Valley of the Career Women Dolls?


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Valley of the Career Women Dolls?

Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

So I got “Valley of the Dolls” from Netflix this week

This woman leaves her small New England town to move to NYC in the 60’s and is sent to a law firm to interview for a job. She walks in the door and the boss replies, “Nope, she’s too good looking. Some investment banker will snatch her up and I’ll be out of a secretary.”

I kind of laughingly mentioned it to my mother and she said that that kind of scenario was very common. When she graduated from college in 1972, she was commonly asked on job interviews a) how fast can you type? b) are you engaged? c) are you going to have children?

Thanks to a few women standing up and saying, “Hey, that’s irrelevant” I have never encountered the same questions when I’ve interviewed for jobs some 30 years later.

I think that’s great, but it’s not great because I hate men or because I don’t want to get married or I want a really great “letter to the editor” for Cat Fancy magazine. It’s great because I’m being evaluated solely on my skills – just as any male applicant would be.

Any type of change is going to be met with opposition, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be pursued. Would any man on this board argue that a woman shouldn’t have the right to vote? I would honestly hope not, but many people argued years ago that women were too weak minded to make such hefty decisions and that politics should be left to men. Some men and women found that notion ridiculous, and thanks to their “radical” efforts, I can vote or even run for office myself.

I think the women who have expressed anger on this board simply take umbrage with being dismissed like the woman in “Valley of the Dolls” as hysterical or radical.  I’m not a cupcake, a buttercup, a Feminazi, a cat lover, or whatever. I’m just a person who respects your decision to marry whomever you feel best suites your needs, but doesn’t appreciate being ridiculed for thinking that career women can also be pretty great mothers and wives.

08-30-2006 10:51 AM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
toadman
Regular Contributor
toadman

Although PC and illegal nowadays, those are valid questions any employer would love to ask any applicant to this day.

1.) How fast can you type(Do you have any PC/MSOffice skills?)

2.) Are you engaged?(Are you going to quit on me when you decide to stay home and raise a family?)

3.) Are you going to have children(Are you going to abandon the position for  extended periods? I need to plan and budget for farming out your responsibilities when you go on 6-month maternity leaves or arrange flex-time for you. Plus sick child, daycare, and school holiday issues, not including pre-natal and well-baby care costs the company incurs.)

Those questions are never asked of men obviously.

08-30-2006 11:04 AM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

All those questions are relevent.  Hiring anyone means investing in them, both time and money.  It may be illegal to ask such questions or a violation of EEOC and Labor Law, but they are relevent and pertinent.  Now, I don’t ask them I think them when interviewing people.  I also think about your health problems, whether you are overweight, past history of missing work, how you appear in the interview.  Also, if I am interviewing an equally qualified man and woman you can be sure I will hire the man for the following reasons:

1.  No BS harassment claims which are contrived to extort money from my company.
2.  The men will work later and harder.
3.  The men don’t have to pick up their keening welps from daycare or leave because their red headed child is sick or upset at daycare or school.
etc.

Ignore reality at your own peril.

08-30-2006 11:08 AM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

the fact that men are not asked those questions is precisely the point. just as a woman might one day get married and have children, a man might also one day get married and have children. so why are they not asked? because it’s assumed that he has his act together and can manage his family. it should be assumed that a woman can do the same thing.

at my office, for example, a new father recently took paternity leave and one of my male bosses has taken several days days off recently to tend to a sick child, so to say that it’s only women who will be tending to family matters is ridiculous in this day in age.

08-30-2006 11:19 AM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

It is simple, you moron.  They don’t take maternity leave, they don’t complain about the health and swelling of legs etc because they can’t get pregnant.  It is NOT assumed that a woman can do the same thing, because as an employer I can assure you they can’t and employers end up paying for it.  There are exceptions but men who actually value their careers DON’T take maternity leave, it will adversely affect their careers I can assure you of that.

08-30-2006 11:25 AM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

well, men would take paternity leave, not maternity leave, but i digress.

thanks for the level-headed response and not hurling insults btw. oh wait …

it’s illegal for taking maternity or paternity leave to adversely affect your career. it did not hurt the man i work for. he was recently promoted. and rightly so, because he does a good job … at home and at work. the same can be said for my female boss, who is currently on maternity leave with her second child. the world didn’t end because these two people wanted to have a family and a job. we made it work here at the office because that’s just what rational people do.

08-30-2006 11:34 AM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Don’t be such an idiot.  It may be illegal but it DOES affect your career and advancement.  This is a fact of life which would be impossible to prove.  I would pass people over for those reasons and I am part of the majority who think that way.

08-30-2006 11:37 AM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
Jman
Contributor
Jman

Goodness, the crazy thing is some complain when in the Bible it says, a wife should submit to her husband. (Mind you Paul also said “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Mind you Jesus was Crucified.) But you’d actually want to submit to a boss like moneyneversleeps. I wouldn’t want to have him profit on my work anymore than what I’d have to.

08-30-2006 11:43 AM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

i’m not an idiot.

the main point of my post regarding the questions during an interview, however, was that it was once assumed that women were just biding their time in the workforce until prince charming came along with the white picket fence and 2.5 children.

i don’t have children or a husband. but i do have a desire at this point in my life to work in a field i find rewarding. i’d find it insulting if i were asked about my reproductive goals rather than work experience during a job interview. not mom interview. not a wife interview. a job interview.

if you came into a job interview and i asked you for a sperm count report so i could judge the chances of you impregnating your wife and therefore judge whether or not you’d be wasting my time with excuses about sick kids, school plays, soccer games and family vacations, you’d think i was nuts, right? so why would it be any different asking a woman about her pregnancy status?

08-30-2006 11:47 AM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
If/when a man marries or has a kid come along he typically becomes a more dedicated, dependable, and motivated worker. Sh1t, he has a family to support now!

This is just about the opposite of what an employer might reasonably fear with regard to women.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

08-30-2006 11:49 AM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Valley of the Career Women Dolls?

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

i would not want to submit to a boss like moneyneversleeps. and thanks to the efforts of certain people over the years, i have more workplace options and could even start a business of my own.

