English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Children, elderly, sick, and the physically disabled are exceptions and shud not have to work.

This question is for adult human females only. Please state your age.

2007-12-29 05:22:15 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science Gender Studies

26 answers

This is hilarious. So much for humanity...oh, and um, only physically disabled? I guess the mentally disabled are off your list, hey God? Well, I hope you stay well your whole life because given your attitude, there's not a person out there who "shud" give you a bloody cent "shud" things fall apart. Good luck to you...my sympathies are with anyone who knows you (and the word is "should")

2007-12-29 06:28:05 · answer #1 · answered by teeleecee 6 · 2 2

I am 54. I agree with this. If nobody worked to take care of themselves, we would all be bums living on the streets, or living off others who do. There is no reason for an able-bodied person to not have a job, no matter what the job may be. If I hear one more homeless person whine about "If I can't get a $10-an-hour job, I won't work at all," I am going to SCREAM.

Wives and mothers are an exception, their jobs are caring for their homes and families. Disabled people are also exceptions, but I do object to the fact that disability payments come out of Social Security, which I am paying into, unless it is coming out of their own or their parent's account. The government should not take my Social Security payments and give them to someone who never paid into SS. There should be a separate agency that, even though it would still be funded by my tax dollars, is not depleting the SS funds that I am paying for my own retirement. Who is more selfish? Me, who would like to get back my OWN money when I retire, or someone who is taking my money when they never contributed to the fund but is getting other people's money?.

2007-12-29 05:28:50 · answer #2 · answered by kathi1vee 5 · 2 1

It all depends what you mean by 'work', do you count only paid jobs? Or valuable charity work which is unpaid, or people staying at home to look after children which is a full time job?

I am 21, although I'm not sure why this is relevant. Technically if you are in a partnership, one person can earn enough to support two people.

2007-12-29 06:04:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

A lot of elderly people and disabled people would rather be working but unfortunately, we don't make many accommodations for them. I've heard that the unemployment rate for disabled people is very high. Many of them would rather have a job but they can't find work. Try finding work when you're in a wheelchair. There aren't many opportunities.

2007-12-29 07:15:50 · answer #4 · answered by RoVale 7 · 2 1

Of Course! That was one of the prime tenets adopted by the Plymouth colony after they discovered that comunalism did not work and they almost starved to death. Once they established the free enterprise system, in which harder work resulted in better living conditions, they prospered into the nation we have now become.

2007-12-29 05:34:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Yes and no, I think women are equal and should work to provide for their own needs. Being equal means equal rights but also equal responsibilities and consequences.

However, when a woman is pregnant, I think it's fair to give her a break just before and after pregnancy, I also think that both spouses should take a parental leave to learn how to care for their young child.

Also there are moments in life when we all need a little help and to be cared for. I mean what if you lose your job, does that mean you can't have your basic needs met because you are not contributing to the greater good? What if you are depressed or going through a difficult time?

But I think everybody should have basic needs provided for them, even those who are lazy and refuse to work to get them, there will always be abusers out there, but that shouldn't stop us from having a conscience and being charitable.

2007-12-29 05:26:33 · answer #6 · answered by Josephine 5 · 5 2

Not necessarily. Consider poor women with children. Many times women who are on welfare are criticized and labeled as "lazy" etc. The thing is, affordable childcare is not available for these women, and working (even 2 minimum wage jobs) does not cover the child care costs and leave enough money to put food on the table. Thus, they are forced to take welfare/food stamps, etc. and stay home with their children. The same goes with single fathers.

By the way, I'm 20!

2007-12-29 05:28:36 · answer #7 · answered by Holdin' on to Hope 5 · 2 2

Thanks for pointing out that this question is for human females only, as opposed to what? Cats?

In a relationship between parents, if it is a joint agreement that one of the parents stay home to take care of the children, no one should have a problem with that as long as that couple as able to sustain their family on one income. If you are unhappy, pose your question to the subject of your angst, not to the general female population. I've been working since I was 14 years old, how about you?

2007-12-29 05:29:18 · answer #8 · answered by LoFlo 4 · 1 2

I do agree. But you need to define work. Stay home with children and caring for the house can be work...though one could also sit on their butt and plop the kids infront of the TV.

2007-12-29 05:42:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

Work ? Women work at home as house wives and also go out for jobs. In any case , women work twice as hard as men do. They are always under stress. So, should men be given just half the food that women eat ? What a stupid idea !

2007-12-29 08:22:28 · answer #10 · answered by HimJoy 4 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers