On females

[Ironside]

If there are four people spread across two households, then if any two of them work the total wealth will be no different regardless of which two they are, so I don't see how it affects total consumption.

The problem is that a lot of the time women take jobs purely just to give them a bit of pocket money and maybe something to do all day, even when their husband already has a good wage.

First of all, even a unemployed household spends money, otherwise it wouldn't be a household, but street beggars (and since they're alive even those spends some money). Second and more important, the nature of the spending would vary. The higher income household would have a more varied spending, thus creating more jobs.
It's really complex stuff, but I'll summarise it like this: The problem of unemployment was about as big now as it was before women entered the workplace, despite a 90% increase of the working population. They UK aren't running around with a 45-50% unemployment aren't they? That's what the 1:1 numbers would give.

Of course because this woman* gets pocket money, another family is left jobless. And that's why socialists take the wrong approach to this issue.

* I do not mean to sound chauvinistic, I am simply pointing out the trends that exist in our culture.

I don't have a problem with the woman working if the man is not.

Describing it as pocket money isn't exactly helping. And lets see what happens if we make the Rhyfelwyr law. Two single households needs their own income correct? That's stage A. These two have now found eachother and wants to live together. If they move together, then one needs to quit his/her job at the same time as their expenses increases (living 2 together is more expensive). Add having children, an extra expense. Basically, you'll encurage them to live separatly, the child came from "a one night" stand, daddy gets to pay child support and they live together unofficially. Marry? Hell no!!!

To prevent this, you'll need to prevent stage A. And how to that workingly? Gender lines!!

Why would this happen?

The consumption of the dissappeared wouldn't exist, causing work redundancy -> unemployment. Some unemployed aren't that much related to the market, so they would appear by people growing up.

You are attributing things to me that I never said. Of course there are a lot of things that affect social mobility, and indeed I never said anything about the UK specifically. My point was simply that the education system, or at least higher education, no longer does much for social mobility. That's a whole separate issue from female employment.

No, but you're generalizing from a UK perspective, which influences what you're saying.

For example, using your and Philivps words. but in another way than you expected.

You expect higher social mobillity by letting men work for "women middle class pocket money" and at the same time supporting his now unemployed working class wife (the working class women are a larger group than working class men). Of course that will never happen because he can marry upwards in class because of the status of your wife's dad (since the woman no longer works, any class she has related to her work is gone) and there's a huge excess of middle class women.

[The Stranger]

oh man, horetore must be laughing himself into a fit.

[Husar]

A world famous think tank has recently dealt with a very similar question and I think the result is very relevant for this topic as well:



Some parts of my body want to stand up for her right to say that.
Well, they would, if I didn't have a cold, but that's irrelevant.

The problem with female voting rights is that men don't like it. As such the men are the problem but since men own the rights to production they can't have their voting rights taken away which brings us right back to not allowing the unemployed to vote. Which would then hurt mostly women because they can't get jobs so it's a misogynistic policy even though we mostly think of male couch potatoes when we want to hate on the unemployed because if we think of unemployed women some parts of our bodies want to stand up for them again because we're all men arguing over this and women don't care. Which is why women shouldn't be allowed to vote because they don't care.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That's it, you may now try to resume a normal life. Thank you.

[The Stranger]

Some parts of my body want to stand up for her right to say that.

Main Entry: erect
Part of Speech: adjective, verb
Related
Adjectives:
bolt upright, erect, erigible, freestanding, hunched over, ithyphallic, normal, perpendicular, plumpendicular, pritchkemp, rampant, rectangular, sejant, standing up, statant, straight, upright, vertical

aww, now I get it!

although, I don't get how that part would have a cold though. If its leaking, then you have more serious problems

[Ironside]

A world famous think tank has recently dealt with a very similar question and I think the result is very relevant for this topic as well:

She haven't taken enough levels in "politician speak", aka pretend that you know something about a topic you know nothing about and sound like you actually do. Not to confuse with "internet debate" which is thinking you know about a topic when you really don't. We all have that one very high I think.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ugh, I had a proper point-by-point reply written out, that I have lost to the forum playing up.

Anyway, the gist of it was this: That the variety of consumption is far less important that its sum total, that the sum total does not change depending on who holds a job; and even then, petty gains in circulation do not excuse reducing whole households to poverty. Even such gains are questionable, since higher income households are more likely to save up and take money out of circulation.

As for criticism of the "Rhyfelwyr law", it is unfair because it is not intended as an isolated policy. And even if it did have the effect of many women choosing to leave work, I do not see that as a failing, since it is not the job of governments to take artificial measures to forcibly change cultural norms.

To address one point specifically...

You expect higher social mobillity by letting men work for "women middle class pocket money" and at the same time supporting his now unemployed working class wife (the working class women are a larger group than working class men). Of course that will never happen because he can marry upwards in class because of the status of your wife's dad (since the woman no longer works, any class she has related to her work is gone) and there's a huge excess of middle class women.

I'm not entirely sure I get what you are saying here. But, if a working-class man should gain middle-class employment and marry within the middle-classes, is that not the definition of social mobility? An unemployed woman married to a middle-class man is still middle-class herself.

Not to confuse with "internet debate" which is thinking you know about a topic when you really don't. We all have that one very high I think.

I think it is probably a more general human trait that the internet exposes, rather than being a product of the internet or the types of people that frequent it.

[The Stranger]

She haven't taken enough levels in "politician speak", aka pretend that you know something about a topic you know nothing about and sound like you actually do. Not to confuse with "internet debate" which is thinking you know about a topic when you really don't. We all have that one very high I think.

What makes you think you are an authority to make such a statement?!?!

[Greyblades]

...Please don't advocate inaction, we should be working towards eliminate all gender obsticles on both sides, accepting it is giving up.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The whole notion of "Middle-Class Women are taking Lower-Class Men's jobs" might be true, but it is totally irrelevent. How would you fix it? Disallow half the population from working?

Well, so long as we have large numbers of unemployed couples and singles, a good start would be penalties on the second income of any household.

...Please don't advocate inaction, we should be working towards eliminate all gender obsticles on both sides, accepting it is giving up.

Removing obstacles is fine. But if you actively attempt to engineer things to create a situation of equality when neither the culture nor the employment situation tends toward it, then you're just going to create much more real obstacles for another set of people.

[Greyblades]

There will always be obsticles... So what? Equality is a lie, says who?

People can change, obsticles can be removed and equality can be made, when people worked hard enough they have moved mountains, we fly, we outpace sound and left the earth. We freed slaves, gained votes, rights, oppertunities. If people work towards something, they'll get it, be it immediately or after 100 years and the only obsticle that matters is a lack of motivation.

So if you are going to disparage the persuit as impossible, please, shut up, get out of the way and keep watching, maybe you'll last long enough to see it happen.

[Husar]

Well, so long as we have large numbers of unemployed couples and singles, a good start would be penalties on the second income of any household.

Sounds good unless you're a family with two low-wage incomes that has to count every cent.

Put a cap on the total income of a household you say? Well, first of all that's communism and secondly people won't get together so fast anymore. The advantage of living together has to outweigh the financial penalty. ATM there are even tax breaks for married couples because noone would marry otherwise. A population reduction is the worst that can happen in a financial system that is based on continuing growth.

--------------

There can also never be equality in a system that is based on the basic human instinct of wanting to be superior. Communism tried to work against that and failed. Even while it supposedly worked there was no real equality as people with power put themselves above the rest.
Humans will decide for the worse option as long as it means someone else is even worse off. It's in our nature and everyone here is like that. You will prove it by debating my point in an attempt to appear like you are a superior thinker in comparison to me and I just write this in an attempt to show the opposite.

[Greyblades]

And how is a prediction more real exactly? I cite the precident of civil rights and the enfranchisment of women, all decried as an equally impossible end goal and all ultimately successful. We'll always have creases to iron out, true perfection is impossible after all but I believe it's a worthy end.

[Greyblades]

I'm saying that there are real differences between men and women that can't just be overcome by wishing it. If the end-result of forced equality is a lowering of standards across the board, you have a problem--we see this in microcosm with the military. However, the other part of my point was that you can't mistake differences for inherent superiority or inferiority. You can acknowledge differences and inequalities without being discriminatory about it.

To be bigoted or to pretend we're all equal--both are childish ways of looking at the world.

