It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


ECON: Working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch

page: 19
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:43 PM

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I do know what is soft porn in many of these magazines and romance novels. Just because sex is fed to women in a different manner/venue than it is to men does not make it non porn. Many of these novels and magazine are in fact quite steamy and in some ways obscene.

You are right here, it is porn. Literary porn rather than visual porn. But, porn none-the -less. However all of that "how do they have time for it if they are victimized" stuff, makes a lot less sense. How do man have all the time to read the books geared predominantly towards them? Action adventure, Sci-fi, Westerns (which can also be literary porn, btw) endless magazines on cars, motorcycles, computers and electronics (consumption porn) not to mention just flat old nekkid girl porn. (Or guy porn if you are so inclined.)

After all, the "womens" porn magazine, Playgirl, has more male subscribers.

One can't help but wonder why it took Playgirl so long to embrace their male demographic, which accounts for 60% of the title's readership and 65% of online subscribers. As this abridged time line shows, the title has a rich homo history. 1978 Centerfold Brian Dawson won a 1989 leather competition. 30th anniversary hunk Scott Merritt came out in a 2003 Advocate interview, while February of 1979's David Grant paid the bills as gay porn star Clay Russell.

How do all these abused and overworked and expendable men find all the time they do to support not only one literary genre, but several? Its a mystery I tell you.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
You know the woman I see sometimes comes over in the afternoon when I take off and watches those afternoon programs directed to and for women. YOu know ...the ones where they take a lie detector test or a DNA test. I cannot sit down an watch them with her ..they are disgusting.

Which is what I think your problem is. You choose to associate with women who bolster your stereotypes. Ones who care more about their nails than being a good shot. Ones who sit around and watch daytime TV, rather than do something more productive. And then, you judge all women by the ones you choose. Who you end up with says more about you than the opposite gender.

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:53 PM

I beg your pardon? You are implying that entire history of women can be disregarded as irrelevant or inaccurate because women read romance novels?! What kind of logic is this--never mind, it is not logic.

don't get all drama on me now. I am implying no such thing. [...] I am saying what "downtrodden victimized group" has this much time to support such a huge market for so many of this type of books?? I am not using time warp techniques here..I am speaking of right now.....of recent. [...] The amount of shelf space for these kinds of books is staggering once I began to take notice.

Oh, so you ARE saying it, you're just not saying "history" is involved -- but that is indeed what you meant about the present.

I think idealistic yearning fiction if anything underscores there probably *is* more victimization going on; "it is the slaves who most need dreams" someone once said.

What I do know is that there is obviously a huge market share for these books/magazines both in new and used format. HUGE!! This is a tell tale trace or sign of something bigger happening.

I don't think you really have any idea what that bigger thing might be.

What it does not tell Victimization.

I equate this logic to, "Chocolate sells in staggering amounts. More of it is consumed by women than men. WOMEN CAN'T BE VICTIMS THEN!"

Women read romance for some of the same reasons they eat chocolate IMO. It stimulates parts of the brain that create a sense of being loved or being happy.

If women are reading these in mind-boggling numbers, it would tell me that en masse they must have a great desire to feel happier than they are--which would support the opposite of your theory.

I might add that when I read romance, it's because I want to totally tune out of the overstressed never enough time never enough sleep too much work kid is bothering me finances are tough world is crashing around me mindset and just ESCAPE to some beautiful world where it's all going to work out and I know how it's going to end and the ending will be HAPPY.

Sue me... I grew up on Disney. I like happy endings. ;-)

Fourth, if we compared 'romance novel quantity' to 'porn quantity' with the same logic, it's amazing any man ever gets anything done LOL.

I do know what is soft porn in many of these magazines and romance novels. [...] The only difference is that their market is targeted to women. You are going to have to be a lot faster to sell me on the porn thing. I do not fit the textbook oil shortage, swimsuit edition, sports/cheerleaders mentality of most males out here. Why do you think I often make the statement that people are so much more than sexuality??

You jumped topics like trains and in doing so evaded that you lost the point. I made zero comment about you and sexuality, nor did I have any comment that had anything to do with whether many romance novels amount to porn (they do). None of that is relevant to THE POINT OF IT -- which you carefully evaded --

-- was that your entire logic was built upon "women are mostly the ones reading romance books and there's a ton of it, so they can't possibly be victimized because they can't have time for it!". (Hilarious.) The fact is, "men are mostly the ones pursuing porn and there's a ton of it" so if your argument is valid, then the SAME logic makes my argument equally (if not more) valid. It has nothing to do with sex; it has to do with your logic regarding the 'quantity of romance books sold' somehow being equated to or explaining-away any less-than-equal present-day circumstance (including workplace complaints) women may present.


[edit on 6-3-2009 by RedCairo]

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:59 PM

Originally posted by undo
(pardon the off topic jaunt! but i gotta do you think this relates to the idea that new city jerusalem is supposed to be composed almost entirely of crystalline structures? even the street is described as see-thru gold colored crystals of some sort. every time i think about that, it messes with my head.)

I have NO idea. Sounds interesting though! :-)


posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:47 PM

Women are the ones who give birth to most of the kids those programs target. (The rest are gender-neutral.) Take it up with God.

"Here among the states ..California is paying a heavy price for this security mindedness."

You can't possibly look at the illegal alien situation in california and tell me women are the problem. Good grief.

