Ladies act your nature

[MrJamacJones]

because women, shockingly enough, can do practically everything men can do.

BlackVelvet

Can you pee standing the way I can without making your legs messy?

[eyes-only]

@

sweet innocent kind compassionate caring feminine

Everyone can put that on whenever the need arises. That doesn't mean it is natural or limited to a particular gender.

. Haye true lakin its mostly women who have that character more times than men you can't deny that

I guess there are more feminine women than there are men.

[XaliimoFarax]

PO mashallah preach brother

Runti I don’t see the big fascination of 9-5 life style and add household and children to the equation and it just becomes impossible. I’m already having hard time prioritising working and extra studies on the side.

[BlackVelvet]

So you believe that an invisible hand has made it so that women have to work just so a family can make the same amount they used to in the 1950s and made men and women confused and gay because of it?

Like you said women have always worked, it is just the nature of the work that has changed. Now they work along side men. Therefore it is more obvious and perhaps more painful to some men for a woman to be their boss. People work because they have to. Rich women have never worked because they never had to. If your wife has to work, then it means you're not rich. Inflation or no inflation. Get rich or stop complaining.

The manufacture economy that especially america and great britain were in was socially engineered to provide for the need for low wage laborers. Example, during world war 1 and 2, there was a shortage of men laborers, and despite the fact that it was socially looked down at that era for woman to work, to the point that employers weren't even willing to hire them, there was a mass deliberate campaign by the government to have woman working in factories hence Rosie the Riveter.
War ended men came back, and employers stop hiring woman, and fired the ones they had and hired the returning men in their place. Standard of living was high in the 50's and men as the sole providers were able to afford houses, cars, family vacations, and the basic needs of their families. I will admit there was a dark side for all this for woman, who were being brainwashed into fitting a certain "perfect wife" role, which this invisible hand was using all media outlets to propagate this impossible role. But my point still stands, a family could go fine with men providing all monetary needs.
Fast forward 45-60 years woman have more freedoms, and there are less social restrictions. Yet, the average american family is struggling to maintain a certain standard of living. Despite the fact that woman are in the work field more than any other time in history. Yet, the average family who is in more debt than any other time history, with a bigger generational misunderstanding, and hardly anytime at home with the families. There is more divorce than in any other time in history, there is more extramarital affairs than in any other time in history, there is more children in daycare than in any other time in history, more kids born out of wedlock, more unmarried woman than ever, and more broken homes than in any other time in history. It begs to ask the question, what went wrong with this project? I think this disconnect in families have led to higher consumer consumption in today's society, where consumption fills in the emotional hole that is left with the breaking up of families.
Now, given the current situation, how many people would be willing "to utilise as much of the work force as possible i.e. women too", for the sake of "[the] economy to grow and increase its output". My question is, this "growth" you speak about, how has this been positive in besides purely consumption means. There is no doubt that society is disintegrating as we know it. And it has nothing to do with me liking or not liking whether my boss is a woman.

Impressive how you mashed up over 60yrs of economics and sociology to fit somewhat confusingly into your invisible hand theory.

I was tempted to let you have the last word, which I would have but I read all that rambling which you didn't even have the decency to structure into easy to read paragraphs. So now I want to say that blaming divorce on inflation is creative but simplistic.

How has economic development been useful? Well look at the many tuulos of Somalia with no running water, no electricity, no hospitals, no schools, no roads. Compare that to Munich in Germany for example, a developed economy, good infrastructure, communication, if you fall sick there will be an ambulance to take you to a hospital that will have doctors and medicine, if there is a fire there is a fire brigade funded and maintained by the government that will go and put it out. People want growth because it means a better quality of life and a society that is able to take care of itself. Look what happened in Japan, they bounced back so shockingly fast and that is because of their big, developed economy. They have the money, they have the infrastructure, they have the knowledge.

Compare that to Somalia that has to have food aid whenever there is a draught.

Okay now since I think I have explained sufficiently why building a strong economy and economic growth is a good thing, let's move on to "But my point still stands, a family could go fine with men providing all monetary needs. "

I completely agree and that fact still remains. If you earn enough your family could do quite well on a single salary, as long as you live within your means and are of course not trying to "fill in the emotional hole" by "higher consumer consumption". That is some doctor Phil ish btw.

Maybe you need to move from America. In Europe no woman with children has to work if she doesn't want to. At the very least not until her children start school...thanks to the very developed economies that can bear that burden funnily enough.

All in all I think the problem here is you feel emasculated. Men having to compete with women for the butter when you believe you are supposed to be the providers is not an easy pill to swallow. What you're doing now is nothing new, men have always felt the need to constantly pick at women as a scapegoat for all that is wrong with families and it is a cycle that will never end. Somehow women being strong = men being weak, and what is good and healthy for women such as independence and self sufficiency is the undoing of what you believe to be the very definition of you.

[Richfarax]

Wow walahi I was just thinking about this. Yes all the surplus females in the workforce are forcing men out of the job. To my shock and embrassment a young female stole my job and I have to treat her as my "boss" this is a very very strange time