Why Some Women Shouldn't Be Engaged In Full-time Employment and the Education Profession

When I wrote this blog, my question was "Why Women Shouldn't be in Employment and Education". See how this new title , with its qualifications and provisos, compares with the old. This highlights the importance of framing the question correctly.

Women are anatomically, physiologically and biologically different. They have breasts, vaginas, menstruate, goes through the pangs of infant-bearing, infant-birth, post-menstrual syndrome and post natalism. Men do not. This is an undeniable biological fact.

By the way, I have defined an infant as someone between the ages of 0-18 months. Someone please define an infant, a child, a young person, a minor and an adult.The statutes have one set of interpretation while I read another in everyday life. For instance R21 films are strictly off limits to an 18 year old full-time national serviceman who ironically is able to fight for his country with his life. A 16 year old can hook up to the Internet but he has to wait till he is 21 before he can sign up for a fixed line, both of which are essentially telecommunication services.

That leaves the 17 year olds in limbo. Who are they? Aliens free riding on a UFO?

These anatomical and bio-physiological differences do not translate into any innately less intelligent or abled being. It does however mean some physical incapacitation in the way of time needed to recuperate, heal and to fulfill her maternal roles. Then again women has to be categorized into the various stages of their lives, be it in their pre-nubile age, their singlehood status, their married life with or without children and into their old age. At each stage she is plagued with ills only peculiar to her gender to which the Obstetrics and Gynaecology department has been dedicated in her name.

The monthly cycle and almost a year woman's thingy (7-9 months of gestation followed by 2-3 months of infant care) takes a woman away from her professional duties. What's more, this time period has precluded child-rearing responsibilities throughout the lifetime of the child.

I would have been crushed under the weight of such onerous responsibilities. So what is more with women? Do you seriously think you can juggle career and family professionally without one eating into the other? That is an awful lot of bullshit. Nobody is a superwoman.

It isn't fair to her colleagures, her professional responsibilities and her accountability to one and all if she is actively engaged in full-time employment. Leaving her maternal roles to a grandparent or a care-giver (like a maid or a nanny) have consequences yet untold and unseen till the next generation surfaces with the symptoms, begging for a cure by which time it may already be terminal.

I have no quarrels if the woman needs the income to supplement a breadwinner's take-home bacon or if she has financial obligations to her parents, herself or her children following a separation or divorce. But if she doesn't and she is only out to carve a career for herself, then seriously the issue of whether she can live up to her responsibilities lie squarely with her and her employers and colleagues to decide.

I am most willing to help a colleague but this hinges on who the person is, many of whom I have the unfortunate incident to meet with are just bitchy, bossy, slutty, conniving, indolent, skivvy, unreasonable, vain hoities toities.

In the educational arena, boys are always singled out as the boisterous and trouble-making lot that they are always caricatured to be. Most men can tolerate much of their nonsense but some women cannot. Women run the school like home, nit-picking over the little trivias and sometimes unthinking, mindless and unreasonable in not seeing things for what they are.

It is as if they see life through rose-tinted glasses, much like I did once , that is why I donned a pair and got screwed in junior college (so what the fuck is the big deal so much so that the President of the Student Council has to pick on me - motherfucker!!!). If women are brand-conscious, I am sure they are a class-conscious lot as well. That is why they can be discriminatory.

Imagine our students having their school routine disrupted, their learning cycle broken and their continual adaptation to new faces and teaching styles when women are away from work. Is this very fair?

Our boys in schools are whipped and whacked so much, they cower till we see the phenomenon of "metrosexuals", men who are so much like women, both are in cahoots in character, behaviour and thinking. What does this mean to mankind? A bitching, wimpy and conniving bunch of she-guys. Remember how Admiral Zheng He lost out to his fellow opponents, some of which were court eunuchs themselves and you can pretty much imagine the repercussions.

The women do not see how by their tone and content of their talk, their sarcasm and really biting and unfair remarks sometimes that these are incidendiaries for riots and running amok. The little girls in turn are made out to be the perfect model that they are and they are not disciplined as much or let off too easily, so much so that they have in turn become domineering, vociferous and rebellious while our menfolk are beaten down and emasculated.

If you want equal rights and freedom, then be prepared to be screwed as much for your wrongdoings as for the sins of man. Do not use your gender as an excuse for your mistakes and then use it again as a force for your promulgation of equal rights and protection. Don't expect to be given so much leeway untill the battle of the sexes becomes so skewed and wrong, tipping in your favour.

This is a very sad day for mankind indeed. It will be surely be the end of man. Professor Stephen Jay Gould has prophesized the new order when women enter the workforce. It has begun and it has revolutionised. Let us be ready for the dire consequences.