Think your first quote through and then look at your second quote ..mine is the one in between. Think it trough carefully. The folks in California are begining to vote with thier feet. Most security minded programs are directed to women and children ..they are not directed to men.

I already figured that's where you were going with it but was giving you some generous benefit of the doubt lol.

You cannot blame women as a gender for a problem based on immigration and politics. Mexicans having 'anchor babies' and/or growing up on welfare presents three problems: (a) joining this country illegally, (b) not being deported, and/or (c) the proliferation of welfare. None of these are problems about women.

The tendency is to marry or date up the economic/status ladder..not down. Competition can be fierce in this arena. Women have not evolved this far as of yet. Victimization for now is more convenient and disguises much of what I am saying.

Using beauty instead of finance this exists equally in the other direction.

Based on personal experience, I see more of the opposite -- women marrying men from a lower income class than themselves.

But supposing this is just a fluke and really you are correct and normally they do this, I do think this:

A person's income and 'potential' income often has a great deal to do with their character. That's not the ONLY thing of course. People who are minorities, women, unusually homely, differently abled, or other issues may have their career and ongoing job greatly impacted by those factors and it wouldn't be fair not to consider that. And there are temporary or one-off situations where some unfairness occurs or the economy crashes and that's just not in someone's control.

However as a general rule it is fair to say that someone who works their way through college to become an engineer, and then works their way up the ladder to becoming VP of Engineering at some large firm that pays them well, are probably of a different personality profile than the man you meet who age age 35 is still working not far from minimum wage. There's a big spectrum between that of course. But "ambition" is loosely ('loosely' is key here; it's not overwhelmingly) correlated with personality. Sure I know men who actually left work to care for small kids while the wife worked because she had a better job. I know men who were injured in a manly-man's job and took out loans to do college and learn to do something else, from accounting to nursing to IT stuff, so they could find work without having to do physical stuff. Lots of men don't make a lot of money but are quality humans.

I have more male friends than female. Which I'm trying to remedy, and find as I get older and less masculine in my views in some respects, and meet women I think are exceptional people, gets easier. (I'm growing up. Slowly.) But it's given me cause to see that most my men friends have felt, if there's a man with a hot car and money to spend, he has every likelihood of getting the girl, while every other guy was doomed. In fact this theory has been openly agreed upon by just about every man I've ever heard discuss it around me which are many. But what they don't see is that the girls they are talking about, the women they want and resent that they'll probably never have, are the hot-chicks -- that's who they mean -- so in short, they are doing *exactly* what they are accusing women of doing--ignoring the vast majority of the pool to focus on people with a tiny subset of certain qualities--and then resent that those people do the identical thing in return. MAYBE if instead of trying for the hot-chick that the dude with the ferrari is also trying for, the average guy looked for an exceptional woman who was a lot more ordinary looking, he'd find something fine.

Recently my boyfriend and I were having this conversation. I was mentioning a friend of mine and that he had a black belt and spoke seven languages and my BF busted out laughing, saying something like, this is the kind of man other men hate and don't want their women anywhere near!--meaning, because nobody can compete with that. But the reality is, they CAN compete with that. He can, in his own very different ways, or he wouldn't be mine-all-mine. He is not age 77 like my friend, so at 29 he really hasn't had time obviously, but to whatever degree he can. Any man who wants to can go learn karate or learn another language or go to night school to get qualified for something to make more money or seriously take up something creative he might someday also do for income like say, upholstery, or pottery for custom wall tiles, or whatever -- check one, anything you can imagine. (The same goes for women.) The men who DO those things, who have that interest, self-respect, ambition, future-planning for themselves, that's an attractive quality of its own regardless of the details. It's attractive in women, too.

A lot of people sit around watching TV or on the internet and begrudge as 'unfair' that someone with a better set of skills or more money got a woman or man they couldn't. But I think if people make the best they can of themselves, they will be drawn to other people making the best they can of themselves, and it will all work out pretty well.


[edit on 6-3-2009 by RedCairo]

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 06:51 PM

Originally posted by whitewave
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Women have always been in "the workforce", but now they're getting paid for their work. This seems to have upset quite a few men.

My! What powerful beings women are that we can bring the world's economy to it's knees without even trying! Puhleeeze! Men blaming women who are being paid for their labors as the cause for our current financial woes are a perfect example of that victimization mentality OT mentioned earlier.

Those aren't men - they're whiners. I am a man working in a fairly technical field. I have no problem with a women that does the same job I do, competently, and getting the same money I get. I have no more fear of her taking my job away than I do another guy. Competition is competition, may the best PERSON win. (I do realize I may be in the minority here). I have always operated under the philosophy that my work will speak for itself, and it has served me well in the past.

I do not believe that women in the workforce are the cause of the current economic woes. IMHO, I think it has more to do with our consumer mentality, than anything else. No, you girls are NOT that powerful!

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 06:53 PM

Originally posted by JohnnyR
reply to post by nikiano

Oh nik, dont get so mad at me, I wasnt in all honesty taking a shot at you. I was only trying to say that maybe if you didnt have such a bad view of "most" men you would attract the ones you look for.

I dont know you and Im sure you are a great person and deserve someone just as great. Sorry for comming off so combative, but you cant deny how someone who doesnt know you would view that post.

