Tiger Woods? Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 A desperate society requires a desperate solution - men selling their wifes into sex-slaveryBeen very popular in some parts of Europe in the last 15 years Cherry must be undergoing similar training to make that statement Once we run out of oil that will be the only export These are English women you are planning on selling, yes? (Quickly ducks behind wall...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xiox Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 My last work place employed 2 juniors , they were under my wing supposedly, they got pregnant within 2 months of starting, and then took ALOT of time off , and didn't return for the rest of the pregnancy and even after that didn't return or keep any reliable hours. We need some women to have children. The fact that people get a job and become immediately pregnant suggests there's something wrong with the whole system. Probably if housing was cheaper a child could be brought up on a single wage and these women wouldn't do this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domo Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Back in the kitchen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pessimist Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 So sexism still alive and kicking on hpc. I am not in favour of political correctness gone mad, but see a lot of unnecessary comments around here. Why not put women at the top? Men have had their turn and failed. Thought you might be interested in how women have risen to the top in Iceland following it's economic collapse "and heard how they are determined to reinvent business and society by injecting values of openness, fairness and social responsibility". After the crash, Iceland's women lead the rescue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammysnake Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 (edited) "Men have had their turn and failed" is this not sexism? cherie ******ing blair that mouthpiece of the modern women Personally, I think women would be happier if they concentrated on what makes them happy that's FAMILY, & COMMUNITY. Stop wanting it all. Get back to reality. Sex and the city does not exist in your average British Chav town. Edited March 1, 2009 by sammysnake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 So sexism still alive and kicking on hpc. I am not in favour of political correctness gone mad, but see a lot of unnecessary comments around here. Hardly. You're looking for it so you're seeing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMAC67 Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 We need some women to have children. The fact that people get a job and become immediately pregnant suggests there's something wrong with the whole system. Probably if housing was cheaper a child could be brought up on a single wage and these women wouldn't do this. Exactly, the system is broken. The only intelligent thing to do is to play it. Having watched my friends wives, and my wives friends play it for many a year I can assure you that it does go on in a large scale. Even being paid bonuses based on profits created whist they haven't been at work for years. Large companies and the government can obviously absorb this cost but SME's cannot. We either need low cost child care like they have in Denmark or we need to have a cost of living that is low enough for a family to survive on one wage. The original introduction of women into the work place rather than being of benefit to the workers was a cynical exploitation in the increase in worker numbers to manipulate terms and conditions, to the benefit of the company. Our so called equality legislation has actually resulted in the opposite, where some people are more equal than others. I think what Cherie mean't by her statement was that the recession was good for Cherie, I don't think she is remotely interested in anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bootfair Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 (edited) How many men here, with working wives/partners actually do a minimum of 50% of the houswork/childcare... how many get up an iron their kids clothes before school. make breakfast, wash up etc etc etc... - mowing the lawn on sunday and washing the car doesnt really cut it.... and the woman's money? I expect most women despite contributing more work wise to the home still pay 50% towards bills etc.... Seems to me its the men who have it all.. the women who do it all.. Edited March 1, 2009 by bootfair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortunate Son Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 (edited) There are plenty of useless and lazy feckers from both sex, however employment law presents an opportunity to females that simply is not possible for men. Edited March 1, 2009 by Fortunate Son Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockhopper Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 I think that it should be feasible for a wife to stay at home and bring the kids up - if she wants to do that . This implies that house prices/rent should be low enough to do that (or vv that wages should be high enough to support that) . When we did economics (a very low level and a long time ago) the lecturer said that Leicester (iirc) was one of the richest towns in britain as it had industries that allowed women to work - shoes , childrens clothing - maybe lace making . So many women worked part time which boosted the average wage . Some time in the last year I heard a labour minister say words to the effect that we must get all the mothers at home, out into work - this was not about single mums ... it made my blood boil , they just see people as little economic units that need to be out working (in the mines) to keep the tax revenue up . :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pessimist Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Hardly. You're looking for it so you're seeing it. Wasn't looking for it, see it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Muggy Bear Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 It will be the opposite for women, typical Blairs talking out their backside again. Women will be sidelined in favour for men, as women pose problems for employees, time off for dependants, maternity rights etc. What's Cherie flogging? Must be some womens empowerment