Feminists have ruined marriage. Women have rights, men have responsibilities. Discuss
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Viceroy
Yes, new mothers would like to have more maternity leave and fathers would also like paternity leave, but that does not mean that women should never work. Plenty of women take maternity leave and raise their children after they've returned to work; fathers do the same.
And I am engaged. I have a partner and being respectful of her is a big part of why were are together. Mutual respect, communication, and love, not telling her to stay in the kitchen, stifling her passions, forcing her -- a Harvard Law School, Yale, and Cambridge graduate -- not to work. That's what partners do -- Neither one is above the other, neither person's interests come ahead of the other's. Don't call me 'son', don't call me wimpy, and don't give me relationship advice. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
/engagement with you
And I am engaged. I have a partner and being respectful of her is a big part of why were are together. Mutual respect, communication, and love, not telling her to stay in the kitchen, stifling her passions, forcing her -- a Harvard Law School, Yale, and Cambridge graduate -- not to work. That's what partners do -- Neither one is above the other, neither person's interests come ahead of the other's. Don't call me 'son', don't call me wimpy, and don't give me relationship advice. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
/engagement with you
No. Did you even read the link? You were asking me for sources, and you don't even bother to read them when I give them to you.
The source I linked you said that only 14%!!! of women wanted to continue their careers after having a kid. 58% were driven back because they had to for financial reasons. 75% would be a stay at home mother, not have more maternity leave, if they could afford to. They can't afford to because a single wage isn't enough to provide for a family any more. Because the labour force has doubled while wages as a % of GDP have fallen. So wages have halved per person.
Do you understand what you are reading? Or are you too deep in your own thought bubble to even comprehend text correctly?
You are a submissive man and you are married to a dominant woman. There's nothing wrong with that. That's your and her choice. But the vast majority of women seem to desire motherhood, not a career, and the vast majority of men seem to desire being a provider. It doesn't seem to me justified for the the rest of society to give up their preferences to suit your, a 25% minority's, needs.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by GoldenEmblem277
I am a feminist. This doesn't mean that I am a evil women who wants to rule the world and treat men like slaves. That is ****. What I want is for men and women to have EQUAL rights and responsibilities.
In a marriage- men and women should do equal amounts of housework. Both genders should have a role in bringing up the kids. In cases of divorce, both parties should pay equally.
In a marriage- men and women should do equal amounts of housework. Both genders should have a role in bringing up the kids. In cases of divorce, both parties should pay equally.
Says who
If both parties are happy why should they? What if one person stays at home and does all of the housework while the other grafts 9 to 5 to pay the bills?
This point has got **** all to do with feminism anyway, it's not a feminist issue it's an issue between two people coming to an agreement as to who does what.
Original post by Smash Bandicoot
TSR pls can we stop conflating feminism =/= misandry
kthxbai
kthxbai
But some feminists are misandrists, and this being TSR we must tar them all with same brush.
Original post by 41b
No. Did you even read the link? You were asking me for sources, and you don't even bother to read them when I give them to you.
The source I linked you said that only 14%!!! of women wanted to continue their careers after having a kid. 58% were driven back because they had to for financial reasons. 75% would be a stay at home mother, not have more maternity leave, if they could afford to. They can't afford to because a single wage isn't enough to provide for a family any more. Because the labour force has doubled while wages as a % of GDP have fallen. So wages have halved per person.
Do you understand what you are reading? Or are you too deep in your own thought bubble to even comprehend text correctly?
You are a submissive man and you are married to a dominant woman. There's nothing wrong with that. That's your and her choice. But the vast majority of women seem to desire motherhood, not a career, and the vast majority of men seem to desire being a provider. It doesn't seem to me justified for the the rest of society to give up their preferences to suit your, a 25% minority's, needs.
The source I linked you said that only 14%!!! of women wanted to continue their careers after having a kid. 58% were driven back because they had to for financial reasons. 75% would be a stay at home mother, not have more maternity leave, if they could afford to. They can't afford to because a single wage isn't enough to provide for a family any more. Because the labour force has doubled while wages as a % of GDP have fallen. So wages have halved per person.
Do you understand what you are reading? Or are you too deep in your own thought bubble to even comprehend text correctly?
