Why Were Women Happier Before?

[betsy]

The difference today is that hope has been robbed from women. The fight has been stolen away from them and turned against them to keep them in their place.

Women now have a voice! And that is thanks to the feminist movement of long ago. That voice is here to stay!

An example of woman power that exists: Politicians go out of their way to get women approval of their platforms. Don't the political parties all over the world boasts of women in their seats? How many women today hold important positions? The US for example, Condoleeza Rice....replaced by another woman, Hillary Clinton! The Supreme Judge appointee....a Mexican woman!

Just in Canada alone, the three parties are in a contest on who has the most women MPs. How many women hold powerful seats?

So explain what hope for what had been robbed? What fight had been stolen? Substantiate your claim.

Edited June 2, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

A lot of women...and MEN....hold jobs that they'd rather not have. EDUCATION! That's a key part nowadays isn't it? Highschool diploma is not enough for most high-paying jobs!

Btw, how many of these people hold highschool diplomas? That's one good reason why a lot of these people....women AND men....work menial, blue-collar jobs!

[betsy]

In my workplace (which is a young company that's slowly explanding), only 5 out of 30 employees are men.

Only one of them is a "coordinator" (manager) - one in four managerial position. The directress is a woman.

[cybercoma]

So explain what hope for what had been robbed? What fight had been stolen? Substantiate your claim.

For every 1 female MP there are 5 male MPs. In the real world for every 1 female there is less than 1 male.

So what was that about female representation in office?

[cybercoma]

In my workplace (which is a young company that's slowly explanding), only 5 out of 30 employees are men.

Only one of them is a "coordinator" (manager) - one in four managerial position. The directress is a woman.

Good for your workplace. I don't know the exactly national figures, but out of the top 100 CEOs in the Maritimes for 2008, 7 of them were women. Mind you, over half the population is female. Doesn't sound like equality to me.

[cybercoma]

Top Canadian executives:

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/pdfs/top_c..._executives.pdf

Of the handful of women on that list of over 30 people, only a couple are actually presidents of operations. Even then, they are the presidents only of the Canadian divisions of those companies.

[M.Dancer]

Mind you, over half the population is female. Doesn't sound like equality to me.

The C-suite are hired for their acumen, not their testicles or ovaries. The C-suite is such a rarefied lot, any sampling of them will show very little in common outside of their single minded pursuit of business success. In other words, very few men or women will ever rise to their ranks. That being said, when I was a student I noticed that the overwhelming majority of students in the B.Com, Marketing and other business disciplines were male...something in the range of maybe 10 to 1. Today is of course different. My brother in law completed an Ivey MBA a couple of years ago and his class had about 50% female. If all advance quickly you still have to account for losses.....many will choose to drop out of business for a higher calling....and when you get to the age group of CEOs....how many women will still be competing for the brass ring at 60?

If in 20 years 20% of the ceos are women I will be quite surprised.

[Molly]

Ha! I'd settle for 20% of grocery store produce managers being women, but I don't expect that to happen any time soon, either.

[JerrySeinfeld]

While the actual incidence of violence may not have increased, it seems like reportage of it has increased. It seems like both news and entertainment have sensationalized violence, particularly sexual violence, in a way that it probably wasn't 40 years ago.

-k

Sure has. These days I don't have to channel surf long before I can find a woman slapping a man in the face, punching him in the face, dumping a drink on a man, throwing his stuff on the lawn, throwing plates at a man...etc. Mostly in the name of "comedy".

Of course, if you reversed the roles in any of the above, it would be held out by the "women's" movement (read - loser academics with nothing better to do with their time) as the perpetuation of "violence" against women.

You can't have it both ways: this kind of entertainment is either silly or violent, not both depending upon who happens to be bearing the brunt.

[August1991]

The comments in this thread are interesting to read.

Of the handful of women on that list of over 30 people, only a couple are actually presidents of operations. Even then, they are the presidents only of the Canadian divisions of those companies.

Cybercoma's post above made me think of a quote I saw recently by the Hollywood producer Kathleen Kennedy on IMDb:

"Believe and set your sights on the fact that you can do it. It's certainly a goal any woman can have, just like any man."

"But what I always find interesting is when you take the areas of writing, producing and directing. I don't think there's a great deal of discrimination -- although I'm completely perplexed and confused as to why there aren't more women. For instance, if we're looking for new, young directors, which is something we do all the time, we certainly never go look at films because they're directed by a man or a woman. We look at films because they are winning awards, they're good, and it has nothing to do with gender. And women certainly have equal opportunity to get into a university like UCLA or USC, to get into the film department, to take the same courses to allow them to make films, to deal with a whole gamut of subject matter, and yet I don't know what happens. There's something that happens in the process of getting there that seems to turn many women away."

[benny]

To compare the happiness of men and women, the main concept one has to grasp is the concept of castration.

[Borg]

Ha! I'd settle for 20% of grocery store produce managers being women, but I don't expect that to happen any time soon, either.

Well, once they are done raising kids and THEN get out there in the work force they can compete like the rest. But they are usually about 15 years behind the rest.

Or they can be the wonderful modern woman - spit out a kid and run it to the day care every day - let someone else raise it and be in the management rat race right from the start.

If that makes you happy go for it - but it sure f**ks the families up.

You do recognize at least a small responsibility there - do you not? Or perhaps as a modern woman you do not care?

Borg

[benny]

Well, once they are done raising kids and THEN get out there in the work force they can compete like the rest. But they are usually about 15 years behind the rest.

Or they can be the wonderful modern woman - spit out a kid and run it to the day care every day - let someone else raise it and be in the management rat race right from the start.

If that makes you happy go for it - but it sure f**ks the families up.

This would be true if only daycare centers were not modern workplaces.

Edited June 3, 2009 by benny

[Peter F]

Well, once they are done raising kids and THEN get out there in the work force they can compete like the rest. But they are usually about 15 years behind the rest.

Borg

Ohhhh...that explains why so many grocery store produce managers are older women...

[Molly]

Ohhhh...that explains why so many grocery store produce managers are older women...

;o)

[benny]

Ohhhh...that explains why so many grocery store produce managers are older women...

Overeating comfort food is more linked to happiness than managing grocery stores.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Why doeesn't everyone here just admit a simple truth: women and men are different. Women are nesters, men are hunters.

When you try to tell women they should be hunters, many will try it and find it doesn't make them happy.

Too bad it's a long term experiment that - demographically - could ultimately mean the demise of our society.

I have a question: if darwin was right, then why have all the "advanced" societies all but stopped breeding, ensuring their own extinction.

Women are nesters and breeders. Men are hunters.

Live with it.

[benny]

I have a question: if darwin was right, then why have all the "advanced" societies all but stopped breeding, ensuring their own extinction.

Women are nesters and breeders. Men are hunters.

Live with it.

There are abyssal holes in nests that make men traumatized at the idea of leaping inside them.

[August1991]

Why doeesn't everyone here just admit a simple truth: women and men are different. Women are nesters, men are hunters.

I completely disagree. (Let me state first that I'm still confused about this thread and I have no ready answers.)

Seinfeld, I know many women who are "hunters" and many men who are "nesters". I know many people who are neither. (e.g They are moochers. To use your terms, they invade the nests of hunters.)

------

Rather than get into an arcane debate about various strategies and bird calls, let me also agree with Seinfeld. I don't think the State should be involved in social engineering or fostering equality. Women, men, people are possibly different.

God knows whether women are nesters and men are hunters. God help us all if the State tries to enlighten any of us about current theories (ie. Seinfeld's) about society.

Edited June 4, 2009 by August1991

[benny]

I completely disagree. (Let me state first that I'm still confused about this thread and I have no ready answers.)

Seinfeld, I know many women who are "hunters" and many men who are "nesters". I know many people who are neither. (e.g They are moochers. To use your terms, they invade the nests of hunters.)

------

Rather than get into an arcane debate about various strategies and bird calls, let me also agree with Seinfeld. I don't think the State should be involved in social engineering or fostering equality. Women, men, people are possibly different.

God knows whether women are nesters and men are hunters. God help us all if the State tries to enlighten any of us about current theories (ie. Seinfeld's) about society.

We live in a society where the State acts as if it was not the Master. In other words, prohibiting a behavior is more and more becoming itself prohibited in capitalist societies. In this context, women, simply by playing a submissive role, can become more subversive than men. Their submissiveness will indeed force the Master/state to reveal its true fundamental and obscene nature.

[Borg]

All too cerebral for me

Women have kids

Men feed them all

Unfortunately we have gone the way of anything that feels good for anyone is ok

Fact is we no longer breed kids

Women leaving the home has done this

No need to worry about the women of the country - they will do as they see fit - we have trained them that to be a mother is second class - population is not important so we import people - and not always the right type of people.

Then we have trained all that we must have all the bells and whistles that only two incomes can provide.