08-30-2006 11:49 AM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

I typically don’t hire women, too unreliable.  Too many issues.  Too many problems.  I won’t say that in an interview, but I am thinking it.

08-30-2006 11:50 AM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
juliandroms
Regular Contributor
juliandroms

dumbbroad wrote:
i’m not an idiot.

the main point of my post regarding the questions during an interview, however, was that it was once assumed that women were just biding their time in the workforce until prince charming came along with the white picket fence and 2.5 children.

i don’t have children or a husband. but i do have a desire at this point in my life to work in a field i find rewarding. i’d find it insulting if i were asked about my reproductive goals rather than work experience during a job interview. not mom interview. not a wife interview. a job interview.

if you came into a job interview and i asked you for a sperm count report so i could judge the chances of you impregnating your wife and therefore judge whether or not you’d be wasting my time with excuses about sick kids, school plays, soccer games and family vacations, you’d think i was nuts, right? so why would it be any different asking a woman about her pregnancy status?

My last job — at a so-called “progressive” university — paternity leave was 3 days. Big **bleep**ing whoop, why even bother, the paternity test results won’t even be back by then.

Message Edited by juliandroms on 08-30-2006 11:54 AM

08-30-2006 11:51 AM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
toadman
Regular Contributor
toadman

“so why would it be any different asking a woman about her pregnancy status?”

Men don’t take a 6-month haitus for a “lifestyle choice” and expect to pick up where they left off upon return. With the burden caused to the employer they’d likely have been passed over a couple times and their dedication would be in question. Under politically-correct EEOC laws these are not issues for women.

08-30-2006 12:05 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

A woman of child bearing age is a bad investment in a worker.

Look at how many companies are  paying for maturnity leave. Just how productive is a woman at home for 18 months to the comany. Or we can just get invaded by the Goths and watch the whole country collapse.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

08-30-2006 12:06 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor

dumbbroad wrote: …it was once assumed that women were just biding their time in the workforce until prince charming came along with the white picket fence and 2.5 children.

But isn’t that sorta what’s still happening? I thought there were reports and books all over the place detailing how even women who followed high-powered professional educational paths were deciding sometime aroung the age of thirty that it really wasn’t for them after all, and were dropping out to get married and have kids.

Didn’t somebody track like a Harvard MBA class of a decade ago and find only 15% of the women (as opposed to nearly all the men) were still working full time? (sorry for the fuzzy memory – no time to google things)

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

08-30-2006 12:08 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

first of all, nobody is getting 18 months, or even 6 months, for maternity leave unless they’re dipping into their paid time off. my boss, who is on senior VP status, is getting 2 months. a friend of mine, who is a teacher, got 3 weeks. that’s less than our CEO took for a recent grand tour of europe … and that did not adversely affect his career, or the company’s bottom line …

and yes, perhaps there are women who decide that they’d like to drop out of the workforce and stay at home in their 30s. but there are also women who do not make that decision. that would be the point — everyone does not follow the same path so let’s not assume we know how everyone is going to live their life.

08-30-2006 12:17 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
Yea, but why invest really big bucks in a Harvard MBA or something similar and then use it to push a stroller around the playground?

Wouldn’t it be better to free up those resources in a general, societal sense for some poor but very bright kid who otherwise couldn’t afford it – especially if it’s a male who will then be more attractive and desirable to some female, with whom he can start and have a family?

Message Edited by MartianBachelor on 08-30-2006 10:29 AM

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

08-30-2006 12:27 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

But you are being logical, and we can’t have that.  Hell, dumbbroads mother got married and had children, all in the name of a great college education and a future career woman.

08-30-2006 12:29 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

“Yea, but why invest really big bucks in a Harvard MBA or something similar and then use it to push a stroller around the playground?”

I don’t know. I’d probably ask the same question. If I had a Harvard MBA, I’d probably want to put it to good use. But I also might want to have kids. That doesn’t automatically mean that I’d abandon whatever I’d accomplished with that MBA to just “push a stroller around a playground.” Putting it to good use might mean working hard for 15 years and then cashing in the nice nest egg to live comfortably with those kids. Or not. Who knows? I’d figure out what works best for me. It’s what people do …

“Wouldn’t it be better to free up those resources in a general, societal sense for some poor but very bright kid who otherwise couldn’t afford it – especially if it’s a male who will then be more attractive and desirable to some female, with whom he can start and have a family?”

Maybe he could study and be admitted based on merit?

And yes, my mother did get married and have daughters who are pursuing careers. But she also has a successful teaching career and is currently pursuing a PhD in literature – because she loves it.

08-30-2006 12:47 PM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Valley of the Career Women Dolls?

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
Dumbbroad, I’m with you. I’ve worked with plenty of men who had to take time off to be with their sick kids or pick them up from detention or whatever. There are single dads out there too. Does anyone ever ask them detailed questions about their kids during an interview? I’m on birth control (which, ironically, most company health plans won’t cover)…should I bring that up in my next interview? It may leave a favorable impression!

08-30-2006 12:56 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
toadman
Regular Contributor
toadman

“If I had a Harvard MBA, I’d probably want to put it to good use. But I also might want to have kids. That doesn’t automatically mean that I’d abandon whatever I’d accomplished with that MBA to just “push a stroller around a playground.”
Business is not designed to accomodate employee lifestyle choices but for profit and success.

Putting it to good use might mean working hard for 15 years and then cashing in the nice nest egg to live comfortably with those kids. Or not. Who knows? I’d figure out what works best for me. It’s what people do …”
No, it’s what career-minded women do. Assuming you enter college taking a full load at age 18 and grab the MBA sheepskin at 24-25 with no diversions or jobs. Excellent. Now let’s tack on that 15 years until cashing out for a family. Your bio-clock and baby-rabies will kick in far before age 40.

08-30-2006 01:11 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor

Maybe he could study and be admitted based on merit?

I wasn’t implying otherwise. There are lots of very talented but merely middle class kids out there who have a difficult time swinging the costs of higher ed these days, especially over the timescale required for a professional or advanced degree. On average, the males might be a better investment for society than the females.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

08-30-2006 01:16 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

“Business is not designed to accomodate employee lifestyle choices but for profit and success.”

