To: Night Trader who wrote (44826 ) 1/16/2004 7:20:20 PM From: elmatador Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559 Why we have the female - male debate. AC I don't consider myself an expert on females. During WWII women were thrown into the work force while men were shipped overseas. WWII finished, instead of sending the women back to their traditional roles (pre WWII) they're kept in the work force. Economies were growing at high rates, as a result of the Bretton Woods Agreement, technological innovation, reconstruction of destroyed countries among many others. Once the post WWII reconstruction completed, a young generation that were not face with war, famine and that grew in economic boom years, having had a easy life, and (most important for me to make my point) had a mother that was working, revolted against the status quo during the 60s. The females have no boom economy to work for and forced themselves to get jobs as their mothers had got. Inteligent women knew that governments were interested in their votes and was easy to find heralds of the feminine "cause" in places like the US, Australia and Canada. (MQ could possibly tell us if he cares to read this post who was the Germaine Greer of NZ if you know. Goverments heard the call and started offering pseudo-jobs for women and women kept their share of the job market. Having craftly pushed their way into the job market, the women's champion needed any opportunity to defend their turf. Hence the competion male - female... Elmat -in Africa- learned a lot about this subject by observing jobless American, Canadian and UK young women who took to Africa via CUSO (Canadian University Service Overseas) and a few from UK whose acronym I can't recall. Women went to school, got a degree and had nowhere to go and went to Africa to "work" as voluntary assistants, which can be translted as using poor countries as rich kids' playground, something like the Peace Corps. Sorry guys but I find this debate totally irrelevant. Yiwu is gonna hate me for writing that :-)