Women are more prone to falling down the stairs than men because they are often chatting to friends, carrying items or wearing impractical footwear, scientists have concluded.
The basic finding of the social sciences is that there’s a truth at the heart of every streotype.
Possibly the only accurate finding of all the social sciences too.
The stairs are not a good spot for multi-tasking.
(I take it that “multi-tasking” is essentially a euphemism for being unable to concentrate on the job in hand?)
Women also seem more prone to losing their jobs after ‘chatting to friends’ about confidential client data
@ anon
Women are more prone to chatting to friends.
@john77
Women are more prone to chatting
All of the above?
@Boganboy
Women.
But I thought they could multi-task?
Except Hitllary though: “I was running down the stairs in heels with a cup of coffee in hand, I was talking over my shoulder and my heel caught and I fell backwards”.
@Addolff: Beats the alternative. “I’m a fat old drunkard that sits around all day bitching and in the end it gave me a stroke”.
That sort of honest comment won’t get you the Whitehouse.
Women! Can’t bank on them, can’t bank without them.
Or they’re walking down the stairs in front of their husbands.
They don’t like hard work either:
Lazy Girl Jobs.
TG: Well, if these people can afford to stay alive without working, than can they hurry up and fuck off and leave the jobs for us people who need other people to give us money in order to be able to afford to eat.
@ jgh
They can afford to stay alive without working *hard* because other people give them money for doing a very little work. You may observe that they are called “lazy girl jobs” – there are no equivalent “lazy men jobs” (and, if there were they would be regarded with contempt).
Are you kidding john77?
That’s the aim of capitalism isn’t it?
Get someone to give you as much money as possible for doing as little as possible.
Getting paid to sit around and do fuck all is the promised land.
@ Chernyy Drakon
NO: capitalism is the sacrifice of current consumption to increase, through investment in income-generating assets (be they physical or intellectual), future income, preferably to a greater value than that of the consumption sacrificed.
The lazy girls in lazy girl jobs are pretty much the opposite of capitalists, enjoying consumption almost entirely as a result of the work of third parties. B Ark passengers.
The first capitalists were early farmers who set aside part of their harvest to sow as seeds to produce the next harvest.
Presumably the companies who employ #lazygirls are making a profit. So find out who they are, buy them, fire the #lazygirls & get some hard workers in, double the profits. That capitalism!
The first capitalists were early farmers who set aside part of their harvest to sow as seeds to produce the next harvest.
Not so.
That’s subsistence farming, not capitalism.
The first capitalists were the ones who improved their efficiency so had a surplus to sell after harvesting and putting aside for next year.
We use capitalism combined with market forces to increase efficiency – companies and people make money by increasing output and/or driving down costs.
We want them to do more for less, the end result of which is doing nothing and making lots.
I suppose the BBC is the appropriate place to advertise lazy-girl-jobs. If you’re over 11 none of your fellow employees (contractors?) will have the slightest interest in harassing you…
Yes. Chernyy’s right. It’s intentionally producing a surplus. That puts you on the path to compound growth.
It could also be because some women are, ahem, more ‘top heavy’ than others
@ bis
That is *successful* capitalism.
All the companies that go bust after eighteen months in business are also part of capitalism, (which is why investors want a “risk premium” for investing in companies instead of index-linked gilts).
@ Chernyy Drakon
That includes some subsistence farming as well as the more-than-subsistence farming which it better described. Even subsistence farming was a major step forward from hunter-gatherer life and sensible subsistence farming where the farmers did *not* eat the seed-corn was based on same principle that underlies capitalism. The sort of subsistence farming where the reapers eat/ate the whole harvest is akin to hunter/gather life and is not capitalism.
john77,
“They can afford to stay alive without working *hard* because other people give them money for doing a very little work. You may observe that they are called “lazy girl jobs” – there are no equivalent “lazy men jobs” (and, if there were they would be regarded with contempt).”
The thing with lazy girl jobs is that they exist in large, fat corporations that have plenty of money swimming around and CEOs that don’t care that much. Shareholders see growth, profits and don’t care that much. And once companies get huge and rich, you get a lot more opportunities to exploit the principle/agent thing.
I’m convinced that there’s sexual element to it. But you have to follow the rules. Managers want to use the company’s resources to get pussy, but they can’t put whores on expenses, they can’t hire their girlfriend because HR screen the candidates. But, they can say they need a certain sort of person (e.g. content creators, project co-ordinators) where they’re going to get young women in. Say you need a degree, and that’s the over 40s out. Maybe you don’t get someone to bang, but maybe she has friends you can meet, and why not do it? It’s not costing you for giving it a shot.
The bigger problem than the cost is that they infest the culture. Get a load of girlies into the company and they’re all 9 to 5ers. They all follow rules rather than trying to help. They block things being done. They’re all intolerant of sweary banter. And they will want more and more corporate shit like diversity workshops, people in HR to go crying to. They become like school. And skilled people who can make things happen hate it and leave.
john77 For capitalism you do have to have an intentional surplus for the purpose of trade. Subsistence farming, even the feudal version of it where the surplus is consumed by the lord, isn’t capitalism. It’s internal with no outside. There’s no source of capital. Your definition, one can’t separate capitalism from communism.
‘there are no equivalent “lazy men jobs”’
You must be too young to remember the glory years of British trade unionism then.