"The Economist" Debates: Richard Donkin and Terry O'Neill re women's status in developed nations

Submitted by anthony on Thu, 2010-01-21 12:23

Article here. Excerpt:

'This promises to be a debate that engages people's passions as well as their emotions.

Richard Donkin argues that the motion is what Americans call a "no brainer". Women clearly enjoy opportunities to make their livings and shape their lives that their predecessors could only dream of. They may not be doing as well as they would like. But, as he remarks, to say that they have never had it so good is not to say they cannot have it better.

Terry O'Neill produces a wealth of statistics to show that women still get a bum rap. They earn less than men, on average, and bear more responsibility for looking after children and the elderly. Only 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs are female.

There is much to chew on here. As the debate continues, Mr Donkin needs to grapple with the fact that, particularly in America, ordinary people have seen their incomes stagnate since the 1970s. It now takes two incomes to afford what one could afford in the 1960s. Are women running faster just to stay in the same place?'

---
Ed. note: Debate was done on Jan. 19. 2010. This article is the content and Q/A trail.

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

The Eco used to be (back in the 70s and 80s) simply about politics and economics, and that is why I subbed to it recently. I was surprised to find plenty of articles that had been ideologically influenced not just be feminism but by other cheering-sections kinds of stuff. The "thoughtful, reasoned analysis" I was hoping for wasn't there. One notable recent fluff piece of tripe/misandry in the 12/30/09 edition is entitled "Monogamouse" and ends with:

"...One study has already shown that it is possible to inject a viral vector for the vasopressin receptor into the brains of the fickle meadow voles and make them better partners and parents. It may be some time before such interventions are available for human males, but women can always live in hope."

I won't be re-subbing next year. I figure by 2012 in any case it will have sunk to tabloid newsstand status.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2010-01-21 18:35

You're right about the economist. I studied Economics and Mathematical Sciences and I can tell you the Economics modules were rife with feminist bias. I still have many of the books they provided for essays and they are full of the the usual false information and statistics that feminists quote and fall back on time after time. Many of the modules were shared with Sociology and Psychology, which have a solid record of publishing feminist theories. Economics, as a field of study, has been compromised by feminists.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Broadsword on Thu, 2010-01-21 19:32

"because women in developing countries are in such dire straits."

Obviously a diversionary tactic in what is supposed to be a debate about women in the DEVELOPED world. Keep in mind this is the feminist loon who had a go at Obama for playing basketball with the boys - she should not be allowed to debate at the National Inquirer, much less the Economist.

----------------------
Rise, Rebel, Resist.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by MichaelClaymore on Fri, 2010-01-22 07:44