You are a submissive man and you are married to a dominant woman. There's nothing wrong with that. That's your and her choice. But the vast majority of women seem to desire motherhood, not a career, and the vast majority of men seem to desire being a provider. It doesn't seem to me justified for the the rest of society to give up their preferences to suit your, a 25% minority's, needs.
I very much doubt that is 25% minority. Being a stay at home mum sounds like the most boring "kill me now" way to spend my life and I'm not considering myself a hardened career woman.
Jesus, there is so much more to life for women other than being baby producing machines.
Original post by Eveiebaby
I very much doubt that is 25% minority. Being a stay at home mum sounds like the most boring "kill me now" way to spend my life and I'm not considering myself a hardened career woman.
Jesus, there is so much more to life for women other than being baby producing machines.
Jesus, there is so much more to life for women other than being baby producing machines.
Do you have a child?
Original post by Pseudocode
http://news.yahoo.com/women-more-likely-broken-heart-syndrome-184939504.html
If that's not weakness I don't know what is. If you're going to cry about losing a partner then God help you when your boss tears into you or you have numerous deadlines to meet etc. You'll probably have a break down.
Of course, I await your response of attacks and nonsense again.
http://news.yahoo.com/women-more-likely-broken-heart-syndrome-184939504.html
If that's not weakness I don't know what is. If you're going to cry about losing a partner then God help you when your boss tears into you or you have numerous deadlines to meet etc. You'll probably have a break down.
Of course, I await your response of attacks and nonsense again.
I don't even know where to start, but I have to say that everyone has different triggers for stress. For example, my boss lays into me HARDCORE on a fairly regular basis and I've just learned to switch off and allow the rant to finish, have a cigarette and get on with my day. I have also learned that someone in my close family is dying. I have not cried or fallen apart. Losing a partner though would push my stress button in a way that the other family/work stresses don't. I think you need to distance yourself from what you think a woman is or what a woman should be and open your eyes to the variation, not just in women, but men too.
I don't know many men on my salary (which I don't consider an impressive salary btw) and it seems that a lot of people in London are earning less than I do.
On another note, a sentiment I've noticed on TSR..
Why are higher earning women deemed emasculating, unfeminine or somewhat as a threat to male masculinity? Sometimes I feel that it is hard to win either way that I don't need or want a man to finance me. I would prefer a 50:50 partnership where no one is dominant OR submissive. Why does it appear sometimes that women should be dependent, weak and incapable of doing anything but housework for us to be feminine and marriage material? Does it not occur that if you select those women, then of course divorce is more likely to result with loss of half of your wealth. They're seemingly unable to fend for themselves.
It always seems the self professed "alpha" uber masculine types that need or want these kinds of women. That doesn't sound very self assured to me. I'm just looking at the situation logically.
Stop complaining about golddigging women and then fulfilling a prophecy by choosing them as your wives and girlfriends.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by 41b
Do you have a child?
Hell no!
But most of my close friends do (in London) and they seem to complain about having cabin fever and that despite loving their child dearly, catching that 30 mins away from their baby/child to have time for themselves is pure bliss to them.
One day I would like to have a child, but to suggest that 100% time is devoted to 24/7 childcare, to be defined as a "mum" and that I would have nothing else in my life, I would want to kill myself.
Original post by GoldenEmblem277
Possibly, but it will take a little while longer before it does happen. Even though I'm an optimist, I am not sure that this will occur during my lifetime.
It still does. The gap actually widened recently- females are apparently paid 78% of what men are paid. Whilst I admit that male and female job choices hold an explanation for the discrepancy, I do believe that discrimination of women also play a huge role.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-business/10513636/Gender-pay-gap-widens-with-women-earning-an-average-of-5000-less-reports-ONS.html
It still does. The gap actually widened recently- females are apparently paid 78% of what men are paid. Whilst I admit that male and female job choices hold an explanation for the discrepancy, I do believe that discrimination of women also play a huge role.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-business/10513636/Gender-pay-gap-widens-with-women-earning-an-average-of-5000-less-reports-ONS.html
cba to find the study but a BBC article stated that women actually earn MORE than men, UNTIL they get pregnant. This can be attributed to the lack of support in education boys get compared to women, leading them to be less likely to have a degree.
The gender pay gap is a complete myth once you look at a specific job, and the specific hours pay per hours worked.
Original post by 41b
No. Did you even read the link? You were asking me for sources, and you don't even bother to read them when I give them to you.