That's... damn man, what can I say to that, it seems less like equality and more pandering to the unfit. I'd understand if women were being expected to be able to carry more than the male recruits before being signed on or something, but this is... wierd.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm saying that there are real differences between men and women that can't just be overcome by wishing it. If the end-result of forced equality is a lowering of standards across the board, you have a problem--we see this in microcosm with the military. However, the other part of my point was that you can't mistake differences for inherent superiority or inferiority. You can acknowledge differences and inequalities without being discriminatory about it.

To be bigoted or to pretend we're all equal--both are childish ways of looking at the world.

Lies, all lies. YOu don't have to lower the standards. This is 2013 you backwards barbarian. Just give the women some HGH in their morning coffee and everything is fine.

[Papewaio]

The problem is that you're being all figurative and soap-boxy, and I'm being literal. Want to see how equality is a lie? Look at how the US Army is implementing gender-nuetrality. In ten years new recruits probably won't even have to be able to do 50 Push Ups.

How many push ups does a drone pilot need to do to be successful?

In fact how many push-ups do your drones need to do?

The ability to text and maintain multiple communication lines at once is going to outrank swords and sandals pretty soon.

[Rhyfelwyr]

There will always be obsticles... So what? Equality is a lie, says who?

I am saying that in driving towards gender equality, you are increasing class inequality.

People can change, obsticles can be removed and equality can be made, when people worked hard enough they have moved mountains, we fly, we outpace sound and left the earth. We freed slaves, gained votes, rights, oppertunities. If people work towards something, they'll get it, be it immediately or after 100 years and the only obsticle that matters is a lack of motivation.

So if you are going to disparage the persuit as impossible, please, shut up, get out of the way and keep watching, maybe you'll last long enough to see it happen.

I said nothing to indicate that I see the pursuit as impossible - I said I see it as undesirable. The pursuit that is, not the goal. I would have reservations about the goal as well, but that is a separate issue and not something that I mentioned.

If you advocate taking artificial measures to promote gender equality in the workplace, you have to oppress one group of people with political measures to balance against the prevailing order. The thing is that this inequality might be down to culture and not active discrimination. But then you want to steam on ahead with positive discrimination. And positive discrimination in favour of one group is of necessity negative discrimination towards those excluded from it.

Sounds good unless you're a family with two low-wage incomes that has to count every cent.

You can be pragmatic. Only apply it to those above a certain wage level.

Put a cap on the total income of a household you say? Well, first of all that's communism and secondly people won't get together so fast anymore. The advantage of living together has to outweigh the financial penalty. ATM there are even tax breaks for married couples because noone would marry otherwise. A population reduction is the worst that can happen in a financial system that is based on continuing growth.

It is what it is. As for the supposed damage to the institution of marriage, there are countless economic realities doing infinitely more damage than anything I am proposing. Like I said it is not a policy I would pursue in isolation, it would work as part of a package.

[The Stranger]

There will always be obsticles... So what? Equality is a lie, says who?

People can change, obsticles can be removed and equality can be made, when people worked hard enough they have moved mountains, we fly, we outpace sound and left the earth. We freed slaves, gained votes, rights, oppertunities. If people work towards something, they'll get it, be it immediately or after 100 years and the only obsticle that matters is a lack of motivation.

So if you are going to disparage the persuit as impossible, please, shut up, get out of the way and keep watching, maybe you'll last long enough to see it happen.

obstacles so what indeed, but freedom through equality is an ideology, and it is best if people realize that. ofcourse no problem when you believe in it and want to see it realsized but it is still an utopia (which doesnt make it without value or without a core of truth).

[Ironside]

Ugh, I had a proper point-by-point reply written out, that I have lost to the forum playing up.

Anyway, the gist of it was this: That the variety of consumption is far less important that its sum total, that the sum total does not change depending on who holds a job; and even then, petty gains in circulation do not excuse reducing whole households to poverty. Even such gains are questionable, since higher income households are more likely to save up and take money out of circulation.

My apologies for not going in to this earlier. Does 5 small factories employ more or less than 1 big one? They employ more. That's why employment increases. And money put into the bank isn't out of circulation.

