Working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch

geoffky

SGE1 wrote: »

Yes but presumably you're not a cleaner. If I were a cleaner, yes, I would give up my job, because I imagine cleaning is a pretty dull job.

At the very most, I expect I'd move to part time, and probably take more holidays too. Or take time out to find an even better job. But I wouldn't give up working altogether.

I retired when i was 42 and it is the best thing i have ever done.. I don't know about you but i only worked to make our life comfortable but i was at that age able to retire due to having the finance's behind me and love every minute of not going to work.. my wife who is 41 does 2 days a week volunteering for charity as she enjoys it.....if you tried it you would like it if the money was not a problem..
Anyone who wins the lottery and carries on working is mad as far as i am concerned.

thegibdog

BlondeHeadOn wrote: »

I think this is a really daft statement!

I love my work, but even if I didn't I would much rather be gainfully employed doing something than twiddling my fingers at home (and I've had some pretty rubbish jobs in the past, believe me - they were still better than having no work at all)!

I think most people WANT to work - including the women.....

But I think that most people would also recognise there can be a big difference between doing something and working. It is a basic human need to feel useful but, as ixwood has been alluding to, there are many ways to achieve this other than work. I think Bertrand Russell had an interesting take on the perceived value of work:

http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html

bigheadxx

Quite interesting, I`ll show the wife, after she has finished her PMT of course!!

PasturesNew

thegibdog wrote: »

http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html

This makes the interesting point that we're all too kn4ckered from working to actually enjoy any activities or enjoyment (last but one paragraph) ... er, no I didn't read it all... just the first bit, then scrolled to see how long it was ... boy that's one long read (in a poor choice of font for me).

It said: if nobody worked more than 4 hours a day, we'd all have time for some fun, and it's right!

lostinrates

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

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

As the daughter of a feminist, I sympathise, and agree with some of what you say...but as I said above, my great grandmother did work alongside her husband, and her daughter (old enough to be your mother ) was very, very active in local politics in her country. Fewer people alround had higher education in fact, but it did happen. My mother did, she's older than you, as would be my MIL, who was a barrister.

Education doesn't always have to lead to 'work', it can lead to personal fulfilment, and an education thatcontinues informally but no less actively or successfully through out life: employed or otherwise. A ..lets say cleaner as it seems to have drawn the 'demeaning' comments in this thread...a cleaner can, if he or she so chooses, also have a post grad understanding of a subject that takes her fancy, or simply be well read with a breadth of knowledge: for personal fulfilment if nothing else.

Also, although the rather silly piece centres on this, it doesn't haveto be man /woman issue, but more a family one. If a father wants to 'stay home' and be a fll time parent and a mother wants to work that also seems reasonable. If both want to work and can afford child care etc, also fine.

thegibdog

PasturesNew wrote: »

boy that's one long read

I was just thinking it's quite ironic that most people would probably consider themselves too busy to read it!

treliac

What a divisive topic. Really highlights our different needs and priorities as women (I'm not so interested in the men's view on this).

Going back to the OP's article. I dismiss Emerson's arrogance. Is he (presuming it must be a he) going to decide who are the "exceptional" women who are allowed to work? What a fool.

As for women:-

Some of us do have to work in order to provide for our families. How ever many sacrifices other women may have made so that they could stay at home, it doesn't mean we would all be able to do that, how ever hard we tried.

Some of us do have interesting and worthwhile jobs we would choose to continue with, irrespective of our ability to choose not to.

Some of us have dead end, boring jobs and would have difficulty in finding anything better, but have to earn so just count down the hours and days of each week.

Some of us can and do choose to stay at home because we have different interests, hobbies, personal goals and other ways of giving and receiving from society that don't require an income from employment.

And some (no many) women, whilst agreeing that women should have choices, now feel the pendulum has swung too far and they are prevented from fulfilling their maternal instincts in being able to bring up their own children. It's those I feel most empathy for - those who are forced to earn an income and pass their precious children into paid childcare environments where, how ever good it is, it's not the same as being cared for by someone who really loves them.

Don't forget that govt policy has, for a considerable time now, encouraged women to work and, IMO, created an atmosphere where women are not seen as being of value if they are not making a productive economic contribution.

This is certainly not a subject where there can be clear or obvious rights and wrongs. Furthermore, women should be allowed to disagree with each other, whilst realising that different perspectives are equally valid.

Don't let this set us one against the other, please women. We should be better than that!

SGE1

treliac wrote: »

Furthermore, women should be allowed to disagree with each other, whilst realising that different perspectives are equally valid.

Don't let this set us one against the other, please women. We should be better than that!

Exactly. Which is why it's so annoying when people barge around suggesting that any woman who wouldn't give up work altogether if they won the lottery is a weirdo. It's bad enough having to battle against old bigots in the workplace (I've come across a fair few), so surely cutting each other some slack is appropriate.

At the end of the day, brave women fought for our right to choose to do what we like, whatever that might be. Those that come out with sweeping statements like "nobody likes to work" need to understand that not everybody feels the same way.

lynzpower

Women have always been thier own worst enemy!

lostinrates

I'd just like to say that there are so many posts I'd like to thank in this thread...but maybe through overuse my thanks option is doing a really weird thing of shooting me to the top of the page. If I go through that to often I'll get sea sick...so, er..thanks everyone.