[Women entered the workforce the same time men did. It started back in the earliest days of humanity.]
That's cute, but we're talking about real jobs here.
Why do feminists (and their useful idiot manginas) hate math? Do you really think that you can flood the workforce with women and have a corresponding number of job openings magically appear? Reduce demand further by having less children and the problem exacerbates itself. "But the laws of supply and demand are unfaaaaaaaaaaair!" you whine. "The answer is MOAR GUBMIT! Look, I've got an MLK quote and everything!"
55 comments
"Reduce demand further by having less children and the problem exacerbates itself."
So you buy into the fallacy of a Service Economy because St. Reagan said it?
How does more people competing for the same jobs fix the problem again?
Right. Because cleaning a house, cooking meals and taking care of children aren't "real jobs." How about you try it for a week, Eric, and see if you still feel that way. None of those jobs require any skill or effort, so you shouldn't have any trouble doing them, you know.
Just out of curiosity, Eric, did all those jobs women did during WWII in manufacturing plants, making bombs, planes, ships, etc. suddenly stop being "real jobs" while women were doing them, only to return to being "real jobs" when the men came marching home?
Or is your real problem that some woman is better qualified than you are for a job you had or wanted?
The point of feminism is not to FORCE anything to happen, but to ALLOW women the choice to work if they so choose. They will have to compete with men for jobs same as anyone else, and some openings will be made by men who in the modern world prefer to be homemakers.
When we are free to make our own choices, the market will correct itself to account for this. That's how capitalism works. If your "math" involves simply adding every able-bodied woman into the job pool and assuming that every worker will fight for those same jobs, then you're right, the math doesn't suggest it will work - because your approach is flawed.
Oh, and by the way - I'm a feminist with a bachelor's degree in mathematics. Don't talk to me about math. I can run circles around fucktard misogynists any day of the goddamn week.
Actually, this "supply and demand" thing doesn't even make sense. First he says that when women enter the workforce, the economy will suffer because there are not enough jobs to sustain them all. Then he says that decreased birthrates, which would presumably lessen the demand for jobs over time, somehow fucks it up more.
Of course, maybe the real mistake here is that I momentarily presumed that an MRA could give an argument that wasn't full of horse shit.
but we're talking about real jobs here.
Real jobs? Please define "real jobs".
I'm going to wager that your definition ony applies to <33% of the actual work force.
And all those people who do things you don't consider to be "real jobs": you couldn't live without them. A large portion of them done by women.
Oh, and btw, check the latest statistics for gender and math students: you're in for a HUGE surprise.
"by having less children"
FEWER
Also, it's funny. You teabagger types are always whining about big gov'ment and how evil it is, but when it comes to guns, God and regulating abortions, it's the first place you go crying to.
oh, i don't care. if i have a harder time getting a job because women aren't unfairly discriminated against then it's right that i have a harder time getting a job, because it's wrong to unfairly discriminate against prospective employees on the basis of gender.
it'd be way easy to get a job if you simply disqualify huge groups of people, but that would be wrong, so we shouldn't do it.
Vox Day already said this, and he was just as wrong as you. Your bit, however, was mercifully shorter.
Yes, if some women get jobs, them spending that money in the economy will shrink the economy. Oh, wait, that's not how math works.
anybody that thinks housework isn't a "real job" has never done a thorough spring cleaning.
Funnily enough, the modern idea of a housewife is Newer Than You Think, until a few centuries ago, most women would work alongside their husbands at their trades.
"Do you really think that you can flood the workforce with women and have a corresponding number of job openings magically appear?"
I THINK ERIC IS CORRECT. WOMEN SHOULD STAY HOME AND BE GOOD LITTLE BREEDERS AND MAKE SANDWICHES. WITH CHEESE. AND REAL MAYO. NONE OF THAT MIRACLE WHIP CRAP.
ANYWAY, WE ALL KNOW THAT IF WE INCREASE EXPONENTIAL POPULATION GROWTH, "A CORRESPONDING NUMBER OF JOB OPENINGS MAGICALLY APPEAR". OR SOMETHING.
ALSO, THAT BLACK GUY.
NO NOT HIM. THE OTHER ONE.
Hey, fucktard, are you going to pay my mortgage while my wife quits her job and has more children to please you? Didn't think so. STFU, asshole.
Hahahahaha...
Feminists hate math? Erik pls.
Do you really think that you can flood the workforce with women and have a corresponding number of job openings magically appear?
No, but I think we can flood the marketplace with the money earned by working women and a corresponding number of goods and services will appear to take advantage of it.
Take an economics class, sheesh.
If it's simple mathematics and supply and demand, I'm sure the men would be willing to be home makers and raise a passel o kids and let the women be the breadwinners for a while. After all, bread winning is hard and housework is easy.
Did You Know: ever worked a trade until last century, and it totally isn't true that most women, make that all women except landed gentry, worked as much as men for most of human history until extremely recently. For example, in early agricultural societies women weren't allowed to work the fields or tend livestock, and in the Victorian era working class women stayed at home with the kids who also weren't forced into factory labour.