If families were important in the past, are important in the present and to be important in the future, there would be provision made to allow the woman to stay home and there would have been no financial inequalities - but all governments have never recognized the mother as an important factor

Now-a-days a stay at home mom is often derided for her lack of desire to advance in the business world

Personally anymore I give a damn if women are happy - they made their bed and now they have to lay in it - my family is very happy - I work hard to ensure that - and that is the only one that counts - the rest of the women of canada can get on board or they can take a frigging hike

Choice is theirs

Borg

Edited June 4, 2009 by Borg

[benny]

All too cerebral for me

Women have kids

Men feed them all

Unfortunately we have gone the way of anything that feels good for anyone is ok

Fact is we no longer breed kids

The World's overpopulation is nothing to be happy about.

[Borg]

The World's overpopulation is nothing to be happy about.

We do not suffer from that - other than to bring in so many of the wrong kind - killing the country.

Want to save it?

Have babies.

Borg

[benny]

We do not suffer from that - other than to bring in so many of the wrong kind - killing the country.

Want to save it?

Have babies.

Borg

Racism will remain the problem here.

[WIP]

All too cerebral for me

Women have kids

Men feed them all

I know of more than a few deadbeats that don't contribute anything to the children they've fathered!

Unfortunately we have gone the way of anything that feels good for anyone is ok

Fact is we no longer breed kids

Good!

Women leaving the home has done this

Bully for them!

No need to worry about the women of the country - they will do as they see fit - we have trained them that to be a mother is second class - population is not important so we import people - and not always the right type of people.

No one has "trained them that to be a mother is second class." That is an absolute lie perpetuated by the Christian Right to mask their own intentions that motherhood is the ONLY acceptable option they desire for women. And, I question how much we really need to "import" people. If there is clear fraud, it's this so called crisis of negative demographics. We import people primarily because successive Liberal and Conservative governments realized long ago what a reliable voter base first generation immigrants are. And we are likely to be swamped by the spillover effect of illegal immigration that is reducing the U.S. to Third World status:

America galloping toward its greatest crisis in the 21st centuryBy Frosty Wooldridge

The United States gallops headlong into its greatest crisis early in the 21st century. At current growth rates, America expects to add 100 million people by 2035—a mere 26 years from now. Ironically, you hear nothing about it! Not one word from the main stream media! No alarm bells sounded by political leaders!

While mountains of evidence and symptoms of overpopulation erupt in TV news reports and newspapers, the general public continues its daily nonchalance with indolent disinterest. No matter how many water shortage reports, climate change indicators, mass species extinctions or air pollution stories you read about, America blissfully adds 3.2 million people annually. Another 77 million humans add themselves, net gain, to the planet annually and 1.0 billion add to the globe every 12 years.

America's population increase would be marginally higher, based on its own positive fertility rates; but the irony is that the so-called "pro life" policies of preventing access to abortion and contraception, that backward fundamentalists and the right wing have been promoting around the world, has caused Third World populations to spike upward again. The net result is that many who grow up in overcrowded nations facing food and water shortages, are going to find their way to our shores.....and reckless policies advocating unrestricted population growth really come home to roost!

Then we have trained all that we must have all the bells and whistles that only two incomes can provide.

What bells and whistles do you have in mind? A house? A car? Or the horrendous burden of trying help your kids get a good education these days? I'm the breadwinner, making over 70,000 a year, and I'm certainly not living in luxury -- just covering the bills.

Women who are able to work, are out there in the workforce out of necessity, not because they want luxuries or won't obey their husbands (which is the underlying motivation of the Christian Right family values message)

If families were important in the past, are important in the present and to be important in the future, there would be provision made to allow the woman to stay home and there would have been no financial inequalities - but all governments have never recognized the mother as an important factor

Why not just put an end to right wing economic policies of the last 25 years that have gutted manufacturing and have had an overall effect of depressing wage levels? Thirty or forty years ago, the average guy working in a steel mill or an auto plant could buy a home, buy a new car every four years, and comfortably support a family without any jiggering of the tax code. Also, the basic costs of necessities, like food, were much less back then.

It's suicide to be providing more incentives for population growth in a world that is reaching the breaking point and won't be able to sustain present population levels much longer. What we need are disincentives that encourage young single women to have more babies. They invariably discover too late that the child tax benefits and other income supports they receive, which seem like hitting the gravy train in beginning, don't cover the bills as their children get older -- by the time they're teenagers, they're looking for excuses to kick them out of the house.

- my family is very happy -

According to you at least!