Forum debate on women's role in economy

Women as Trojan Horses: The Unending Debate

An initial post claims most women make decisions based on emotions rather than reason, arguing that their mass entry into the labor market aims to destroy the family. This thesis, supported by a tweet about legal rights for women in Europe until the 1970s, has generated 111 replies in an Economics subforum. The discussion mixes historical data, Greek mythology, and opinions on birth rates and consumption.

The Origin of the Debate: A Tweet on Legal Rights

The original post cites a tweet claiming that in the US, a woman could not open a bank account without her husband's permission until 1974, in Belgium until 1976, in France until 1965, and in Germany she could not work without permission until 1977. The author uses this data to argue that the situation for women in Sarracinic societies is not so different from what occurred in the West until recently. However, a participant corrects this: the information is false; accurately, it means that at those dates, a married woman under community property laws could not transfer joint funds to an exclusive personal account. The nuance is important: it was not a general prohibition but a specific asset restriction.

Greek Mythology as Argument

One of the most cited messages refers to Hesiod’s Works and Days, recalling that Zeus created woman as punishment for men after the theft of fire. The direct quote: "I will give them an evil with which they will all rejoice, fondly embracing their own misfortune." Another participant adds that Adam’s first mistake was not eating the forbidden fruit, but listening to his vvife. These mythological arguments reinforce the idea that women are a biological trap, as another message citing Schopenhauer states: "Woman is the trap biology sets for man, the true human being, to perpetuate the species."

Consumption and Birth Rates as Alleged Proof

Several posts link women’s labor market entry to increased consumption and declining birth rates. One participant asserts women were put to work to increase the number of consumers and spend more due to impulsivity. Another shares experience as a security guard in a boutique: women spending €12,000 or €2,000 on Chanel clothes that "do not even keep you warm like a Ternua or North Face garment." It is argued women no longer have children to keep 100% of their money for spending. In contrast, one post notes low birth rates also affect homogeneous Asian nations lacking these cultural factors, suggesting the phenomenon is more complex.

Evolution of the Debate: From Economic Analysis to Disqualification

As the discussion pogre, the tone becomes more aggressive. Some posts openly disparage women: "they are 50% of the reproductive factor, but otherwise they are THE PLAGUE," or "a woman cannot even drive a car without causing problems." These views mix with attempts at nuanced analysis. One participant argues women are more realistic than men and their alleged emotionality is a mirror game to achieve goals, citing fibromyalgia: "their goal: not working, achieved by appealing to the myth that their emotional world is much more uncontrollable than men's." Another defends the opposite: women are the system’s target because they are the solution, not the problem.

Parallels with the 2030 Agenda and Capitalism

Some posts try to connect the thesis with macroeconomic trends. The 2030 Agenda is mentioned, arguing its apparent goal is raising Third World living standards at the expense of rich countries, generating poverty and less consumption. Another participant claims capitalism is exhausted and will fail in about 20 years. The discussion shifts to immigration and population replacement: asserting areas like Catalonia will have Muslim-origin mayors within 20 years. These arguments are presented as speculation without supporting data.

Dissenting Voices and the End of the Debate

Not all posts share the initial thesis. One highly voted message states: "Women are the only ones who give LIFE... everything else is a herd of Homo Sapiens fighting over who rules." Another defends women as more realistic, viewing irrationality as manipulation strategy. Others note the problem is the system, not women. The debate ends without consensus, with mutual disqualifications and an implicit conclusion: the conversation on women’s role in economy and society remains as polarized as ever.

---

Lasting 674 days, the discussion reflects tensions beyond economics: the clash between traditional family models and individual autonomy. Historical data on legal rights mixes with opinions on consumption and birth rates, yet no conclusive figures are provided. With reservations, while birth rates fall and consumption drives the economy, the debate on women’s societal role will likely intensify.