I never suggested otherwise. I just said that if I had a Harvard MBA, I would do my best to make good use of it.

“No, it’s what career-minded women do. Assuming you enter college taking a full load at age 18 and grab the MBA sheepskin at 24-25 with no diversions or jobs. Excellent. Now let’s tack on that 15 years until cashing out for a family. Your bio-clock and baby-rabies will kick in far before age 40.”

Maybe so … and then I guess I would just (wait for it) … have a baby! Listen, my main point is that I don’t know what’s going to happen with my life. You don’t know what’s going to happen with yours. You do what makes you happy and roll with the punches. Nothing is really black and white, guns and butter, babies or job, cats or husband.

08-30-2006 01:25 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

“There are lots of very talented but merely middle class kids out there who have a difficult time swinging the costs of higher ed these days”

Myself included …

“On average, the males might be a better investment for society than the females.”

I’ve tried to be rational here, but I can’t believe that in 2006, you actually wrote that sentence. Did anyone else read that just stare at their screen with an open mouth?

08-30-2006 01:28 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
toadman
Regular Contributor
toadman

“Listen, my main point is that I don’t know what’s going to happen with my life. You don’t know what’s going to happen with yours.”

Which is hardly an excuse for not having a firm 5/10-year plan in the first place. It’s a popular interview question revealing initiative and self-determination.

08-30-2006 01:36 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

the same can be said for my female boss, who is currently on maternity leave with her second child. the world didn’t end because these two people wanted to have a family and a job. we made it work here at the office because that’s just what rational people do.

You make our point – while she is on leave, those who are in the office must take up the slack for her.  That means that all the men who never will get pregnant, and all the single, childless employees have to pitch in UNFAIRLY and do her job while she is out.

Then, when she returns, she expects to be at the same point on her career track as an employee who worked the entire time.

That’s unwise, unfair, and it makes for poor business.  Why should I pay you to NOT WORK?!  Makes no sense.

Do the single employees get to take of 3,6,9 months and return without consequence?

08-30-2006 01:42 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
rjmck
Contributor
rjmck

It

08-30-2006 01:44 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
Jman
Contributor
Jman

Ahh don’t worry about them. If they don’t hire you, all the better for you. Work hard, network, and keep learning somebody will hire you. Chance are the others that’ll get hired ahead of you might very well hop to another job when the head hunters call. Heck you might find someone that thinks mentoring a female might be a great thing, showing that they are one of those diverse companies. Ohhhh, the anti-pc crowd hates that. Screw it, it’s not the top job or nothing. Work hard to make opportunities. Although make sure you take sometime reflecting on what you really want to do.

08-30-2006 01:45 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

“Which is hardly an excuse for not having a firm 5/10-year plan in the first place. it’s a popular interview question revealing initiative and self-determination.”

You can make all the 5-10 year plans that you want, but that doesn’t mean that’s what is going to happen. I’m not suggesting that you not have goals for yourself or certain things you’d like to accomplish, but when it comes to having a family, you don’t know when or how you’re going to meet your husband or wife or when you’ll be ready to start having kids, so that aspect has to be somewhat flexible.

08-30-2006 01:47 PM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Valley of the Career Women Dolls?

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
rjmck
Contributor
rjmck

(Sorry- new to this- hit the wrong button)

It seems to me that both sides have valid points here. I’m a firm believer that the purpose of industry is to support a good society, not the other way around. Although moneyneversleeps is correct in his assessment of the value of male versus female employees, wouldn’t it make more sense to divide maternity leave into two parts, and have both mother and father share the burden- and make the burden on the employer less by dividing it? That would mean that men and women were about equal in their value to the workforce. Looking at it from a macro-economic level, any country liberal enough to provide for talented women to enter the workforce has a competitive advantage over ones which do not. Check out Sweden and Canada versus any Arab country that isn’t floating on a sea of oil.

08-30-2006 01:48 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
rjmck
Contributor
rjmck

(Sorry- new to this- hit the wrong button)

It seems to me that both sides have valid points here. I’m a firm believer that the purpose of industry is to support a good society, not the other way around. Although moneyneversleeps is correct in his assessment of the value of male versus female employees, wouldn’t it make more sense to divide maternity leave into two parts, and have both mother and father share the burden- and make the burden on the employer less by dividing it? That would mean that men and women were about equal in their value to the workforce. Looking at it from a macro-economic level, any country liberal enough to provide for talented women to enter the workforce has a competitive advantage over ones which do not. Check out Sweden and Canada versus any Arab country that isn’t floating on a sea of oil.

08-30-2006 01:48 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

The purpose of industry is to make a profit, without doing damage to society.

08-30-2006 01:51 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

“That means that all the men who never will get pregnant, and all the single, childless employees have to pitch in UNFAIRLY and do her job while she is out.”

I could make the same argument if you got the flu or cancer or a family member died. Presumably, your co-workers would pick up the slack while you were recovering or attending the funeral. I’m not going to protest because I might have a better immune system or healthy relative. People get sick, they die, they had kids. And as a boss, you deal with it.

08-30-2006 01:51 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

It is not the co-workers responsibility to pick up slack due to your lifestyle choices.  In that event I would have already spoken to and substituted out the best labor law firms, prepared to write you up 2-3 times and fire you for cause.

08-30-2006 01:53 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

“wouldn’t it make more sense to divide maternity leave into two parts, and have both mother and father share the burden- and make the burden on the employer less by dividing it?”

that actually seems like a pretty good idea, assuming the mom has enough time to recover. i’m sure a lot of dads would love to spend more time with their kids!

08-30-2006 01:55 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
Jman
Contributor
Jman

Would it be legal to ask for a full blood work-up, a Urine analysis, X-rays, an EKG, and a stress test? Ok, how about a glucose test?

08-30-2006 01:55 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

For some jobs it would be, especially if I am going to insure that individual with “key man” life insurance.  Dumb*ss

08-30-2006 01:59 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
rjmck
Contributor
rjmck

(**bleep**! Did it again).

I’m also a firm believer in human rights, and I can see no valid reason why women shouldn’t be given the same opportunities as men, for the same reason that Blacks should be treated like whites. That’s something that’s more fundamental than money, no matter what money never…thinks. But this problem points to a larger one, the fundamental inconsistency between the values of capitalism and those of democracy. The question Americans need to ask themselves is “Do we value freedom and equality more than we do money?” I suspect that in America right now, the answer is by no means clear.
That said, this issue is not really about whether women ought to be in the workforce– that question has been settled, I hope. The issue is what that means for American men. The fact is that in pursuing their agenda for the rights of women, feminists forgot about the impact on men, and never campaigned for real equality, only for what has become clear are a series of priviledges. American men resent this for the obvious reason that the entire moral basis of feminism is said to be equal treatment regardless of gender, and the reality is that gender is of paramount importance. But only if you’re female.
Many of the more mature men (those not referring to women as “cupcake”) on this site are sending women a message. They’re not just rejecting career women- that’s the tip of the iceberg. They’re rejecting marriage with women altogether as being  a bad deal for men. And they’re right. Feminism made a fundamental mistake in attempting to make women the same as men when it came to sex. Stricter prohibitions on women’s sexuality were not put in place only by fundamentalist, neurotic religious leaders, but by women to protect themselves from the consequences of their own sexuality. Check out who patrols other women’s sexual behaviour- it’s women. When women were thought to be demure little creatures with no real interest in sex, they could trade their sexual availability for male resources. The stereotype of the sexually driven, competitive man and the sexually reticent, nurturing women were embedded in Western consciousness long ago. Recent history– as well as many studies– have demonstrated that women are just as sexually needy as men are. But as working women, they no longer have a need to marry a man for his resources. But they still need sex. Thus sex and the city. But women also want children and a stable environment to raise them in. Men don’t need either one. So sexually equality now means that women are sexually available without marriage.
So why should men marry, when there is no advantage, and plenty of detriment, to doing so? The only way to solve this impasse is to make men and women truly equal– pre-nups to split all assets acquired during marriage, based on contribution, no alimony, child support only when a man has agreed to be a father ( a kind of male right to abort unwanted children). Until something like this happens, don’t expect men to call off the marriage strike. It’s just not in their interest to do so.

08-30-2006 02:04 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

This is the issue, as presented by the author of the article, whether it is advisable for a man to marry a career woman.  It can be OK, under certain conditions.  But by and large it is a losing proposition since the incidence of divorce is higher amongst that sociological cross section, children are being raised in daycare as latchkey children, the amount of contact that you would have as a couple would be diminished significantly, etc.  Most career women have made a conscious choice of lifestyle and what their future will hold.  They have usually elected to put off marriage, or remove it as an option entirely.  They have usually elected to put off children or to not have them at all.  The irony is that many of them seem to be desperate to have children as they approach or pass 40 and it becomes highly unlikely that they will that point.  Now, if you don’t intend to have children and you marry a career woman that would be a different circumstance, provided there was a prenuptial agreement.  Lets be reasonable.  There is no advantage for a man to marry within the current legal climate.  It is financial suicide and highly risky under the best circumstances.

08-30-2006 02:12 PM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Valley of the Career Women Dolls?

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

I could make the same argument if you got the flu or cancer or a family member died.

Except for one small detail.
Getting pregnant, keeping the pregnancy, carrying the baby to term are all CHOICES made by the employee.

No one CHOSES to get the flu, or cancer or when a family member dies.

People get sick, they die, they (have) kids.

People don’t just ‘have kids’.  This isn’t something that happens out of the blue, all of a sudden, for no apparent reason, and it is definitely within their control when to have kids.

It is a lifestyle choice.  Not an accident.

08-30-2006 02:19 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

so by that argument, if you get lung cancer after years of smoking cigarettes, i shouldn’t pick up the slack while you’re undergoing chemo because you made a lifestyle choice to smoke a pack a day?

or if your alcoholic wife kills herself, i shouldn’t pick up the slack while you’re out grieving because you made a lifestyle choice to be an enabler?

or if you break a bone on a ski trip, i shouldn’t pick up the slack because you made a lifestyle choice to choose that hobby?

No, probably not, because they’re all ridiculous suggestions. If having a baby were an easy as getting a haircut, maybe we wouldn’t need maternity leave. But the body needs to recover and the baby needs to get situated and I respect that.

08-30-2006 02:35 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Having a baby is a strict matter of choice.  It is not an accident.  It is not an unforeseen sickness.  Jesus, don’t make such absurd comparisons.

08-30-2006 02:37 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
rjmck
Contributor
rjmck

Actually, the comparison may not be so absurd. The fundamenrtal question is whether society ought to pick up the tab when people have medical needs, regardless of whether they “chose” the problem. Personally, I would rather have a system that took care of me (and you) regardless of the cause to protect my right to ski, smoke, or have children. Again, the choice is between freedom and money. Are you willing to pay to protect your neighbour’s — and your– right to choose?
And by the way moneynever… I’m glad to see that you acknowledge the purpose of industry to be making money while not harming society, a caveat not many capitalists would have appended. But you are on dangerous ground here. Do you mean active harm, such as pollution, or can you accept that economic policies of a country or corporation might have detrimental effects indirectly, such as not paying enough taxes to support health insurance, medical care and education? In Canada, we have chosen an approach that acknowledges the debt that companies have to their societies. In America, you are more likely to outsource those hidden costs by paying less in coporate taxes. And it turns out to be a shortsighted approach, as your infrastructure (educational and medical) is crumbling, while Canada’s is doing just fine. Paying for maternity (and paternity)leave may be an economically smart thing to do, in the long run, just as paying more money to hire better teachers turns out to have been a smart thing for Canada to have done 40 years ago. But the American desire for autonomy over social responsibility has precluded many valuable social policies, to your economic harm. A good book to read is The European Dream in which the author portrays America as being stuck with 19th century views of society and economics, while Europe is moving into the 21st century with a different vision. Food for thought.

08-30-2006 02:51 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor

dumbbroad wrote: I’ve tried to be rational here, but I can’t believe that in 2006, you actually wrote that sentence. Did anyone else read that just stare at their screen with an open mouth?
In response to MB’s: “On average, the males might be a better investment for society than the females.”

Evidently no one else read that and stared at their screen with an open mouth like you did. But I’m sure you’re aware your astonishment doesn’t constitute a counter-argument of any sort anyway.

