ECON: Working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch

page: 7
58
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
often this position is taken by people who haven't had any need to worry about what may happen to them at any point in their lives. they think they are indestructible or that their fellow man will come to their defense if they become too poverty stricken or ill to maintain a semblance of quality of life. you'd be surprised how fast people may turn on you if you're suddenly down on your luck or your health.

obviously, not everyone is like this, but i wouldn't suggest you rely totally on the likelihood that the guy next door will defend/help you out, if should you meet with hard times. you need to look to the people in your life for help, what better place than your own wives and daughters? and to insist their hands be tied so they can't help you, is kicking yourselves in the derriere.




posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
BTW, to those people talking about my "emotion" "victim" thing.

I want to take your rights away. It is JUST a discussion. Let us discuss it, and you just calm down. There is no reason for you to be concerned. I'll take care of you afterall. You don't need those rights - and they REALLY get in my way. Now don't get all "emotional" about it.

By arguing with me about it you are telling me that I am not a good enough person! How DARE you. I would and do give generously. I work hard. I am a good parent, and wife, and an excellent provider! I give to charity! By arguing with me you are deinigrating my contributions! Saying that it isn't good enough!

People who think that women should not get worked up about discussion about lessening their rights, are probably the same people who talk about mounting an insurrection if the government makes a change to the constitution.

[edit on 2009/3/3 by Aeons]

[edit on 2009/3/3 by Aeons]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
This entire discussion shows an absolute lack of respect for women. To begin with, the wealthy and their strange ways aside for a moment, women who are not in the work force, who work incredibly long hours with children and household affairs, are full time workers, earning their full partnership, and doing their fare share. Women who go out and work on top of this, and these ones are the gifted ones, with health, because as Dr. Joyce Brothers once said, while many women can have it all (family, home, and career) they can't do it well at the same time and usually do this in stages, providing they have good energy and health.

My grandfather, a man ahead of his times in days before marital laws changed to ensure that both husbands and wives were equals in their work, and were doing work of equal value in their relationships and therefore women were co-owners of the assests, put the house in both of their names. He had his own logging company and when he was off and grandma took a short time job in the packing house, he hurried back to work, telling his crew, you don't want to do what they do. He never once asked my grandmother what she did all day again. Her job never ended. And the multitasking was a bit too much.

There were studies done to show how much you'd have to pay to independently franchise out the work, and trust me, you just don't have that coin. What women do is irreplacable.

Now as to their rights and abilities to work. No one gives them rights. They are full citizens and will not allow anyone to take their rights or freedoms from them. However, they dont need to be the main workers and the main home care team, because that still amounts to one person doing more than she should.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   

I will fight you with my last breath to keep my rights, and my ability to provide for me and my children. I will not willingly accept slavery and be given a predefined "role" so that those without the ability to adapt can not have to THINK


Ther is NO suggestion in that article that your rights will be taken away, any attempt by any Western government would be met by insurmountable resistance by the populace, so relax.

Perhaps the problem is with the notion that being the steward of the hearth is akin to slavery. Perhaps instead of fighting the "predefined" role which is DICTATED BY OUR BIOLOGY and evolved over thousands of years we could fight to have our role appreciated and protected without financial, societal and physical repruccsions.

A lot of high emotion here, which as women we are prone to ( It's one of the things that make different, not equal to men) , I find it to be a strength, but some of the men who are clearly baiting responses such as yours take it to be a weakness.

Your ability to provide for your children is so much more then bringing home the bacon! Here is where the injustice lies! Here is where we should be fighting with our last breaths. Fight the injustice that says your breadmaking is not as valuable as his breadwinning.

The last few generations faught to make sure that being with out a man did not mean exclusion from society through poverty and disenfranchsiment.

Our fight lies elsewhere.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by nikiano
 


Nikiano,


Modesty as in, I should walk around in a burka and long sleeves?


I am not interested in drama techniques. However in insecurity I realize that this is the best that some people can do and attempt to pass it off as intelligence. Emotions are not intellligence to me.

Let me try my hand at it in the spirit of equality.