As i stated early in reponse to Oracle, I agree the pickings are small, but you know how it goes with the law of attraction, but I digress, We're a bit off topic.

I guess what I was trying to get at but apparently stuck a size 11 in my mouth was, maybe we need to look at the ramifications of children not being raised by the one that can do it best.
SHHHHH though, I might lose my role as the stay at home dad, and that would bum me out.

I see it, my wife is like a magician sometimes dealing with our kids, she just has that touch or 6th sence that i seem to be missing. hahaha

But ya sorry again Nik, didnt mean to come off like I was taking a shot at you.


PS. I bet if we were actually in the same room talking Nik, instead of in a forum, you wouldnt have taken what I said as an insult, because you would have seen my face and noticed I meant no harm

[edit on 3/3/2009 by JohnnyR]

Hi, Johnny,

Thanks for the apology.
Apology accepted.

And I'm sorry for my rant, that also sounded way too harshly worded towards men. Truth is, I don't hate men....I really like most of them quite a bit. I just hated the man who wrote that article at that moment! LOL!

Anyway, apology accepted. And I'm sorry if I offended you, or anyone else with my little "rant." But boy, I was case you couldn't tell! I can have a temper when I'm mad. LOL!

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:22 PM
reply to post by Rockpuck

Please bear with me on this attempt to draw a point. Thank You.

In the early part of the last century two fuels were used to run Henry Ford's Automobiles.

Alcohol and Gasoline. You just moved a control on the dashboard to lean the mixture.

Cheap plentiful and clean, alcohol was the clear winner.
But the Rockerfeller's wanted the monopoly on gas and over alcohol. So they fronted the "Women's Temperance Movement". The Prohibition wiped out ALL alcohol consumption.
Brilliant, huh?

In the sixties, The Rockerfeller Foundation funded and actively promoted the "Women's Liberation Movement" and "the Sexual Revolution" on the whole... why?

Well, since the Annual Taxes we pay to the Federal Reserve System (through their Gestapo, the IRS), goes DIRECTLY into the pockets of the Banksters that print our currency at interest (Property and Excise taxes run the Country, and Corp's are required by the Constitution to fund our Defense) and the Rockerfeller's are one of the shareholders of "The FED", Women in the workplace DOUBLED their annual theft of the American People to the tune of 25-30% of their income. It is a fraudulent system that makes the Mob look like amateurs.

As a bonus, they got the mothers out of the house and away from their children.
This made the indoctrination of Public Education for the entire Middle and Lower Classes
easy and clandestine. The results of this can be readily witnessed in the decline of test scores virtually everywhere in the US. Now you know why those 'benevolent foundatins' are onlt to eager to control the content of our TextBooks.

This information was expressed to Aaron Russo by Nicholas Rockerfeller during their brief friendship. You can google Mr Russo's interviews on this topic and others with Alex Jones.

Aaron Russo was a filmmaker, giving us "The Rose" and "Trading Places".

His last gift to us was, "America, Freedom to Fascism". Everything on it is in the Public Domain and Vetted.

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 07:55 PM
Finally catching up...


when a man stands up it recieves exactly the responses one sees on this thread. No problem I have been here before...alone.

You know, I honestly think you feel like a victim on many levels and it is causing you to project this upset about how women can't be victims (because _you_ are, so _they_ can't be!). You've been having a discussion with a variety of people and many of them have been perfectly decent despite that you have some overwhelming biases against their entire gender. Since the rest is split between both genders acting out a bit, I don't see any unfairness here. If your points cannot stand up decently to the rebuttal then maybe the points aren't very good. If they are, readers (most silent) will see your view.

You know the woman I see sometimes comes over in the afternoon when I take off and watches those afternoon programs directed to and for women. YOu know ...the ones where they take a lie detector test or a DNA test. I cannot sit down an watch them with her ..they are disgusting. I have enough problems and tasks to solve of my own..I dont need to be voyeuristically watching someone elses. I call these the male bashing programs.

I haven't had a TV (or cable, rather) since 1993 so I don't even know what you're talking about. I assume this is either about talk shows or soap operas or both. I know people of both genders kind of addicted to that stuff but definitely more women than men I agree. I'm not sure this alone is enough to make a character decision about -- I feel the same about shows like COPS for example (does that still exist?) -- but dude, maybe you need to go find a better class of people. Or wait, that's unfair, let me rephrase that: maybe you need to find people more in accordance with what you value. (Probably there is no better or worse here, just different.) If you would value a woman who's into organic gardening and cooking and prefers classical and hates TV for example, then gardening clubs, cooking classes and classical concerts are probably the place to go to maybe find a few; someone in there, statistically, is more likely to qualify.

I have only heard one talk show host who tells it pretty much like it is male and female. Ironically it is a woman, not a man...and her name escapes me at the moment. I think they were or are a psychologist.
Though I admire her alot for being able to shoot straight I dont always agree with her but respect her nonetheless ...for beign able to shooting straight. I dont even know if they are still around..I have not heard them in quite some time. But I cannot seem to recall the name.!!?? wouldn't be referring to radio host Laura Schlessinger would you.

Indeed...there is no women's socialization instruction to take care of the men in the manner men have traditionally taken care of the females.

For good reason. Men are generally stronger and do not usually have 9 months of pregnancy and then an infant and toddler to care for.

So this justifies male expendability and disposability and for marketing reasons?? It is also not equality.

