VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07:08:50 10/08/02 Tue
Author: Jack
Subject: Re: Iraq?andWomen
In reply to: T 's message, "Re: Iraq?" on 08:17:40 10/07/02 Mon

Ok. This last message was pretty confusing. Hmmn. Care to explain? Thought i might also offer an opinion of mine which i've been meaning to post for some time though it seems like most of the 'audience' has fucked off. That is to say that women should by enlarge be restricted from the main stream workforces and used to plug the gaps in care oriented proffessions such as teaching and nursing and maybe those clever little girls amongst you could even be Doctors. The idea that having twice as large a workforce produces twice as much wealth is no more an axiom than two malnourished goats yielding more milk than one nice and plump goat.
Feminists like to site the boom in national wealth following WW1 as a result of womankinds emancipation, but lest we forget the following 10 years were witness to the greatest economic depression so poo to that one.
Furthermore so few industries today are labour related nevermind labour efficient that man power if you'll excuse the term really is not the issue. I'm afraid most women simply do caring better and thinking worse due to the biological drives that prevents them from focusing on a task without domestic affairs spilling in(e.g relationship problems, the caring instinct). Obviously there are exceptions to be weeded out and put to work else where if there are any budding Margeret Thatchers or across gender perhaps in the case of gay men. I'm no expert.
Most importantly however and transcending issues of wealth i see this as an ideal wasy to reassurt social stability and provide even the most pathetic fuckwit with a sense of purpose in society. By reastablishing a social cohesion based largely on natural social norms seems the only way to overcome the social and moral disintergration of western society which coincidently i would argue as having set in post 1918, the previous conflict having been the dying throws of colonialism.
So am i right or am i right. You tell me

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.