Not Sustainable


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Not Sustainible

Not Sustainable
Talus
Visitor
Talus

Is Femminism sustainable long term. I suspect not, simply because they do not tend to reproduce in sustainable numbers. It’s definetly a sign of cultural decadence when motherhood is denigrated and the personal pursuit of materialism and pleasure is exalted above all else. Once decadence has set in it’s only a matter of time before a culture slides into oblivion. Witness Europe. It’s people are very femminist and consequently have the lowest fertility rate on the planet. The Arab Muslim countries to the south are slowly colonizing Europe and as a result, Europe in its present form will not survive to the end of this century… simply because the femminists do not have the will to fight for Europe. This is known as Darwin in action. You Americans face the same situation along your southern border where you face losing your southern border states to Mexico sometime in the next fifty years. History has shown that Matriarchal societies never survive contact with Patricachal societies, so I must conclude that femminism is not sustainable long-term.

08-27-2006 01:53 AM

Re: Not Sustainible
sunhawk
Regular Contributor
sunhawk
That is one of the more bizarre theories i have read today *chuckle*

If you could provide some statistical evidence/studies, that would go a long way to determining the plausibility of your idea.

08-27-2006 01:58 AM

Re: Not Sustainible
singletxwoman
Contributor
singletxwoman
I don’t think all of us women are working because of materialism and selfishness. Some of us must work to support ourselves and/or our children. And not so we can drive a fancy car of live in a luxury home. Just so we can have the basics of life. Most of the career women I know have children (so they’re not lowering the birth rate), and most of them take care of their children very well and love them very much.

08-27-2006 02:00 AM

Re: Not Sustainible
ajosselyn
Contributor
ajosselyn

okay,  I have a question. I’ve asked this before. What are we suppose to do? I went to school (because we are suppose to), I have a career because I don’t have children. And now that I am getting married, I want children someday. Yes I think they should be taken care of by a parent, but how? I didn’t decide that women should go to school or work, society did, and now, women are working and taking care of children and husbands. I don’t think this is what feminists were looking for. Maybe they were, I don’t know. All I know is I am a career woman, I have a stb husband, and want children. It is close to necesary for both parents to work, so now what?
I’m not looking for the answer “I make more money than you”, or “grow up”, or any other nasty comment people are flinging at each other.  If this is really a concern that men and women seem to be having (so many people have commented on this site alone) then why are we using this discussion to attack each other and not learn?

08-27-2006 02:02 AM

Re: Not Sustainible
Talus
Visitor
Talus

I’m sure you do love your children. That was never in question. I merely asked is femminism sustainable long-term in the face of competion from Patriachal cultures.
As for the one above who asked for proof, the hour is late and time is short but here are three links:
http://http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/Basic_Information/total_fertility_rate/europe.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C06EFDA103CF935A15751C1A9649C8B63
http://rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9126/index1.html

08-27-2006 02:14 AM

Re: Not Sustainible
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

What are we suppose to do? I went to school (because we are suppose to), I have a career because I don’t have children. And now that I am getting married, I want children someday. Yes I think they should be taken care of by a parent, but how? I didn’t decide that women should go to school or work, society did, and now, women are working and taking care of children and husbands.

When Feminists decided to push for women to be able to work like men, did you complain or protest against it?  Did any women?  Only Phyllis Schlafly did.  Everyone else thought it a dandy idea, as you got perks and benefits and government mandated special treatment.  Unfortunately when all those women entered the workforce from 1969-1986, they effectively doubled the labor pool and diluted wages.  Thus it then became necessary for both spouses to work to support the lifestyle that one working could do in 1963, and housing prices doubled.

I don’t think this is what feminists were looking for. Maybe they were, I don’t know. All I know is I am a career woman, I have a stb husband, and want children. It is close to necesary for both parents to work, so now what?

Do without.  Get cheaper cars, move into a less expensive house, downsize, eliminate all credit card debt.

I’m not looking for the answer “I make more money than you”, or “grow up”, or any other nasty comment people are flinging at each other.  If this is really a concern that men and women seem to be having (so many people have commented on this site alone) then why are we using this discussion to attack each other and not learn?

We need to step back from this idea that we all need to live a well-to-do upper middle class lifestyle.  One parent works fulltime, the other partime or not at all.  The kids will be happier, your husband will be happier.

08-27-2006 02:14 AM

Re: Not Sustainible
ajosselyn
Contributor
ajosselyn

I guess that really is the answer. I have heard it before, but with nasty comments like previously mentioned “I make more money than you”. The people who wrote that really weren’t much help, but I guess they had the answer. It sounds scary, but if you want children, I guess not, right? As far as the question of did I say anything…no I didn’t, but I couldn’t.