Oh my gosh. I just realized something. You keep saying it repeatedly, you even spelled it out step by step how one thing led to another, but it took a few times to pound it into my brain. Your actual biggest gripe is the one you aren't saying _directly_: that WOMEN GET TO VOTE. Wow! Wow.

I wish you'd just said that up front. It would have been so much funnier!!

There is an overall tendency socially of tenderness of the male to the female in all categories ...particularly in more advanced western economies and particularly the tenderness expressed as the willingness to take RISKs for a woman and child. This is not the other way around. socially. It is also not equality.

I think you're confusing "equal" with "the same" here. This can be a measuring point in something like job salary, but not in social contexts driven hugely by evolutionary biology. What men cover in the short-term intensity category, women cover in the long-term stoic category, generally. It's equal but it's not the same.

It will become dysfunctional if trends victimization and entitlement.

This is politics, not women. The whole "victimization and entitlement" thing is HUGE in our culture and getting worse by the day and I agree 100% with that, that it's a problem and getting worse.

I'm a conservative woman. You won't find conservative women whining about the world owing them anything because the whole philosophy of the conservative is very much an up-by-your-own-bootstraps, other-people-don't-have-to-babysit-you kind of thing. You will find them saying that doing the same job ought to get the same money because that's logical.

What I think you really have a problem with is liberalism and its growing infestation in our culture and I agree. I just don't agree in projecting it all on women. I often see women in the media as part of that, but that is a political thing--not a female thing.

Another poster suggested it was in part a bias against females that features their most outlier numbers rather than the more rational and vastly larger segment. There might be something to this.


posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:01 PM

To do something about it means that the women will be responsible for keeping and maintaining all the systems they currently take so for granted all around them. Most will not be wont to do this type of labor or commitment.

You mean they won't dig ditches while the man breastfeeds? Be specific.

Not worthy of you Red Cairo..just like Illusions. I am saying that the systems and risks which keep much of our economies going are not the kind of risks and skills in which most women are wont to pursue as a career. Can you see women doing refrigeration work..both installing and maintaining commercial refrigeration units at the local shopping centers as well as at the offices where so many work??

When they can, yes. I used to manage warehouses and nearly all my employees were men and I lifted heavy stuff and used a forklift and worked my butt off. I actually tried to get into a variety of fields when I was young that I couldn't because (a) I was not a man and the people didn't think I should be doing it so didn't hire me -- and this was not helped by the fact that if I wore a dress to an interview I was too girly but if I didn't wear a dress to an interview I was either too casual or probably a dyke in their view which they had opinions about -- and (b) I didn't have the money in some cases like apprenticeships. If I'd had the opportunity to do something like that when I was young enough to actually want a physical job and think a few bucks more an hour instead of an easier job was worth it, I probably would have jumped for it.

But the reality is that you're being injust because most women cannot physically DO the kind of work men do, not that some can't (they can), but that when you really need mega-torque on a wrench or to lift some 120# item, there is a subset of women capable of that, and that subset is a teeeeny fraction of the number of men who, even if out of shape and otherwise unqualified, probably would be able to do it. If the numbers are skewed majorly in favor of men it's for several reasons but one is just "nature" -- talk to God.

It's aggravating that men are by nature so much stronger but that IS nature, and SOME jobs are going to cater to that. Just as some jobs cater to beauty; I can't get a job at hooters, either, not because my boobs aren't big but because my ass is too LOL! Or a long list of jobs that are definitely sexy-centric for women. A lot of jobs have bias toward one gender or one quality. It's not merely a situation of "less women want to work in refrigeration", it's also "maybe less women are qualified" and "far fewer men who work in refrigeration are willing to hire women to work in that field to train them qualified because they know it's hard work and they have an opinion about how a woman would do with that."

A good friend of mine was a Fire Dept. Captain. He had a woman come in who really wanted to be a fireman. He made a careful point to be fair -- his daughter is an amazon so he had some respect for tough women -- and in the end he gave her good marks but did not recommend her for hire. Why? Because in his words, "In addition to having some issues with some of the basic works (some of the hoses are crazy heavy), she couldn't pick up a grown man, throw him over her shoulder and run from a burning building. That may not always be needed but when it is, it REALLY is. It's not that she's not strong and tough, she's awesome, it's just that she hasn't got the upper body strength the men have and it's needed in this job. If there were men applying who were about the same physically, I'd give her the job. But we always have far more qualified applicants than we can hire. She is pointedly lacking in one area that is needed here. If she were more qualified in that one area, I would have recommended her with full stars." I totally understood and agreed with him there. SOME women could do that. Most can't. So, the job should be limited to those who can.

* Remind me I have a devil's advocate completely-disagree-with-myself, totally supports women-manipulating-politics example on this I'll have to get back to.

I used to be in the CCC, in the early 80's when it was a lot harder I hear. It was residential then, you had to live on-site. (Which led to some of my faaaavorite memories, like running out of the men's dorm in my underwear and a sheet at 3am when the fire drill went off, and having to walk down the outside stairs in front of the entire camp laughing their butts off about it. But I digress...) Their advertising was "Hard work. Low pay. Miserable conditions." and I joined which tells you something about me I suppose... it doesn't mention that about 60+ out of the 75 women in my training dorm were lesbians, must be the macho thing, go figure... anyway, we spent our days running around in fire gear with double bladed axes and doing clearing or hoeing, straddling logs in rivers with chainsaws, chopping down trees (and climbing them and chopping limbs with issues), sledgehammering 6' steel pins into railroad ties down cliffs we first hacked out steps in, painting an entire long wooden pier with paint as well as a many miles long bike trail wood fence with preservative, I could go on. Back then was the LA Olympics so we also set up like 20,000 folding chairs and planted about that many roses and things like that. The women and the men both worked their asses off. (I have an old joke that my boyfriend of the time only got a motorcycle and a leather jacket in reaction to fearing his woman was tougher than he was.) We did that for minimum wage, out of which was deducted room and food. While we did a lot of that, Cal-Trans workers literally stood there with a stop sign all day and made $25/hr LOL.

to be continued, it was too long it turns out...

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:02 PM

The men in our crew were all stronger. That didn't make the women useless. But it did mean that when some specific mini-job came up in our day that looked to be a lot of the-hardest-work, usually 2-3 of the tougher guys volunteered for it. Not because they didn't like us but because in all honesty, the important thing is getting something done. Had their been no men, only women, we'd have done it. But since there were, and they could do it faster and with less risk, they did it. But this is why, I am sure, a lot less hiring goes on in some fields that generally do involve physical labor. So although that is a bias AGAINST women, I do at least understand it.

Also, on 'refrigeration', remember that many boys all but grow up with mechanics. My father, geesh... I begged him to teach me mechanics. He wouldn't. I was 35 and he was still afraid if I mowed my own lawn I might cut a toe off. Ironically he was a real fair guy in the workplace regarding women, so maybe it was the daughter role that did it. I once asked him frankly, if I'd been a boy, would you not have had me out working on cars with you from the time I was probably 6? And he admitted, yeah, probably. So what I'm getting at is that a lot of "hard work" jobs also involve some degree of basic mechanics, which men are often a lot more fluent and comfortable with solely because culturally, our men as fathers have often passed down a lot more of that to the boys than to the girls. My brother learned to be a grease monkey and I got barbies. That is a cultural issue that makes as much a victim of women as men by the stereotype.

But you're taking what amounts to a bias against women to begin with -- against them even getting those kind of jobs, against them having the lifetime exposure to make them more qualified for and comfortable with those kind of jobs -- and a little of pure nature and men being stronger of course -- and then you're making it out like this is all some evil plot of women. Like there are fewer women in refrigeration as an industry, which you're using to support all your other views such as that women won't put themselves out for men at all, they just want to spend all their money, and I just don't think this is accurate. It might have happened in your personal life but never in mine or, in fact, much of anybody I know.

Yet they reap the benefits of this risk from others.

Um. Well, god forbid I should benefit because some guy got paid to fix the commercial refrigerator or AC system. He benefitted since he got paid, right?

If men were not around to do that stuff, either women would do it, or we would invent something else.

I know what kind of work Illusions does for her moneys and it is mostly a male environment. I tip my hat and more power to her. She is sort of a square peg in a round hole..but I don't think the bulk of womanhood is trying ravenously to take her job from her...nor mine as a nuclear fueler.

No, but they don't need to be. 'Most' women not wanting to do work that 'most' women are not physically cut out for -- or more accurately in most cases, simply "in shape for" -- is not a fault or crime of any sort. Women shouldn't have to be fixing transmissions to qualify as working for a living in a way that counts.

This is a good example: a lot of men will grudgingly give women respect only when women in their eyes are basically "acting like men". Yet even the most macho women (and I sorta used to be one) if in a relationship may eventually get to the point of say, having a child, at which point there's a whole lot of 'acting like women' -- e.g., needing money to survive with an infant, probably needing a man to do the roofing during that time, and so on, that is going to happen by nature, and of course the man (as well as the woman) is going to be responsible for raising that child, and worse, she still gets to vote!! I guess at that point they would be back in the draining men category, in your model.

Maybe we should limit voting to people who do dangerous jobs. I'm kidding, but the attractive part of that idea is that the military, which is overwhelmingly conservative, would probably hit the majority of votes, and then at least we'd have a better government.


posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:12 PM

Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo
In the early part of the last century two fuels were used to run Henry Ford's Automobiles.
Alcohol and Gasoline. You just moved a control on the dashboard to lean the mixture.
Cheap plentiful and clean, alcohol was the clear winner.
But the Rockerfeller's wanted the monopoly on gas and over alcohol. So they fronted the "Women's Temperance Movement". The Prohibition wiped out ALL alcohol consumption.
Brilliant, huh?

Women's temperance related to prohibition how? I'm not debating, I honestly don't know.

In the sixties, The Rockerfeller Foundation funded and actively promoted the "Women's Liberation Movement"

That's enough to make me worry LOL.

and the Rockerfeller's are one of the shareholders of "The FED", Women in the workplace DOUBLED their annual theft of the American People to the tune of 25-30% of their income.

I can see that they had a 'vested interest' in this case, yes. This doesn't make me against women working for a living -- though hot damn I'd love a world where I didn't have to, but would hate a world where I wasn't allowed -- but I can see your point there.

As a bonus, they got the mothers out of the house and away from their children.
This made the indoctrination of Public Education for the entire Middle and Lower Classes
easy and clandestine.