I wear anti contamination clothing when I work in nuclear reactors. Double gloves, armsleeves, a smock and head covering. I hate it but must must "suck up" to it in order to not get contaminated while I am getting radiated. Wanna switch with your burka. I am certain that you have alot of them from which I can choose.

I cannot be a drama queen using such techniques to pass off as intelligence and moral high ground when I am working. I will hurt or kill others and myself if I do not exercise diciplines. I do not change my thinking and reasoning and become a drama queen when I get off work.
I try to maintain diciplines..not wildlife and drama.

Also as in Aeon's example....I do not recognize such drama as a time warp technique ..sticking everything back in a time warp as if it is happening today. This too ,however, is also textbook political ranting and very effective on those easily intimidated to silence by it. It is textbook victimization and it has become very wolfie. It does not work on me.
I do not recognize a womans ability to play through by default on drama and confusion. It is no different than a politician.

I can however recognize a well thought out statement like the one I praised by Merigold. I found her statement entirely reasonable and logical. Worthy of praise. Being a breadmaker is equally as important if not more so as a mans breadwining. It also provides great stability in a home enviornment.
To me the sad truth of it is that many of todays men are so stupid they too do not recognize this for the truth it is. They are easily intimitated by posts and thinking like yours and Aeon's.

This is why I ask the question ..how many women do you know who would happily do a role reversal as the manner Whitewave alluded to (albeit in sarcasm) on page 2 of this thread? And be willing to do this as a career..not an option. How many women do you know who take out insurance policys for thier men and pay for them such that the men have a security blanket to fall back on if the woman should die first??

As to Nelson Mandella...I am not here to save the world. Only my small patch of properties and keep the wildlife from overtaking it or hijacking it for thier purposes...using thier drama techniques.

Nelson Mandella is not my moral high ground...nor to be worshiped/emulated by me.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
No.

Lessening economic ability to provide you ARE talking about taking away rights.

Pure and simple.

And the answer is NO.

You leave your job.

[edit on 2009/3/3 by Aeons]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Your commentary is full of emotion. The entire concept you promote is based on emotion.

You aren't my equal.

Fortune for you that there are laws protecting you from the fact that you are not my equal in any way, merely based on the fact that you are also human.


[edit on 2009/3/3 by Aeons]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


rawa.org... the ladies on that site are not happy with burkhas. burkhas are ridiculous. take responsibility for your own fingers and hormones. don't blame the ladies

[edit on 3-3-2009 by undo]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

The Feminine is the shape that is the dominant force upon your planet at this time. Men do not know about being the Feminine in a physical way and women are still trying to work it out in their own understanding. Gender is a formless-form fashioned by individuals into a convenient form through the forces of consciousness and unconsciousness. The shape of the Feminine has evolved through its various forms by this process whereas the shape of the Masculine has not changed as much over that same period of time.
("Scales of the Dragon", A.Dragon, 1999)


Change is part of the upward evolving structure of (all) society. To withhold half of that potential from it's higher potential, is to limit the entire potential, and create certain internal downward shifts, which lead to aberration of balanced Intent in that societal framework. It takes two wings to fly, both the left and the right, the female and the male.

Societies' current imbalance, financial and moral, is the result of many forces that have not been balanced. Least of all the Feminine, who has stood as half of all that is owed and owned, with the same courage as the Masculine.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by SS,Naga]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
What I am about to say is politically incorrect to say the least, even prejudice perhaps, but I am going to say it anyway.

Every couple should be entitled to one job, it doesn't matter if it's the man or woman as the alpha earner. Who ever has the skills to obtain the highest paid job goes to work. The other can only go to work once 0% unemployment and underemployment is achieved in society, that way every family has at least one higher wage earner and a job.

Radical I know, but it would sure boast up the middle class, and maybe bring down the upper middle class. And it would destroy the inflation we saw develop with the two wage earning family.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Emotions are not intellligence to me.


There is nothing wrong with emotions. Women evolved to be more emotional for a reason, it is NOT a weakness but an alternative way for us to deal with conflict. It is not a sign of a weak intelligence.

It is to be expected that I as a woman would feel threatened by the article, I did the first time I read it.

I will fight to my last breath to have the right to be respected for the HARD work I do to keep the hearth. The right to be protected when the breadwinner abandons me. The right redress when the breadwinner abuses me. The right to give the hearth tending duties to my partner whilst I pursue my dreams.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
What I am about to say is politically incorrect to say the least, even prejudice perhaps, but I am going to say it anyway.

Every couple should be entitled to one job, it doesn't matter if it's the man or woman as the alpha earner. Who ever has the skills to obtain the highest paid job goes to work. The other can only go to work once 0% unemployment and underemployment is achieved in society, that way every family has at least one higher wage earner and a job.

Radical I know, but it would sure boast up the middle class, and maybe bring down the upper middle class. And it would destroy the inflation we saw develop with the two wage earning family.


Solved. No Problem.

We'll just get a divorce and live together instead.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by Logarock
 


yes, but what drove the women out of the homes was that industrialization came along and snatched their jobs from them!! they were creating income at home through the weaving, the sewing, candle making, ect.....
till industrialization came along....

so, well, you want to give up those nice lucritive industries and give them back to the women now?



You need to get away from the candle making days. lol

The current trends and situation had a transition point starting in the 60's. Really didn't have much to do with industrialization. Thats an simplistic misplacement of the point in time. Although there were several social factors it still boiled down to money.

One incomes was enough for the vast part population whoever was earning it the man or the woman. What changed everything was more is better. More more more!

A new car in the 60s cost say about 3grand. The cost represented much less of a portion of a couples income. Now car payments represent a very high percentage of the same couples income with both working! Same with house payments. Anyway cost of living is much more disproportionate for todays working families forcing both to work 40 hours a week.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merigold

Emotions are not intellligence to me.


There is nothing wrong with emotions. Women evolved to be more emotional for a reason, it is NOT a weakness but an alternative way for us to deal with conflict. It is not a sign of a weak intelligence.

It is to be expected that I as a woman would feel threatened by the article, I did the first time I read it.

I will fight to my last breath to have the right to be respected for the HARD work I do to keep the hearth. The right to be protected when the breadwinner abandons me. The right redress when the breadwinner abuses me. The right to give the hearth tending duties to my partner whilst I pursue my dreams.


The people who say emotions and intelligence can't go together are usually very emotional, and so unintelligent that they don't even recognize it.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Who entitles anyone to this? Who is over your head? No ones over mine! I'm just curious who you handed your reigns to? No one empowers me! I am a sovereign being and all a country is, is the arrangement of assets, and our childrens inheritance. Those we hire are mere employees. All I've seen so far is treason!



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
holy cow....


ladies ladies ladies.....

let me be the one to say, that we men, do of course love all of you! WE WANT YOU TO BE HAPPY, CUS IT MAKES US HAPPY!!

when you are mad/upset WE ARE VERY MAD/UPSET. trust us.

now. this topic (however stupid/imature/irrellevant as it may be) only has one point that is going for it. That point is simply stating that since there are more incomes, then prices went up.

What this post fails to point out is that is all the hard work and energy ladies have put in to be considered equal by the law.

This should not have been directed as a way of saying GET OUT OF MY JOB POSITION AND GO BAKE A CAKE. which i think it may have been seen as this.

I just want all the beautiful women to think about how this was obviously written by some guy who has nothing better to do than hurt peoples feelings.

no matter how true having more people in the workforce created a disturbance that we are now paying for is, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT NOTHING WILL CHANGE THE WAY THINGS ARE NOW. Besides, I think that women in the workplace make things better.

Guys will be guys and women will be women


peace everyone



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
My final point:

It's obvious that this guy (the one who wrote the article) is angry that women are working outside the home. He wants them to stay at home and take care of him.

I say, if men want women to stay at home and take care of them, and not work, then they should be someone that we would want to stay at home for.

And then maybe, if we don't have anything better to at the time, we'll consider it.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by nikiano]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

Originally posted by whitewave
reply to post by LoneGunMan
 
No, I've never carried a 300# person up a ladder through a fire and couldn't if I wanted to. However, if they lived with me, I could keep them from becoming 300# by regulating their diet and then they might pull their own a** up the ladder.


