Originally Posted By RoadTrip Back in the 70's the feminists told all the women they should work outside the home. A very significant portion of them started doing just that. Suddenly, you have a significant jump in the income of the country; many households now have two incomes instead of just one. Great, right? Wrong. You have all this extra income that families want to spend on stuff. Unfortunately, there is not that much more stuff. The women for the most part were not employed in stuff making jobs. So at any rate, you now have significantly more dollars chasing after essentially the same amount of stuff. What does Microeconomics 1-001 tell you about this situation? It tells you that the price of stuff is going to go up. Which it did like crazy in the 70's. And poor presidents Ford and Carter got blamed for it when it was really the fault of the feminists. Well, with Carter that is OK because he was a feminist too. Kind of. But at any rate; economic systems cannot remain out of balance forever. So what happened? The price of stuff went up by about the same amount as people's incomes went up. The problem is that now you needed TWO people producing income to maintain the standard of living that used to be provided by one. Thanks feminists. So in the end feminists were very un-feminist. Rather than giving women more choices they took them away. Today many women who would love nothing more than to be a stay-at-home Mom are forced to work because they the income is needed to pay the bills. So a wonderful choice for women that used to be available to almost all has now been taken away from a significant portion of them. You know who has really benefited most from the feminists? Men have. But that is yet another post. ;-)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Whew, where to begin? Forst of all, the message wasn't ever that "all women should go out and work." The message of feminism was that women should be paid equal to what men doing the same work were earning. This "radical" notion is seen as basic fairness by most people today, but clearly not by all (many companies today dont pay equal wage for equal work among the genders, even at the management level). The choices feminism set out to give to women were ones that lead to economic independence should hubby decide to run off with his secretary or something. With no marketable skills or education, a woman may indeed be doing her level best to maintain hearth and home, but it wasn't uncommon for them to be left high and dry when hubby had a midlife crisis and decided he needed to start life anew. I grew up in a home where both my parents worked full time. This was in the mid 60's, before it was a recognized "trend", and we were not the only ones. So this clarion call that suddenly sent all these women out into the workforce was more likely economic need, rather than jumping on the feminist bandwagon. Ford's solution to spiraling inflation was the developmet of W.I.N. buttons (Whip Inflation Now). At a time whne OPEC first began to flex its muscles, I don't know how in the world that can be blamed on feminism.
Originally Posted By DAR You know what feminists did ruin, the guys weekend. With all their, "why can't we come along on the trip to Vegas that your currently single friend is planning" rhetoric.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<You know who has really benefited most from the feminists? Men have. >>> I thank GOD for the feminists daily. I married one! ;-p
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I think there are certainly elements of truth in my post, but it is also rather tongue and cheek. Back in the 70’s and early 80’s my best friend and I would engage in a little herbal alteration of reality and have bizarre and wide ranging discussions on just about everything. One day I did a good couple of hours on how every problem in the world could be traced to feminists. I guess you had to be there, but we laughed our butt offs. ;-)
Originally Posted By woody >>Whew, where to begin? Forst of all, the message wasn't ever that "all women should go out and work." << Yes it is. The evidence is out there. You should look for it. Feminists are all about working and more working. Career advancement. No marriage. No kids.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Feminists are all about working and more working. Career advancement. No marriage. No kids. >> Wow. It's scary to think there are people who actually think like this.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> ... economic systems cannot remain out of balance forever. So what happened? The price of stuff went up by about the same amount as people's incomes went up. << If that were true, we'd see a concurrent rise in profit margins for goods and services. That didn't happen. >> Feminists are all about working and more working. Career advancement. No marriage. No kids. << And you think that women hate women. Sounds like projection to me. What's the matter, you can't compete with women in the workplace?
Originally Posted By woody >>And you think that women hate women. Sounds like projection to me. What's the matter, you can't compete with women in the workplace?<< What? You can't deal in reality? Many women have stopped buying into the feminist crap. ------ <a href="http://www.careerjournal.com/myc/workfamily/20020716-hodges.html" target="_blank">http://www.careerjournal.com/m yc/workfamily/20020716-hodges.html</a> Top Corporate Women Are Quitting to 'Have It All' By Jane Hodges Flexibility is still a big issue for women executives, but many appear to have found a solution without having to leave the business world. They're merely leaving corporate America, often to earn more money by reinventing themselves as entrepreneurs and consultants. Before Cindi Perez left her executive post at GT Global, a mutual-fund-management company in San Francisco, in 1997, she experienced the stereotypical Catch-22 between corporate achievement, parenting and work-life balance that many working women confront. At 39, she was a mother of two. But as the firm's vice president-retail products, she also was at the top of her professional game. It had been a decade since she'd entered the business as a secretary in Paine Webber's New York offices. Now she was a GT line manager, crafting marketing and product strategy for mutual-fund portfolios worth $10 billion. "I was absolutely tortured," she says about her decision to leave, "but I also felt a lack of control over my life." Five years later, Ms. Perez feels plenty of control. In fact, these days, she's a marketing consultant and her own boss -- and stories like hers are becoming increasingly common as hard-working women leave good jobs to gain flexibility they often can't find in traditional corporate firms. ---- Yeah, they just can't handle it. Even if you can't hack it. There's a feminist itching to get you back into the grind. ---------- <a href="http://www.gettoworkmanifesto.com/blog/2006/04/get_to_work.html" target="_blank">http://www.gettoworkmanifesto. com/blog/2006/04/get_to_work.html</a> Get to Work! Get To Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World addresses many subjects that matter to many people. Work. Family. Justice. Power. Money. What drives the book is my clear commitment that paid work in the public world offers the best chance for people to live a flourishing life, and too many women are passing it up. It is a clear warning that something is very wrong, when it’s only women quitting their jobs – or doing anything not strictly dictated by biology.
