The only reason in some cases (very rare) women earn more than men is because of the feminist movement otherwise women would not be in the workforce in general. As for dangerous jobs it is not restricted to the male gender nor should it be-if a person can do the job they should be able to have it, otherwise males would be restricted, ie: males would not be in jobs such as nursing, receptionists, customer service etc.

Women who marry don't often rely on their husband's wages why well as you stated we earn more! Quite often husbands rely on their wife's wages. The alimony thing it is genderless I don't even see this as an issue if has to do with their children, both male and female.

My list could go on and on I think you are very sexist and mixed up in the way you perceive things.

Like men committing violent crimes, making excuses for the men committing them. As I am sure you would agree if my father was denied to see me and went out, shot YOUR whole family your response would certainly change.

Women do earn less than men take a look at sport, and tennis the amount the men's champions get paid to the women's.

As for the voice thing how many female Prime Minister's and Presidents have you seen?

I am sure you would not want your daughter, sister, mother not to be able to do something in life because of your views and the views of men like yours open your eyes to the ninties 1930 is long gone.

Read my reply or Skip to next archive (April)
You make some statements that seem to be held with strong conviction. But the way you approach your argument itself deserves scrutiny. Rather than tackle the lot let's look at one single component and its relevance:

"The only reason in some cases (very rare) women earn more than men is because of the feminist movement otherwise women would not be in the workforce in general."

This statement might be true or false or have a degree of truth. Is it so hard to imagine that some women accrued large amounts of wealth within cultures that allowed such possibilities? You would be correct in saying that any society which denied women the right to earn as much as men would restrict female wealth. But there is little evidence for this. There is also no evidence that liberal societies which allow the private accumulation of wealth have systematically stopped women from accruing wealth, at a rate that regulated it to below that of male wealth.

There have been many periods in history when women have earned more than men. One example that springs to mind is the story of Mohammed, who spent some time under the roof of a wealthy businesswoman. You mentioned that I had some harking for the patriarchal ideals of the 1930s. Well I just happened to finish reading a biography of Dorothy Parker. She's the one who made statements like "A good man is hard to find" or was that Mae West? Anyway, she was also a Hollywood scriptwriter and made $5000 a week as I recall. that was about the same as her husband, although he seemed to work more consistently.

In order for your claim to be true, that women earn less than men it would have to be true that all jobs where women work must have lower wages than men. Where men and women do the same job they must receive less, either by decree of the government or by systematic acts of the company. In neither case have I seen any evidence of this. So, at the very least, in those instances where men from slightly low skilled low paying male jobs have married and fraternised with women who had higher skilled, higher paid jobs, then the women in those instances would earn more. Why is that so hard to accept? It is such a mundane and uncontroversial statement or likelihood and yet is deemed ideologically beyond contemplation. There is no need to theorise feminist causes to draw this simply conclusion.

So even drawing on this level of social logic your adamant claim seems over zealous. This is where I find the psychological orientation of feminists, both male and female, intriguing. They have a religious style commitment to the idea that men are powerful and dominant and women are weak and disadvantaged. No facts or evidence or even contemplation must come in the way of this rule.

I suspect that for the male adherent it gives a sense of benevolent vrituosity. Perhaps it gives you comfort to think that you have recognised women's disadvantage and you have a social justice cause to which you can ally yourself. It is very chivalrous of you. However your sentiment is largely misplaced. If you believe in equal wages for the disadvantaged in general that would be a different story.

I don't have the time to go into the other points you raise but our opinions differ along precisely the same factual and pathological lines. They reaffirm for me the belief that your ideology is misguided. No doubt you view me in the same light.

Skip to next archive (April)