thats real below you

I'm just gonna stop posting in this thread if selfish/bias people like you are gonna try to argue with me

 

What I saying is that the genetic differences, considering the overall differences between individuals does not justify the gender stereotypes and especially some of the male attitudes displayed on this thread.

You're either very young, very dumb of both. But one thing for sure is you are totally ignorant of economics, feminism, and recent American History. Feminism sprang from the fact that women were actually considered and treated as second class citizens in this nation until women took a stand in the 1960's and afterwards. And what do a mean by second class status. They were paid less money than men for doing the exact same job. They were not allowed their own credit in many instances and state laws did not protect wifes from being beaten and raped by their husbands.

Also women entering the workplace had nothing to do with the rise in the cost of homes. Women entered the work place because prices for housing, food utilities and transportation increased to the point where a family had to have two incomes. It was not the other way around.

And there was no small motivation in eliminating the double standard where a woman who had several sexual partners was a whore while a man who did the same thing was a stud.

This is the most intelligent post you have put up so far.

 

While I don't endorse all the particulars, I do think The Fucking Pope wasn't far off the mark with the comment about women entering the work force making it so they have to now. Basic supply and demand says that the more people who are vying for jobs the less employers will pay them. That doesn't mean I think women shouldn't be allowed to work, but their entering the work force did play a defiant toll on the economy. Top CEOs have more than enough money to go around, especially in this country, and there is more than enough evidence that the more unemployed job seekers there are the lower wages are paid for the same positions.

 

Another great example of having the cart before the horse. See I was there Perv when most mothers stayed home and fathers worked. That was the 1950's. Now you know what forced more mothers out of the house than anything else at that time? Divorce. And the divorce rate skyrocketed right after us baby boomers were born. The next really economic reason was the increase in energy costs. Do you really believe that most women wanted to become working mothers out of some need of fulfillment? It was a case of just trying to keep the house or the car from being repossessed.

It was after that when they began to rebel against working in a system that routinely discriminated against them.

If it was otherwise there would not be a shrinking middle class. It takes two wage earners to keep their heads above water. Lower wages does not explain higher prices.

 

This sounds reasonable. Perhaps the whole thing was a bit of both, like a positive feedback loop.

 

Actually I think you are right on the positive feed back thing. A lot of it was economics, but it was also sociological. The 1960's was a time of incredible change after decades if not centuries of pent up conformity. Much of that centered on the demands for equality and civil rights, It was then that women began to look around and see that across the board they were more discriminated against than any race or group. There was feminism born.

But it was not too long after that I turned around and had to wonder since when did a pickup truck cost as much as a house. Literally, I saw people plunking down $30,000 for a vehicle when their house didn't cost that much. What really amazed me is they just had to have that four wheel drive truck for some reason even though most of them never went anywhere they needed four wheel drive. Then things seemed to equal out because all of a sudden a house was $100,000.

I just don't have much tolerance for the way women in general or feminists in particular are categorized by some males. It to me is actually the ugly naked side of male fear.

 

The underlying premise is that women should NOT work, should NOT be part of the labor force. On what basis would you make such a claim? Should we all be barefoot, pregnant, and baking cookies?

Women have ALWAYS been part of the work force, to one degree or another. But they were consigned to specific jobs (secretaries, waitresses, nurses) and paid less than their male counterparts. Now that we've made some minimal progress at breaking through such arbitrary barriers, you want to lay the reponsibility on US for the fact that wages haven't kept pace?

Grrrr!

 

Kimi, some folks just can't get rid of the notion that bondage of any race, religion or gender is wrong. Motherhood and housekeeping are noble professions, if the person chooses it for themselves.

 

Kimi calm down and bake some more cakes !

 

I totally agree, and if my husband wants to stay home, clean the house and take care of the children while I work, I respect that as well.

 

*smiling as I methodically sharpen all the kitchen knives, humming to myself*

 

You go girl, I totally agree!!!

 

lol - could you make it a chocolate one please ?

 

Why certainly, dear...*feeling the edge of the blade*...have I ever denied you anything?

 

no no - and then perhaps I could take the little lady (and her knife *gulps*) in to the bedroom then ?

 

Thanks! Next they'll be blaming us for factory jobs moving to India.

 

Wait, I have to fight the good fight for the sisterhood first.

 

Leave it to a man to do the fighting - don't worry your little head about it my dear !

 

Wow...you're GOOD at this! But you're supposed to pat me on the head while you say it.

 

There there - actually I'm glad women have made the move in to the board room - all those ladies power dressing really gets me going!

Now if the above was sarcasm - your bad mood could of course be blamed on the time of the month ?