Hey, they understand what I’m talking about in places like China, who’s doing a pretty good job on us in the global economic competition (like other fairly traditionally patriarchal societies), so maybe they know something you don’t. I’m not saying “if you can’t beat `em, join `em”, but I don’t think it’s the totally irrational idea you do.

It’s not misogyny but practicality: society gets a better return (on average) on its investment in males than in females.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

08-30-2006 02:54 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
dflynn5656
Contributor
dflynn5656

Dumbbroad – you said the following two things”

the fact that men are not asked those questions is precisely the point. just as a woman might one day get married and have children, a man might also one day get married and have children. so why are they not asked? because it’s assumed that he has his act together and can manage his family. it should be assumed that a woman can do the same thing.

if you came into a job interview and i asked you for a sperm count report so i could judge the chances of you impregnating your wife and therefore judge whether or not you’d be wasting my time with excuses about sick kids, school plays, soccer games and family vacations, you’d think i was nuts, right? so why would it be any different asking a woman about her pregnancy status?

IMO – these are classic feminist errors…assuming men and women are equal, and thus “interchangeable.”  They are not.  Men and women are different in that women can have either of two lifestyles – home or work.  Those work questions are really saying “yeah you’re here for the interview, but are you here for the job?”  If a women leaves after 9 months of work – you are re-hiring for that position starting over again from scratch.

Dumbbroad, respectfully – I wish you could see that men and women are NOT interchangeable.  Only the feminists promote this silly idea.

David

08-30-2006 03:17 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
dflynn5656
Contributor
dflynn5656

MartianBachelor – you said:

“society gets a better return (on average) on its investment in males than in females. ”

I rarely disagree with you, but on this occasion I do.  I believe women civilize men (when they prefer to BE women rather than men).  They add culture, stability and nurture children – a concerted investment in our future.

Perhaps you ment “business gets a better return on it’s investment in males than in females.”  Now I could sure buy that.

I believe seeing men as a better overall “investment” than women is a mistake – because it only appreciates short term financial goals.  Look at Honda vs American automakers.  The Japanese have gone for the long goals – not the quick sale.

Indeed, business MAY benefit more from a man’s work than a womans if she leaves to have kids.  But society needs women for it’s greater betterment – since there is more to us all than just business (read money).

Remember MartianBachelor – the mistake you are making here is PRECISELY the error that feminists make priotritizing career over kids.  People matter more than money to everyone BUT the feminists.

David

08-30-2006 03:27 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Sorry, but I don’t need a woman to “civilize” me and most men don’t.

08-30-2006 03:50 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
porkchops38
Regular Contributor
porkchops38
“In America, you are more likely to outsource those hidden costs by paying less in coporate taxes. And it turns out to be a shortsighted approach, as your infrastructure (educational and medical) is crumbling, while Canada’s is doing just fine.”

Whomever posted that thought first, is a complete buffoon. If he/she is a college-educated buffoon, they should sue the college they graduated from for fraud, because even a backwoods redneck is smart enough to realize that corporations/companies DO NOT TECHNICALLY PAY ANY TAXES WHATSOEVER! CORPORATIONS SIMPLY PASS TAXES UNTO CONSUMERS IN THE FORM OF HIGHER PRICES (I.E. HIDDEN TAX) or they go out of business if they can’t/don’t pay the higher taxes. A typical buffoon who thinks money grows on corporate trees to support massive nanny entitlement state would never understand that I guess. As for Canada’s health care system, it’s in shambles. It wasn’t that long ago, that the doctor’s went on strike in Canada because their government can’t/won’t pay them. The USA is actually subsidizing Canada’s pharmaceutical industry, without which Canadians would not benefit from leading-edge drugs at ridiculously low prices which are set by Canada’s socialist feminazi state. So, for you to say this hogwash praising Canada whilst bemoaning the USA while Americans and American drug industry subsidizes the Canadian drug market… you have to be a complete imbecile… really…

Every time I’ve gone through the border into Canada, they got like 5,000 border agents sitting around doing nothing, and then they’ll send 100 of them to search every nook and cranny in my vehicle looking for some **bleep** thing they can tax! Canada needs tax money bad because their entitlement state is failing faster than the USA is, and since Canada has taxed its’ own citizens to the grave, they now send the hounds on Americans coming into their country at the border. One of my buddies works in the auto industry going back and forth between Toronto and Detroit frequently, and the Canadian side regularly goes through his sub-compact car looking for anything they can tax, and he said they often make him FILL OUT TAX PAPERWORK AND PAY TAXES TO THE CANADIAN MATRIARCHY JUST FOR ONE PIECE OF A SIMPLE CAR PART LIKE A HEADLIGHT ASSEMBLY! Another of my buddies was also incensed when the Canadian border agents wanted to tax his rod & reel he was bringing into canada to go fishing for christ’s sake! The border agent told him some b.s. about only being allowed to bring so many fishing rods into Canada per person, and any number of rods over that limit had to be taxed! That’s f-ing ridiculous, but it’s ridiculous because Canada is a massive feminist nanny entitlement state that’s broke, so broke they gotta send hounds threw American tourist vehicle to tax a f-ing fishing rod! The birth rate is so low in Canada, that they have to open-up their borders to massive immigration to get workers to fund the massive feminist entitlement state, so when you go up there sometimes I have to ask myself if I landed in Beirut or Toronto, and does anybody still speak english up there anymore or what?

08-30-2006 04:25 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

Also another reason women are a bad investment is they are easily hurt, more sick time. They are also less loyal to the company. Sexual harrassment lawsuits are another problem. Children will be sick, so they will not come in.

Face it men, your cutting your own throat by being alone with a woman in a room. She could say anything, and expect $$$$$.

About the housework deal, men work on average 50 some odd hours a week, to womens 36 hours. Why should we share in the housework at all? Women only do about 1.9 hrs of housework anyways. They also pay a smaller percentage of the bills.

Ever notice how a man’s money is the families money and her money is “her” money. BS.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

08-30-2006 04:30 PM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Valley of the Career Women Dolls?