That 300+ person was a 6'7" Firefighter loaded with gear and muscle and it was going down the ladder not up.
Please lets not miss the point I was making. I already stated my limitations.

Thanks for the correction but I couldn't carry that guy down the ladder either. I caught the point you were making. We all have our limitations. Let's not add to them by removing the rights and responsibilities of half the population.

As DarkElf once stated: I don't want equality; I want respect.
OrangeTom makes the point that women must EARN respect by taking equal risks (if I understand you correctly, OT).

The point of the OP article is based on a faulty premise that women in the work force are the cause of inflation. I've pointed out twice now that inflation is caused by an increase in the supply of money (not estrogen levels in the workplace).

As long as we're all focused on fighting each other we'll never focus our attention on the true culprits or a solution to the problem.



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Great post and some great replies from both sides. I think a lot of posters are taking this thing the wrong way. Although the subject isn't quite black and white I agree wholeheartedly, the argument that the feminist movement has destroyed the family unit...not women, which is what some of our girls are getting their backs up about. Quite rightly so. I mean on face value that's an attack on your civil liberties and way of life that countless women gave their lives for and eventually getting.

So women start getting "proper jobs" ie PAID jobs (now now girls, as if I would
) thus creating the two income family. This has been covered in earlier posts so my viewpoint is that economically speaking it did have an affect on monetary values ie inflation, costs of living, those types of things. Women still weren't being recognised as equals and this was shown by way of lack of opportunities within the workplace like promotion, or even equal salaries which still goes on today! Women still had to battle over many decades, gradually getting further on career wise and more momentum. More and more women chased careers. The cracks in the break ups of family units have been showing for a few generations and with the ease of divorces, abortions, contraception our attitudes have become half arsed for lack of a better term. Media influences like soap operas depicting "every day life" delivered en-masse, in my belief and many others have helped to destroy the family unit too. I'm kinda swaying off here i think...

Now we have loads of women chasing careers at what price? I did say loads not all :-) Career, social life, opportunities, independance, building of relationships and friendships.... to have someone else look after your child? we work almost a 3rd of our lives so in effect that means a 3rd of your childs life will be with a childminder who can't discipline your child, can't do things for your child the way mum does, like make a skint knee better with a kiss, or give them that security only mum or dad can, they'll get to see your child do things for the first time that you won't be able to cherish, read a story in that voice they've known since being in the womb... Can u ever remember crying for your mum? That feeling? I believe noone can bring a child up as well as its mother. Come on and look at nature, it's almost entirely female influence in every younglings early stages of development. Women are maternal - men aren't. We can only be paternal (well, that's debatable lol).

We as a species have come so far and I know many of you believe this too when I say that the strings are being pulled for us and unless something is done to save the traditional family then you won't need to look after your kids because they'll be owned by the state or working beside you...it's as simple as that. I don't think women should be stopped to work per say nor stripped of equality. What I propose is a benefit or welfare or scheme of some sort for mothers where they can job share with a friend or family member so that families are brought up with families or close ones thus creating bonds with people that can last lifetimes bringing more of a sense of community back to the world. Or tax reliefs and manners of help to work from home...it's the modern era. Or mothers groups working together in a business, with creche, job share in one place...nursery/job/social group for mothers n toddlers.... no-one wants to take away your equality or rights but men are always told to "be a man!" but also to be kind and sensitive...maybe it's time for some females to be a woman? Just a thought and nothing meant by it... after all we are talking about equality and taking responsibilities? For centuries man worked nd women stayed at home and it was fine. Yet in the last 60 years the break up of the family has happened and look at the youth today
Men would also need to make vast changes in their lives too so why don't we all work together like one big family?



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
If my good lady wants to pursue her career and allow me to stay at home and raise any children we may have I would snap her arm off in an instant.

Financially it would make sense as she has more years before retirement than I do; that and she also has a job with better earning prospects.

I'm all for it,

just,

er,

don't tell her.





new topics
 
58
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join