Have you read, "The Underground History of American Education" by John Taylor Gatto? It supports all these points but with an ton of specific evidence and examples. I read most the chapters thinking, "OK this is interesting enough, but what's the point..." and then at the end he'd wrap it all together and I'd go, WOW!! He actually made a conspiracy nut out of me at least on the topic of education.

I always wondered why they leaned so hard against getting men out of teaching roles and putting women there (it was no secret at the time and at this point is still evident, especially in lower grades) but maybe it was because they thought they could influence women more; at that time, it might have been true.

This information was expressed to Aaron Russo by Nicholas Rockerfeller during their brief friendship. You can google Mr Russo's interviews on this topic and others with Alex Jones.

Aaron Russo was a filmmaker, giving us "The Rose" and "Trading Places".

His last gift to us was, "America, Freedom to Fascism". Everything on it is in the Public Domain and Vetted.

I don't have any exposure to that. I'm on this thread -- which I only noticed an hour ago was in a sort of conspiracy / global board -- because it showed up on the front and related to women. Normally I'm more in the paranormal and UFO and technology areas. I will look it up though. Thanks.


posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:25 PM

Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo
This information was expressed to Aaron Russo by Nicholas Rockerfeller

Rockerfeller! That's like the SOUTHERN version of the conspiracy, LOL!!

(I know it was a typo. Still, it was funny!)


posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:47 PM
I said earlier I had a point that I thought actually supported the idea of (women) using 'victimization' to influence politics and law -- which is more siding with the people I'm debating I admit, but to be fair I should mention it.

The problem is I'm recalling this from 20+ year memory and I am probably going to get half of it wrong. This was told me by a 20 year LAPD vet when I was studying criminal justice in college, but if I screw it up, I'm sure it's my fault not his.

The LAPD has faced a lot of problems historically. It has really been leaned on hard by all the 'affirmative action' stuff. Mostly it has done stuff to prevent major lawsuits from taking place, stuff it wouldn't have done without that, so I still see those decisions as forced to some degree. Things have changed over time of course. Currently like 1 in 10 people pass the academy requirements (probably related to background check given those numbers, as this % became an issue following their attempt to reduce in-dept problems).

But once upon a time, 7 out of 10 men passed the academy. It was physically tough and demanding. By comparison, about 3 out of 10 women passed. This made sense, since most women aren't nearly as tough as men, and it's a job you really need some physical skills in, unless you're trapped at a desk (but lawsuits or their threat ended putting women only at the prisons/childservices/desks, so they were on the street with the men by then). But apparently some people thought this was automatically discriminating against women. And by the time that drama was over, they had _lowered their standards_ in order to ensure that more women could qualify making it more equal to the number of men who could.

This is, to me, an example of the worst application of victimization via affirmative action imaginable. First it means you let in a bunch of women probably not as well qualified but worse, it means you let in a ton more men also not as well qualified too. So it's a problem for everybody, not only the citzenry paying them for law enforcement, but all the other officers who have to work with them.

Of course, in fairness, this is more an issue of the Affirmative Action initiatives than it is of women per se. For example, in 1993, a decree came that "prohibited the LAPD from discriminating against gays and ordered it to recruit in the gay community." [wiki]

Still, I can see that THIS kind of politics does in fact use pre-victimization mentality to force law/policy in a negative way. So I will grant it is not that no such thing exists. I just don't think it's quite as ... er, pervasive and overwhelming, as presented so far. I'm open to evidence.


posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:08 PM
reply to post by Rockpuck

I feel quite confused inside when I consider the title of this thread. A part of me wants to agree, another part wants to disagree and another part wants to laugh.

Are "working women" almost certainly the cause of the credit crunch? Logically I would say no they are not. The current Global Credit Crunch was caused by a long-standing flawed financial system, among other variables and factors. It was only a matter of time before many small problems culminated in a very large financial crisis.

On the other hand, I personally do feel the large increase in the number of working women over the years has had a negative impact on the health of the average family around the world.

However, I feel it is the strong anti-Feminist inside you (and me LOL) that wants this link to be true, when in reality this is not the case.

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
On the other hand, I personally do feel the large increase in the number of working women over the years has had a negative impact on the health of the average family around the world.

I agree with that, however, I have to look at it like "Too bad the economy or whatever has made it necessary for most women to work" rather than "maybe women shouldn't have been allowed to work" (or whatever).

At this point, the situation is like with guns. There are millions of them in the USA. You could not fairly take them from the citizenry without making them total sitting ducks for the criminals (let alone many other issues of course but I'm just using an analogy here). There is no way to put Pandora back in her apron again and close that box; it can't be done.

So I think one has to look at the problems caused indirectly or directly by it -- such as the further dissolution of the family structure culturally, as you mention -- and say, "What could be done to address this issue?" Because griping about women working or voting or whatever is not going to solve it (though it's fun I agree) -- what could actually be done that might improve something?

I think the 4-day work week would be a staggering shift on many levels that would help with the family situation (and many others) (and save money on literally every front for everyone involved). Not a big enough deal in this case but a tiny start.


posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:05 AM

Originally posted by reasoner


Over the past 40 years, the US wealth per capita has risen substantially. There was once an idealistic concept that this wealth would mean that we could continue to lower the work week - like make a decent living while spending 36 or 32 hours away from the family. Kids would have more parental care, husbands and wives more time together, while maintaining a similar lifestyle. Instead we've seen the opposite trend. Everybody feels time pressed and overly busy, most households need two incomes. How is that possible?