talk or book out soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Muggy Bear Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 How many men here, with working wives/partners actually do a minimum of 50% of the houswork/childcare...how many get up an iron their kids clothes before school. make breakfast, wash up etc etc etc... - mowing the lawn on sunday and washing the car doesnt really cut it.... and the woman's money? I expect most women despite contributing more work wise to the home still pay 50% towards bills etc.... Seems to me its the men who have it all.. the women who do it all.. Yeah and we have been sold the dream only for it to end up a nightmare! Must say I enjoy working part time and getting out the house but that is just me, no woman should be made to work when they have little kids. Once they are at school, fair game, if there is flexibility in working hours. No wonder the council is popular place for women to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMAC67 Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 You are correct Rocky, people are simply economic units, we ceased to be people a long time ago. Our love of the current economic system means that we are destined for a very bad place. It is inherently unstable and liable to crash. Increasing productivity to pay the interest on loans is simply impossible on a societal basis, but it does explain why we need everyone to work, whilst at the same time reducing the number of jobs. I can see a fundamental flaw in this plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammysnake Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't civilisation create man and women for a very specific purpose? The conflicts with this issue are because of greed rather necessity. Oh the 4x4's... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMAC67 Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 "Greed" that has been generated through marketing (a grand word for propaganda). The manufacturers realised a long time ago that with improved production techniques they could produce a vast amount of goods at ever lower prices. The problem for them is that once everyone has their good, they will go bust. In order to prevent this they need to persuade people to buy the same good over and over again. They can do this by either making the good badly, make it obsolete, or making a similar but better version with more features. People being naturally prudent were reluctant to do so until the whole propoganda machine (aka marketing) got going. Since social status has been traditionally linked to your job or work it was decided that since more and more people were being forced into dull repetitive jobs then their status had to be linked to their product usage. Hence branding. Cars are a classis example of the status symbol. You may think you have a car to get you from A to B, but in fact it is an external projection of your internal image. Unfortunately since terms and conditions aren't increasing the shortfall needs to made up by the introduction of credit, preferably the cheap kind. The problem is that compon dinterest is a hard task master. I do not believe that people are naturally greedy, but increased affluence combined with powerful marketing, and lousy working life combine to make people behave a certain way. Much as we might like to resist, we face continual pressure to conform and consume. It's difficult for people to de-couple happiness from consuming when the message is all so pervasive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Woods? Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 How many men here, with working wives/partners actually do a minimum of 50% of the houswork/childcare...how many get up an iron their kids clothes before school. make breakfast, wash up etc etc etc... - mowing the lawn on sunday and washing the car doesnt really cut it.... and the woman's money? I expect most women despite contributing more work wise to the home still pay 50% towards bills etc.... Seems to me its the men who have it all.. the women who do it all.. Erm, I do 50% of the work around the house, and I am a man. A large portion of the men I know with working wives do too. Wouldn't it not be better for all if life required only one salary? I know Miss D'oh and I have been significantly happier in times when only one of us has been working. Furthermore, since 2 wages has become the norm, single salary households have been priced out of decent housing simply because the extra wages go into land values. No one has benefitted from this other than the land owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Storm Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 The human rights lawyer and wife of former PM Tony Blair said crisis-hit businesses are more likely to "take a chance" on recruiting a female worker. Hmmm, they are more likely to take a chance on employing someone cheaper, ie a woman, but also less likely to take a chance on them wanting a year off paid maternity leave. All these silly laws over the years have just made woman less employable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abstra Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Wasn't it Alan Sugar who was on record as saying something along the lines of "You would have to be mad to hire a women of child bearing age"?Unless the laws are going to be eased to make employing females more attractive, I don't see why any company would take additional risk at the moment If you are going to use common sense and honesty you are not going to get a government post you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bootfair Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Good for you (and your wife).. Although it hasn't been unknown for men to think they're doing half, but the women to disagree... Essentially though we are coming from the same place here... I totally agree its an oversold dream that has actually destroyed choice for many people. Erm, I do 50% of the work around the house, and I am a man. A large portion of the men I know with working wives do too. Wouldn't it not be better for all if life required only one salary? I know Miss D'oh and I have been significantly happier in times when only one of us has been working. Furthermore, since 2 wages has become the norm, single salary households have been priced out of decent housing simply because the extra wages go into land