3710

Thirty seven years later

I don't actually know the exact date of the current "woman's movement." I date it from 1970--because that's when I became aware of it and moved away from the civil rights activities in which I'd been involved into women's rights. Women have done a lot of good in the almost 40 years since then, but also a lot of harm, particularly to marriage and children. They've swamped certain professions like Protestant clergy, veterinary medicine, law, pharmacy and medicine tipping the balance to a majority of females, lowering standards and salaries. We have so many regulations on the books to protect women, you'd think we were either an endangered species or queens. Our society isn't really kinder and gentler and less mean, or more cooperative and egalitarian, is it? To look at our popular culture, women and girls are more sexualized and objectified than 30-40 years ago, less safe, and children are less likely to have a father in the home, not more. Single women are much more at a disadvantage financially than they were when I was a young woman, because now they need a household income that goes up against a two income household. Single motherhood no longer means just divorced or widowed, as it did 30 years ago, it could mean she decided the clock was ticking and it was time she borrowed a sperm donor.

I remember back when they made a big deal about women truck drivers and construction workers. And women on road crews. You still only see women as "flag persons," and I can't remember the last time I saw a woman in a delivery truck. They were rather common in the 70s when women decided it might be fun, then learned they didn't have enough upper body strength. And everytime I see a woman standing in the sun in her cutsy shorts and t-shirt with the SLOW sign, while the guys dressed for real work are driving the heavy equipment, I think, "Yes, lady, you really are slow if this is what you've aspired to."

But a picture is worth a thousand words--two pictures maybe 1,500. Here's the latest issue of Columbus CEO. Is there any phrase that makes a better case for how all these regs and rules have held women back than, "Women rule"? Would there ever be a cover phrase like that for men that wouldn't bring down the wrath of the thought police? Talk about different treatment of the sexes!!!


The second example is from the stock report I received today. I've fudged the faces a bit, but you can see there is one black male, and one white female on this board of directors. Sometimes there is a two-fer, and the female is black.


But I've been looking at these reports for 7 years, and it's always the same. That's why I modified the faces--who they are doesn't matter, nor what the company is. The Board of Directors and the officers of the company change little. I don't blame men for this, or even the business culture.

I wish we could go back and have a do-over. See if in 2007 without all the government bureaucratic red tape that has snarled the law books for 40 years, the enforced brain mush courses and the left socialist drivel that the colleges teach women instead of real courses, just where women would be. I'm guessing we'd have 3 or 4 women on this board. I've met a lot of women in their 70s and 80s who had careers before the women's movement and the numbers were rising. Colleges and businesses were swamped by less capable women kicking down the doors.

I don't think women want these jobs. They're tough, take 80 hours a week, lots of travel, bored meetings and creating networks. Maybe even golf! To be an executive or a board member, it helps if you have a wife to take care of things at home, and most husbands don't want to be her.