Feminism

I would be very interested to know if your insurance companies cover Viagra for women's sexual dysfunction. Does anyone know if this is the case? And yes, for some women it does work.

 

1.If any employer has the choice between hiring a man and hiring a woman, and all other things being equal, chooses to hire the man because the woman is of child-bearing age, married and "might" get pregnant and want maternity leave, the employer should be taken to the cleaners in court.

absolutely. call me naive, but isn't this what generally happens nowadays? i've never lived or worked anywhere where this was still an issue. isn't it illegal in most places?

this was a huge issue a few decades ago, but it's not an issue in the developed world anymore, is it? please tell me it's not. i've got precious little faith in the population of this country as it is.

the employer has a very plausible reason for that. it is possible that she will have a baby, therefore she would have to take maternirty leave. making the employer have to pay someone for not working. it's about the employer getting production out of the employee. if she is in fact married, then the chances of the couple mating are very high.

OK, i'm now officially horrified. thank you. i think i may need to go outside and kiss the beautiful soil of California on my lunch break.

 

all other things being equal how is the employer suppose to choose then? you're right though it doesn't happen because they'd hire the women so she wouldn't sue them even if that wasn't the reason. i'm sorry though, i wouldn't hire someone with the possibility of them not being able to work nine months, while i pay them for doing nothing, i fthere is someone equally qualified for the job. if the woman was more qualified i'd hire her on the spot.

 

No employer is required to pay a woman during their maternity leave. Federal law requires employers to allow, I believe, 6 weeks of unpaid leave. An employer that gives fully paid maternity leave is fairly rare. Women can get diability while they are out, but that is hardly the same as "being paid not to work."

 

women should play in the nfl? THEN I think i should be able to play in the wnba.

 

My wife had a baby 1 year ago.

I had to take VAC time and personal leave to spend the first month with her and the boy.

While it was kind of pre arranged, my boss recommended that I submit a FML claim so that I would have a job when I came back.

Thats what maternity leave is mostly. NO pay, just a guarantee that they will have a job when they come back!

 

My wife had a baby 1 year ago.

I had to take VAC time and personal leave to spend the first month with her and the boy

This brings up a rather interesting example of deciding not to hire a woman just because she MIGHT get pregnant at some point in the future. Using the excuse that she would have to take time off from work after having the child, what about the father? The user before me mentioned that he took off from work for a month to spend some time with his kid. Wouldn't this mean that many married men nowadays shouldn't be considered eligible for a job, because what if they get their wife pregnant, and what if, GASP!, THEY want to take time off from work? Because there are actually some guys that do such a thing!!!!

Maybe they shouldn't be hired, either, because they might decide to become a SAHF. How come an employer could have the right to deny a woman employment on the grounds she might get pregnant one day, but he would never even think of getting away with the same thing when it comes to a man, even though it takes sperm to kick off the whole procreation process, and there seems to be just as many men as women who want children? (Based off of observation, of course).

 

The simple fact is that employers don't not hire women for that reason.

 

The simple fact is that employers don't not hire women for that reason

That's not very easy to prove or disprove...although, if some employers are having the temerity to ask if women being interviewed have children (or in a couple of cases, if they had husbands or boyfriends), then it would seem to me that there are still plenty of employers who are more than willing to not hire a woman based off of her potential reproductivity.

 

It is illegal/unethical to ask certain questions during an interview.

What is your religion?
What is your ethnic background?
What is your marital status?
What is your sexual preference?

To name a few.

The reason being that you can get the snot sued out of you for discrimination if you are not careful.

 

I(t) knows those questions are illegal...doesn't mean those questions aren't still being asked by some employers, sometimes in a sneaky way, sometimes not. It does happen, no matter what a lot of people might want to believe.

 

The point is you are not required to answer questions that you feel could jepordize you getting hired.

If you do, well then you probably deserve to not get hired!

 

On the other side, my father complains that he is not able to ask a woman (or a man I don't think), "Do you have children?" during an interview, although my father is not a sexist prat and is only asking to make conversation and establish common ground--in the old days, when he was allowed to ask, he would do so and then they would share stories about children, as my father has three.

I think he's got a genuine complaint here. Too bad he is limited on what kind of small talk he can make simply because there are sexist prats out there who are more concerned about their pocketbooks than they are about whether or not people (men or women) should take care of their children.

EmpireForever:

it is possible that she will have a baby, therefore she would have to take maternirty leave. making the employer have to pay someone for not working. it's about the employer getting production out of the employee. if she is in fact married, then the chances of the couple mating are very high.

