Re: Women allowed to vote, to weaken our populace?
- From: Mark Borgerson <mborgerson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:30:14 -0700
In article <9f3d8fbc-589e-4f5e-932d-
af3af91a450a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, k_over_hbarc@xxxxxxxxx
says...
Mark Borgerson wrote:
I'm also certain that only a small minority of the women
who graduate from Duke in the 80s got dual degrees in computer science
and economics. That would differentiate Melinda Gates from
the vast majority of female undergraduates at Duke.
So what? The point is that she didn't NEED that education to end up
where she is now.
Is that true? She probably needed that education to run into Bill
in the first place. I went to a few Microsoft parties in the 80's.
I never saw Bill talking to Booth Babes at those. He spent his
time talking to his employees, vendors, and customers (I worked for
a company that sold them circuit boards at that time). I think the
basic criteria for getting to meet him socially were a college
degree and a job with a high-tech company. He wasn't spending
time in night clubs looking for women. Having that degree was
probably a requirement for her job. Having the job greatly
increased her odds of marrying a higher-up Microsoft exec.
(I don't think they were yet billionaires in 1986.)
Today's reality is that women have more
socially acceptable options than do men:
She can work full time.
She can stay at home full time.
She can work part time and stay at home part time.
His socially acceptable options are:
He can work full time.
That certainly applies to married couples. Lifestyle expectations
may dictate that both work full time.
Yes, but the inequality is still there. If in a two-earner couple, the
woman wants to quit and stay home, that man will probably support her
if it is economically possible. If the man wants to quit, well, in
most circumstances he won't even bother asking his wife.
I agree. I had made the decision to quite my last job before
I discussed it with my wife.
20-somethings living at home with their parents may not
completely socially acceptable---but it's happening more
these days than it was a few decades ago.
But not because it's more socially acceptable. It's because it's
harder to find decent jobs, as the capitalist system is imploding.
The way things are working in the USA, it won't be long before
there are more women than men moving up in the ranks of the
college-educated mid-level jobs. At that point it may become
more socially acceptable for a woman to marry below her
economic level and gain a house-husband.
But for biological reasons they won't be as happy with that as men
are. That's not good for men.
That's true, though I don't think marrying down is a problem
for biological, but rather social reasons. Coping with
pregnancy, delivery, and postnatal care while working full time is a
biological problem.
Whether or not both
work will depend, as it does today, on their desired life style
and whether they can accomplish it on one salary.
You speak as if everything for people can be reduced to money.
I'm just following up on the comments about Melinda Gates---
I wasn't the one who reduced that to monetary terms.
Mark Borgerson
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Women allowed to vote, to weaken our populace?
- From: Andrew Usher
- Re: Women allowed to vote, to weaken our populace?
- References:
- Re: Women allowed to vote, to weaken our populace?
- From: Mark Borgerson
- Re: Women allowed to vote, to weaken our populace?
- From: Andrew Usher
- Re: Women allowed to vote, to weaken our populace?
- Prev by Date: Heidi Graw really, really has no clue
- Next by Date: Re: DNA test proves prisoner's innocence
- Previous by thread: Re: Women allowed to vote, to weaken our populace?
- Next by thread: Re: Women allowed to vote, to weaken our populace?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
