> Women produce most of our global output. Women provide almost all
> unpaid production; almost all social reproduction; and a good portion
> of all paid production. Suppose we attempted a little experiment and
> sent all the men on earth for year long vacation (all expenses paid
> and no work to do) to planet x3pz in 2004. Then we did the same for
> all the women on earth in 2005 (sent them to planet x3pz that is). My
> question is what would the planet EARTH be like in 2004 and 2005. How
> would the economic dependency conditions differ from those in 2003 and
> how would they differ from each other?
I'm wondering who'd be building the spaceships required for this experiment-- men or women?
And let's ask the obvious question: If we ship the men off to another planet, will the women remaining behind be _capable_ of building the next set of ships needed to perform the _rest_ of the experiment?
Oh, now don't get all goop-eyed and angry that this is "sexist." After all, Diane's experiment is testing an hypothesis over whether men or women get more done in this world, so it's _already_ a sexist question.