Originally Posted By woody More stuff. <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story?id=2067008&page=1" target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Book s/story?id=2067008&page=1</a> Excerpt: 'Get to Work' Linda Hirshman Urges Women to 'Choose Their Choice' and Work June 13, 1006 Author Linda R. Hirshman doesn't believe that staying home leads to a good life for women. For too long, she says, women have been forced to return to the home because of limited support from their husbands and the government, but mostly to maintain the 'illusion" that they have a choice. In "Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World," she argues that a new revolution is needed to reform the sexual politics of family and to make women realize that full participation in the work force and the public sphere is their only path to becoming self-actualized human beings. ---
Originally Posted By woody A rebuttal <a href="http://www.iwf.org/news/show/19106.html" target="_blank">http://www.iwf.org/news/show/1 9106.html</a> Hirshman's writing reeks of disdain for the "small lives" of real women. She belittles those who chronicle their days on BloggingBaby.com, writing about such mundane activities as eating kids' food and wearing sandals and shorts. The message is that such lives aren't worth recording. Beyond boring, these women are in Hirshman's eyes dangerous. She condemns, for example, one mother's decision to homeschool her children to focus on her biological progeny instead of improving the lot of the collective. Hirshman instructs: "Have a baby. Just don't have two," the idea being that the raising of one child can easily be outsourced so as not to interfere with worker output, whereas two are drag on productivity. The organized feminist movement, blind though it so often is, has been wisely ignoring Hirshman's manifesto. This is likely due more to public relations than to common sense; even the most zealous activists must see that Hirshman's totalitarian brand of feminism won't wash with the vast majority of women. Americans are not ashamed of their lives outside of work. Most wish they had more time with family. As the blogging mommies know, wiping noses may look to the career-obsessed like mindless drudgery, but to many women, such tasks are the most fulfilling, satisfying aspect of life. Hirshman just doesn't get it. That's okay; she doesn't have to. Women have a choice, and can ignore this book.
Originally Posted By Ursula Yeah! If it weren't for the Feminists, I'd be home now sitting on my backside eating bons-bons and watching Oprah!
Originally Posted By woody I wouldn't support a woman who watches Oprah. Either she should work or raise kids. Maybe both, but you have to respect a woman for what she does. Feminists are actually doing the opposite extreme. They disrespect the choice of staying at home to raise a family.
Originally Posted By gadzuux And this sweeping generality of all women who may consider themselves 'feminist' is supported by a link to some self-empowerment book? You need to blow your nose more often.
Originally Posted By woody Many women don't consider themselves 'feminist' for exactly the type of bull many 'feminists' are pulling.
Originally Posted By Maxxdadd Measuring the value of women based on their earning potential is a flawed concept, because the mechanics of computing wages based on gender has to ignore not mathmatical factors, such as the fact that women take time off from work to birth children. Sure, sometimes men take a career sideline too, but no where near the number of women who work do, and thus, the earning potential for women is interrupted for a while on a larger scale. Thus, even if some woman rises to make a salary that equals or exceeds the earnings of male counterparts, enough of their female colleagues are out of the competition, if even for a short while, negatively affecting their earning potential. Or, to put it simply, if you work for 10 years straight, compared to someone who works for 5 years, takes a year off, and then works another 4 years, the odds are the one who works uniterrupted will have a higher salary than the other. In order then, for women to earn equal pay to men, more of them would actually have to earn more than men do, on the average, for the figures to work out correctly.
Originally Posted By RC Collins The government is addicted to the additional income taxes and, frankly, when kids grow up with less parental attention, they are more likely to need government assistance, justifying an expanding government. Divorced or never married mothers also tend to need more government assistance, even if it is just to recover child support. >>many companies today dont pay equal wage for equal work among the genders, even at the management level<< Very little, if any, of the income gap is due to gender discrimination. As already mentioned, taking time off to have and raised kids can have an impact. Also, men as a group often work in higher paying careers than women as a group. Men used to be secretaries, until women's fingers tended to be better for the typing machines that were invented. Men were not as good at typing, and thus phased out. Women, as a group, take more sick days, according to studies. In positions where compensation is negotiated, men have a hormonal advantage and are more likely to simply ASK for a raise. In positions with commission, again, men may be more assertive and thus earn more. It may also be that men are more likely to work overtime, where that is a factor. If women REALLY earned less for doing the same kind, amount, and quality of work as men, smart employers would be hiring only women because it would be better business. As for staying at home vs. career... many feminists DO consider women "traitors" if they choose to stay at home with their kids. So much for choice. Such feminists point out that those women are leaving themselves open to the risk of the man dying, leaving them, or losing his job, and "then where will they be?!?" Apparently, those feminists are counting on women to pick lousy husbands and not save any money. If you choose your man well and treat your man right, he's not going anywhere. You'll likely be able to keep him healthy that way, too. Besides, there's insurance, alimony, and prenuptial agreements, and student loans that can take care of all of that sort of thing. Having kids is certainly not for everyone, and I'm very glad that women can have fulfilling careers. But women who choose to have kids and then choose to be with their kids instead of sticking them in day care, early full-day preschool, day camps, and summer camps ought not be made to feel bad about it.
Originally Posted By Ursula Wow. Just wow. I have never taken time off to go and birth a child and I took less sick time over the course of the last 8 years than anyone I know. Asking for a raise? I'm the best in the business. Aggressive? Only when I need to be for my job. I don't fit the mold and boy, those bon-bons look promising.
