🚀 go-pugleaf

gapope@vcn.bc.ca wrote:
>You think there wouldn't be a NEW problem if the boards became all female?
>Then we'd have a militant pro-"equity"(and, as we see from the lobbies, equity
>doesn't mean equitable _at this time_, it includes all of history, so there has
>to be a HUGE female surplus for a time to counter-act the years when males were
>all the businessmen/workers(because, for one, women did not WANT to do this
>kind of work when the men of old were properly respectful of them in the
>homes, as leaders of the households)

Where in my post, or anyone's for that matter, did I state that all boards 
should become female?

(I'll give you a hint:         NOWHERE).

You are really dating yourself with the remarks typed out above.  Gender 
should play no predisposition towards employment.  Whether that employment be 
of housekeeping duties or CFO.

Your attempt to cover your ass in that last sentence is amusing, to say the 
least.  (It's a good thing you were not only a women 'in the good 'ol days', 
but the fact that they all agreed with you is something else).

>Let's look back: at one time "working outside the home" entailed 12-16 hour
>days of hard labour.  What self-respecting woman, who held a trump card(in that
>only SHE could carry a child), would WANT to trade in a leadership position in
>the home for the competitive ratrace outside the home?

Actually, you have it wrong.  "Working outside the home" entailed thirty two 
hours of work a day, they had to walk uphill both to and from work, in the 
freezing cold and with no shoes.