AT A time when the world is short of causes for celebration, here is a candidate: within the next few months women will cross the 50% threshold and become the majority of the American workforce. Women already make up the majority of university graduates in the OECD countries and the majority of professional workers in several rich countries, including the United States. Women run many of the world’s great companies, from PepsiCo in America to Areva in France.And what's next for women in dealing with these issues? It ain't affirmative action or the socialist child care state.
Women’s economic empowerment is arguably the biggest social change of our times. Just a generation ago, women were largely confined to repetitive, menial jobs. They were routinely subjected to casual sexism and were expected to abandon their careers when they married and had children. Today they are running some of the organisations that once treated them as second-class citizens. Millions of women have been given more control over their own lives. And millions of brains have been put to more productive use. Societies that try to resist this trend—most notably the Arab countries, but also Japan and some southern European countries—will pay a heavy price in the form of wasted talent and frustrated citizens.
This revolution has been achieved with only a modicum of friction (see article). Men have, by and large, welcomed women’s invasion of the workplace. Yet even the most positive changes can be incomplete or unsatisfactory. This particular advance comes with two stings. The first is that women are still under-represented at the top of companies. Only 2% of the bosses of America’s largest companies and 5% of their peers in Britain are women. They are also paid significantly less than men on average. The second is that juggling work and child-rearing is difficult. Middle-class couples routinely complain that they have too little time for their children. But the biggest losers are poor children—particularly in places like America and Britain that have combined high levels of female participation in the labour force with a reluctance to spend public money on child care.
There's more at the link, plus see the Economist's special report, "Womenomics: Feminist management theorists are flirting with some dangerous arguments."
I'd like to see Darleen Click have a go at this. She's usually all over the radical feminists at Protein Wisdom.
1 comments:
What I have a problem with is that fascist big government spearheaded the campaign to get women into the workforce so that the STATE could raise their children. What I have a problem with is that now we have two spouses working - and a lower standard of living due to the fascist big government destroying our economy, our currency, and literally eating us out of house and home with their inflation silent taxation, their attack on American business and competition sending our jobs overseas due to high taxes and regulations, they're crippling of our ability to build businesses, compete, and even use our own natural resources, etc., etc., etc.
I don't see what the "benefit" of women working is when now it takes two paychecks for fascist big government to take away the American dream from everyone.
I say it's a crock.
I'm all for freedom, liberty, and women's rights to choose to work and do what they will.
However, we're basically tax slaves - and women entering tax slavery isn't my idea of "liberation".
This fascist big government is evil. Rest assured, they want moms to work. They want the STATE to raise the children - and it galls me to no end that women are working their fingers to the bone - and families are getting nothing but bony fingers.
Our economy and wealth is being stolen and handed over to fascists banksters, etc. moving through big government to make tax slaves out of us all and to control the "programming" of our children.
I don't call that liberation. I call it tax slavery and organized crime.
Post a Comment