The source I linked you said that only 14%!!! of women wanted to continue their careers after having a kid. 58% were driven back because they had to for financial reasons. 75% would be a stay at home mother, not have more maternity leave, if they could afford to. They can't afford to because a single wage isn't enough to provide for a family any more. Because the labour force has doubled while wages as a % of GDP have fallen. So wages have halved per person.
Do you understand what you are reading? Or are you too deep in your own thought bubble to even comprehend text correctly?
You are a submissive man and you are married to a dominant woman. There's nothing wrong with that. That's your and her choice. But the vast majority of women seem to desire motherhood, not a career, and the vast majority of men seem to desire being a provider. It doesn't seem to me justified for the the rest of society to give up their preferences to suit your, a 25% minority's, needs.
The source I linked you said that only 14%!!! of women wanted to continue their careers after having a kid. 58% were driven back because they had to for financial reasons. 75% would be a stay at home mother, not have more maternity leave, if they could afford to. They can't afford to because a single wage isn't enough to provide for a family any more. Because the labour force has doubled while wages as a % of GDP have fallen. So wages have halved per person.
Do you understand what you are reading? Or are you too deep in your own thought bubble to even comprehend text correctly?
You are a submissive man and you are married to a dominant woman. There's nothing wrong with that. That's your and her choice. But the vast majority of women seem to desire motherhood, not a career, and the vast majority of men seem to desire being a provider. It doesn't seem to me justified for the the rest of society to give up their preferences to suit your, a 25% minority's, needs.
I think you are reading what you want to read.
This article is about new mothers who are being forced abandon maternity leave early. The article also states that only 9% of the women had a preference not to return to work at all.
I'm also not sure why you keep bringing up wage suppression and women working, even if women where not working what do you think mass immigration is for?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by missfats
Okay, be content with never learning to read or write, never having an education, never having a job, never being able to vote, and being nothing more than a man's property.
Oh wait, you can read and write, you've had an education, you probably have a job now or want a job in the future, you've got the vote, and you're not anybodies property?
That's because of what feminism has achieved through the years.
Saying you hate feminists is pretty ungrateful for all these things you can now do because of them.
Original post by 41b
You are a submissive man and you are married to a dominant woman. There's nothing wrong with that. That's your and her choice. But the vast majority of women seem to desire motherhood, not a career, and the vast majority of men seem to desire being a provider. It doesn't seem to me justified for the the rest of society to give up their preferences to suit your, a 25% minority's, needs.
You are a submissive man and you are married to a dominant woman. There's nothing wrong with that. That's your and her choice. But the vast majority of women seem to desire motherhood, not a career, and the vast majority of men seem to desire being a provider. It doesn't seem to me justified for the the rest of society to give up their preferences to suit your, a 25% minority's, needs.
You're an *******. **** off.
Original post by Eveiebaby
Hell no!
But most of my close friends do (in London) and they seem to complain about having cabin fever and that despite loving their child dearly, catching that 30 mins away from their baby/child to have time for themselves is pure bliss to them.
One day I would like to have a child, but to suggest that 100% time is devoted to 24/7 childcare, to be defined as a "mum" and that I would have nothing else in my life, I would want to kill myself.
But most of my close friends do (in London) and they seem to complain about having cabin fever and that despite loving their child dearly, catching that 30 mins away from their baby/child to have time for themselves is pure bliss to them.
One day I would like to have a child, but to suggest that 100% time is devoted to 24/7 childcare, to be defined as a "mum" and that I would have nothing else in my life, I would want to kill myself.
Of course they do. Children can be annoying.
Well, raising a child, creating a human being, an entirely different person from scratch, IS a job. If you don't want it to be your job, you shouldn't have a kid. Why make him miserable and neglected because you prefer (in my view) meaningless consumption and a meaningless* career? Who looks back on their deathbed and says "I wish I had worked more"? You might think that the temporary happiness of consumption is worth it now, but when/if you're aging, childless and alone, you'll think differently. I hope you don't neglect your child, like most career women seem to do.
*most men view their job as a means to an end, not something especially meaningful in their lives. Most men want to spend more time with their children, especially their sons.
Did you consider that your friends might be too stressed out to handle their children, and their children are presumably difficult to handle, because both parents are working?
Original post by 41b
Of course they do. Children can be annoying.