Currently, one third of the wealth in the US is owned by the top 1%; the next third by the next 9%, and the final third by the remaining 90%. (For income the thirds go to 10% / 30% / 60%; not surprisingly, it's far easier to accumulate wealth if your income is $400,000/yr than $40,000 because you have far more surplus to invest).

These figures have been increasingly skewed upward every decade.

The migration of ever more income and wealth towards the top has been going on since the 50s. A number of political scientists and economists have indicated that after setting aside any emotional questions of "fairness", this is an unstable and unsustainable trend for society.

A nation (like the US) has a total net production of wealth (for example measured by the GDP), which is intended to rise by some percentage each year (but which falls in a recession). How that wealth gets divided also changes over time - as a higher or lower portion of the GDP goes to the top percentiles when all is said and done. If more of it flows to the top, it gets harder for 40 hours of labor to support a family in the middle or bottom. So women are often forced to work (and/or people take second jobs).

Don't blame the women - would it have been better for society and families if most men today had 60-80 hour work weeks while most women stayed home? Or for the children to work at factories instead of going to school?

It serves those in the top percentiles to have those in the lower percentiles fighting and blaming each other. "If it weren't for the women/blacks/latinos/illegals, we'd be earning a living wage and society would be better". This is fighting over the crumbs, seeing only what those who benefit most have directed you to see.

Some will immediately ignore this, calling it "class war". Yet actually my politics here are more like those of Dwight Eisenhower rather than Leon Trotsky. I don't want to go to the other extreme! I want to return to what used to be the American middle, but which has been systematically distorted via propaganda.

No matter what solution we think best (even maintaining the upward concentration of wealth if you think that really is the best system), I think we need to be constantly aware of what's going on. However, I believe this disparity of wealth (and thus power) will destroy the nation - ultimately collapsing under those at the top as well (unless they can surround themselves with private security guards or move to enclaves in other countries).

Let's all read these critiques of women in the workplace with the big picture in mind, always asking the questions Whisper67 suggests.

"Follow the money" - Deep Throat


I wouldn't consider this to be inciting class warfare, but rather an objective look at the current realities of our (US) economic situation. Add to this that the middle to lower classes are paying a disproportionate amount of taxes with respect to total wealth and the recipe for an unsustainable model keeps being served up as cordon bleu.

Let's work towards a sustainable model that doesn't depend on scapegoating women or any other disadvantaged portion of the population to come to fruition.

Also, let's keep in mind that TARP is not the brainchild of the Obama administration, but rather the Bush administration that spent the past 8 years funneling money to that top 1%.

posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:17 AM

Originally posted by dodadoom
Hey, I'm not belittleing the hard work shown by women at all!
You are putting way more into what I said than I meant.

Yes, my post was quite harsh and admittedly misdirected..

You're getting too different issues lumped together.
You want to stick up for the system that wouldn't let you
even vote for years? Go right ahead!!!

Oh i have always voted and could have fifty years ago as well. Where does it seem like i am trying to defend the system?

Better go back and study the movement in the 1920's.
I guess I should of said MAYBE this happened!
I'm saying I trust women generally.
The gubment? Not really. Thanks for callin me out on it!

Yes, women have been fighting for the rights for a very long time. In fact one can say that the Russian revolution got it's physical kick start from the women's may day marches , etc. It's not that i want you to be 'against' government but that i want people to have a fairer picture of what they should fear and what not! Unresponsive governments that keep making the rich ever richer faster are clearly not what the people asked yet we keep ending up with them.... It is striking when people talk about a government that wants people to become more dependent on it while social programs ( giving you your money back ) is being cut left right and center while the Pentagon and like wasteful programs never seem to have shortages they do not invite by gross mismanagement and theft.

My mother worked because dad got hurt. She worked at
home to be here for us. Whatever any person wants to do
is fine by me. My wife takes care of the home while I work,
her choice.

But see it mostly isn't up to women in the west if they want to work or not unless couple's want to live in trailor parks or very small apartments without health care or pension plans. I have a much larger problem with a system that forces women into the labor market without a due reward for the problems this will create as soon as children come into the picture.

I would like her to work a little, but its nice shes
home too. If we we're dumb and had big payments, then ya.
We started in a small crappy house and fixed it up sold it
for more and eventually ended up in the one we wanted.

So do you wash the clothes, do the drying, ironing, house cleaning and multitude of other small tasks that has the striking habit of consuming entire days? Why isn't that considered 'work' and why isn't it paid work? What's dumb about working hard to meet your payments for the first ten years of a contract and then succumbing to inflationary pressure, a destroyed job market and ever higher travel and food costs? If the economist can't plan economies ten years ahead why are we surprised that a relatively small percentage of average joe's and jane's got into trouble? Why can't the government pay a certain part of the mortgage per month until it's 'job creation' programs kicks in thus giving the banks their money and protecting it's citizens?

There is a multitide of solutions that can fix the world economy in short order but since it wont perpetuate the exclusive rule by the few ( even if it will protect a large proportion of their profits by protecting the same in place) it isn't being done and wont be done until we force them.

You cant just assume you can always make big payments!

Dont think its normal to have to work 24/7 just to have stuff
that is really pointless and made by china in the first place
therby creating jobs that are not here either!

