Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recession 'good For Women'


Recommended Posts

Recently the Guardian has been running comment articles claiming our financial problems are due to "testosterone" and that "reform" is required. Perhaps she thinks someone will actually take this seriously.

With women in charge, we'd have a crash once a month instead of once in a blue moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Are women any less capable of running a big company?

Ask HP. Or any of the other big companies brought to the verge of destruction by female bosses.

I've been trying to think of any successful big company run by a woman outside of those which are traditionally aimed at women (e.g. Body Shop); are there any? Every one I can think of has crashed and burned.

Pushing women who were clearly incapable of doing the job into positions of power in companies has certainly done nothing to encourage anyone else to promote them to that level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I'm no great fan of Mrs TB or her husband TB. I can't possibly see how the recession will be good for women as a whole, if anything they will be eased out of the work place, apart from in the lower paid and part time jobs.

I can understand the resentment towards equality legislation that allows women to 'play the system' in terms of maternity leave, so cheap child care should be the priority here as you have stated.

The cynical push to lower wages and increase profits, I would say are much more obviously due to 'out sourcing' to countries which have no protection for the rights of workers and have very low wages, and the in-sourcing (immigration) of cheap labour from overseas. This is a significant contribution to the destruction of the manufacturing base in Britain and the US, and has caused the protectionist and anti-immigration backlash we are seeing now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recently the Guardian has been running comment articles claiming our financial problems are due to "testosterone" and that "reform" is required. Perhaps she thinks someone will actually take this seriously.

I haven't read the article, please could you post the link, so we can make up our own minds. There might be some truth in it as we all know there are biological differences between men and women that make men more likely to take risks. And it's the attitude to risk that has caused the current economic meltdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Funny that you should mention that. A long time ago when I was young and silly, I had a "feminist" gf. We spilt the "house work" 50/50...but I also had to do all the man jobs, which didn't count.

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? :lol:

Miss D'oh, on the other hand, prefers doing the man jobs, so she tends to fix the car and I do the dishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Yes, it is an absolute tragedy. Was some interesting work done on disposable income by a (female) professor at Harvard, whose name escapes me at this moment. Basically the extra familiy income achieved over the past 40 years by both partners going to work has been sucked up by an increase in fixed costs (e.g. housing)...now the family unit as a whole is more stressed, has less free time and is more vulnerable to one member becoming sick or losing their job. An absolute disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, because I was saying 50% share , and I didnt' want to argue with someone saying, no I don't hoover/cook/clean/shop/clean up puke but I DO mow the lawn..

Not because it's "mens' work" but simply because mowing the lawn and washing the car once a week does not equate to a 50% share of the housework.

No one said mowing the lawn and doing the garden is "mens" work, I do both those, and more, myself! But if 2 people work full time then mowing the lawn and thinking thats it, doesnt cut it..

But your example is of women working part time - I was talking solely about women who work FULL time..

Yes obviously if one person works less hours than the other they can take on more of the duties!

As for being up a ladder, you make me laugh!! I fixed up my last place on my own.

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? :lol:

t

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been trying to think of any successful big company run by a woman outside of those which are traditionally aimed at women (e.g. Body Shop); are there any? Every one I can think of has crashed and burned.

Google found an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/ma...-increase_N.htm

"Nine of the 12 companies have now lost money for any shareholder who invested on the day the women got the job."

One of the exceptions is Avon, which is hardly surprising. The others are a tobacco company and Xerox (apparently up a whole 1% over 6 years and down 51% in 2008, so not really a great success story).

Of course I've no idea how that compares to the rest of the stock market: there are plenty of inept men running big companies too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the article, please could you post the link, so we can make up our own minds. There might be some truth in it as we all know there are biological differences between men and women that make men more likely to take risks. And it's the attitude to risk that has caused the current economic meltdown.

Some here, there were plenty more but Guardian "Comment Is Free" isn't very easy to search.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...s-jackie-ashley

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...tcrunch-banking

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/fe...n-credit-crunch

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...ecession-gender

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't pay much attention to anything the Blairs have said, they quite obviously don't believe a word that they're saying. They wouldn't know sincerity or honesty if it bit them on the bum.

I do think it is sad, though, how many threads on this site degenerate into bitter chauvinism. The kind of pub boorishness that is the preserve of those who feel they have been wronged, but are somewhat lacking in the same willingness to look themselves in the mirror and assess their own failings. And I am very aware that some guys get taken to the cleaners, but going through life with a chip on your shoulder is hardly likely to help.

I am interested in hearing rational arguments debating the biological and social differences between men and women - although this is often guilty of gross generalisation - but, surprisingly, pure chauvinism is less likely to make people view the site with credibility, and less likely to make reasonable people sympathetic to your views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some here, there were plenty more but Guardian "Comment Is Free" isn't very easy to search.

Thanks for posting! Just one back from me on the behaviour of (predominantly male presumably) brokers:

Tricks of the traders: What's the rarest commodity on the stockmarket? Honesty. A former broker exposes the corruption, greed and insider dealing endemic in the City

I played the game for the best part of a decade and saw first-hand what lies beneath the veneer of London's financial district. For all the stock exchange is presented as a transparent, trustworthy great British institution, the truth is that everywhere corruption drips like honey. For all the talk of FSA controls, those working there know they can get away with abuses with barely a slap on the wrist - and so they do, day after day, year after year.
Calls that came through to the dealing room were taped, but mobile phone calls were not; nor were text messages monitored. Chats in local bars and pubs provided equally secure ways to circumvent compliance procedures. These were people who wouldn't steal from the supermarket but thought nothing of the way they robbed the rich to make themselves even richer. Every illegally gotten piece of information was depriving outsiders of the chance to trade the markets on a level playing field. For every penny made illicitly, by definition someone had to lose in return. Spoofing the public into buying shares via newspapers or by spreading rumours was highly questionable, but in a world in which morals are defined by the standards of those around you, who would point the finger?

So all of us ordinary punters who buy shares are mugs, as are our pension funds and investment trusts, these guys are ripping us all off.

Edited for spelling!

Edited by Pessimist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is an absolute tragedy. Was some interesting work done on disposable income by a (female) professor at Harvard, whose name escapes me at this moment. Basically the extra familiy income achieved over the past 40 years by both partners going to work has been sucked up by an increase in fixed costs (e.g. housing)...now the family unit as a whole is more stressed, has less free time and is more vulnerable to one member becoming sick or losing their job. An absolute disaster.

I think you are refering to the work of Elizabeth Warren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask HP. Or any of the other big companies brought to the verge of destruction by female bosses.

I've been trying to think of any successful big company run by a woman outside of those which are traditionally aimed at women (e.g. Body Shop); are there any? Every one I can think of has crashed and burned.

Pushing women who were clearly incapable of doing the job into positions of power in companies has certainly done nothing to encourage anyone else to promote them to that level.

Pearson.

The second biggest holding in my pension fund, and one of the few to be showing a profit after the stockmarket carnage of the past six months, not to mention paying a healthy dividend.

I don't see her sex as an issue. There are competent people of both sexes, and a few of them are in top jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is an absolute tragedy. Was some interesting work done on disposable income by a (female) professor at Harvard, whose name escapes me at this moment. Basically the extra familiy income achieved over the past 40 years by both partners going to work has been sucked up by an increase in fixed costs (e.g. housing)...now the family unit as a whole is more stressed, has less free time and is more vulnerable to one member becoming sick or losing their job. An absolute disaster.

All so that a privileged generation can stop working and take a 10-15 year paid holiday before their health reaches a point where it would no longer be fair to expect them to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

Yeah, I watched "Century of Self" too mate... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.