Open Question: Why do women in such high number keep accepting these 'predominantely

Marx · #1 26th-August-2008

From Yahoo Answers

Quote:

.. if they are truly after gender equality? You know: nurse, hostess, flight attendant hospice worker, server, daycare worker -----> you know, basically all jobs that could be done equally as well by either sex. Why do women continue to readily accept and seek out these positions (knowing the gender bias).... yet then play on like they are truly consumed with the quest for equality?___'if more women didn't go after them they'd cease to be prededominantely female' - That sounds silly. Why not say the same thing about every job men dominate, and just leave it at that? Obviously feminists don't accept that shoe on the other foot.People hire women for these jobs in greater numbers and discourage men from them, otherwise it'd make sense to see more comparable numbers. It's simple as that.___These jobs are largely "reserved" for women. We all know that. Let's get serious for once in here.

dyslexic_banana · #2 26th-August-2008

Some jobs are more female, because females naturally gravitate towards such jobs more; some jobs are more male, because males naturally gravitate towards such jobs more; simple as.....

brian44 · #3 26th-August-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyslexic_banana

Some jobs are more female, because females naturally gravitate towards such jobs more; some jobs are more male, because males naturally gravitate towards such jobs more; simple as.....

Could you please explain that slowly to the halfwit Harriet Harman please.

AKUUS · #4 26th-August-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marx

From Yahoo Answers

I thought feminists didn't want a bunch of "perverted men" working as nurses or daycare workers? BTW, why do restaurants call waiters and waitresses "servers"? Half the time the waitr/ess takes your order and then another person serves you your food. So, the "server" doesn't even "serve" the food!

**Jake8** · #5 26th-August-2008

Well they don't want gender equality really; the fems just want to be sure that in whatever endeavor they choose they are given an advantage over any male who may have the same interest.
There are certainly differences in the sexes, and vocations must to some degree reflect that. For instance I think it is true that women are more nurturing (no, that doesn't mean that men are uncaring) and so I think better at things like supervising young children (nursery school, for instance). Men are physically stronger and more aggresive in nature and so better at everything from mechanical engineering to bull riding. It doesn't make sense to me that anybody---feminist, antifeminist, or somewhere in-betwen--- would expect every vocation to be equally divided between the two sexes.

dyslexic_banana · #6 26th-August-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake8

It doesn't make sense to me that anybody---feminist, antifeminist, or somewhere in-betwen--- would expect every vocation to be equally divided between the two sexes.

The only vocations the trollops wish to have 50/50 splits are those in which men currently form the majority; if this were to be achieved, they wouldn't then start campaigning to get more men into childcare. As the saying goes: "what's yours is mine, and what's mine is mine".

dyslexic_banana · #7 26th-August-2008

Although, if they DID achieve a 50/50 split, they'd then start campaigning for even more women to take up careers in such fields; God knows how many stupid reasons they'd muster up to supposedly justify such objectives.

**TERA** · #8 26th-August-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marx

From Yahoo Answers

Not sure I understand this post. Are you saying that women who are flight attendants, hostesses, etc., should not be considered equals to men? How do you define equality?

dyslexic_banana · #9 26th-August-2008

I think the guy is basically insinuating that women are WILLFULLY going for less well-paid careers, and hence seem less ambitious; that is to say, that they do not hold the same desires as do men, to 'reach the top', etc etc. I agree, SPEAKING IN TERMS OF AVERAGES.

dyslexic_banana · #10 26th-August-2008

Whereas, of course, feminists insist it is down to discrimination and social expectation; but, as I always say, men aren't women, and women aren't men. You can be a non-discriminatory as you like, but you can't FORCE women into the top positions; "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.....".