I have to agree with dizfactor here. I think I'm going to go throw up on my North Carolina soil, because unfortunately people around here think the way you do, and that is why sexism around here runs rampant. It's pretty sad--actually, horrifying--to see you justifying it.

all other things being equal how is the employer suppose to choose then?

Ummm, let's see...

not in a sexist fashion?

If this were a race issue--if employers were allowed to refuse to allow members of a certain race because, statistically, that race has more children and therefore might need more time off--the employer would be taken to the cleaners. And I would be cheering at the trial.

Why, then, is it suddenly OK to discriminate against a group of us simply because we have uteruses--not only OK, but condoned?

 

Why, then, is it suddenly OK to discriminate against a group of us simply because we have uteruses--not only OK, but condoned?

a_g, let me ask you a hypothetical situation and what you would do in it.

Let's say that two applicants applied for the same job with identical qualifications (education, experience, recommendations, etc), the only difference being that one of them was male (Bob) and the other was female (Sue).

How would you decide which to hire? Would you automatically pick Sue because she's a woman and women have been held back for centuries? Would you hire Bob? Would you simply flip a coin and let chance decide?

Now, let's change the situation a little bit. Let's say that Sue is obviously about 6 months pregnant, and the job would require around 1 month of training. Would you then hire Bob? Would you hire Sue (even knowing that she would likely have to leave on maternity leave a month or two after being trained)? Would you still flip a coin?

Let's change it again. Let's say that Bob is in the National Guard and you know that it is likely that his unit will be called up for service soon. Who would you hire? How would you decide?

In the first case, if you pick Sue because she's a woman, how is that any less sexist than not picking her because she's a woman? In the second case, wouldn't the employer have a legitimate reason for picking Bob over Sue, in order to get the best return on their training investment? In the last case, wouldn't it also be appropriate for the employer to pick Sue over Bob in order to maximize the likely return on training investment?

You see, the issue is never just about the rights of the prospective employee. You may not like this, but the employer has rights, too. They have the rights (and the responsibility to the shareholders) to make the business as productive as possible and gain the maximum return on investment. The only solution that is fair to everyone is to balance the rights of everyone.

If you neglect the rights of employers/shareholders, you will remove almost all incentive for them to be employers. If you neglect the rights of the prospective employees, then you remove their incentives to even apply for the job, making you possibly lose out on getting the best candidate. The answer lies in a balance.

Kimball Kinnison

 

It is not an employers right to discriminate on the basis of sex, and this includes any "potential" children that the employee might have.

 

Amen, chibiangi.

KK: I'd flip a coin.

You may not like this, but the employer has rights, too.

You may not like this, but their rights to build up their fat wallets do not supercede the potential employee's right to be treated fairly.

They have the rights (and the responsibility to the shareholders) to make the business as productive as possible and gain the maximum return on investment.

See what I posted above. There are some things more important than money. These business owners who selfishly lust after money while sacrificing the principles of honesty, fairness, and equitable treatment should not have priority.

The only solution that is fair to everyone is to balance the rights of everyone.

You're not advocating balance, and I don't know that there is a way towards balance. If there is, refusing to hire a woman for the Mortal Sin of having a uterus certainly is not balance.

What you're advocating is preferential treatment for the fat cats.

 

It is not an employers right to discriminate on the basis of sex, and this includes any "potential" children that the employee might have.

There are times where an employer would be justified in discriminating based on sex.

Take my second case (Sue being pregnant). The employer has a responsibility to maximize shareholder profits, and if the job involves something that the maternity leave would interfere with, he has a responsibility to hire Bob instead. The employer's firts responsibility is to the company and project that they are assigned to, not to the prospective employees. Otherwise, you will create situations where forcing the rights of the prospective employees would damage the business (possibly bankrupting it).

In the same way, there are times when discriminating against a handicapped person is acceptable. I'm a computer engineer, but there are significant portions of my job that require physical activity (lifting, etc). A person in a wheelchair would be unable to do most of the physical side of my job, even if they were as competent (or more so) at the engineering side of it. My employer would be justified in discriminating against a person in a wheelchair in such a case.

It's never as absolute as many of the people in this thread want to make it.

Kimball Kinnison

 

There are times where an employer would be justified in discriminating based on sex.

You don't seem to be a sexist person based on the PM conversations we've had, but that is as sexist a stance as I've ever seen.

(I'll rephrase that: one of the most sexist. At least you didn't say, "Women are nurturing and are best at looking good and having babies, and men are warriors.")

Change "sex" to "race" in your statement above, and you'd be run out of town on a rail.

 

The difference is that I can't think of a case in which a person's race could increase his likelihood of costing the company resources. on the other hand, hiring the pregnant women is definitely a drain on the company, as KK explained. Thus, I think if you hired a pregnant woman over a man who was equally qualified in every way, I think you would be a very irresponsible employer.