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
bowenj10
Contributor
bowenj10

Unfortunately, splitting up maternity leave just won’t do.  We now have laws that force companies to hire a certain amount of women.  Some of these companies are heavily dependent on the work that men do, especially since they have less bodies to work with because they have females on the payroll.  Would you like to pay more for your house to be built because it takes longer since there are less workers to build it?  Would you like to pay more for your electricity (supposing your power comes from a coal plant) since there are less miners and less train engineers?

The EO laws have been taken too far.  If they are taken any further, it will only be to the detriment of us all.

08-30-2006 04:51 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

“I wish you could see that men and women are NOT interchangeable.  Only the feminists promote this silly idea.”

obviously we have differences, but if i’m interviewing for a job, i don’t think it’s appropriate to ask me when i’m getting married or when i plan to have children. it’s insulting and if you can’t see why, then i’m sorry. i don’t know any female friends of mine who interviewed for their jobs with the intention of leaving in 9 months or when their future husband came along. i also don’t think friends of mine who are in law school or med school have any intention of ditching their jobs or residencies if they get married along the way. to assume otherwise is degrading … IMO …

08-30-2006 04:51 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
bowenj10
Contributor
bowenj10

Quoting dumbbroad

“You can make all the 5-10 year plans that you want, but that doesn’t mean that’s what is going to happen. I’m not suggesting that you not have goals for yourself or certain things you’d like to accomplish, but when it comes to having a family, you don’t know when or how you’re going to meet your husband or wife or when you’ll be ready to start having kids, so that aspect has to be somewhat flexible”

So life washes over you like a tsunamai?  I can tell you that my five year plan doesn’t include a wife.  You know how I make sure that doesn’t happen?  By not asking a woman to marry me!  In typical female fashion, you may not necessarily want children today, but if they happened you wouldn’t be too upset about it.  You haven’t made any concrete plans for your life and have resigned yourself to living a life of chance.

“you don’t know when or how you’re going to meet your husband or wife”

Sure you do.  Just don’t marry a man or woman and you won’t be married.

“or when you’ll be ready to start having kids”

Sure you do.  Set clear goals, determine whether or not children will interfere with those goals, and make a choice on whether or not you want to have them.  Women have so many ways to avoid having children that the idea of not being able to control when you have them is laughable.  Step into the 21st century dumbbroad.

08-30-2006 04:57 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
Annabel25
Visitor
Annabel25

Oh my, I have actually registered simply because I cannot believe the guff that is being spouted on this thread.

For all of you who are talking about children as a “lifestyle choice”: who do you think is going to work for you in 30 years? People who are now children.  And who’s going to pay for your pensionin 50 years? Hmmmm. The economic incentives to have children are high, and we should be encouraging FAMILIES (women and men) to maximise their “investment” in this crucial area.

08-30-2006 05:10 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
bowenj10
Contributor
bowenj10

“i don’t know any female friends of mine who interviewed for their jobs with the intention of leaving in 9 months”

That’s because a larger number of women are just leaving child-bearing to chance these days.  They live in a make believe world where a complete lack of birth control, or not taking it properly, will not lead to children.

“but if i’m interviewing for a job, i don’t think it’s appropriate to ask me when i’m getting married or when i plan to have children. it’s insulting…”

Maybe you need to look at it from another vantage point.  I like to use examples to make myself more clear, so here goes.

Let’s pretend that you own a small business (I like using the restaurant business because it’s the largest employment sector in the country, besides government).  Let’s say that you have 10 employees.  Each of those employees has an important function in the business.  If one person did not do their job, it would be difficult for the others to do their job as well (not to mention the fact that they did not apply for another person’s job as well, but that’s not an issue with you).  Now, let’s say that 6 of those employees are women, and four are men.  All of a sudden, whoops!, one of those girls gets pregnant.  Didn’t see that coming.  You were counting on her to do her job.  Now, in about 8 months you are going to have to give her 6 weeks off.

Now, how do you fill that spot?  Do you ask the others to fill in for her?  If so, shouldn’t they get promoted ahead of her for doing their jobs as well as hers?  If not, do you hire another employee to temporarily take her place, adding to the payroll since you have to keep paying her?  What do you do?

I noticed in a few previous posts that some people mentioned that it is wrong to hold people back because of maternity leave and other child care related days off.  It is not, however, wrong to promote those people who fill in for that person.  Frankly, if I were in a hiring position, there would more often than not be “many more qualified candidates”, and I would apologize that the woman didn’t get the job.  Maybe she could try back in a few months.

08-30-2006 05:11 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
bowenj10
Contributor
bowenj10

“For all of you who are talking about children as a “lifestyle choice”: who do you think is going to work for you in 30 years?”

Let’s face it dear, people are going to continue to have babies.  Even if the more productive of us start to have babies later in life, there are still going to be immigrants who will gladly come in and take the place of those babies that we don’t have.  Take a look at what’s going around the world.  Do you honestly believe that the 30+ million immigrants in our country are all fruit pickers and nannies?

“And who’s going to pay for your pensionin 50 years?”

Sweetheart, if you are relying on a pension or SS, you are already in big trouble.  Take a look around at what’s happening.  If you are part of the minority that doesn’t have their own private retirement plan, you are going to be in trouble.  Period.

“The economic incentives to have children are high, and we should be encouraging FAMILIES (women and men) to maximise their “investment” in this crucial area.”

True, the economic incentives to have children are high.  For WOMEN.  Children are not an investment for men.  Frequently, we put money in, and get nothing out.  Unless your children are giving you money, they are not an investment.  They are an expense.  What’s the child-raising figure up to today?  $125,000?  I think it’s somewhere in there.  Where’s the return?

08-30-2006 05:20 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
Annabel25
Visitor
Annabel25

Right, so we will put all the children of the immigrants through college then? I imagine that would fit in nicely with your “fruitpickers and nannies” world view.

And how is the economic investment in children higher for WOMEN than men?  How do women achieve higher returns from children than they would as part of the labour force? Because getting “paid” indirectly via their income-earning partner for their domestic/childrearing job is somehow more valuable than earning that money in the free market? Seems like a long bow to draw to me.

So do please explain. Sweetheart.

