrimination and attempted to secure better treatment for black workers. Their gesture was neither altruistic nor founded on liberal beliefs. Indeed, the mine owners often resorted to racist measures themselves. But here they had a clear economic incentive: labor costs were minimized where rules were color-blind. This self-interest was so powerful that it led the chamber to finance the first lawsuits and political campaigns against segregationist legislation.
And if anybody wants to resort to calling it tinfoil...that the ruling elite had a hand in all those women going out and working full time...I would advise that you open your eyes and use your gift of reason.
Not evey woman that went out to work went out to fulfill some great career dream. They went to work at a lot of not-so-fun jobs. They went out to work out of necessity to help pay the bills.
Of course women have to work out of necessity as do men. Especially unmarried, divorced and widowed women. They were doing it before the feminist movement. At least feminism gave women the means to actually have an education and career and not be held down in those low paying jobs. If that is where they still are, it is not the fault of the government or the ruling elite. Sure, higher income means more expendable income which mean buying more stuff. That goes with the territory.
I agree with your idea of balance. So why dont more couples do that. Because we live in a materalistic society. People work to buy stuff. Blaming the ruling class, which by the way would be blaming men, for having 2 income hhs is not realistic. That is a lifestyle choice. Most 2 income hh could survive on one income.
Of course women have to work out of necessity as do men. Especially unmarried, divorced and widowed women. They were doing it before the feminist movement. At least feminism gave women the means to actually have an education and career and not be held down in those low paying jobs. If that is where they still are, it is not the fault of the government or the ruling elite. Sure, higher income means more expendable income which mean buying more stuff. That goes with the territory.
I agree with your idea of balance. So why dont more couples do that. Because we live in a materalistic society. People work to buy stuff. Blaming the ruling class, which by the way would be blaming men, for having 2 income hhs is not realistic. That is a lifestyle choice. Most 2 income hh could survive on one income.
The only thing that is holding women down in low paying jobs is women.
Blaming the ruling class, which by the way would be blaming men
Give me a fricking break. Placing blame on less than 1% of the world's population...which I'm sure there are a few women in there, contrary to what you might think... is BY NO STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION blaming men. Quit twisting words around to change the MEANING of what I said.
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.
