ECON: Working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch

reply to post by Edrick


Men have never been, nor ever will be superior to any woman anywhere in this universe and back again. In fact, many a time I've considered them to be from separate planets, and much prefer the female energy way of doing things, ie. Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc. Its called cooperation as opposed to the dog eat dog style.

Equality means the equal blending of the two. We havn't achieved it yet, except close in the Scandinavian countries, a lot closer.

When you say we're not equal, enjoy your little fantasy, because you'll be doing it alone, not in the company of women.

reply to post by OKCBtard


i don't think like that. frankly, when i think of myself, i think of a person with "X" skills, traits, temperment, and personality attributes/foibles. i have children. i think of my children as persons not as sexes. you are, afterall, a human being first, before you're anything else. these other things are incidental to who you are. YOU. not your protruding parts. Just YOU.

reply to post by mystiq


Did I say anything about inferiority or superiority?

I believe I said that equality is an absolute mathematical statement that is a tad childish to attempt to apply to two things as different as men and women.

Are the wind and the water equal?

Is the fire and the earth equal?

The term "Equality" is a misnomer when used to describe apples and oranges.

-Edrick

Originally posted by mystiq
reply to post by Edrick

 

When you say we're not equal, enjoy your little fantasy, because you'll be doing it alone, not in the company of women.

Angry woman is angry. Keep in mind that plenty of men with a girl friend or a wife think of women as inferior and tell them that anytime the debate is raised. It really doesn't change the relationship that much as long as the woman can just ignore that and as long as the man isn't a complete tool.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by OKCBtard]

I just wouldn't have worded it with the words "not equal" in the beginning of it.


Surely we're a little more similar than apples and oranges too? The differences in the brain wiring that exists between men and women was to ensure that unbalanced systems didn't evolve. We were to blend these differences and create systems of both creativity, achievement, advancement and cooperative, civilized social solutions. Unfortunately instead of blending it, the rulers have always used all the differences between different races, nations, territories and sexes to separate us and keep us divided and either at odds with each other, or whole segments of society suppressed.

reply to post by mystiq


whole segments? try 50 percent of the population in places where they haven't killed off most of their women.

Originally posted by mystiq
I just wouldn't have worded it with the words "not equal" in the beginning of it.

Surely we're a little more similar than apples and oranges too? The differences in the brain wiring that exists between men and women was to ensure that unbalanced systems didn't evolve. We were to blend these differences and create systems of both creativity, achievement, advancement and cooperative, civilized social solutions. Unfortunately instead of blending it, the rulers have always used all the differences between different races, nations, territories and sexes to separate us and keep us divided and either at odds with each other, or whole segments of society suppressed.

Well, I have a nasty habit of not watering down my thoughts with politically correct grammar and NewSpeak.

Sometimes it may seem a bit brash, or coarse... but hey, that is me.

I agree that the "Elites" have manufactured this breach in between men and women, and in fact, have programmed us all to accept certain "Truths" that are in a very technical sense... impossible given our biology.

These are the games that the elite like to play...

They engineer "Cognitive Dissonance" in our minds and hearts, so that we attack the truth almost automatically when we perceive it.

we just need deprogramming, that is all.

-Edrick (Turn off your TV)

Originally posted by OKCBtard

Originally posted by mystiq
reply to post by Edrick

 

When you say we're not equal, enjoy your little fantasy, because you'll be doing it alone, not in the company of women.

Angry woman is angry. Keep in mind that plenty of men with a girl friend or a wife think of women as inferior and tell them that anytime the debate is raised. It really doesn't change the relationship that much as long as the woman can just ignore that and as long as the man isn't a complete tool.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by OKCBtard]

Yes, well we girls do tend to notice when our friends are in bad relationships and always encourage change. What you said about men telling thinking or telling their partners that is very sad, and no woman, or man for that matter because sometiems its the other way, should be enduring verbal, emotional, economic, or physical abuse in any way.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by mystiq]

Originally posted by Whisper67
Instead of placing blame (which is what I feel they want us to do), maybe we should look at who is to benefit. What do they gain?

Exactly.

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

reasoner

Social mores, and values have traditionally been passed on from mother to children.

As well as basic comprehension in the areas of Reading, writing, arithmetic, language, history, morals, ethics, etc...

With the introduction of women into the workplace, and subsequently, the introduction of children to primary education at earlier and earlier ages...

You get a stunting of the traditional passing on of knowledge from parent to child.

And that passing of knowledge, is typically called "Society"

This enabled government (pseudo) propaganda to be pushed as appropriate curriculum into children's minds, and thus, cut off children from a true sense of themselves.

-Edrick (Some things are more valuable than money)

I have an idea.

Perhaps the answer is for many women to declare themselves "post-feminist", and demand the right to stay home - by having their husbands take a second job to make up the income lost. Then most women will be home to take care of the house and children (if any) while most men typically work 60-80 hours/week.

I suspect even the Irish Times may soon be calling for a return to "feminism" as in sharing the financial load.

reasoner

Originally posted by mystiq

Originally posted by OKCBtard

Originally posted by mystiq
reply to post by Edrick

 

When you say we're not equal, enjoy your little fantasy, because you'll be doing it alone, not in the company of women.

Angry woman is angry. Keep in mind that plenty of men with a girl friend or a wife think of women as inferior and tell them that anytime the debate is raised. It really doesn't change the relationship that much as long as the woman can just ignore that and as long as the man isn't a complete tool.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by OKCBtard]

Yes, well we girls do tend to notice when our friends are in bad relationships and always encourage change. What you said about men telling thinking or telling their partners that is very sad, and no woman, or man for that matter because sometiems its the other way, should be enduring verbal, emotional, economic, or physical abuse in any way.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by mystiq]

I live in OK so I have heard of plenty of guys Physically and verbally abusing their women. Now if I ever saw anyone hit a woman, regardless of their relationship to them, they would get a beating of a lifetime. The problem here is the women have a tendency to not speak up about these kind of things and just end up at school with bruises. While I myself would never even dream of doing such things to my girlfriend, whom I have been dating for a little over a year, I still believe that men and women are far from equals. Please don't let your feeling or emotions interfere with my relationship with the women I love. You have no business trying to take that away between a couple unless the woman really needs to get out of it for safety reasons.

They say that the hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world.

And with this statement, I would have to agree.

Shaping young minds is the MOST IMPORTANT duty that humans have.

But it is no longer the mothers OR the fathers that "Rock the cradle" is it?

It is the government, the schools, the nanny's, the day care centers, etc...

-Edrick

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by mystiq

 

I believe I said that equality is an absolute mathematical statement that is a tad childish to attempt to apply to two things as different as men and women.

Are the wind and the water equal?

Is the fire and the earth equal?

The term "Equality" is a misnomer when used to describe apples and oranges.

I think this is kind of losing the point, Edrick. Different fields of human endeavor use the same words for different purposes; this is not a mathematical context so we are not talking about idempotency relations.

What matters here is equality under law, in business, and in human respect, not mathematical equality. It IS possible to, for example, allow both men and women to own property, or to allow only one gender to own property. Societies have done both. We consider allowing both to own property under the same set of rules to be "equality". That's not a hard concept.

Bringing in the comparison of wind and water is a red herring in this context.

No two people will be mathematically equal to each other, but they could have equal rights and responsibilities. Our society is actually remarkably good at that, even if there is room for improvement.

reasoner

Originally posted by orangetom1999
White Wave,
First off..what happened to your avatar? I really liked it. Was a bit surprised to see it gone.

I believe it's a new ATS thing. I'm working on getting it fixed (by a female if that makes you feel more comfortable-LOL). And thanks for the kind words. I value your opinion as well.

Agree about the inflation. However I still stand by what I stated to Rockpuck early on in this thread. Women are the prime determiners of what items get purchased in this economy..especially big ticket items as well as the daily items. Women are the prime economic force in this nation...hence also the prime political force to be catered to for votes..this means drama cultivation. Constantly. Emotional issues. This is obvious by the trend line in this thread. Women and the effeminate can be more easily stroked emotionally for votes.

I understand what you're saying but I suspect that many on here do not; hence the antagonism. If I may be so bold as to interpret (and please correct me if I'm mistaken); it may save you some flaming later.

When you say "feminine" I take it that you are referring to a sort of yin/yang type of feminine; not necessarily FEMALES in general (although females do typically embody the "feminine" more so than males).

The type of political-religious endgame to which you refer as "feminine" is a correct assessment in that those pulling the strings behind the curtains are indeed subservient to a "master". They are tending to their own "hearth/family" and it does not include the majority of us. They are also doing it for the benefit of their master or leader or head of household, so to speak.

I merely point out that the markets even with inflation are primarily a female oriented marketplace..not male oriented.

It comes from the top down. The players at the very top are males who have abandoned their manly virtues. The followers bear less responsibility than the leaders. We all bear some responsibility for our current financial state but when the rules of the game are set up so that there is no chance to win, place, or show, one can hardly be faulted for coming in last place.


The ability to create an increase in the money supply and finance projects at cost to the taxpayer ...thus inflating the money supply...is the ability to get something for nothing. It is a slight of hand..a subtilty. To do this over and over and over ad nauseum..is theft. To do this over and over again..year after year....with the dicipline necessary to keep it hidden from most of the public while they debate emotions/placebos like on this thread...betells strongly at a religion in play. A devout , diciplined religion. A religion specializing in chaos. But one very hidden from those affected by or subject to it. This type of religion is and must needs be very feminine/subtle in its nature..Occult. Something for nothing or at very little RISK. RISK here being put off on others to make good. Male and female both.

