Working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch

alm721

Hold my hands up, it was all down to me (well every thing else seems to be), its my fault that my daughter can't find her shoes, school bag, phone etc becasue I obviously hide them from her. Its my fault that hubby is late at work becasue, well I'm not really sure it just is. Its my fault that my son is a little terror becasue well not really sure on that one either so yes as a working mum I feel absolutely sure that the credit crunch is down to me. The fact that my wage is the only really secure one in the family is also my fault so if anyone can't find there keys, needs to know why their gas bill is much higher then expected or wonders why their mil is a complete pain in the butt you can safely put it down as my fault, I wont argue!:rotfl:

lostinrates

lynzpower wrote: »

Well I did go through a stage of over 6 months when I was too ill to work. For a while I had enough money to do what I wanted ( as I was on full pay on the sick for a few months) and I was bored out of my tiny mind. I read, surfed the internet watched films etc, did the cleaning :rolleyes:but all my mates and OH and parents etc all worked full time so what is there to do?

If I won the lottery, Id probably set up a charity or a business with it? Would I work full time? Probably.

As many regulars know...thats why I spend a lot of time on line..more or less. I have to say, when I'm feeling good there is no way my life is boring. When I'm feeling bad and I'm on here lots and lots, well then...yes, it is a bit. But thats the difference to not being employed and in poor health and not being employed and in good health. IMHO...its not a valid comparison. There is LOTS to do if you are fit, healthy and of a mind too.

Soubrette

One of my friends was laid off sick for 6 months and spent alot of her time doing a massive (and I mean massive) family tree, she had a severely broken leg and so was housebound for much of the time.

I have so many unfinished craft projects, house redecorating, gardening, I'd love to do a few courses in both craft and academic related areas....and I only work part time

Does that mean I'm only partially responsible for the credit crunch :rolleyes:

alm721 - I shall invoke you next time the ex is being a plonker

Sou

PasturesNew

lynzpower wrote: »

This sort of idea means that you could potentially have 50% off the adult population simply doing nothing at home

Sounds like that lot that never plan to work... if we sat at home and sent them out to work that'd suit me.

Let's face it, unless you're lucky, most jobs completely suck - AND - they take up far too much time. It always rains at weekends, you go to/from work often entirely in the dark, the sun is a distant memory. 20 days/year off (+8), which you are lucky if you can choose (then it'll probably rain).

Jennifer_Jane

If there are too many jobs in a recession, then it's the jobs that must go, not the gender.

As a reminder of what it was all about, I shall get back on my soapbox:
essentially people of my age (I'm 62) wanted female equality/liberation because our mothers were treated as second-class citizens and very frequently treated abominably by men. We (the feminists of the time) wanted choices for women and to be treated respectfully. In the US women were often highly educated then left to rot at home dependent on whether their husbands doled out some housekeeping to them or not. Divorce payouts were not favourable to women as it was seen as the men's money. In the UK women were just not educated. My own father refused to let me become articled because 'I would get married' so he considered it would be wasted. So you had clever, intelligent women who were simply stuck at home, or, so often, secretaries to mostly male bosses, who were no smarter than they were but had the job simply because they were men.

Whether or not women have now got it all, or simply have stressful jobs in addition to being the primary carers at home is up to the women of today to decide. That was never what we wanted, we wanted men to be equal in this, not simply doing chores handed out by women, but thinking pro-actively what was required to run the home.

It was supposed to be liberation for men too, that they would no longer have the worry of being the primary wage earner.

Jen
x

StevieJ

The time has come to build a more sustainable, equitable and progressive society. Why not make a start by telling your other half to quit her job? She can ask you for the housekeeping on Friday.

Reads like a Monty Python sketch, I can't believe your are all earnestly discussing it :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Let us have an argument instead

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM&feature=related

leftieM

I assume the author of that piece is being deliberately provocative.That article may be over the top and (hopefully) tongue in cheek but it's a signal of the type of thing editors are going to encourage.

I've said it for years, when jobs are short women are driven back to the home and when we are needed we're pushed out again. No doubt there'll be article after article about how children need mothers, childcare is damaging etc. etc. so that, slowly, women will feel pushed back to the home.

piggeh

I'm sure there are many people that enjoy their work and would carry on working even if they didnt need the money. However I'm also sure that for the majority of people this is not the case. I reckon a lot would spend their time doing other activities and not wasting their lives doing nothing. Anyway..

I think the article touches on several points though - over the last few decades we've had a breakdown of social values, increased divorce rates, mental illness etc. I do wonder how much easier it would be on the family and society as a whole if women were able to spend more time looking after the family unit rather than working full time (which is slightly sexist but women naturally have a greater paternal instinct - you can put 'men in place of 'women' if you dont feel paternal instincts and a greater emotional connection in women exists). That's not to knock their contribution in the workplace as many are productive and don't have the same aggressive/alpha tendencies that men display, which are mostly counter productive in a working environment.

If you based mortgages on one income rather than two I think it would give people the chance to choose who works and who can contribute in other ways - if both want to work then fair enough, but it shouldnt be an expectation upon families to do so. It would, imho, be a much healthier society if we were able to live on one income per family. I think people would a)be less rushed into getting married in order to fund house purchases, for instance b)reduce emotional stresses c)improve social behaviour for some.

I guess on the other hand though, the more people who work the more productive the country becomes, and now we have a few hundred extra billion to pay back we best all keep working!

BlondeHeadOn

ixwood wrote: »

I doubt anyone has ever said "I really wish I'd worked more!" on their deathbed.

Blondehead, if you won the lottery, would you carry on working? I think yours was "the really daft statement".

I think it depends what you class as 'work'.

And yes, if I won the lottery I would carry on working, no question. But then I am self employed doing something I really enjoy, and I can do more or less work as I choose and turn down work I don't want to do - so I have lots of autonomy. It also pays well, which helps a lot! It has taken me 20 years to get to this point, often via working at jobs I didn't like much or spending long hours in extra training - but these were still so worth it.

And it's not because the rest of my life is a wasteland or unhappy - it's not. I'm no workaholic - I never work evenings or weekends, because that is 'my time' and I have other things to do with family and friends that I enjoy just as much as working. I have days off, I take holidays, sometimes I 'skive' when the sun is out and I want to go and read a book in the garden. I want both work and leisure in my life.

As far as I am concerned it is all about balance.

And it's also about what suits the individual. Some people don't want to work, and are happy - that's fine. Some people do want to work and are happy - that's fine too. Some people can't work but do want to - that's not fine, and potentially a big problem.

alm721

Soubrette wrote: »

alm721 - I shall invoke you next time the ex is being a plonker

Sou

no worries,;)