Your presuming other people such as yourself are somehow vastly more stupid than you. If you feel that is a truly fair analysis that is fine but i always find the odd that Americans seem to think the rest of Americans are dumbasses who did something wrong to get into trouble. You can go to Germany or Japan and see if that is the societal norm there is to have a low opinion of your generation.

As for the mythology that jobs just miraculously 'appear' in China you really have to wonder how much magic there is involved in firing the worker who formerly did the work in a American factory. How are Americans supposed to manage when American and other Corporations are moving the jobs to other countries where the people are even more economically exploited with even fewer recourses to political action to fix the situation? Isn't that screwing over the American worker AND the Chinese worker? How is that good for anyone but the few individuals who are suddenly making 300% more profit?

Ya, thats WHY so many houses are in foreclosure.
The usa wasn't taught economics or living within it's means!

The reason why so many houses, and it really wasn't that many, are now in foreclosure is because the economy is grining to a halt and people are losing the jobs that enable them to pay their mortages. The reason for the economy crisis was never due to lending money to people who can't pay but due to massive leveraging of the very large volumes of money these 'bad' debters did in fact pay up for so long. Everything where going mostly ok until the printing presses running overtime to fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan created sufficient inflationary pressure and destabilization of the world energy markets the dual pressure of which where enough to create just enough defaulters ( can't meet a few months payments) to expose the corrupt practices of the rating agencies that said these mortages and packaged securities where OK.

When the foreign buyers figured out that they were being had the loss of trust ( the rich do NOT appreciate being swindled by other rich folk) quickly exposed the liquidity problems massive leverage always engenders. At that point the snowball is over the edge and it takes CORRECT government intervention , which we have not seen yet, to recreated trust between the predators by recreating ( as we have had them before) the regulatory framework that prevents these massive frauds.

It also thinks the gubment should be weak and stay out of regulating, hereby giving the crooks free rein and actually rewarding them!

Well i am glad if i were wrong and you don't believe what Wall street and the rest are in fact claiming to be the solution to our problems. When things go belly up they just scream that there is still too much regulation.
Next they will to do away with nationalities, international borders and pretty much anything that can create the illusion that there are in fact differences in the world that can be abused for profit!

All systems check and plan is going according to schedule!
How are you gonna know all this living where you do anyway?

The plan is failing quite seriously but they clearly don't know how to keep their pockets full while keeping up the charade of being all knowing.

As for how i will know i think it's just about the same way you do...

I think the title to this thread is questionable, being designed to
illicit arguments in the first place. IMO

So your new to ATS, huh?


posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

On the other hand, I personally do feel the large increase in the number of working women over the years has had a negative impact on the health of the average family around the world.

I dont feel that women working has had a negative impact on families.

1) Poor women have always had to work. As have women who were divorced, abandoned, widowed, etc. Now they can actually afford to feed, clothe, and educate their children. This is a positive thing.

2)Before women had the right to work for decent pay, many women were forced by economics to put up with physical and emotional abuse. (as were their children who witnessed it) Now they can leave, and at the very least, less children have to grow up watching Mom get her butt whipped regularly.
It still happens, I know, but now more women can leave, because they can afford to support themselves.

3)Women in the past had so much physical housework they werent watching their kids and telling them stories 24/7. They sent them out of the house while they scrubbed, cleaned and cooked by hand. Kids arent getting less hours of the day of parental attention because of women working outside the home.

4)No one wants to blame the media. They dont want to blame the violent content, nor do they want to blame our addiction to it. Our society would be much better off if women continued to work outside the home, and families spent their leisure time together, doing things, talking, not plopped down in front of computers, TVs, video games, or on the phone. The American family is NOT worse off because of women working outside the home. Its worse off because even when the whole family is home, they arent spending quality time together.

No one is claiming that women working during WW2 ruined families. Because it didnt. The men were gone, and women were working, and families were fine. But every house did not have a huge black hole in their living room sucking up all the attention of the family members.

Rather than arguing that half the species should be blamed for societies problems, (which we have been listening too ever since that stupid story about the apple) why dont we look at what really happened in the time frame that families began to lose their cohesiveness. It isnt women working. They have always worked. In and out of the home. All that has changed is that they now cannot be discriminated against and paid tons less for doing so, which is good for families.

The real culprit is the fact that parents are not spending quality time with their children after work. Not instilling their families values in their children, but rather allowing the media to do that for them. You let advertisers raise your children and you wonder why there is a credit crunch.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Alora, this is correct, in America we have not been able to sustain a family with one income since the 1960's.

And I am not saying the way to fix the economy is to fire every woman. I am also not blaming women for the economic crisis. I am referencing historically, and the article is referencing historically for Ireland.

Hey I have an idea, the credit crunch has been caused because men don't want to be stay at home daddies
I think all men should be dragged out of their offices immediately and put in the kitchen where they can make them selves useful.

Women really are still the trash can for all sorts of problems and so on

And yes OP I know that this is not your opinion, yet you posted this article here for a reason.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by QueenofWeird]

posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:47 PM
reply to post by Rockpuck

My what a load of misogynist garbage you have found.
Why do certain people expect people that they claim to love to have to settle to conditions they themselves would not find tolerable? A woman's place is not just in the kitchen and their expanding their role in society is most definantly not the cause for our current problems.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

top topics

<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in