Working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch [Merged]

Dub13

Yes according to NEWTON EMERSON in the Irish Times today 'Working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch'.So come on girls hand the job back to a man and everything will be fine.


Full Story Here

Working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch

NEWTON EMERSONNEWTON'S OPTIC: THE ANSWER to all our problems is staring us in the face. It may even be quite literally staring at you, right now, across the breakfast table.

So put the paper down, stare back and ask yourself a selfless question.

Does the woman in your life really need a job?

Admittedly, this is not a fashionable question. From Iceland to Australia, men are blamed for causing the credit crunch, while a more feminine approach to finance is proposed as the solution.

Of course there will always be a place in the world of business for exceptional women. Women also have an important role to play in jobs that are too demeaning for men, like teaching. But the general employment of women is another matter. Indeed, working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch by bringing a second income into the average household, pushing property prices up to unsustainable levels.

Whether working women actually caused the credit crunch is now a moot point. The point is that removing women from the workforce would mitigate its effects.

Consider the issue of unemployment. There were 221,301 men on the live register last month and just under one million women in work.

Surely at least half these women have a partner who is earning? Surely at least half would be happier at home? One half of one half is a quarter and one quarter of a million is roughly 221,301. I think we can all see where this argument is going.

It would be ludicrous to suggest that women should be sacked purely to give men their jobs. In many cases, their jobs should be abolished as well.

Women are twice as likely as men to work in the public sector. They account for two-thirds of the Civil Service and three- quarters of all public employees.

Yet they are barely represented in the useful public services of firefighting and arresting people. Encouraging women to leave the workforce would go a long way towards addressing the budget deficit without any downside whatsoever.

Further benefits of sacking women have been uncovered by the Central Gender Mainstreaming Unit at the Department of Justice. According to its research, twice as many woman as men travel to work by bus and train, potentially halving the impact of cutbacks in public transport. However, it is probable that three-quarters of the Central Gender Mainstreaming Unit’s staff are women, so these figures should be taken with a pinch of salt.

While the economic case for fewer women in the workforce is irrefutable, we should also acknowledge the social advantages. Women make the majority of spending decisions in Irish households and make almost all of the purchases. They are far more likely than men to regard shopping as a leisure activity, far less likely to make savings and investments, and were even almost twice as likely to spend their SSIAs.

In short, women were the driving force behind the greed, consumerism and materialism of the Celtic Tiger years and it was female employment that funded their oestrogen-crazed acquisitiveness.

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.

jaffa20

IBTL

What trash are they publishing nowadays!

sadista

is he serious???WTF?

astrofool

I think you'd be hard pressed to find an article more factually wrong as that guys, and that includes most of the drivel you see on after hours.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

that's the most sensible thing I've read all morning

MagicMarker

Back in the kitchen woman!

Berty

Womens Suffrage FTW

SoWatchaWant

Yeah, but this is a repost, is it not?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well women are a bit thick, they'll probably have to read it three or four times

consultech

astrofool wrote: »

I think you'd be hard pressed to find an article more factually wrong as that guys, and that includes most of the drivel you see on after hours.

Yeah, too I find the articles published in AH to be consistenly factually wanting. ???



WIth regard to the article: Might be something in it, if the gender breakdown of the public sector bit is accurate.

godtabh

welcome to last week

Its old news

Firetrap

Women know your limits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

finalfantasist

Firetrap wrote: »

Women know your limits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

I'm a girl and that always cracks me up.

midlandsmissus

pink fluffy bunny wrote: »

if the law was changed back to where women had to give uo work when they got maaried, the following would happen


unemployment would be at zero

crime would drop

inflation would drop

children would know what a home cooked meal was like and know their parents

people would know their neighbours

and we would have communities again

Such drivel.

Why don't you just tell a black man he should go back to being a slave?

Racism and sexism is never funny....except to white men who have been on the least receiving end of it.

javaboy

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Such drivel.

Why don't you just tell a black man he should go back to being a slave?

Racism and sexism is never funny....except to white men who have been on the least receiving end of it.

It's not drivel and it's not necessarily sexist either:

• unemployment would be at zero - Not quite true because there is never 0% unemployment but it would free up jobs.
  
• crime would drop Debatable. But generally a reduction in unemployment would probably cause a reduction in crime.
  
• inflation would drop Again debatable but if household incomes dropped as they would if there was only one person earning, a drop in inflation would probably follow.
  
• children would know what a home cooked meal was like and know their parents Probably true. Two working parents mean a lot more latch-key kids and ready meal type dinners. Not always the case but true to some extent.
  