As for criticism of the "Rhyfelwyr law", it is unfair because it is not intended as an isolated policy. And even if it did have the effect of many women choosing to leave work, I do not see that as a failing, since it is not the job of governments to take artificial measures to forcibly change cultural norms.

Well excuse me for not liking the idea of regress away 200 years and creating a system that promotes oppression when there's a conflict.

I'm not entirely sure I get what you are saying here. But, if a working-class man should gain middle-class employment and marry within the middle-classes, is that not the definition of social mobility? An unemployed woman married to a middle-class man is still middle-class herself.

The desirable middle class women will be in a minority compared to the middle+working class men, making it similar to the aristocracy, who aren't exactly known for strong social mobillity. It will enforce the status quo social layers rather than generating more social mobillity.

I think it is probably a more general human trait that the internet exposes, rather than being a product of the internet or the types of people that frequent it.

And "politician speak" is a mixture of being forced to answer a question you don't have an answer on, while not lying (since they'll smack you down after a factcheck).

It's more of a reference of were the behavior most obviously appears.

What makes you think you are an authority to make such a statement?!?!

That would be my title in bullshitium.

[Sarmatian]

a good start would be penalties on the second income of any household.

You do realize that this, besides being in contradiction with every legal and moral norm, is impossible in practice?

[The Stranger]

taxation will find a way!

[Rhyfelwyr]

My apologies for not going in to this earlier. Does 5 small factories employ more or less than 1 big one? They employ more. That's why employment increases. And money put into the bank isn't out of circulation.

Well, regarding banks, I was wrong to phrase things in such an absolute way, but as I understand it they can only use part of a persons savings for their own investments, they have to keep some away. I think your point with the factories is irrelevant in a real world setting since the breakup of an individuals spending on particular goods does not directly correspond to the size of the factories that produce them.

But even then, I don't get the point in quibbling about these minor things, because petty economic gains aside, the dealbreaker is this - people are being needlessly reduced to poverty and endless unemployment. This is not an acceptable cost.

Well excuse me for not liking the idea of regress away 200 years and creating a system that promotes oppression when there's a conflict.

And yet I would say that you are advocating the exact same thing.

The desirable middle class women will be in a minority compared to the middle+working class men, making it similar to the aristocracy, who aren't exactly known for strong social mobillity. It will enforce the status quo social layers rather than generating more social mobillity.

An aristocracy without economic or political power isn't much of an aristocracy at all. Society tends to reflect its economic realities, not the other way around.

[Ironside]

Well, regarding banks, I was wrong to phrase things in such an absolute way, but as I understand it they can only use part of a persons savings for their own investments, they have to keep some away. I think your point with the factories is irrelevant in a real world setting since the breakup of an individuals spending on particular goods does not directly correspond to the size of the factories that produce them.

And that's the point. The increased variation causes a higher need of more workplaces, while very low variation has only a few very specialized companies. And I've pointed out that the world doesn't run on 1:1 conditions.

But even then, I don't get the point in quibbling about these minor things, because petty economic gains aside, the dealbreaker is this - people are being needlessly reduced to poverty and endless unemployment. This is not an acceptable cost.

"Therefore, to solve this problem I will reduce people to poverty and endless unemployement."

BTW, could you point out the difference of your idea and lowering the retirement age when it comes to the available workforce?

And yet I would say that you are advocating the exact same thing.

Last time I checked, unemployed has slightly more variation then gender.

An aristocracy without economic or political power isn't much of an aristocracy at all. Society tends to reflect its economic realities, not the other way around.

So middle class women, desirable because of their economic status aren't having any economic power at all. The aristocracy kept to itself to maintain their power, so upping the importance of strategical marriages would increase the effort to keep status quo.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You do realize that this, besides being in contradiction with every legal and moral norm, is impossible in practice?

I am theorizing, so the practicability of getting it put into practice is not something I am concerned about. I also reject these legal and moral norms and as they are, by their own traditions, in fact illegal and immoral.*

*I am not just being outrageous here. Traditional western schools of thought on the legal acquirement of property through individual labour are entirely out of wack with modern property and labour laws. Equally, the moralisation of labour and women's role in it are entirely modern innovations that diverge hugely from traditional moral thought. I am therefore the last one to respect moral and legal norms; the voice of one crying in the wilderness in a world full of ideologues and fanatics.

How would such a thing account for room-mate situations? I know one person my age who lives alone or has a family or for whatever reason has chosen to no longer live with their parents and pays for it with one income.

This is why you can't social-engineer around the middle-class. The middle-class lives in a perfect balance of circumstances and what works for them doesn't apply to either the rich or the poor. Its like quantum physics and normal physics; the rules just aren't the same.

While I agree that social engineering is of itself something undesirable and generally causes more harm than good, I think that things can also reach a stage where the entire system becomes so engineered and artificial, that it takes equally engineering and artificial measures to dismantle it. I think we reached that stage a long time ago.

And that's the point. The increased variation causes a higher need of more workplaces, while very low variation has only a few very specialized companies. And I've pointed out that the world doesn't run on 1:1 conditions.

Indeed it doesn't, most particularly because it is not individual patterns of spending but collective patterns of spending that are relevant in this regard. But I think this point is so minor that it is not even worth discussing.

"Therefore, to solve this problem I will reduce people to poverty and endless unemployement."

BTW, could you point out the difference of your idea and lowering the retirement age when it comes to the available workforce?

Well with the upcoming pensions crisis lowering retirement age is obviously not an option.

I just want you to acknowledge that there is a trade-off here - women's liberation in the workforce has created opportunity at the expense of workers as a whole, and in particular young and poorly qualified workers - in other words, the most downtrodden and vulnerable.

Last time I checked, unemployed has slightly more variation then gender.

Of course, but something does not have to be the sole factor to be a relevant factor.

So middle class women, desirable because of their economic status aren't having any economic power at all. The aristocracy kept to itself to maintain their power, so upping the importance of strategical marriages would increase the effort to keep status quo.

Right, but in this case the power of the women doesn't derive directly from their economic status, but only the social status that is confers. They have no economic stranglehold over anybody. If men should prefer them for their social status, that is a matter of personal taste and irrelevant for our purposes.

[Sarmatian]

I am theorizing, so the practicability of getting it put into practice is not something I am concerned about. I also reject these legal and moral norms and as they are, by their own traditions, in fact illegal and immoral.*

It's not just putting it into practice. Economy simply doesn't work that way. Even if we leave aside for the moment the trouble of defining what exactly a household consists of and ignore the problems of roommates, brothers or sisters living together, adults living with their parents... there are more important economic issues.

You can not lumber people with an increased amount of work and expect them to maintain same productivity. If I own a cafe with 10 tables and two waiters, I'm operating at optimal efficiency. If I fire one, the other won't get twice the salary because he simply can not wait 10 tables. Level of service drops and I start losing customers and eventually I downsize to 5 table. So, instead of me paying two salaries (2X), I'm now paying just X. Actually, in all probability even lower than X, since other expenses were factored when I had ten tables. Now, because the business is only half of what it used to be and my fixed expenses are the same (I still pay the same rent, electricity, insurance, various licenses and permits...) my profit margins are lower so I have to reduce the wage of the remaining waiter to keep my profit margins.

Secondly, you have to consider that not all jobs are the same. Some jobs are simply part time jobs. Some jobs are seasonal jobs. They aren't enough to provide support for a family, but they are needed. Your idea would throw it all out of whack.

The most important part of capitalism is efficiency. If they could reduce the workforce and keep the same profit margins, trust me, they would in a second. But, they can't. If they reduce the number of workers, their profits are gonna take a drop. So, in the end, you'd make all of us poorer.

*I am not just being outrageous here. Traditional western schools of thought on the legal acquirement of property through individual labour are entirely out of wack with modern property and labour laws. Equally, the moralisation of labour and women's role in it are entirely modern innovations that diverge hugely from traditional moral thought. I am therefore the last one to respect moral and legal norms; the voice of one crying in the wilderness in a world full of ideologues and fanatics.

I'm not really sure I understand what you're trying to say here. You're saying that woman's right to work isn't in accordance with legal and moral norms? And that true legal and moral norms should reflect more traditional role of women of taking care of a household? Or am I missing the point?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sarmatian, all I am suggesting is some sort of tax incentive/penalty to favour a disadvantaged group. This is already common practice and can be seen in tax breaks/income support for married couples, those with children, the disabled etc. These have never caused problems along the lines you are suggesting; or at least, if they have, they have been very minor.

