Wow, I completely missed this thread. Summary after page 5 (without reading through it all) 1. SheFA Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don’t get it. > Women, what are your thoughts? Wall street guys, > what is your honest view? 2. Bromion gave his honest answer 3. SheFA did not like the answer and gave him grief Hmmm. Somehow methinks Bromion has been very, very wronged here. He should be lauded for giving a serious response to your question rather than return a puerile joke To add one more reason why hiring might be stilted for females in our industry is the proclivity of women to have babies and take months off to do so, come back and then do it all over again. And then don’t return at all. Ever. The work certainly doesn’t stop, markets do not close and people have to be covered. If you run a busy 5 person team and 2 women on the team get pregnant at the same time, this is a big issue . A manager could be predisposed to hiring men. This is not however a particularly new reason. 2.6% over 10 years leaving the industry is not really significant. In fact it could be adequately covered by women who have left to raise familes. Other than that, I have a strong sceptism about journalist statistics.
Problem? Women having babies. Solution? Give bith in the offce, back to work (making sandwiches). Problem solved.
^^ If women were not to have any babies at all for a while, say over the next 45 years, that would also solve quite a few problems over the next 100 years, such as global warming, pollution, overcrowded cities, etc.
MehdiOchre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^^ > > If women were not to have any babies at all for a > while, say over the next 45 years, that would also > solve quite a few problems over the next 100 > years, such as global warming, pollution, > overcrowded cities, etc. That would also eliminate the human race.
MehdiOchre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^^ > > If women were not to have any babies at all for a > while, say over the next 45 years, that would also > solve quite a few problems over the next 100 > years, such as global warming, pollution, > overcrowded cities, etc. NO! If that happens, then who will work for me, to provide me luxury when I’ll retire with all pockets full. There must exist young people who can work for pennies!
http://staff.lib.msu.edu/skendall/cloning/companies.htm human embryo cloning http://www.religioustolerance.org/clo_intr.htm A woman could prefer to have one set of identical twins, rather than go through two separate pregnancies. She might prefer this for a number of reasons: to minimize disruption to her career. she might prefer to only have to endure the discomfort of a single pregnancy. she might wish to have children that could contribute a kidney to their sibling, if needed.
allegro-cpa/cfa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A woman could prefer to have one set of identical > twins, rather than go through two separate > pregnancies. She might prefer this for a number of > reasons: she could choose to make them boys so posts like these stop appearing
sorry mar, i couldn’t help it. felt the thread was getting a little qqqbee-ish so had to do it
allegro-cpa/cfa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- sorry - didn’t mean yours specifically - was referring to “Less women on wall street - what’s going on?”
mar350 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > allegro-cpa/cfa Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > A woman could prefer to have one set of > identical > > twins, rather than go through two separate > > pregnancies. She might prefer this for a number > of > > reasons: > > she could choose to make them boys so posts like > these stop appearing Plus then they could work on the street.
This will, in the far future, become a thing of the past. We will become an asexual society and grow our offspring.
Who wants kids nowadays? For women it’s just too much trouble. The breast deforms, the stomach grows, inevitable health problems, like deteriorating teeth, hair. Not to mention job disruption, which not all the girls like, broken career hopes. And then, babies cry all night, husband is not providing enough for domestic help. If I would be a woman, I would definitely have kids only if I’m provided for life and have firm guarantees in the form of the multi-million contract. Guys, you sound as if you just tolerate kids, and not want them.
Valores Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Guys, you sound as if you just tolerate > kids, and not want them. i actually plan on having 5-7 of them. somebody needs to support gramps when social security runs out 
Valores Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who wants kids nowadays? For women it’s just too > much trouble. The breast deforms, the stomach > grows, inevitable health problems, like > deteriorating teeth, hair. Not to mention job > disruption, which not all the girls like, broken > career hopes. And then, babies cry all night, > husband is not providing enough for domestic > help. > If I would be a woman, I would definitely have > kids only if I’m provided for life and have firm > guarantees in the form of the multi-million > contract. Guys, you sound as if you just tolerate > kids, and not want them. If this becomes the general sentiment of mass then they’ll have to give full tax breaks to people having kids and double tax on singles!
^ It is becoming the general sentiment. Personally I don’t understand why would women still want to give birth sacrificing their health and careers. I think it’s getting more and more the poor people’s hobby. And wealthy women increasingly use surrogate mothers’ help or adopt. And I can understand them.
this is true. birthrates are declining in ‘civilized’ societies. i need to find me a babymaker before they go out of style
^ Start to save, or marry low
What’s probably going to end up happening, is women will be able to stay and go on with their careers because medical technology will allow a couple to mix their genes together and then tweak the baby’s characteristics (e.g. intelligence and looks)
If you need a baby, you just cone yourself, that’s it.
sorry, typo “clone” yourself