| >Carly Fiorina, for all I loathe her politically, was a powerful woman in the businessplace for two decades. And she's been married to the same man since 1985, and raised two stepdaughters. Meg Whitman too has been married for a long time and raised two children. The point is not that the traditional family model hasn't suffered. It's that the root of its suffering isn't that women are finding it hard to be emotionally available because all of a sudden they have jobs. Your anecdotes don't lead in the direction of your conclusion that "women are [not] finding it hard to be emotionally available". Carly Fiorina I'm sure found it hard to be "emotionally available" when her step-kids needed comforting and she was in a board meeting. See http://web.archive.org/web/20071101051517/http://www.careerj... for example which strongly suggests that her husband Frank's retirement enabled her. I'm of the opinion you can't have it both ways. Either kids or work in almost every situation one will get marginalised. >the conclusion we draw will not be that women simply can't do these things that we claim they can't do Can women scratch their own balls? I'll answer for you - no they don't have any (in general), despite how equal you want things to be that isn't going to change. Men and women are different. >The fact that we're arguing that right now is proof that we still have grossly distorted views of what an entire sex is capable of. You're talking about capability but I think you're looking at the wrong thing. The reason there are less off one sex in traditional roles of the other sex is little to do with assumptions about capability IMO. IMO it's about desire of individuals to do those roles as much as anything. Also in this line you meant men, right? |