08-27-2006 02:21 AM

Re: Not Sustainible
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

I guess that really is the answer. I have heard it before, but with nasty comments like previously mentioned “I make more money than you”. The people who wrote that really weren’t much help, but I guess they had the answer. It sounds scary, but if you want children, I guess not, right? As far as the question of did I say anything…no I didn’t, but I couldn’t.

I know…it’s sad, and we have made a royal mess of family life in the U.S.

It is going to take a lot of work, sacrifice and altering of mindsets to get us to a point where a couple can raise 2 or 3 happy, well adjusted kids without going broke or working 70 hours a week each.  I know it is possible, my parents did it in the 60’s.

08-27-2006 02:31 AM

Re: Not Sustainible
ajosselyn
Contributor
ajosselyn

I have asked women at my work why they don’t have kids, and the answer… too much money. I haven’t really looked into the expenses myself, but they have. I guess that is the choice now a days huh?

08-27-2006 02:44 AM

Re: Not Sustainible
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

I would like to see evidence for this idea that women joining the workforce is the reason for wage stagnation.  You are the first person to articulate it, and I am not prepared to take you at your word.

Citation, please.

08-27-2006 02:48 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Not Sustainible

Re: Not Sustainible
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

I would like to see evidence for this idea that women joining the workforce is the reason for wage stagnation.  You are the first person to articulate it, and I am not prepared to take you at your word.

Citation, please.

I have had my fill of supporting my arguments for those who don’t hold themselves to the same standard that they wish to hold me to.

Message Edited by leeraconteur on 08-27-2006 02:57 AM

08-27-2006 02:55 AM

Re: Not Sustainible
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

leeraconteur wrote:
I have had my fill of supporting my arguments for those who don’t hold themselves to the same standard that they wish to hold me to.
In other words, you don’t have even one at the ready.

08-27-2006 03:06 AM

Re: Not Sustainible
tomshh
Regular Contributor
tomshh

I would like to see evidence for this idea that women joining the workforce is the reason for wage stagnation.  You are the first person to articulate it, and I am not prepared to take you at your word.

Citation, please.
————————————————–

Are you kidding me?  No one can be this stupid.

Here, let me dumb it down for you…

You double the work force, but there is still only the same amount of work needed to suppor the same amount of people, you have to cut salaries and double up on employees.

So now two people often, if not always in the USA, do a job one person could do, and they each make 50% per capita of what they would 50 years ago.

08-27-2006 04:34 AM

Re: Not Sustainible
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

tomshh wrote:
You double the work force, but there is still only the same amount of work needed to suppor the same amount of people, you have to cut salaries and double up on employees.

So now two people often, if not always in the USA, do a job one person could do, and they each make 50% per capita of what they would 50 years ago.

I didn’t say that it could not happen, just that it’s entirely possible that it did not.  Other factors could have easily caused stagnation of wages, such as the shift from an industrial to a service and technology economy, or the changes wrought by increased globalization, for instance.  A request for citation is perfectly reasonable.

Message Edited by Marta2003 on 08-27-2006 04:59 AM

08-27-2006 04:58 AM

Re: Not Sustainible
radiator
Regular Contributor
radiator

I second the motion–let’s have a citation with some data and actual statistics.  Your guesswork isn’t enough.

08-27-2006 05:25 AM

Re: Not Sustainible
Pelican
Regular Contributor
Pelican

You double the work force, but there is still only the same amount of work needed to suppor the same amount of people, you have to cut salaries and double up on employees.

So now two people often, if not always in the USA, do a job one person could do, and they each make 50% per capita of what they would 50 years ago

Why is this the only option? I’ve given this example in another thread, but this is an actual division of labour in a marriage I know:

Miriam and Joe both worked at my company, though in different divisions — Joe was my coworker. They married, and a few years later had a daughter. Because we worked in the UK, Joe was able to take a good amount of paternity leave as well as Miriam’s maternity leave. When they returned to work, Miriam arranged to work three 12-hour shifts per week; Joe arranged to work 3 days in the office, and one day telecommuting. And that’s been going on for the past 3 years, very happily. Lily is an incredibly well-adjusted toddler who has two very happy parents and an income that allows them to live well in London, one of the more expensive cities on the globe. They’re about to have their second child, and Joe and Miriam can’t wait.

Corporations are beginning to embrace a more flexible concept of work, as evidenced by my friends. The generation entering the workforce now is also placing quality of life above work, which will only encourage more of this lifestyle-centric worksharing. And having seen how beautifully it works out, I can’t wait for my turn to join the trend.

08-27-2006 06:11 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: