Re: Womenomics?
"MCP" wrote in message
news:zXhTi.68760$lV4.66834@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> http://endofmen.wordpress.com/2007/10/22/womenomics/#more-72
>
> Posted by fmwatkins on October 22nd, 2007
> Here is something that made me laugh.
>
> Why womenomics is the force of the future
>
> This article doesn't really go anywhere or say anything most don't already
> know. But of course, they need to keep rehashing the same old crap to
> cater
> to the narcissists.
>
> It starts off with the usual girl-power spin.
>
> Once women simply spent the housekeeping money doled out to them. These
> days
> they are more likely to hold the purse strings.
There's a marriage strike, remember? MEN will be spending their own money
now and advertisers will have to cater to them. If not, men are quite
capable of just saving their money and putting the economy into the crapper
:o) Females are only good for spending money (almost always men's) not
earning or saving it which is why they spend most of the money.
>
> This was one of the findings of a report entitled Living Britain, which
> examines the trends affecting the country at the beginning of the 21st
> century.
>
> It looked at the increasing purchasing and physical power of women on the
> economic and cultural front, which has been labelled 'womenomics'.
That's only because they are spending men's money.
>
> A phrase initially coined by the Economist, womenomics refers to the
> increasing purchasing and physical power of women on the economic and
> cultural front.
>
> This isn't new though. Men usually had the last say in the family budget
> because;
>
> 1. He earns it.
>
> 2. He is more likely to budget intelligently and think about preparing for
> the future.
>
> Women are earning more, good for them!
>
> The number of women scientists has soared, there are more female graduates
> than male, girls outstrip boys at A-Level and even traditionally male
> markets are succumbing to female touch.
Then why do men control and dominate 99% of the Fortune 500 companies? You
can't name one field where females dominate even in such typical female
areas like cooking and fashion. The top people are always MEN.
>
> We all know why this is happening. Conveniently forgetting the reasons for
> these changes because it involves boys' needs being ignored. But why let
> that stand in the way of womenomics?
All that shows is that a female needs twice the time in school to compete
with a highschool boy lol
>
> A recent Ofcom report found that women aged 25-35 now spend more time
> using
> the internet than men.
Yes now that shopping and other crap dominates the net. But let's just
remember who invented these computers, cell phones that females are
incessantly talking on, and wide screen TV's they watch Oprah on. Without
men the only communicating they'd be doing is to the next door neighbour
over the clothesline :o)
>
> LOL
>
> That has to be up there for the 'Most Irrelevant Statistic' Award 2007.
>
> The womenomics phenomenon was described by the Economist last year which
> argued that the future of the world economy lies increasingly in female
> hands.
>
> It found that over the past decade or so increased female participation in
> the paid labour force has contributed more to the growth of the world
> economy than either booming China or new technology.
Nonsense. If it wasn't for men there would be no economy except for a very
primitive village economy based on barter.
>
> "Women are becoming more important in the global marketplace not just as
> workers, but also as consumers, entrepreneurs, managers and investors,"
> the
> report said.
>
> "Women have traditionally done most of the household shopping, but now
> they
> have more money of their own to spend."
Bachelors will be doing their own shopping and spending their own money and
stores will have to adapt to that. Stores will have to be redesigned so as
not to waste men's precious time with a lot of junk. Men don't need 100
brands of shampoo to chose from lol
>
> We also know about pro-woman legislation designed to push women up the
> career at a rate disproportionate to their work volume, in the name of
> 'equality (of outcome)', and yes, it is good for the economy that more and
> more women are choosing careers. Bad for families and relationships of
> course, also bad for wages.
It's also bad for men because they have to pick up the female's slack and
work more. All men have to do is pull the rug out from under them and they
will collapse like a house of cards :o)
>
> The biggest winners in this girl-power 'revolution?'
>
> Why, corporations and government of course. More profits and more tax
> income.
>
> For the Living Britain report, researchers were keen to establish whether
> the womenomics phenomenon was equally alive in Britain as in the US. And
> Mr
> Raymond said it was a phenomenon driving Britain today.
Sounds more like a drunk driver behind the wheel.
>
> He said instead of focusing on women and gender, focus was instead
> switching
> to women and economic factors.
>
> He said this was partly driven by the fact that more than half of
> graduates
> are women. Graduates aged 25-30 earn on average 25 per cent more than
> non-graduates.
He means here non -graduate females, not men.
More women on higher salaries mean they are a driving force
> in the workplace.
>
> "Womenomics is about the purchasing and physical power of women and there
> economic influence, not just thinking about how many women are in the
> workforce," said Mr Raymond.
>
> No, womenomics is actually about promoting the idea that women are best
> having careers.
>
> Flexible working times and work-from home options have given women in the
> workplace more options, said the Living Britain survey.
>
> Today more than 80 per cent of employees in the UK, both male and female,
> rate flexible working as the most attractive benefit that an employer can
> offer.
>
> Jane Cunningham, founder of female marketing consultancy Pretty Little
> Head - who was interviewed for the comprehensive trends survey, said:
> "There's
> an increasingly interesting commercial opportunity in marketing to women.
Not if they're unmarried and have only their own income to waste.
>
> "Not only do they dominate household spending decisions, they are now
> significant
Yeah like 2% haha
in categories that have been traditionally viewed as male such
> as technology, cars and financial services."
>
> The report said: "Women are becoming more important in the global
> marketplace not just as workers, but also as consumers
They were always consumers. In fact, that's all they seem to do lol
, entrepreneurs,
> managers and investors.
>
> "Women have traditionally done most of the household shopping, but now
> they
> have more money of their own to spend."
She means in addition to the bulk, which is men's. But with men not marrying
it will be the men spending most of the money :o)
>
> That's nice.
>
> So what we have (since feminism) is women flooding into the workplace,
> dropping the wages so everyone has to work three times as much for the
> same
> quality of life, then complaining it's too hard, getting laws passed to
> push
> them through the ranks, trying to laugh at men because women have
> high-powered jobs, then trying to shame men because they don't find
> hyper-competitive i-can-have-everything females attractive, then they find
> themselves alone with all that money! On the other hand, if they do find a
> man silly enough to get hitched too, she then wants to do what? Keep her
> career AND stay at home and be a mum. If she can't do both those things
> she
> will become unhappy and blame the man (obviously).
There is no benefit in marriage for a man. Even under ideal conditions it's
bad for a man's health.
>
> By the way, in case you were wondering, doing both things is IMPOSSIBLE.
>
> And that is why men don't fancy high-flying women.
>
> So these women will find themselves with a career and no family. So who
> actually wins and loses?
Who cares? haha There are always fresh new naive girls available for
shagging and when they become tiresome we just trade them in. Females are
like cars. When they're new everything works properly and their engines have
a nice hum to them. That same car 20 years later is nothing but trouble and
aggravation and is not good for anything except the junkyard :o)
>
> Remember one of main goals of feminism was gaining control of women's
> reproductive capability. Encouraging them into the workplace not only gave
> the corporations more power to pay less in wages, but also for the
> government to make more by taxes other half of the population. Plus
> birthrates will plummet because of these 'careers'. Having the birthrate
> below replacement levels will encourage governments to have mass
> immigration
> to compensate.
>
> This then becomes a great tool for attacking the culture of this
> 'girl-power'
> country, and erodes the country's cultural identity. This then reduces the
> desire of the population of rise up to defend their country from being
> destroyed by having its sovereignty sold to a centralised power.
Feminism is a branch of communism.
>
> So feminism doesn't just destroy families, its effects spread to be able
> to
> undermine entire countries when it is allowed to grow unimpeded.
>
> Womenomics is the term used to describe the progress of the corporations
> in
> taking away personal independence and sovereignty.
A man needs a wife like a fish needs an aqualung.
>
>
> --
> ~ A man needs a woman like a lion needs a stove. ~
>
> ~ Women deserve only equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. ~
>
> ~ Men are not collectively "guilty" of anything. ~
>
> ~ Never needing to be pregnant is a blessing. ~
>
> ~ Feminist ideology "men have to respect women, but women have no reason
> to
> respect men" ~
>
> ~ Everybody makes choices, and nobody should be entitled to special
> treatment because of those choices.
> Equal results based on unequal treatment amounts to no kind of equality at
> all. ~
>
>
>
date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:19:13 GMT
author: Dr. Lippschitz
|