I am not suggesting that we reduce the workforce, I'm talking about the distribution of the jobs.

Female employment is only part of the issue. Consider for example stay-at-home students, who work retail jobs purely for pocket money, while working-class families lose out on the potential for a living because of this. I am saying that there is a disconnect between those getting jobs, and those who need them.

I'm not really sure I understand what you're trying to say here. You're saying that woman's right to work isn't in accordance with legal and moral norms? And that true legal and moral norms should reflect more traditional role of women of taking care of a household? Or am I missing the point?

I am saying that the idea that the sum of female empowerment might be found in white-collar wage-labour is a very modern innovation, and as such not in accordance with moral norms. Even in today's drastically altered moral climate, I think there is a realization that if a woman wants to focus on a career, she will have to make sacrifices with her role as a parent. I do not think this is because women are not designed to work. Rather, I blame the nature of employment these days, which mostly forces women to spend all day in an office and often have a hefty commute on top of that - naturally this means they can't be very good mothers.

[Sarmatian]

Sarmatian, all I am suggesting is some sort of tax incentive/penalty to favour a disadvantaged group. This is already common practice and can be seen in tax breaks/income support for married couples, those with children, the disabled etc. These have never caused problems along the lines you are suggesting; or at least, if they have, they have been very minor.

I am not suggesting that we reduce the workforce, I'm talking about the distribution of the jobs.

You're talking about penalizing second income in a household, to encourage one income per household as you believe it will lead to more equal distribution of jobs and income on a larger scale. I am right?

Most households have two earners in an average western country. By taxing that second income you're making the second earner quit his/her job in favour of staying at home, thus you're reducing the workforce. And, since not all jobs are your typical nine to five, career jobs, you're making those other jobs highly unatractive. Who's going to work a part time job when it's not enough to support a household and when additional taxing makes it pointless?

Female employment is only part of the issue. Consider for example stay-at-home students, who work retail jobs purely for pocket money, while working-class families lose out on the potential for a living because of this. I am saying that there is a disconnect between those getting jobs, and those who need them.

And those students are generally needed. Who's going to work come the summer in Greece? All those tourists arrive, there isn't enough workers. Students fill that gap. An office worker won't quit his full time job for a seasonal one. Someone needs to work in all those other jobs that nine to five, full time jobs.

I am saying that the idea that the sum of female empowerment might be found in white-collar wage-labour is a very modern innovation, and as such not in accordance with moral norms. Even in today's drastically altered moral climate, I think there is a realization that if a woman wants to focus on a career, she will have to make sacrifices with her role as a parent. I do not think this is because women are not designed to work. Rather, I blame the nature of employment these days, which mostly forces women to spend all day in an office and often have a hefty commute on top of that - naturally this means they can't be very good mothers.

Just like as if father focuses on a career, but this is more about sociology than economy. Your idea wouldn't solve this problem anyway.

[Ironside]

Indeed it doesn't, most particularly because it is not individual patterns of spending but collective patterns of spending that are relevant in this regard. But I think this point is so minor that it is not even worth discussing.

It's the reason why the UK aren't having 45-50% unemployment. It's one of the components that makes modern economics work aka, Fordism, aka paying your workers a decent salary. Minor point indeed.

Well with the upcoming pensions crisis lowering retirement age is obviously not an option.

And that should tell you the economical feasibillity of your ideas. So, now that we have concluded to your ideas doesn't work economically, we return to compare your ideas to lowering the pension age.

I just want you to acknowledge that there is a trade-off here - women's liberation in the workforce has created opportunity at the expense of workers as a whole, and in particular young and poorly qualified workers - in other words, the most downtrodden and vulnerable.

No, and that's because it's much more complex than that. According to what you say, increasing the pension age will permanently increase unemployment. That also means that the goverments are suffering from economic death spirals that they can't get out from (not even immigration, since an immigrant always steals a job, rather than creating new ones), due to people getting older.

Sure, sudden changes will cause an effect, but it will diminish in time.

Right, but in this case the power of the women doesn't derive directly from their economic status, but only the social status that is confers. They have no economic stranglehold over anybody. If men should prefer them for their social status, that is a matter of personal taste and irrelevant for our purposes.

What happens is that their importance for social status goes up and the consequences would rather be that social mobility goes down rather than up.

[Shaka_Khan]

It's amazing that most countries didn't grant women the right to vote until the 20th century. New Zealand is the first and the only one who granted that right during the 19th century, but that was only a few years before the 20th. There was a time during prehistory in certain cultures when women had high status. Even after prehistory, everyone in certain native American nations had the right to participate in national (tribal) decision making gatherings. However, most modern countries didn't have that right for a long time.

That being said, we still live in an unequal society for the genders. It's because there are some characteristics that still exist. One is that women are the gender who give birth. Thus, they feel more responsibility and more concern about raising children. And giving birth isn't an easy task. So it's always them who end up on leave from work and who take care of the children. Despite the fact that women are becoming more independent, we still live in a society in which women seek a smart bf/husband who can take care and protect them. This has been ingrained into them since prehistoric times. Men still have the pressure to show that they're strong and capable of taking care of his future family. We still live in a society in which women feel the pressure that they shouldn't be the instigators of being the first to approach a man or being the one to start sex. These factors make the two genders think differently in general. Maybe in the future, technology will be so advanced that women won't feel the burden of child birth. Maybe the fetus could be surgically moved outside to an artificial womb. Maybe they'll be a safe form of steroids and growth hormones that would help make women feel more physically powerful. Then the future would be a very equal society.

I used to wonder why a lot of the attractive women with good personalities chose the worse men. Now I think it's because they seek someone who's smart and could protect and take care of them. However, it's usually the worse guys who act as if they have these traits the most. My sister's friend was one of the most attractive girl at our school. She told my sister that her ideal type is a guy who was actually the bully of our school. She didn't see him bully the weaker guys (and even some of the teachers) because she was in a different grade. He was one of the alpha males, and she mainly saw him when he was with his "cool" friends. In her eyes, that guy looked like the one who could protect and take care of her the most. His marriage life later on is another story. I know this because his wife is my sister's other friend. There's a saying that nice men finish last, but many people forget that this is a competitive world in which the one who takes the chance early on finishes first. (But the story doesn't end with that competition).

[The Stranger]

maybe they can invent a brainwashing machine that makes every human a brainless drone, that society would be very equal and boring. It would actually seize to be a society, society is political and when all difference seizes to exist there no longer is need of any politics.

freedom through equality is an utopian ideology, and while it seems quite attractive at first, it has some very dangerous consequenses. we should find a way in which we can be different and still free, or in name of equality we should give up our freedom, i dont really see a way to truly have both.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ironside, I believe that I have already addressed these complexities you mention, and stated why they don't take away from the individual factors I've been trying to raise. As things stand, I think we are at something of a stalemate.

You're talking about penalizing second income in a household, to encourage one income per household as you believe it will lead to more equal distribution of jobs and income on a larger scale. I am right?

Most households have two earners in an average western country. By taxing that second income you're making the second earner quit his/her job in favour of staying at home, thus you're reducing the workforce. And, since not all jobs are your typical nine to five, career jobs, you're making those other jobs highly unatractive. Who's going to work a part time job when it's not enough to support a household and when additional taxing makes it pointless?

And those students are generally needed. Who's going to work come the summer in Greece? All those tourists arrive, there isn't enough workers. Students fill that gap. An office worker won't quit his full time job for a seasonal one. Someone needs to work in all those other jobs that nine to five, full time jobs

Regarding your initial question - yes, that is largely correct. Although I don't think all households need to have only one income; just enough so that all households have at least one income.

As for your objections... firstly, the penalties do not have to be so extreme that all second incomes would become unviable. They can be targeted against particular wage brackets or types of employment so that a) the most vulnerable do not suffer and b) they are the sort of jobs the current unemployed will be suited for. Since we would only aim to lose as many employees as we could replace, there would be no total loss to the workforce.

Regarding part-time, temporary jobs etc - like I said we could show some pragmatism in how any reforms are applied.

Just like as if father focuses on a career, but this is more about sociology than economy. Your idea wouldn't solve this problem anyway.

Sociology and the economy can impact each other quite severely. Fathers are less important in the day-to-day care for children for obvious reasons, never mind of course bringing them to term.