Re: Forbes article was spot on about not marrying Career Women
- From: "Rob" <robwilard@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Aug 2006 02:01:19 -0700
connor_a@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hyerdahl wrote:
If that were true, Afghanistan would be a model. :-) The societies
that are successful learn not to waste the talents of just over 1/2 of
their citizenry by assigning them roles based on sex.
Yet gender roles remain virtually unchanged herydahl BASED on sex: men
perform the hard yakka women perform the safe N nurturing roles.
Productive gender roles remain virtually unchanged, yes, despite
feminism's huffing and puffing. Women still do the typing, only these
days they like to call it HR. They don't build roads and houses,
install pipes, dispose of garbage etc.
But the point is that reproduction in feminist societies has collapsed
to below replacement levels. That is why they are not successful. They
simply won't be around long.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Forbes article was spot on about not marrying Career Women
- From: aeropepe
- Re: Forbes article was spot on about not marrying Career Women
- From: weathermansays
- Re: Forbes article was spot on about not marrying Career Women
- From: aeropepe
- Re: Forbes article was spot on about not marrying Career Women
- From: Rob
- Re: Forbes article was spot on about not marrying Career Women
- From: aeropepe
- Re: Forbes article was spot on about not marrying Career Women
- From: Rob
- Re: Forbes article was spot on about not marrying Career Women
- From: Hyerdahl
- Re: Forbes article was spot on about not marrying Career Women
- From: connor_a@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Forbes article was spot on about not marrying Career Women
- Prev by Date: An open letter from the States on how rape has become the political weapon of feminism
- Next by Date: Re: Why does society view ***'s as priceless?
- Previous by thread: Re: Forbes article was spot on about not marrying Career Women
- Next by thread: Re: Forbes article was spot on about not marrying Career Women
- Index(es):