Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Women are virtually absent in the tech world and in programming. They are also severely underrepresented in high finance and in upper management. Women with college degrees actually earn less on average than men with only a diploma. In just about every profession, there is a gender gap that favors the men. The only "professions" in which women earn vastly more than men are modeling, prostitution, pornography, and stripping.
I can attest to this as true. I've been a programmer for 35 years and am still one of the few women in my work group. 35 years ago I was typically the only female programmer and now I'm usually one of 2 or 3 at most. No idea why so few women get into programming. It's a good gig.
They get paid for LESS work. Woman are the ones who are leaving early to pick up kids, take to doctor, etc and leaving projects for others to pick up the slack.
Any woman who is always the parent doing this stuff is picking up the slack for that guy named Dad. If more men shared in doing things equally, more women would be at work longer hours. How come you place all the blame on the woman when parenting is a two person thing?!?
I speak as a guy in his late 20s. It seems like most women my age have their **** togther; good jobs; lots of friends; structured, vibrant lives. On the other hand, it seems like most men are lost. They can't find meaningful employment, can't think of anything useful to do with their time, bum around with no plan for the future. Is it safe to say we live in a lost generation of men? It's like society doesn't have a use for most men anymore. Is it time for another war to kill off the surplus men?
Women are just more social in general.
Men are more involved in politics and fortune 500 companies and thus, technically, it is still a "man's world" as the politicians and corporations run it.
There are plenty of "uses" for you. IDK how you came to that conclusion based only on what you typed....
I have to laugh at this post. I recently watched a show on tv where several professional woman were complaining about how stressed out they were. They pointed out that they were expected to be a homemaker, a mother, and then work a career job. Isn't that just terrible.
I am old enough to remember when most women stayed home and were homemakers and mothers. Their hubby's were able to work a job that provided enough to cover all costs. Most men had jobs that had good medical insurance for themselves and family. Most had good retirement benefits. You might thing from what I wrote that men were the dominate ones. Let me tell you, the woman ran most households and were very happy in their roles.
Of course you will always have those that complain even if the streets were paved with gold. Businesses used this opportunity to increase the workforce, lower wages, and reduce or eliminate benefits. Those few complaining women got what they wanted. Today it has gone full circle. From complaining about simply being a homemaker to a variety of careers and now complaining about being too busy, too stressed, and just plain too too whatever.
That may have been some women.
Then you have the ones who were ruled. No money of their own, no car, no say in anything. My mother, for example, had to ask for extra money for feminine hygiene products. She was given X$ to buy groceries and that is all. She had to ask permission to take the car or go anywhere. Dad decided how much could be spent on what, where we could go and when, what we ate, watched on TV, etc. My mother was not really happy, definitely not fulfilled but she never complained.
You really think the economy was controlled by complaining housewives? Yes I've seen the economy (and not just the US economy) spiral downward, decreased wages and loss of benefits over the past 30+ years. Do you think other forces may have contributed to this; outsourcing, illegal immigration, deterioration of unions, sub prim loans, financial crisis or was it just complaining housewives?
The problem now with some relationships is that while women are in the workforce right along side men, mothers are still apparently being expected to also do 95% of the child rearing and domestic responsibilities leaving them stressed and spread too thin.
Instead of saying well you got what you asked for, why not just pitch in and do ones share of parenting and housekeeping.
Who talks about the fact that men are 80% of suicide victims? And 93% of workplace fatalities? No one.
Some of us try to bring up safety in the workplace in the political discourse, but it tends to get us called communists who hate capitalism and America.
Some of us try to bring up safety in the workplace in the political discourse, but it tends to get us called communists who hate capitalism and America.
The point of this thread was to discuss how women are "favored" in society. Safety in the workplace is an issue that affects everyone. But, I'm telling you, men are treated as disposable, women are not. If women were dying at the same rate men die, for absolutely any reason, that is all the politicians would talk about.
Can you imagine for a minute that 80% of suicide victims were women? And that 93% of all workplace fatalities were women? This country would be going insane with righteous indignation, and calls for something, anything to be done.
But since its men who are dying, eh, who cares? And even if you want something done, it isn't because you are concerned about there being gender-imbalances in the numbers.
I mean, look at funding for breast cancer vs funding for prostate cancer.
Democracy is not about one monolithic group voting against another monolithic group. The "two-parties" are really just coalitions, both of them aiming for only 51% of the voters. To win in a Democracy, you need to utilize two things, "fear" and "greed".
To win an election, you merely put together a coalition of "special-interests" that make up 51% of voters, and then you scare them, and promise them free-stuff and special-privileges/protections.
The Democrats get their coalition by aiming their policies primarily at minorities, the poor, the young, and union workers. The Republicans have a platform that gets most of its support from whites, middle-class, and older voters.
The reason why women are catered to, is because women are a useful "special-interest" group. The Democrats need women votes, so they scare women by declaring there is a "War on women", and then they tell them they are being screwed over by men, and promise them free-stuff and special-privileges(welfare, healthcare, better pay, etc).
Men aren't a very useful special-interest group. You can't really come out scaring them by saying there is a "War on men". Nor is it politically useful to be promising men freebies, or giving them special-privileges. Men don't respond to these things, or at least, they don't respond to them nearly as strongly as do women. To support men, you basically have to alienate women.
Furthermore, the problem with Democracy, is that Democracy effectively means "equality". If someone has an equal vote, then by all intents and purposes, a politician must pretend that they are exactly equal to everyone else. And if you must assume everyone is equal, then any inequalities are always assumed to be the result of malicious forces, what else could they be?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