values. No one has benefitted from this other than the land owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godless Posted March 1, 2009 Author Share Posted March 1, 2009 "Greed" that has been generated through marketing (a grand word for propaganda). The manufacturers realised a long time ago that with improved production techniques they could produce a vast amount of goods at ever lower prices. The problem for them is that once everyone has their good, they will go bust. In order to prevent this they need to persuade people to buy the same good over and over again. They can do this by either making the good badly, make it obsolete, or making a similar but better version with more features. People being naturally prudent were reluctant to do so until the whole propoganda machine (aka marketing) got going. Since social status has been traditionally linked to your job or work it was decided that since more and more people were being forced into dull repetitive jobs then their status had to be linked to their product usage. Hence branding. Cars are a classis example of the status symbol. You may think you have a car to get you from A to B, but in fact it is an external projection of your internal image. Unfortunately since terms and conditions aren't increasing the shortfall needs to made up by the introduction of credit, preferably the cheap kind. The problem is that compon dinterest is a hard task master. I do not believe that people are naturally greedy, but increased affluence combined with powerful marketing, and lousy working life combine to make people behave a certain way. Much as we might like to resist, we face continual pressure to conform and consume. It's difficult for people to de-couple happiness from consuming when the message is all so pervasive. Good post SMAC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickywackywoo Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 How many men here, with working wives/partners actually do a minimum of 50% of the houswork/childcare...how many get up an iron their kids clothes before school. make breakfast, wash up etc etc etc... - mowing the lawn on sunday and washing the car doesnt really cut it.... and the woman's money? I expect most women despite contributing more work wise to the home still pay 50% towards bills etc.... Seems to me its the men who have it all.. the women who do it all.. Hmm! A fairly typical female take on things; cutting the grass and washing the car apparently doesn't qualify as work? Er, why not? Is it because it's not something females usually do. In my experience men work every bit as hard as women and in many cases harder. Most of the women with kids I know of do most of the housework and more of the childcare. There is a simple reason for this though which is rarely mentioned in those vapid articles designed to get women going that you read in the press - they work considerably less hours than men on average. Indeed, every single woman I know who has school age kids works part-time while hubby works long hours often with commuting. This is also most of the reason for the supposed pay inequality - men simply work longer hours than women so they get paid more. Men have taken on more and more domestic duties over the years and it does surprise me how many women think they should be doing 50% of these tasks despite working an extra 25 hours a week and bringing in most of the dosh. Also, I have seen almost no evidence of women taking on some of the more traditional male tasks - the same ones which you think are not work and don't count. Anybody ever seen a woman up a ladder? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shell Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 99% of bankers and politicians are men. They got us into this mess. If you're looking for someone to lash out at, chose your own gender. Your sexism is repugnant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 99% of bankers and politicians are men. They got us into this mess. If you're looking for someone to lash out at, chose your own gender. I can't comment on the bankers.. but I think you will find that far more than 1% of politicians are female. I don't think anybody is really lashing out, if anything people probably think the law should be changed to make it easier for honest hardworking ladies to get a job. Exactly what is it you are objecting to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pessimist Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 99% of bankers and politicians are men. They got us into this mess. If you're looking for someone to lash out at, chose your own gender. What percentage of the chief executives of the top 100 British companies, say, are women? Are women any less capable of running a big company? I'm sure women can be just as nasty and ruthless as men, but are probably not as well connected. Heard of the 'old boys' network? Does the school or university you went to still count for anything? Does it help to be of a particular religion? Most religions are really sexist, Islam, Judaism, Christianity. With 40 % of women in the global workforce, and despite large numbers of women getting successfully through higher education, what percentage break through the 'glass ceiling'? Or as a woman will positions in middle management probably only be open to you in niche positions such as local government, social services, education etc. Do women who make it to the top in business have to prove themselves better than the men making it to the top? I suspect they do. This is what they tell us. The Times did an interesting article about how women making their way to the top are often given 'poisoned chalice' jobs (by men who would like to see them fail) and so face a 'glass cliff'. Women who break through glass ceiling face a cliffhanger Despite having come a long way, feminism failed to achieve it's objective as set out by the early feminists, and the feminist movement was diverted away from it's original path by such groups as lesbian feminists which had their own agendas, and who's politics were framed in an anti-male way. These feminist extremists were easy to ridicule, (by a male dominated media) and were disowned by most women, and we live in a post feminist culture where the true issues of feminism, still have not been properly addressed, despite sexual equality being laid down in law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.