• people would know their neighbours True. The over the wall chat/gossip with neighbours was typically between two wives. If people want to make the effort they will of course but I'd say two parents working has definitely contributed to the decline of neighbourly relations.
  
• and we would have communities again Meh. We have communities. It might lead to more of a sense of community if people knew their neighbours better.

Don't see what's sexist about those points to be honest.

midlandsmissus

javaboy wrote: »

It's not drivel and it's not necessarily sexist either:

• unemployment would be at zero - Not quite true because there is never 0% unemployment but it would free up jobs.
  
• crime would drop Debatable. But generally a reduction in unemployment would probably cause a reduction in crime.
  
• inflation would drop Again debatable but if household incomes dropped as they would if there was only one person earning, a drop in inflation would probably follow.
  
• children would know what a home cooked meal was like and know their parents Probably true. Two working parents mean a lot more latch-key kids and ready meal type dinners. Not always the case but true to some extent.
  
• people would know their neighbours True. The over the wall chat/gossip with neighbours was typically between two wives. If people want to make the effort they will of course but I'd say two parents working has definitely contributed to the decline of neighbourly relations.
  
• and we would have communities again Meh. We have communities. It might lead to more of a sense of community if people knew their neighbours better.

Don't see what's sexist about those points to be honest.

Right the sexist bit was it said 'it should be women who stay at home, not men'

All you've said above could relate to either gender staying at home, not just women.

It's the men on this thread who were going on about two incomes pushing inflation up etc. And then said women should give up their jobs. If they want some-one to stay at home that badly why don't they do it. Posters on here saying it should be just women who stay at home and saying they are deadly serious about it, is actually a very scary representation of society.

Rob_l

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Right the sexist bit was it said 'it should be women who stay at home, not men'

All you've said above could relate to either gender staying at home, not just women.

It's the men on this thread who were going on about two incomes pushing inflation up etc. And then said women should give up their jobs. If they want some-one to stay at home that badly why don't they do it. Posters on here saying it should be just women who stay at home and saying they are deadly serious about it, is actually a very scary representation of society.

Whats scary about someone giving an honest opinion no one is saying they should stay at home just pointing out some possible side effects of women staying at home.

As for it could be men not women staying at home true it could but from my knowledge of human history women have more often been the primary care giver and more suited to this role, so saying they could stay at home to look after the kids is not sexist but realistic.

javaboy

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Right the sexist bit was it said 'it should be women who stay at home, not men'

For a start Pink Fluffy Bunny didn't say anyone "should" stay at home. She said "if" the law was changed to women having to quit work when they got married certain things would happen. She didn't say if she was for or against it.

All you've said above could relate to either gender staying at home, not just women.

Yes most of it would. I think the home cooked dinners part might not be as good* and the gossip over the garden wall might take a different form but yes I agree. That does not make the original points any less valid though.

It's the men on this thread who were going on about two incomes pushing inflation up etc. And then said women should give up their jobs. If they want some-one to stay at home that badly why don't they do it. Posters on here saying it should be just women who stay at home and saying they are deadly serious about it, is actually a very scary representation of society.

Ironically it was a woman you chose to level the sexism accusation at.



*yeah it's a generalisation but it's based on maternal instincts and what not. Not sexism.

midlandsmissus

javaboy wrote: »

For a start Pink Fluffy Bunny didn't say anyone "should" stay at home. She said "if" the law was changed to women having to quit work when they got married certain things would happen. She didn't say if she was for or against it.



Yes most of it would. I think the home cooked dinners part might not be as good* and the gossip over the garden wall might take a different form but yes I agree. That does not make the original points any less valid though.



Ironically it was a woman you chose to level the sexism accusation at.



*yeah it's a generalisation but it's based on maternal instincts and what not. Not sexism.

To clarify,I wasn't levelling it at her, I dont agree with her post, but my post wasnt directed just at her, I was levelling it at everyone who said on this post that women should be made to give up their jobs. Because that is a very ignorant statement to make.

Davei141

I think you should stay away from after hour's. The whole thread is a pisstake.

midlandsmissus

Davei141 wrote: »

I think you should stay away from after hour's. The whole thread is a pisstake.

Ha. After hours doesn't mean serious things cant be discussed now and then.

The article is a piss take. The people afterwards saying they are deadly serious about women staying at home is not.

Dudess

Plenty of the people saying that are only taking the piss.

Gran Hermano

The only ignorance I can see on this thread is ignorance of basic economic principles.

beautiation

A handy tip: When making your woman stay at home get her to have a baby quickly as bored women with internet connections do a lot of online shopping.

Anyway, sure we won't have any houses to stay at home in when this recession gets worse.