Jupta,
Basically, while I agree that there are probably a lot of unnecessary jobs and I am all in favor of figuring out how, as a society, to have people work much less, you really have not demonstrated that women are less productive. You have merely stated that you have more respect for certain heavy industry. I could give many examples. A cook is productive because, well, obviously he puts meals together, and therefore the useless female waitress is unproductive because she takes and gets rid of all those useful meals he has made! Let's fire her and she can stay home. Then - the cook can go home too I guess. This is the sort of argument you are making. Undoubtedly, men are productive and strong and do a lot of the heavier jobs. Even if a man digs up the raw materials, the seamstress or factory workers who are usually female - they are very productive.
Look at this:
An example - in the US, healthcare industry employs the most people(and 90%+ are women), yet France, which employs far less(and the industry is male dominated), treats the people better.
First of all, are you suggesting that most nurses in France are men?
Second of all, the French are much healthier because the food in France is good and people have universal access to healthcare, and the French walk more.
Most illness in the US is unnecessary, but that is because of massive corruption in corporate and political lobbying industries, male dominated by the way.
It is absurd, as Unidian pointed out, to consider treating a wounded male worker as nonproductive. I'd say he deserves to get treated, don't you?
Third of all, the universal health care in France is paid for by tax dollars, whereas in the U.S. it
isn't.
For one, maternity leave.
In most European countries they have real maternity leave, not the joke we have in the U.S. Look, if women are going to work, society needs to also take care of its children, and it women too. Too much feminism in the US has led to the idea that it is fair to treat women and men the same, but it is anything but fair to the women.
Yours is a very hard hearted and unsocial attitude. If we don't need life, then we don't need women, and the men can just produce away until they all die out. Your arguments are mean spirited and absurd.
Real men love and protect women. May very well be that Unidian and Vic will scoff at this, but it is true.
You are just like the QRS of this forum. They are boys, not men.
Male corporate abuses - we can dismiss it because the entire west of the world, and for at least hundreds of years, is "feminine."
And by the way, the word was "populace" not populous.
I'm sorry but I can't accept that welfare is a drop in the bucket. At least not for the population. Besides, there is child support, healthcare, alimony etc. which women consume to a larger extent.
Welfare may seem like a lot, and it may be good to control it, but it is not a very large section of the tax expendatures. For that we have our constant waging of war.
Child support and healthcare, my god, are the needs of life, and men pay it when their exwives are raising the children. Would you have men not contribute to the upbringing of their children? Raising a family costs so much money that even though women get childcare, nonetheless their standard of living goes down after divorce and the man's go up. Do you not know this? If you think that it is still a travesty for men to pay for their own childrens' lives, then let me remind you that even among the animals many males contribute greatly to the raising of their offspring, and those who can't do not mate. End of story.
Sorry, I don't believe that a working American woman has it any worse than, say, a housewife in India. They are allowed a far higher level of flexibility than men in the workplace. That alone disproves your point.
I didn't realize when we started this conversation how young you were. I cannot compare an American working woman to a housewife in India. I can compare an American working woman to a nonworking woman! Or, I could compare an American working woman to a European one. I am talking about women with children. Most European women would be aghast at what American women go through, working with such young infants. And I am aghast because in this wonderful best country in the world babies aren't being breastfed, even though 99% of women want to, because it really just is incredibly hard to breastfeed an infant that you are separated from.
The exclusive male club I am referring to is, anthropologically, that pretty much every society I have ever heard of has one. It may be a hut or a club or a function, but women are not allowed. And the point was that you think women are all lovey dovey and socialize, while men are rugged individualists. Now, in many cases this is true. A man may take off and go digging for gold in the old west. Women weren't strong enough, nor could they live without male protection against
other males very well.
But males, if you look at it, actually create the organized and large social structures of society. And I was bemoaning the fact that men in civilization (not tribal peoples so far as I am aware)have reverted back to a chimp-male level of socializing. They do seem to have stopped in modern times, however. It occurs with kings and priests, but not elected officials I guess.
Truth is a pathless land.
