Reply With Quote
Unfortunate for them, but what's the point here?
Unfortunate for them, but what's the point here?
I think you just made it with your question. Injustice, shrug, what's the point? I got mine, everyone else - especially "those" people.
Nice strawman you've erected here.
Who'd have thunk that in professions where women outnumber men, cutbacks would affect women more than men? What an "injustice".
LOL, "it's just women's work."
You're a ty ventriloquist, Cap'n Dingdong. CG said no such thing.
Look, it's a simple factual matter: Do women outnumber men in health care and teaching or not?
If so, cuts in these areas will fall on more women than men by dint of their greater participation.
Sad, yes. Because teachers and health care professionals do honorable work, not because women preponder in these fields.
LOL, "It's just the way things are."
Sorry you got fired gals, that's just the way things are, it couldn't be helped. Nobody's pickin' on you or anything, really. We feel your pain.
12 Tax-Dodging Corporations Spent $1 Billion To Influence Washington Over The Last Decade
The amount of money that taxpayers are losing from the tax dodging by these major corporations is enormous. For example, if five of the nation’s biggest banks paid their taxes at the full rate, we could re-hire every single one of the 132,000 teachers laid off during the recession — twice.
At the very least I find it VERY interesting on a social level that decisions made by a mostly male government impact professions with more women members negatively. Furthermore, its equally as interesting that a profession dominated by men (the military) is one of the hardest to get cuts from.
The question is do you believe in coincidences like this on a societal level?
Apart from reflexive adherance to military keynesianism, resistance to military cuts has very little to with DoD and the military being male dominated and everything to do with our representatives emulating their pisspants cons uents. JMO.
@WH I don't know about that. With no data and just from what you know, do you think a congress with a male to female ratio more in line wit our population's male to female ratio would have a higher chance of enacting military cuts?
Anytime you want to want to actually explain something or attempt to make a point here, go right ahead. Thus far all you've produced in this thread is a random link, a couple of failed ventriloquist acts and a goal post move.
A fair question. I don't feel certain of the answer. Do you?
Certain? No. But I know what my initial hypothesis is. I think its worthwhile exploring ideas such as this, however.
What is your initial hypothesis and on what do you base it?
My gut feeling, albeit buttressed by the conventional wisdom of women being more pacifist by nature, is that a congress domintated by women would be more likely to cut MI spending. But, I have not a single data point to base this on and my confidence level reflects that.
Pretty much what TB posted.
Although not necessarily because women are pacifist. I think that women place more importance on social programs in general.
Why does someone always have to play the race or gender card?
Same question the black surgeon asked, tbh
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
