You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] Glipglup 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

That would be true if women took labor jobs but they don't. The vast majority of women basically produce nothing on value in their work.

Seriously, go to any factory that manufactures large objects and tell me how many women you see. Tell me how many women you see in the auto assembly line.

Ok, now go to your local post office, or a nice relaxing shop or store or somewhere clean airconditioned and there's little to no manual labor and tell me the ratio of men to women.

So, in theory women add productivity but in actuality they are basically do nothing useless children.

0
0

[–] Niggardly_Jew ago 

This is true, in terms of our economics discussion, only as long as anti discrimination laws and government jobs exist. If women produce next to nothing, they'd be paid next to nothing. This isn't a market problem, its a government-produces-nothing-fucks-up-everything problem.

0
1

[–] Glipglup 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Yeah and to add that isn't to say women can't be productive. Even if you have as many babies as possible, you're going to stop producing your most viable eggs at around 35, after that age you will see a drastic increase in complications and in the past that would have translated into a higher infant mortality rate. It's cruel for nature to do but that's what it does. So that means a women will spend almost half her life without children, more if she doesnt have more than 3. My mom had her first at 25, had 3 and that was enough. She basically didn't have more to do in terms of raising children after she hit 40 so what is a women to do with the next 30+ years of her life? Sit around and wait to die? So they need to work but they can't do hard labour like men do in oil fields and construction, but they can work textiles and other smaller things.