yes, it was all hard work. Why do you think we liked factory work?
Is there a typo in that sentence? "able .... and capable"? do you maybe mean "able, and willing"? well...
And never get taught to recognize work that has to be done, do it, and not expect to get praised and rewarded and paid and worshipped and labelled a hero.
All childbearing women have to learn some way of coping. The males can run away. ;-) Females are physically connected for the first nine months. This is a biological fact and cannot be changed. If it could be changed, males would have had that job a long time ago.
I changed that by doing it. The feminists in the area just flapped their lips while their husbands earned the money and paid the bills. I do know what I'm talking about.
You are not doing those adults a favor. The zero should be an incomplete, unfullfilled, NAN, or something. These people are supposed to be getting prepared for the...
There is a difference between qualified and doing the necessary grunt work to get the job. And getting the job is just a first step. Once you get hired, you have to do the work. Qualified means that you can do the whole task without somebody babysitting you all the time. A degree does NOT say the holder is qualified. The degree just says the holder has had the opportunity to acquire all book training. It never guaranatees that the holder is capable of doing the job. Completely a job is a whole different matter and involves skills that couldn't be taught. That is why resumes all have to include experience.
It was already happening. Women had been working in the factories and retail and farms since before I was born.
Not the mainstream, but politicians and the laws they pbutt. That is the only difference. If you look at those laws, they have more to do with production prevention and a lessening of independence than creating a climate where women can get the work they want.
Exactly. So the way the stats are getting used is biased. You have to do an age slice of sample data. The same happens with men. These stats, to prove inequality, don't consider the usual promotion out of the grunt work levels. A lot of males don't like being bosses; they want to make stuff. In today's HR biz, you either are a grunt or you are a boss. One has to fight like hell to stay on the technical side of any biz. JMF and TW and I had to. I can't begin to describe all the plots and schemes and manipulations that were done so I would become a boss. They called it a career path. And nobody who had been infected with PCitis, considered the technical side a "nice job". It was all management.
Exactly. And most of those non-technical jobs are filled via promotions of people who used to do the tech work. Yet this promotion path is counted against the men when talk about equality in job levels at the tech level.
snip Less work? Better pay? snip So you agree with Andrew Swallow that women get to make the choices about which jobs are men's work and which are women's work...
Now, think about that. It would match.
There aren't any if the prep is supposed to slant an opinion to social and "equality" legislation.
But those numbers would be the most interesting if they were compared to degree completions and then employment stats. It tells you how many stayed interested (percentages), did complete the degree, and then was still interested in doing the work they prepared for.