I guess to be fair I'll reply with what I would've posted, if only for a good debate...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog
I think Ethan was right to ask what you mean here by "evolution." The implication is that something naturally happened to prevent women from working, and that it wasn't a man made construct. By implying that alone you're going to piss people off so if you didn't mean it was natural rephrase, and if you did, state why.
|
It would appear that women are, in general, weaker and smaller than men, for the simple reason that the male was the hunter-gatherer who provided for the family, while the mother cared for the children, which might explain why women in general are less aggressive than men.
Quote:
|
If a woman joins the work force, how (and we'll need specifics here) are men or children suffering?
|
I was going on the assumption that children needed a female caregiver in their life as part of their development, but after looking for evidence to support this I realized kids are fine with males as well. The man might suffer because most guys I know wouldn't like to raise kids in stead of their wife, a subtle sexism I guess might still be pervading the cultural psyche.
Quote:
|
As for how natural it feels to raise a child, thats got more to do with the person and their upbringing than it does with nature. Some people find children to be a burden, some love the idea of teaching children.
|
Absolutely right, I would've been stumped by this