08-30-2006 05:31 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

“That’s because a larger number of women are just leaving child-bearing to chance these days.  They live in a make believe world where a complete lack of birth control, or not taking it properly, will not lead to children.”

or perhaps it’s because we’re in our mid-20s and don’t want children just yet? my mom was five years older than i am now when she had me and 10 years older when she had my sister. i think i’ll be just fine …

and as for the small business owner example … how do you fill that spot? you just do. if finding a replacement or picking up slack during someone’s maternity leave is your biggest problem as a small business owner, you should consider yourself lucky. employees are also going to get sick, go on vacation or quit. how do you deal with that? you just do. because that’s your job as a boss.

08-30-2006 06:07 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
dumbbroad
Regular Contributor
dumbbroad

“So life washes over you like a tsunamai?”

pretty much. but that’s also part of the fun. if i knew exactly how life was going to shape up in the next decade, it would be pretty boring.

“I can tell you that my five year plan doesn’t include a wife.”

if you can stick to something that rigidly, more power to you. but what happens if someone really wonderful comes into your life two years from now and you just can’t live without her. are you going say “sorry, you’re not in my five-year plan” or are you going to be a bit more flexible?

i may not have a whole lot of life experience, but if the past few years are any indication, life plans don’t always end up how you imagine.

08-30-2006 06:14 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

That’s funney.

That reminds me of the business owner friend I have. He’s got a all mexican crew and got sued by a mexican for firing him because he was mexican. lol…

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

08-30-2006 06:15 PM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Valley of the Career Women Dolls?

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor

dflynn5656 wrote: MartianBachelor – you said:
“society gets a better return (on average) on its investment in males than in females. ”

I’m not sure you got or remembered the context: we were talking about education, and I was pointing to the scarce resources which were frequently being wasted on high-powered degrees for women who were dropping out a few years later after seeing the demands of the work world and deciding it wasn’t for them after all, that being at home with the kids really wasn’t so bad in comparison.

I rarely disagree with you, but on this occasion I do. I believe women civilize men (when they prefer to BE women rather than men). They add culture, stability and nurture children – a concerted investment in our future.

I don’t know if it was you, but I addressed what’s called “The Gilder Fallacy” (the notion that women civilize men) in a way earlier post when the same claim as yours was made. I won’t repeat all I said then, but will repeat that I think the truth is it’s exactly the other way around from what you think. It was men who invented civilization and who civilize women (or at least formerly men did this). Maybe you can search for that post. No argument that women nurture children and that there is value in this. Female culture frankly seems awful raunchy to me, so you’ll have a hard time convincing me there, as well as on the stability thing – it seems like it’s men who want stable families while women want to be free of such nuisances (yes, that’s a gross over-simplification).

Perhaps you ment “business gets a better return on it’s investment in males than in females. Now I could sure buy that. I believe seeing men as a better overall “investment” than women is a mistake – because it only appreciates short term financial goals.

No, I really was referring to society and education, the latter being a long-term investment with no guarantee of any return whatsoever.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

08-30-2006 07:45 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
amory
Newbie
amory

Nice.

08-30-2006 08:40 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
bowenj10
Contributor
bowenj10

Ok, sorry that it has taken me so long to respond.  Had to run into work for a couple hours.  I’ll try to respond to as many comments as possible.

“Right, so we will put all the children of the immigrants through college then?”

Aren’t we already doing that?  Are the children of immigrants any different than the children of non-immigrants?  They are all Americans.

“I imagine that would fit in nicely with your “fruitpickers and nannies” world view.”

I was suggesting just the opposite.

“And how is the economic investment in children higher for WOMEN than men?”

The economic investment in children is higher for women because they are more likely to benefit from reproducing.  Women have no obligation to spend child support on the children.  There is no system to make women accountable for how they spend child support.  Also, the child support system does not require people to pay for the actual costs of raising children.  The system merely uses the income of the non-custodial parent (85% of which are fathers) as a starting point to determine how much is paid (e.g. Sean “Puffy” Combs.  What woman needs $33,000/month to raise a child?).  That’s how children are an investment for women.  I never stated that women would receive a higher return on children than they would as part of the labour force.

“or perhaps it’s because we’re in our mid-20s and don’t want children just yet?”

Clearly you are missing the point here.  If you a woman truly does not want children, she does not have to have them.  The fact that women use birth control does not mean a thing.  Taking a pill every morning (supposing they do that) does not make it effective.  As any doctor will tell you, there are a host of factors that a woman can control that will affect the effectiveness of birth control.

“employees are also going to get sick, go on vacation or quit. how do you deal with that?”

Many major corporations (if not all) give a certain amount of sick days and vacation days per year, though, correct me if I am wrong, they aren’t require to do so by law.  The difference between sick days and pregnancy is that, refer to above arguments, pregnancy is a lifestyle CHOICE.  By having access to a dozen or so forms of birth control, less than 1% of children should be accidents.  Also, refer to http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control.htm if you need some education on birth control.

“pretty much. but that’s also part of the fun. if i knew exactly how life was going to shape up in the next decade, it would be pretty boring.”

Dear, if it’s so much fun to not plan for the important events in your life you had better never complain when things go wrong.  If you don’t plan for what kind of guy that you marry, don’t complain when you marry someone who has a history of cheating or abuse and then turns around and abuses you.

“but what happens if someone really wonderful comes into your life two years from now and you just can’t live without her. are you going say “sorry, you’re not in my five-year plan” or are you going to be a bit more flexible?”

That’s the wonderful thing about being a man.  My life is not dictated by my emotions.  I love myself enough to know that a wife and children do not fit into my life at this time.  I have made it this far without getting married, so I don’t think that I need a woman to help me live.  I was in a relationship where the girl was just so in love with me that she couldn’t shut up about it.  The first time that she seriously asked me when I was going to marry her was the last day that I was with her.  Absolutely I’ll say that.  My self-worth is high enough that I do need anybody else to make me feel like a good person.  I’m sorry if yours isn’t.

“life plans don’t always end up how you imagine.”

Barring unfortunate circumstances that are out of your control (accidents, cancer, planes flying into buildings, etc.), you are in control of your life.  In the past five years I have had an amazing track record of doing the things that I want to do.  I set a goal, made a plan on how to reach that goal, and followed it.  It’s that easy.