Well, raising a child, creating a human being, an entirely different person from scratch, IS a job. If you don't want it to be your job, you shouldn't have a kid. Why make him miserable and neglected because you prefer (in my view) meaningless consumption and a meaningless* career? Who looks back on their deathbed and says "I wish I had worked more"? You might think that the temporary happiness of consumption is worth it now, but when/if you're aging, childless and alone, you'll think differently. I hope you don't neglect your child, like most career women seem to do.
*most men view their job as a means to an end, not something especially meaningful in their lives. Most men want to spend more time with their children, especially their sons.
Did you consider that your friends might be too stressed out to handle their children, and their children are presumably difficult to handle, because both parents are working?
Well, raising a child, creating a human being, an entirely different person from scratch, IS a job. If you don't want it to be your job, you shouldn't have a kid. Why make him miserable and neglected because you prefer (in my view) meaningless consumption and a meaningless* career? Who looks back on their deathbed and says "I wish I had worked more"? You might think that the temporary happiness of consumption is worth it now, but when/if you're aging, childless and alone, you'll think differently. I hope you don't neglect your child, like most career women seem to do.
*most men view their job as a means to an end, not something especially meaningful in their lives. Most men want to spend more time with their children, especially their sons.
Did you consider that your friends might be too stressed out to handle their children, and their children are presumably difficult to handle, because both parents are working?
You are unaware of the big picture. I do not consider myself a career woman, I just spend a lot of time on my hobbies outside work (creative) which give me a lot of satisfaction. I happen to have a fairly well paying day job, but that alone is not the be and end all of my life, but I do enjoy it.
My life shouldn't be 100% anything, it is achieving a balance which I feel is important. Me wanting to have a life outside of having a child doesn't mean that I wouldn't care for it at all. There is no need to extrapolate wildly about me ending up aging and alone. That is getting needlessly personal and NOT the way you should be discussing a topic with anyone to be frank.
I just feel being stuck within 4 walls is not a healthy or balanced way to spend life if that is the only thing that you are doing. To be defined by simply being a parent is upsetting to me because it gives the impression that you lose yourself. I think it is important to have other things going on in your life. What are you going to do when your child leaves home if you don't keep what is inside you alive? I see some very bizarre things happen with mums who can't let go of their children. Either extreme is unhealthy.
The friend I'm referring to in particular is not working at the moment, but she is a Phd graduate and will be returning to work at some point in the future, no doubt.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by miscounted_time
I think you are reading what you want to read.
This article is about new mothers who are being forced abandon maternity leave early. The article also states that only 9% of the women had a preference not to return to work at all.
I'm also not sure why you keep bringing up wage suppression and women working, even if women where not working what do you think mass immigration is for?
This article is about new mothers who are being forced abandon maternity leave early. The article also states that only 9% of the women had a preference not to return to work at all.
I'm also not sure why you keep bringing up wage suppression and women working, even if women where not working what do you think mass immigration is for?
Did you read past the title?
The first line:
http://www.uswitch.com/blog/2012/09/07/money-worries-forcing-new-mums-back-to-work-early/
The research showed that three quarters of new mothers (75%) would be a stay-at-home mum if money was no object, with almost six in ten (58%) forced back to work due to debt and financial worries.
As for what you said, no man wants a wife that is permanently housebound. But if someone chooses to have a child, it is her responsibility to make sure he is properly raised. People can't "have it all". There are tradeoffs and choices to be made. If a woman pursues her career and has a child, someone's losing out, and it's probably the child. I
I don't see why more people don't have children first, when the woman is young, healthy, at prime childbearing age and so most likely to produce healthy kids, raise them until they are 8-10, and THEN have a career.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Eveiebaby
You are unaware of the big picture. I do not consider myself a career woman, I just spend a lot of time on my hobbies outside work (creative) which give me a lot of satisfaction. I happen to have a fairly well paying day job, but that alone is not the be and end all of my life, but I do enjoy it.
My life shouldn't be 100% anything, it is achieving a balance which I feel is important. Me wanting to have a life outside of having a child doesn't mean that I wouldn't care for it at all. There is no need to extrapolate wildly about me ending up aging and alone. That is getting needlessly personal and NOT the way you should be discussing a topic with anyone to be frank.
I just feel being stuck within 4 walls is not a healthy or balanced way to spend life if that is the only thing that you are doing. To be defined by simply being a parent is upsetting to me because it gives the impression that you lose yourself. I think it is important to have other things going on in your life. What are you going to do when your child leaves home if you don't keep what is inside you alive? I see some very bizarre things happen with mums who can't let go of their children. Either extreme is unhealthy.
The friend I'm referring to in particular is not working at the moment, but she is a Phd graduate and will be returning to work at some point in the future, no doubt.
My life shouldn't be 100% anything, it is achieving a balance which I feel is important. Me wanting to have a life outside of having a child doesn't mean that I wouldn't care for it at all. There is no need to extrapolate wildly about me ending up aging and alone. That is getting needlessly personal and NOT the way you should be discussing a topic with anyone to be frank.
I just feel being stuck within 4 walls is not a healthy or balanced way to spend life if that is the only thing that you are doing. To be defined by simply being a parent is upsetting to me because it gives the impression that you lose yourself. I think it is important to have other things going on in your life. What are you going to do when your child leaves home if you don't keep what is inside you alive? I see some very bizarre things happen with mums who can't let go of their children. Either extreme is unhealthy.
The friend I'm referring to in particular is not working at the moment, but she is a Phd graduate and will be returning to work at some point in the future, no doubt.
The point I was originally making was that most women would prefer to be only housewives and are forced into the labour market because their husbands don't earn enough to provide for the household. If you disagree, that is of course your choice, but I also said that the more people there are in the labour market, the lower wages are be. If there are twice as many people, wages are effectively half per person.
So if most women want to be only housewives, and you want to work, is it fair to 75% of women that the 25% of women force them into work due to falling wages?
Is it fair to the 100% of children who now lose out on a full time mother?
My point is that in society and economics, there are tradeoffs. Your freedom comes at the expense of someone else's. There is no other way.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by 41b
The point I was originally making was that most women would prefer to be only housewives and are forced into the labour market because their husbands don't earn enough to provide for the household. If you disagree, that is of course your choice, but I also said that the more people there are in the labour market, the lower wages are be. If there are twice as many people, wages are effectively half per person.
So if most women want to be only housewives, and you want to work, is it fair to 75% of women that the 25% of women force them into work due to falling wages?
Is it fair to the 100% of children who now lose out on a full time mother?
My point is that in society and economics, there are tradeoffs. Your freedom comes at the expense of someone else's. There is no other way.
So if most women want to be only housewives, and you want to work, is it fair to 75% of women that the 25% of women force them into work due to falling wages?
Is it fair to the 100% of children who now lose out on a full time mother?
My point is that in society and economics, there are tradeoffs. Your freedom comes at the expense of someone else's. There is no other way.
I have a question for you.
What is your stance on fall time fathers. I'm just wondering because of some of the things you have been saying on this thread.
Do you think it is okay for a child to have a full time father and the mother instead in full time work? Or do you think it is woman's job to raise the kids?
I think the worst thing about feminism right now is its name as it causes confusion. Yes, there are lots of people who identify as feminists who simply want to break the patriarchy and to free women without any regard for men. However, feminism is actually about complete gender equality, so for men as well as women. It's not about usurping men and putting women at the top and anyone who argues that isn't worth anyone's time.
Of course there's also the question of what true equality means. Men and women are not biologically equal and this does result in differences. For example, a woman can become pregnant which will prevent her from being able to work for 9 months whereas a man cannot. How do you make this equal? What about the childcare afterwards?
Personally, I am becoming quite disheartened by the vitriol purported by some of the supposed "feminists", who are clearly not feminists, which in turn results in the sort of attack displayed in this topic. It's about encouraging debate that will result in a fairer and more equal society, not about warring parties.
Of course there's also the question of what true equality means. Men and women are not biologically equal and this does result in differences. For example, a woman can become pregnant which will prevent her from being able to work for 9 months whereas a man cannot. How do you make this equal? What about the childcare afterwards?
Personally, I am becoming quite disheartened by the vitriol purported by some of the supposed "feminists", who are clearly not feminists, which in turn results in the sort of attack displayed in this topic. It's about encouraging debate that will result in a fairer and more equal society, not about warring parties.
Original post by Eveiebaby
I don't even know where to start, but I have to say that everyone has different triggers for stress. For example, my boss lays into me HARDCORE on a fairly regular basis and I've just learned to switch off and allow the rant to finish, have a cigarette and get on with my day. I have also learned that someone in my close family is dying. I have not cried or fallen apart. Losing a partner though would push my stress button in a way that the other family/work stresses don't. I think you need to distance yourself from what you think a woman is or what a woman should be and open your eyes to the variation, not just in women, but men too.
I don't know many men on my salary (which I don't consider an impressive salary btw) and it seems that a lot of people in London are earning less than I do.
On another note, a sentiment I've noticed on TSR..
1) Why are higher earning women deemed emasculating, unfeminine or somewhat as a threat to male masculinity? Sometimes I feel that it is hard to win either way that I don't need or want a man to finance me. I would prefer a 50:50 partnership where no one is dominant OR submissive. 2) Why does it appear sometimes that women should be dependent, weak and incapable of doing anything but housework for us to be feminine and marriage material? Does it not occur that if you select those women, then of course divorce is more likely to result with loss of half of your wealth. They're seemingly unable to fend for themselves.
It always seems the self professed "alpha" uber masculine types that need or want these kinds of women. That doesn't sound very self assured to me. I'm just looking at the situation logically.
Stop complaining about golddigging women and then fulfilling a prophecy by choosing them as your wives and girlfriends.
I don't know many men on my salary (which I don't consider an impressive salary btw) and it seems that a lot of people in London are earning less than I do.
On another note, a sentiment I've noticed on TSR..
1) Why are higher earning women deemed emasculating, unfeminine or somewhat as a threat to male masculinity? Sometimes I feel that it is hard to win either way that I don't need or want a man to finance me. I would prefer a 50:50 partnership where no one is dominant OR submissive. 2) Why does it appear sometimes that women should be dependent, weak and incapable of doing anything but housework for us to be feminine and marriage material? Does it not occur that if you select those women, then of course divorce is more likely to result with loss of half of your wealth. They're seemingly unable to fend for themselves.
It always seems the self professed "alpha" uber masculine types that need or want these kinds of women. That doesn't sound very self assured to me. I'm just looking at the situation logically.
Stop complaining about golddigging women and then fulfilling a prophecy by choosing them as your wives and girlfriends.
aye, you've found the fundamental flaw in Redpill theory: confirmation bias
I'd have to say I'd find it less emasculating if a woman could respect me for being in any shape or form the submissive. I have not ever seen this happen and result in a happy ending; actually my dad was submissive and without ploughing into too much detail he got raped in the divorce courts by my mum. And she may have cheated... I love them both dearly, but it's an iffy subject for us all to this day.
It's made that way because of the inherent misogyny of a language constructed by patriarchy, I'm afraid
second wave was supposed to help resolve this using structuralism. Angela Carter FTWOriginal post by 41b
The point I was originally making was that most women would prefer to be only housewives and are forced into the labour market because their husbands don't earn enough to provide for the household. If you disagree, that is of course your choice, but I also said that the more people there are in the labour market, the lower wages are be. If there are twice as many people, wages are effectively half per person.
So if most women want to be only housewives, and you want to work, is it fair to 75% of women that the 25% of women force them into work due to falling wages?
Is it fair to the 100% of children who now lose out on a full time mother?
My point is that in society and economics, there are tradeoffs. Your freedom comes at the expense of someone else's. There is no other way.
So if most women want to be only housewives, and you want to work, is it fair to 75% of women that the 25% of women force them into work due to falling wages?
Is it fair to the 100% of children who now lose out on a full time mother?
My point is that in society and economics, there are tradeoffs. Your freedom comes at the expense of someone else's. There is no other way.
Well bearing in mind that I disagree that 75% of women want to be housewives (as you correctly predicted), the latter half of your argument loses relevance.
There's nothing wrong with men being househusbands if you're really bothered about too many people in the workforce. Haha.
Also a lot of women do jobs that current gender roles would suggest are unappealing to traditional men. If your theory was 100%, the women would be displacing the men at all levels and sectors but it's simply not the case.
There is space for all sorts of people and jobs. While I'm no economic expert, I am certain that economic growth has far more variables and conditions at play to attribute a simple causational relationship between salary and number of jobs.
Also, if you want to compete strongly on the global market, you need as much diversity in business types that could be more likely to be female led, gender neutral or male led dependent on sector.
(edited 9 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