Having acknowledged and conceded your general point (as I understand it), may I also suggest that TPTB controlling the supply of money are males who refuse to be MEN; who refuse to submit to their Headship and have gone whoring after other masters.

This "feminine" principle of subservience (to the wrong "master"), when practiced and perfected by a group of predominantly male power mongers, has been the undoing of not just a family or many families but of the entire nation; indeed the entire globe. The feminine principle is not innately inferior or wrong. It has it's place, as does the male principle. There needs to be balance, proper utilization of both principles.

What I think is happening on this thread is that people are confusing the feminine principle with females in general. The writer of the article in question is a jokester and I wonder if he even meant it to be taken seriously. Even if he did mean it as a joke it was in extremely bad taste. It would be the equivalent of me claiming that the reason the economy is tanking is because we no longer have slave labor and should re-instate slavery. You can imagine the apoplectic seizures that would ensue. Rightly so.

United we stand and divided we fall. We no longer have the "luxury" of our prejudices, bigotries, self-righteous, aggrandizing narrow world view. We're all in this sinking boat together and we need to pull together to plug the holes or we'll all drown: male and female.

reply to post by Edrick



moms still instill values in their children. the problem is the media has a different idea of what values are in the first place. we tell our kids, don't have sex before marriage. tv, movies, books, and music, tell them differently. you can barely fight a social norm. the pressure is too immense, and they deliberately target them while they are still so full of themselves, that they think their old folks are just out of touch with reality

[edit on 3-3-2009 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Edrick

 

moms still instill values in their children. the problem is the media has a different idea of what values are in the first place. we tell our kids, don't have sex before marriage. tv, movies, books, and music, tell them differently. you can barely fight a social norm. the pressure is too immense, and they deliberately target them while they are still so full of themselves, that they think their old folks are just out of touch with reality

[edit on 3-3-2009 by undo]

Precisely... because both parents spend so much of their time fetching those dollars, the Mass Media wins by default.

They have INFINITELY more time and effort to spend influencing the children, and the parents were themselves influenced by this mechanism.

-Edrick

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Income increases leading to increased consumer prices
Increase of property values
Increase in unemployment
Increase in crime
A complete breakdown of family values, moral integrity and sense of community.

]

You could use the above as an argument against the freeing of slaves as well.

After all, not using slave labor drives up prices, as it increases the costs to produce a good.

Allowing slaves to become free and have an income, increases the demand for products, including homes, and drives up prices as a result.

Free people entering a workplace increases competition for jobs and both increases unemployment and lowers wages.

If women having the right to work increases crime, (dubious at best) then you could make the same claim about letting former slaves work.

As for breaking down the morality, integrity, etc., (dubious at best) ditto could be said for freeing slaves as this is just opinion and not based on any facts at all.

After all, we are forgetting that crime is not caused by any one factor. But at least one factor that drives people to commit crime is poverty. History was not one long episode of "Leave it to Beaver" with men going off to high paying jobs and women smilingly baking pies at home. Women were abandoned, divorced, or widowed, and left with no legitimate means of supporting their children. Male children were forced to go to work early, (forgoing any hope of higher education) to support the family, and women were either forced into "under the table jobs" (including prostitution and begging) simply to feed their own children and themselves.

Look at the situation in countries where women are not allowed to work if you want to see modern examples of this. (Afghanistan) History was not this beautiful moral ideal. History is ridden with children being sold, abandoned to orphanages, because their parents could not feed them. Do some research before you create this idyllic paradise that never actually existed. Even in the time frame of "Leave it to Beaver."

All human beings deserve the chance to be free. The problems in America and the world were not caused by women (or slaves) gaining autonomy. You could just as easily argue that our economy could not have expanded the way it did without so many Americans being employed and having an income.

If anything caused the problem we are in, it is people who are not able to actually think through problems in a non-reactionary way being allowed to make policy. And in my opinion, such a poorly researched and reasoned OP is a demonstration of the kind of thinking that has led to this mess.

reply to post by TheOracle


I absolutly do, point well taken. I was only trying to point out that there are still hard working honest men, although maybe a little harder to find.

But, I think these kind of threads serve as a good opportunity to look back at our policies and discuss their ramifications on our society. I was just taken aback by the post when the article was clearly not about taking jobs away from women, more of a way to spark a discussion on how policies we make in the past can have serious implications on our future, no matter how honorable they sound.


But yes, I read my post again this morning, and i was a little over the top

Apologies Nik, Didnt mean to come off that way

edited to add:

My question now is: Why are so many men becoming lazy and loosing their sence of responsibility? You made me think Oracle....ty


[edit on 3/3/2009 by JohnnyR]

I'd say the culprit is more feminism than women.

Unmarried women and women of color have always worked.