Re: Forbes article was spot on about not marrying Career Women
- From: "Avenger" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:10:04 GMT
"Hyerdahl" <Hyerdahl3@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
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
their citizenry by assigning them roles based on sex.
Which means you're wasting 1/2 the men. A female's primary role is that of a
baby making machine, everything else is secondary. That's the law of nature
whether you like it or not poofy.
Yet gender roles remain virtually unchanged herydahl BASED on sex: men
perform the hard yakka women perform the safe N nurturing roles.
You can't explain the women in the military, fire departments and cop
shops 'round the nation,
Sure 1% of the jobs in these areas haha
holding your views. Women do as women please
today, much like men.
Women do as they please for as long as men permit them :o)
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.
Sure they do...women are everywhere. There are no companies in the
west that don't hire women and wome take on all different jobs, as men
do. Your objections seem to be couched in choice again. You don't
seem to think women should HAVE them. :-)
Females are overrepresented in all the easy non essentail jobs.
- Prev by Date: List of deadly occupations broken down by gender
- Next by Date: Re: Forbes article was spot on about not marrying Career Women
- 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