This Fact is 100% True
So farming, hunting, fishing, construction, trading, the manufacture of trade goods, and basically every single occupation possible up to the information age including politics and civil defense aren't "real" jobs then?
You have convinced me: men should stay home and stop stealing women's jobs. Oh wait, you were saying that you can't compete for a job with a woman?
By the way, actually no. What you say is well-known as the lump-of-labour fallacy. You'd know if you actually cared about economics.
Huh?
In my father's day there were taxes and tarifs on imported finished goods... and there were domestic manufacturing jobs for anybody willing to work.
It isnt women, (or jews, or pakistanis, or jamacans, or homosexuals), Its Exxon, and Chrysler/GM, and Walmart, and Disney/Pixar, and Cokacola, and Sachs/Goldman, and Monsanto...
Women did "real jobs" just as much as men did "real jobs." Forget house work/homemaking/whatever the fuck you want to call it, women were out working in the fields, caring for livestock, constructing buildings, houses, fences, etc... They labored in work shops, the service industry, and factories. They created art and literature and were involved in politics. Women worked. All while being treated as second class citizens and property, for the most part.
These "men's rights" activists look at the world in such a skewed, idiotic way. Just like Christian fundies, conservatives, and white supremacists, they can't understand how they aren't being oppressed simply because they don't have all the power.
"Do you really think that you can flood the workforce with women and have a corresponding number of job openings magically appear?"
Do you really think that you can export millions of jobs to China and have a corresponding number of job openings magically appear? The answer is MOAR TAXCUTS!!!
(not for you, just for the Romney rich)
WWII. Rosie the Riveter. Plenty of maths involved in the use of machinery, keeping the troops supplied with ships, tanks, planes, guns, ammunition etc.
Queen Elizabeth - then Princess Elizabeth in WWII - was in the ATS. She trained to be a driver and mechanic. Not so many years ago, she personally supervised the alteration of all royal vehicles with catalytic converters. Today, she personally supervises - and advises on the layout of - the Buckingham Palace website
Your argument is invalid .
That's cute, but we're talking about real jobs here.
Okay, then you try working the fields all day eery day. Then you'll see the kind of "fake job" women (and men) have had since the dawn of civilization. My guess: you'll come back crying after 2 days.
I have two children on separate ends of the autism spectrum. They go to two different schools at two different times on two different buses. I can not work outside of my home at the moment because I have to constantly be on call in case one of their schools needs me. My son is high functioning, needs no meds and is on the honor roll. My daughter is low functioning and in addition to her autism has PDD-NOS, a sleep disorder, a mood disorder, asthma, and is on several medications. Both have autoimmune issues (eczema) and immune issues which cause them to catch every bug that happens to be coughed or sneezed in their general direction.
@ Lady Evil - :::: high five! ::::
There have always been women in the workforce, working for an income (what EtR would call a "real job") because there have always been widows and women on their own who have needed to support themselves.
Why do feminists (and their useful idiot manginas) hate math?
I don't know, let's ask the femininst Ada Yonath, winner of the Nobel Prize for Chemistry.
Do you really think that you can flood the workforce with women and have a corresponding number of job openings magically appear?
If you look at the figures, this "flooding" took place gradually at a steady rate over sixty years. Even if the 1950s beloved of the GOP, nearly 40% of women of working age were in the labor force.
Eric the Red is yet another conservative without the faintest idea of how the economy works. It's not a zero-sum game. As more women have entered the workforce, demand has gone up, not down, as people have more disposable income and their kids are better off. As the economy grows, the demand for labor grows, and that is satisfied by more women (and men) working and more immigration. If Eric the Red understood any of this, it would be him whining about the laws of supply and demand, not liberals. As for "gubmit," what has that got to do with any of this?
"But the laws of supply and demand are unfaaaaaaaaaaair!"
Uh, no, that's actually you and every other Republican whining as the more you get your own way, with the rich paying far less than they should and the middle class becoming poorer and poorer, the worse the economy gets.
"The answer is MOAR TAX CUTS! Look, I've got a Milton Friedman quote and everything!"
" Do you really think that you can flood the workforce with women and have a corresponding number of job openings magically appear? Reduce demand further by having less fewer children and the problem exacerbates itself."
if i get this right: more workforce = less jobs to go around.
the laws of supply and demand work, just not when you mix consumers, goods, job openings, and job applicants together in a crossfire mishmash.
his answer? ban women rather than create more jobs. i'm persuaded the economy is purely based on speculation. inject cash, create jobs, get out of depressions. if you're fearful, everything lowers accordingly.
1. Women have been doing "real jobs" since the dawn of man. The earliest known division of labor had women doing the farming and processing of food while the guys marched hither and yon picking fights.
So you're saying that there aren't enough jobs, so women shouldn't be allowed to have one?
You, sir, are an asshole.
Math, eh?
So...by what Math are you proposing that households that are barely scraping by with two incomes are supposed to manage with only one? And what math makes it so women can survive without a job before she finds a man? Oh, her parents have to care for her? Further impacting their finances? Please, Mr. Master Economist, how do you propose this issue to be remedied in a men only economy?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