Basically, I opened my eyes to the tsunamai that is life and put out my hands and held it back.  Life is really fun when you take charge of it.  The lie that life is supposed to be a struggle is the worst thing that anybody can believe.  Life can be fun, no matter how much you earn.  The problems come when people weigh themselves down with burdens that they haven’t adequately prepared for.

08-30-2006 09:09 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
rjmck
Contributor
rjmck

This reply is for porkchop 38, as his comments were direcrted at me some time back. Sorry to take so long responding, but I’ve ironically been at the university sitting through endless discussions about this Fall’s courses and my teaching load. I teach courses in Economics to undergraduates, so I found your criticism of my economic discussions quite amusing. I won’t stoop to using ad hominem remarks as you have done, but simply point out where your understanidng of economic theory is simplistic, and often simply incorrect.

1. Your comment that “corporations don’t pay taxes because they pass them on to consumers” is absurd. Of course they pay taxes. Would you argue that corporations don’t pay wages because they pass those costs on to consumers? How about expenses? Do they pay those, or pass them on? Of course they charge enough for their goods and services to cover their taxes, but in Canada and the U.S., right wing governments have lowered taxes for the corporations so that they can pass along more profits to the shareholders. Less money is collected in taxes, and the infrastructure suffers. That’s why your education and health systems are in such trouble, and one reason why your gross national debt is approaching 9,000,000,000,000 dollars (that’s right, 9 trillion dollars). Canada, on the other hand, is paying down its debt at an ever increasing rate, while running surplus budgets. Your current account (that’s your difference between export and import trade balances) is now 4,000,000,000,000 deficit, and growing every month. Canada’s current account is in the black, and improving every month. America is in very deep financial trouble, although your government doesn’t want you to know it. Your rampant capitalism has led to a situation in which your country is on the verge of collapse. If China calls in your Treasury notes, you’re screwed. If the Saudis start to set the price of oil in Euros rather than dollars, you’re screwed.
Meanwhile,  Canada’s “nanny state” is growing in economic strength at a healthy rate. Check the facts.

2. You claim that Canada’s health care system is in a “shambles”. You are partly correct. For 60 years, Canadians have benefited from a system in which people pay a modest amount every month and in turn get health care for free. Lately, as with every other Western country, the increasing costs of technology and changing demographics are placing a strain on the system. Wait times are increasing for some surgeries as a consequence, and more money is being pumped into the system to compensate. We may go to a two-tier system in which the more wealthy can obtain services faster, and so relieve some of the stress. But no one, for the last 60 years, has been bankrupted by illness in Canada. No one. Compare that to your system, where only those who can afford the insurance can get decent health care. Nor has there been a “doctors’ strike” in Canada. Ever. That’s because Canadian doctors don’t work for the fedral government, but for provincial governments. In the last 20 years, doctors in various provinces have withdrawn services, but never for more than 3 or 4 days. If this is your idea of a “shambles”, then fine. But it’s a system far preferable to the American one, for the average person.

3. As for your claim that the U.S. is subsidizing the Canadian system by buying our drugs, this is totally backwards. The Canadian government subsidizes drugs so that pensioners can buy them. Because you let your major drug companies charge whatever they like, American cirtizens are forced to shop across the border to survive. Our system worked for years without selling drugs to Americans– we don’t need you to “subsidize” us; in fact, most of us are upset that our tax dollars are being used to subsidize you! Don’t you get it? Americans have to shop across the border because your own system is a mess, not the other way around! This is major embarrassment to the American government and your health care system. What part of this don’t you get?

08-30-2006 11:02 PM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
JustThisOnce
Newbie
JustThisOnce
IMO – these are classic feminist errors…assuming men and women are equal, and thus “interchangeable.” They are not. Men and women are different in that women can have either of two lifestyles – home or work. Those work questions are really saying “yeah you’re here for the interview, but are you here for the job?” If a women leaves after 9 months of work – you are re-hiring for that position starting over again from scratch.

Dumbbroad, respectfully – I wish you could see that men and women are NOT interchangeable. Only the feminists promote this silly idea.

David: In an efficient capitalist environment, employees are interchangeable, nobody is indispensable, and there is always a hungry wolf angling for the top-spot. With competition being what it is, it is not that hard for an enterprising business to play people one against the other in order to get the job done. It has very little to do with men and women and their irreconciliable differences, and everything to do with making money. Hiring managers are there to mitigate risks as much as possible. But capitalists are also concerned with today’s balance sheet. Let’s say somebody hires a corporate attorney for a starting salary of $100K per year. For a period of five years, this attorney has been winning huge cases, million dollar law suits, copyright infringements, etc. (I am making this up). Each year, this attorney gets the requisite corporate bonuses and raises. At the end of the five period, the company spent about $1 million in salary, fringes, overhead and bonuses. Meanwhile, this corporate attorney was worth $5 million per year * 5 years = $25 million dollars.

This #$#%ing company just made $25 million dollars out of $1 million investment. If this attorney decided to quit and have kids, quit and become a yoga instructor, quit and become a goof-off, that is their right. This person worked hard, and deserves to feel proud of the work they accomplished. Meanwhile, corporation X is not crying too hard about the loss, because the talent pool is filled with hungry people that want to prove their abilities, and would happily earn a starting salary of $100K per year plus bonuses. Corporation X is in business to make money yesterday, today, and tomorrow. But you can’t expect to be alive tomorrow if you do not make money today. When you look at it from this perspective, corporation X is more concerned with who can deliver the goods today…dare I say…irrespective of gender or the possibility of maternity leave.

My point then is this: I agree with you…men and women are not interchangeable. This is proven in our everyday interactions with each other over and over and over again. But employees are (and always have been) interchangeable. Whatever beefs exist between men and women, captains of industry still manage to make a profit.

08-31-2006 06:13 AM

Re: Valley of the Career Women Dolls?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

You truly are in imbecile and perfect proof why marriage is a bad prospect for men, but would benefit you financially since you don’t make plans, but if you get a wild hair up you *ss, you would file for divorce and flay the skin from the bones of your husband.  Moron.

08-31-2006 10:19 AM

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

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: