Women caused the credit crisis:-

[Iolaus]

Jupta,

Oh, I see. By childcare you meant child support payments in cases of divorce. I think of childcare as the same as daycare. I agree that it has been my experience that women initiate divorce more of the time.

The corporate is not a male-oriented system. Rather it's very feminine - very little responsibility, and very flexible in ethics.

Here is where I find that you are antiwoman. Even a society (corporate) that has been almost completely male dominated since its inception is somehow feminine where it has faults. This means that men are actually perfect, and when they are not perfect it is because they are "feminine."

You say men don't consume as much tax money as women. Are you referring to welfare? Welfare is a drop in the bucket.

115% of income tax means that the men pay taxes for the the whole country + the resultant deficits that arise out of the humongous fed spending bill, mostly concentrated towards women. I don't know how you got the 85 figure.

Actually, I don't know what I was thinking, and I don't know what you mean that men pay 115% of something. 100% being the max. Nor is it true that men pay all the taxes and then some, so what do you mean here?

Women mostly work in the public sector, which is fund operated, i.e, non-profit.

This is nuts. And even where true, say a teacher, it is still a valuable contribution, or would be if the school system were a good one. It seems that you have a skewed sense of values or worth. If a man tills the field, you say he has produced, but if a woman feeds that grain in a sandwich to a child, she has consumed. Yet aren't both valuable and necessary?

For the very reason that men have more pressure.

On the contrary, the way I see it, women now are under excessive pressure and I expect their lives to be shortened soon. They are forced to live as men in a man's world while simultaneously being pregnant and caring for infants, and abandoning their infants while towing the happy line. American women work far too hard.

This is completely wrong. Women are the first people to attach themselves to an alpha, and then they compel other men to do the same. The beta chimps submit to the alpha chimps in hopes of getting some of the females attached to them.

No, males have an entire society to themselves. They do so in every society. In fact, nearly every society has some form of an exclusive male club or forum. The males in chimp society also have a social network. It may be true that the betas try to get some females by submitting to the males, but that is not all of what is going on. Males in human society are also constantly creating large social structures with rules. Even schizophrenic males in a ward behave far more socially toward one another than the females do, who tend to remain each one locked in her own world.

This is probably the root goal of feminism. Control the females, and you control the men.

Now this may very well be so. Women being the male Achilles heel.

[jupta]

Here is where I find that you are antiwoman. Even a society (corporate) that has been almost completely male dominated since its inception is somehow feminine where it has faults. This means that men are actually perfect, and when they are not perfect it is because they are "feminine."

You say men don't consume as much tax money as women. Are you referring to welfare? Welfare is a drop in the bucket.

Corporations were the result of a feminine society - the west. Previously, there were single man run businesses which were better producers overall than corporations, and completely independent of government. This is still true today in some eastern firms, which are still more or less patriarchal societies.

I'm sorry but I can't accept that welfare is a drop in the bucket. At least not for the population. Besides, there is child support, healthcare, alimony etc. which women consume to a larger extent.

Actually, I don't know what I was thinking, and I don't know what you mean that men pay 115% of something. 100% being the max. Nor is it true that men pay all the taxes and then some, so what do you mean here?

The 15% is the deficit incurred, i.e, it is the 'spillover' from all the spending with the original tax money. It has very little sense outside economics though, so you may not understand it.

And yes, men do pay 100% of income taxes - that is, after the money that they consume is subtracted. One may say that the contribution of women is not nullified, but they actually go at a loss, so, economically speaking, they are not contributing anything. For most(95%) women: produce - consumption = a negative.

This is nuts. And even where true, say a teacher, it is still a valuable contribution, or would be if the school system were a good one. It seems that you have a skewed sense of values or worth.

How is this nuts? Public sector in US is dominated by women. And most public sector jobs(especially the ones in which women have majority) are useless - the product of excessive social liberalism, and bureaucracy. And American schooling is a disaster, as I pointed out before.

The four most productive sectors of US economy are mining, utilities(infrastructure outside construction), construction and manufacturing. They account for 80% of US economy. They are comprised of 83% men. 94% of people directly serving these sectors are men. Yet, the most expensive sector employee wise is healthcare, which has 90+% of women. I'm not even going into public education and retail.

If a man tills the field, you say he has produced, but if a woman feeds that grain in a sandwich to a child, she has consumed. Yet aren't both valuable and necessary?

Yeah, so let them stay at home - simple solution.

On the contrary, the way I see it, women now are under excessive pressure and I expect their lives to be shortened soon. They are forced to live as men in a man's world while simultaneously being pregnant and caring for infants, and abandoning their infants while towing the happy line. American women work far too hard.

Sorry, I don't believe that a working American woman has it any worse than, say, a housewife in India. They are allowed a far higher level of flexibility than men in the workplace. That alone disproves your point.

No, males have an entire society to themselves. They do so in every society. In fact, nearly every society has some form of an exclusive male club or forum. The males in chimp society also have a social network. It may be true that the betas try to get some females by submitting to the males, but that is not all of what is going on. Males in human society are also constantly creating large social structures with rules. Even schizophrenic males in a ward behave far more socially toward one another than the females do, who tend to remain each one locked in her own world.

Um, what are you talking about? Exclusive male club? I'd like to know about this club, so I can join it and get all of its benefits as soon as I'm out of university. It'd be so much better getting a job through this male exclusive club than through my own merit.

[vicdan]

Economically undeniable!

The more I read of the babble you write, the more I am amazed that such an utter intellectual void as you actually exists. Seriously, do you have any clue about how economics works, and how economic condition relates to employment?

To say nothing of your misogyny, which i have come to expect in this place; but event hat you take to a whole new level.

[jupta]

Economically undeniable!

The more I read of the babble you write, the more I am amazed that such an utter intellectual void as you actually exists. Seriously, do you have any clue about how economics works, and how economic condition relates to employment?

To say nothing of your misogyny, which i have come to expect in this place; but event hat you take to a whole new level.

I'll be happy to learn economics from you. What amazes me though, is that one of you has yet to provide a single valid point against what I wrote.

[vicdan]

I'll be happy to learn economics from you. What amazes me though, is that one of you has yet to provide a single valid point against what I wrote.

When faced with such mountainous pile of biullshit as you have produced, I don't even know where to start.

How about this one, idiot: "A brilliant, highly scholarly paper"? it's a fucking idiotic, economically ignorant op-ed. Take this piece of blithering idiocy, for example:

Whether working women actually caused the credit crunch is now a moot point. The point is that removing women from the workforce would mitigate its effects.

Consider the issue of unemployment. There were 221,301 men on the live register last month and just under one million women in work.

Surely at least half these women have a partner who is earning? Surely at least half would be happier at home? One half of one half is a quarter and one quarter of a million is roughly 221,301. I think we can all see where this argument is going.

Economy is not a zero-sum game. If there had been fewer women working all along, there would have been fewer jobs today as well, simply because of the nature of the employment market. You don't get to take the real world and simply swap in, wholesale, a whole different set of assumptions. It's like my kids: "What if we could fly without wings?"

What the author is suggesting -- encouraging women to quit -- is no different from encouraging people to leave the workforce. Surely many of the employed men have wives who earn enough to keep the family going! Why don't those men stay at home, and let those really in desperate need of jobs get one? But of course this will do exactly nothing for the crisis, because at best (assuming the cost of training new employees to be a big fat zero), the aggregate income, and thus aggregate consumption, will remain exactly as it is, so the economy won't spin any faster. In the real world, though, the cost of retraining, coupled with the lack of gain in aggregate employment, would make the problem worse, not better.

But wanna make it even worse?

It would be ludicrous to suggest that women should be sacked purely to give men their jobs. In many cases, their jobs should be abolished as well.

yeah. let's abolish some jobs, let's have even less employment and income! That oughtta help with the lack of aggregate demand!

In short, you are dumb as bricks, as is the author of that moronic article. A first-year econ student could see that error from a mile away.

[jupta]

Economy is not a zero-sum game. If there had been fewer women working all along, there would have been fewer jobs today as well, simply because of the nature of the employment market. You don't get to take the real world and simply swap in, wholesale, a whole different set of assumptions. It's like my kids: "What if we could fly without wings?"

Fewer women working all along = fewer jobs.

....Your point?

What the author is suggesting -- encouraging women to quit -- is no different from encouraging people to leave the workforce.

Not really. Look at what I said before. The nature of jobs that 'people' do matters when you consider an economy. Having more and more jobs should not be the aim of any economy.

Surely many of the employed men have wives who earn enough to keep the family going!

Maybe, but those jobs are ultimately worthless to the economy.

Why don't those men stay at home, and let those really in desperate need of jobs get one? But of course this will do exactly nothing for the crisis, because at best (assuming the cost of training new employees to be a big fat zero), the aggregate income, and thus aggregate consumption, will remain exactly as it is, so the economy won't spin any faster.

The article did not say that women should quit to leave room for those in desperate need of jobs.

In the real world, though, the cost of retraining, coupled with the lack of gain in aggregate employment, would make the problem worse, not better.

No.

yeah. let's abolish some jobs, let's have even less employment and income! That oughtta help with the lack of aggregate demand!

Much of the economy of the west today is a water bubble. Most of its jobs - gender wise, 95% of female ones and around 30% of male ones - are useless.

[Unidian]

Much of the economy of the west today is a water bubble. Most of its jobs - gender wise, 95% of female ones and around 30% of male ones - are useless.

Look, I'd be your biggest defender if you weren't spouting absolute bullshit. But alas, you are. Where, other than your own posterior regions, did you derive such a obviously bogus statistic?

Undermining the modern fetish for endlessly inventing useless jobs is a worthwhile task. However, you don't do it by making up ridiculous misogynistic figures claiming that only 30% of male-held jobs are worthless, as opposed to 95% of female-held ones.

Your blatantly misogynistic agenda is sinking your own ship.

[vicdan]

Fewer women working all along = fewer jobs.

....Your point?

My point is that the female employment is therefore not related to the credit crunch, which is what your article is about.

In fact the credit crunch is mostly caused not by women working or making purchasing decisions, but by bankers and market players making really bad strategic decisions about finances. And almost all of those people are men. As are the people like Gramm, Bliley, Summers, Leach, etc. -- you know, the ones who pushed through the banking deregulation.

Not really. Look at what I said before. The nature of jobs that 'people' do matters when you consider an economy. Having more and more jobs should not be the aim of any economy.

of course not. it should be to have as many jobs as the market (i.e. the people) want. Women make their own employment decisions. if there's more demand for jobs, more jobs will appear.

Most of its jobs - gender wise, 95% of female ones and around 30% of male ones - are useless.

Ah yes, more of those "highly scholarly" numbers pulled out of your ass!

Do you have any idea what the words "facts" and "analysis" actually mean?

[jupta]

Undermining the modern fetish for endlessly inventing useless jobs is a worthwhile task. However, you don't do it by making up ridiculous misogynistic figures claiming that only 30% of male-held jobs are worthless, as opposed to 95% of female-held ones.

The figures were not meant to be accurate, but that is the overall picture.

In fact the credit crunch is mostly caused not by women working or making purchasing decisions, but by bankers and market players making really bad strategic decisions about finances. And almost all of those people are men.

Which does not disprove the point that many women working in useless jobs were a cause.

of course not. it should be to have as many jobs as the market (i.e. the people) want. Women make their own employment decisions. if there's more demand for jobs, more jobs will appear.

Again, your logic fails you.

Ah yes, more of those "highly scholarly" numbers pulled out of your ass!

Do you have any idea what the words "facts" and "analysis" actually mean?

Do your own research. 'Facts' are not hard to find on the net.

[vicdan]

The figures were not meant to be accurate, but that is the overall picture.

of your delusion, yes.

Which does not disprove the point that many women working in useless jobs were a cause.

it does disprove the claims that women's employment is the cause of the credit crunch, or the crisis in general. You do have enough of an attention span to remember that that was the thesis of the article you quoted, right?

Have some fucking discipline of thought. your thinking is incredibly disorganized, and you evidence all the attention span of a cockroach.

Again, your logic fails you.

You haven't the first idea about economics, do you?

Do your own research. 'Facts' are not hard to find on the net.

No, kiddo, you made the claim, it's your job to back it.

Go ahead. I can wait.

<crickets>

[Unidian]

The figures were not meant to be accurate, but that is the overall picture.

Heh... "What I said is completely made up, but it's true anyway."

Gotcha.

[jupta]

it does disprove the claims that women's employment is the cause of the credit crunch, or the crisis in general. You do have enough of an attention span to remember that that was the thesis of the article you quoted, right?

No it doesn't. The solidest economies today - Russia, Japan, China, India, Saudi etc., - are all male-dominated. Even they have evil capitalist bankers. I don't see any of them being affected to the extent that the west is, or will be.

You haven't the first idea about economics, do you?

Your fallacy lies in the fact that you think that the demand for more jobs necessitates their creation.

No, kiddo, you made the claim, it's your job to back it.

Go ahead. I can wait.

<crickets>

The most productive sectors of US economy - mining, utilities, construction, manufacturing and wholesale trade(not in order).

The least productive - health care, education, and 'other services'(not in order).

Men dominate the former sectors. Women dominate the latter. In fact the category of 'other services' is almost completely dominated by women. Men work in the profit-based sectors, women in the fund-based ones. All of this could be found in a wikipedia article, which I am not citing. Do it yourself.

[Unidian]

Health care and education are the "least productive" sectors?

Wow... can you share what you are smoking? I guess you figure dead, diseased, uneducated people are going to be highly "productive," eh? yeah... good luck being "productive" with no health care and no education.

Ridiculously short-sighted.... laughable.

You are the kind of idiot who probably thinks Socrates was "unproductive" because he didn't dig ditches.

[Nick]

You are the kind of idiot who probably thinks Socrates was "unproductive" because he didn't dig ditches.

I thought that was Victor.

[jupta]

Wow... can you share what you are smoking? I guess you figure dead, diseased, uneducated people are going to be highly "productive," eh? yeah... good luck being "productive" with no health care and no education.

That's not the point. US healthcare is among the worst in the western world, but employs a lot of people(most of them women). France, for example has one of the best healthcares in the world, but it's amazingly small, and while mistakes do happen(as they do everywhere), people get treated right, and outlive the American white populous. It is also male dominated, btw.

Public education in US is also pedestrian. And the system is heavily biased against men, primarily because it is so overwhelmingly dominated by women. Humanities courses in American universities are equally worthless, filled with political correctness and liberal ideas, which are imprinted upon students. American higher education is known only for its technical and professional courses and universities/colleges, which are all male dominated.

You are the kind of idiot who probably thinks Socrates was "unproductive" because he didn't dig ditches.

I don't think you want to make that comparison.....

[vicdan]

No it doesn't. The solidest economies today - Russia, Japan, China, India, Saudi etc., - are all male-dominated.

You know, you really shouldn't lie so brazenly. Russia's economy is a total basket-case, and China has higher female employment than the world average.

Stop fucking lying, you little bitch.

Even they have evil capitalist bankers. I don't see any of them being affected to the extent that the west is, or will be.

Russia is affected more. China has very high female employment. Japan's economy has been in the shithouse for a long time anyway. I don't know much about India.

You don't see much because you don't look. You are not dealing with facts, you are just making them up.

Your fallacy lies in the fact that you think that the demand for more jobs necessitates their creation.

That's an economic reality, kiddo. Shall i explain basic laws of supply and demand to you?

The most productive sectors of US economy - mining, utilities, construction, manufacturing and wholesale trade(not in order).

The least productive - health care, education, and 'other services'(not in order).

Give me facts. Data. What do you mean by "most productive"? How do you plan to disentangle gender from production?

Stop making shit up, kid. This isn't a highschool exam where you can bullshit your way to the answer.

All of this could be found in a wikipedia article, which I am not citing. Do it yourself.

The one who makes the claim is the one obligated to support it. Either do that or STFU.

[Shahrazad]

Victor said to jupta,

Stop fucking lying, you little bitch.

I love it. The bully was having fun hitting kids, then along came a bully twice his size who has the strength to shred him to pieces. I wouldn't be surprised if the first bully leaves the playground crying and never comes back. At least he'll wait until the bigger bully is gone, since the latter usually hangs out in a different playground.

[jupta]

You know, you really shouldn't lie so brazenly. Russia's economy is a total basket-case, and China has higher female employment than the world average.

Stop fucking lying, you little bitch.

Russia is affected more. China has very high female employment. Japan's economy has been in the shithouse for a long time anyway. I don't know much about India.

You don't see much because you don't look. You are not dealing with facts, you are just making them up.

The only thing I can care to respond to is the one about China - more women have employment because it has the largest population. Either way many female jobs are not full-time there, and frankly, I don't trust the Chinese government enough to believe their figures.

That's an economic reality, kiddo. Shall i explain basic laws of supply and demand to you?

Economic reality? So if there is a demand for more jobs, for whatever reason, but there is no need for them, you create them anyway? As far as I am concerned, that is the most foolish economic model I've ever seen. And damn it all, you are not that far from the truth either.

Give me facts. Data. What do you mean by "most productive"? How do you plan to disentangle gender from production?

Already said.

The one who makes the claim is the one obligated to support it. Either do that or STFU.

Statistics from Canada, which is literally ruled by feminists:

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/hip/hrp/sp/i ... fig7_e.gif

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/hip/hrp/sp/i ... ig10_e.gif

U.S stats:

Overall picture:

http://www.womenwork.org/resources/pdf/ ... epaper.pdf

Service/public sector:

http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/f ... ector1.pdf

In all of Asia:

http://www.iisg.nl/clara/publicat/clara4.pdf

And the wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Economy

[Gretchen]

In 2003, one in five home purchases were made by single women.

In 2006 women were 32% more likely to receive a subprime mortgage than men.

In 2006 women were 41% more likely to receive a high-cost subprime mortgage than men.

In 2006, 30% of mortgage borrowers were women

In 2006, 38.8% of subprime mortgage borrowers were women.

1. In 2003, one in five home purchases were made by single women.

2. In 2006 women were 32% more likely to receive a subprime mortgage than men.

3. In 2006 women were 41% more likely to receive a high-cost subprime mortgage than men.

4. In 2006, 30% of mortgage borrowers were women

5. In 2006, 38.8% of subprime mortgage borrowers were women

With regard to response #1, I would think this to be a smarter move on a woman’s part as she is building equity in an asset versus throwing her money away on rent.

With regard to response #5, this statement means that 61.2% of subprime mortgage borrowers were men.

With regard to response #4, if given that there are a total of 100,000 mortgages, to include subprime mortgages, would mean that women would have received 30,000 mortgages and men would have received 70,000.

If 10% of all mortgages are subprime – that is, given our example above, then the ratio of women’s subprime to prime is 12.9% compared to 8.7% of men. However, that leads me to…

Responses #2 & 3, which proves that women are targets of subprime lending, which was the point of the article.

(If my math is incorrect, please chime in ;-)

My question then turns to why do women get their sub-prime loans granted 4.2% more of the time than men? It doesn't seem to be a question of ignorance on the part of women, and not on the mortgage lender who grants these things only to turn around and sell them. No, the person who is the highest bidder on these subprime mortgages is the idiot, and the one who is getting bailed out.

[jupta]

With regard to response #1, I would think this to be a smarter move on a woman’s part as she is building equity in an asset versus throwing her money away on rent.

No.

With regard to response #5, this statement means that 61.2% of subprime mortgage borrowers were men.

With regard to response #4, if given that there are a total of 100,000 mortgages, to include subprime mortgages, would mean that women would have received 30,000 mortgages and men would have received 70,000.

So?

Responses #2 & 3, which proves that women are targets of subprime lending, which was the point of the article.

Yup.

My question then turns to why do women get their sub-prime loans granted 4.2% more of the time than men? It doesn't seem to be a question of ignorance on the part of women, and not on the mortgage lender who grants these things only to turn around and sell them. No, the person who is the highest bidder on these subprime mortgages is the idiot, and the one who is getting bailed out.

I'd just attribute the whole thing to women's greater stupidity and irresponsibility. Yeah, call me a misogynist. I'm having lots of fun over here.

Anyways, here's is another article on the subprime meltdown:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/15 ... .html?_r=1

[vicdan]

The only thing I can care to respond to is the one about China - more women have employment because it has the largest population.

No, moron, China has higher female employment rate than is the world average.

Economic reality? So if there is a demand for more jobs, for whatever reason, but there is no need for them, you create them anyway?

See? i knew you didn't understand even the most basic economics.

Jobs aren't a fixed pool of positions. There are many jobs which are worth doing for no more than, say, $10/hr; but if you can't hire people for that job for $10/hr, then the job goes undone, or you shift it around, or you outsource, or you automate, etc.

Now suppose the labor pool grows. There is more competition for the available jobs. Wages fall, and all of a sudden you can hire someone to do that job at $10/hr. poof! a job appears which didn't exist before. Thus the labor market maintains an equilibrium between job supply and job demand. Supply increases,wages go down; supply decreases, wages go up; etc. it's like with any other good, the actual price is the equilibrium between the supply and demand curves. You change one of the curves, the equilibrium changes.

Labor pool and job supply are both elastic.

As far as I am concerned, that is the most foolish economic model I've ever seen.

That's because you have never seen any actual economic models, so you are a clueless git who is trying to bullshit his way through.

Statistics from Canada, which is literally ruled by feminists:

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/hip/hrp/sp/i ... fig7_e.gif

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/hip/hrp/sp/i ... ig10_e.gif

U.S stats:

Overall picture:

http://www.womenwork.org/resources/pdf/ ... epaper.pdf

Service/public sector:

http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/f ... ector1.pdf

kid, are you really this dumb?

The question is not in showing the gender distribution by economy sector. That much is obvious. The trick is in (1) showing that jobs in some sectors are 'more productive' than in others, and (2) trying this difference in productivity to gender (as opposed to, say, the nature of the job -- i.e. an engineer will always be more productive than a farm hand for example), and (3) showing that remuneration is disproportionate to productivity WRT gender.

You are as dumb as bricks. You wouldn't know actual statistical analysis if it ran up to you and bit you on the leg. You didn't even understand the question, much less give a coherent answer.

[vicdan]

Victor said to jupta,

Stop fucking lying, you little bitch.

I love it. The bully was having fun hitting kids, then along came a bully twice his size who has the strength to shred him to pieces.

i am not a bully. i am the Holy Paladin of the Order of Ekonomikos.

[jupta]

No, moron, China has higher female employment rate than is the world average.

Um, what does this prove? Many countries have a female employment rate higher than the world average.

Jobs aren't a fixed pool of positions. There are many jobs which are worth doing for no more than, say, $10/hr; but if you can't hire people for that job for $10/hr, then the job goes undone, or you shift it around, or you outsource, or you automate, etc.

Now suppose the labor pool grows. There is more competition for the available jobs. Wages fall, and all of a sudden you can hire someone to do that job at $10/hr. poof! a job appears which didn't exist before. Thus the labor market maintains an equilibrium between job supply and job demand. Supply increases,wages go down; supply decreases, wages go up; etc. it's like with any other good, the actual price is the equilibrium between the supply and demand curves. You change one of the curves, the equilibrium changes.

And the point of the article was that this was not the case with much of female and some of male employment in US.

The question is not in showing the gender distribution by economy sector. That much is obvious. The trick is in (1) showing that jobs in some sectors are 'more productive' than in others, and (2) trying this difference in productivity to gender (as opposed to, say, the nature of the job -- i.e. an engineer will always be more productive than a farm hand for example), and (3) showing that remuneration is disproportionate to productivity WRT gender.

You're so clueless, it hurts.

[vicdan]

Um, what does this prove? Many countries have a female employment rate higher than the world average.

it proves that you cannot attribute China's good standing in the crisis to its low female employment, cretin!

And the point of the article was that this was not the case with much of female and some of male employment in US.

it is always the case. If there's more demand for jobs, other things being equal, this will mean larger labor pool, wages will go down, and more jobs will appear; the economy will grow faster, and wages will go back up.

You're so clueless, it hurts.

i take it you can't actually show that the economic sectors with higher percentage of women are less productive in the relevant sense, and that this lower productivity is women's fault.

I didn't think so, kiddo.

Go play in a sandbox, and leave actual thinking to those who don't treat it the way you probably treat your feces.

[jupta]

it proves that you cannot attribute China's good standing in the crisis to its low female employment, cretin!

I can however attribute that to its higher male employment. China employs more men than women in all sectors. And besides, it's female employment being higher than the world average is immaterial. It has a lower female employment rate than the western countries.

it is always the case. If there's more demand for jobs, other things being equal, this will mean larger labor pool, wages will go down, and more jobs will appear; the economy will grow faster, and wages will go back up.

No. Either way, we'll see in about 10 months or so.

i take it you can't actually show that the economic sectors with higher percentage of women are less productive in the relevant sense, and that this lower productivity is women's fault.

It doesn't matter whose 'fault' it is. The fact of the matter is that women in the US are employed in sectors which are not productive in any sense. The US Federal Govt. obligations(Assets, Capitol, Bonds, Trade Imbalance, etc) tops out as more than the combined GDP of the world:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=88851

The failed fund operated sector in the US is most definitely to blame for this, which is dominated by women.