Despite what you might like to think, employers are not all rich people who can afford to train an employee and then immediately lose her productivity. Many businesses just break even; some run in the red. For a little crafts shop with three employees, training an employee, losing her for a few months, and having to train another one in the mean time could do irreparable financial harm to the business.

In general, I don't think it's just to require an employer to utilize thte services of and pay money to someone with whom he does not wish to work or be associated, for any reason. I understand that you find that position extreme. But for a business owner to make a business decision which he knows will cost him money with no potential for future gain based upon that decision is irresponsible to his employees, his shareholders, and himself. I cannot believe that you are advocating it as the right thing to do.

-Paul

 

Perhaps you missed this part of the law:

Preganancy Discrimination Act


An employer cannot refuse to hire a woman because of her pregnancy related condition as long as she is able to perform the major functions of her job. An employer cannot refuse to hire her because of its prejudices against pregnant workers or the prejudices of co-workers, clients or customers.

Perhaps you advocate breaking the law then?

 

I do not feel that should be the law, let's put it that way.

-Paul

 

In general, I don't think it's just to require an employer to utilize thte services of and pay money to someone with whom he does not wish to work or be associated, for any reason. I understand that you find that position extreme.

With this statement, chibiangi, paul and KK are advocating breaking this law.

But for a business owner to make a business decision which he knows will cost him money with no potential for future gain based upon that decision is irresponsible to his employees, his shareholders, and himself. I cannot believe that you are advocating it as the right thing to do.

I can't believe you are advocating the idea that money is more important than civil rights.

But I suppose it's more important for the business owner to be responsible to his own wallet than it is for him not to treat women like second-class citizens, or act like it's a criminal offense to have a uterus.

I just saw "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" and am thinking of the fact that no one would hire Remus Lupin because he was a werewolf, although he was no harm to anyone when he took his potion--and even if he didn't, if he went into the shack and stayed there for awhile, he was harmless to other people.

But because of prejudice against werewolves, no one would hire him.

Seems that the attitude towards women=the attitude towards werewolves.

 

Ultimately, my belief is not that money is more important than civil rights, but that there is no basic right for anyone to be hired, while there is a right to choose with whom one does business. And employment is a business relationship like any other.

I abhor people who employ discriminatory hiring practices based upon race, religion, or gender. (Let me make myself very clear: "Discriminating" against those who are pregnant when hiring is much more defensible than those others in my mind.) However, I absolutely believe that no one should be forced into business with someone against his will, and thus I cannot justify the government's essentially forcing such hirings through anti-discrimination laws. I think as long as an institution accepts no public funding or other favors from the government, it ought to be free to maintain full control over who it hires.

That's my belief. Any discussion of the finances of the decision is purely a defense of a specific case of my belief.

Edit:

In general, I don't think it's just to require an employer to utilize thte services of and pay money to someone with whom he does not wish to work or be associated, for any reason. I understand that you find that position extreme.

With this statement, chibiangi, paul and KK are advocating breaking this law.

Just to be sure, in case my earlier clarification wasn't enough: I'm not actually advocating breaking the law. But I am stating that I do not support or believe in that law, and that I think that law should not exist.

-Paul

 

Ultimately, my belief is not that money is more important than civil rights

Your entire post contradicts this statement, because you're saying that the one who "has" (in this case, money, power, or both) should be allowed to be a sexist racist thug and discriminate against those who "have not", when the "have nots" can do nothing about it.

If everyone is allowed to discriminate against women, then we will continue to have a society in which women's wages are lower than men's.

Right now, in order for the average woman to make as much as the average man, she would have to work until 10:30 p.m. If you had your way, she'd have to work an entire week--assuming anyone could hire her. After all, having a uterus does not seem to be conducive to productivity according to some of you.

You all act like employment is a charity and the employers get nothing in return, therefore should not be required to "give away" their money. Employers are not giving away money and getting nothing in return. I'd like to see some of these sexist employers who think it's a crime for an employee to have a uterus, try to run their businesses without these employees. And I'm not talking for six weeks' maternity leave either.

Question: do you guys support all the conditions that were in place before labor reforms? Do you support child labor? No minimum wage? No sick leave? The right of the employer to pay the employees whenever the hell they please, or not at all?

After all, shouldn't these business owners be allowed to do whatever they want with their money, even be abusive thugs of employers?

 

No one is "forcing" anyone to hire anybody.

The law simply states that you cannot practice sex-based discrimination in the form of not hiring someone because they're pregnant. Doing so is wrong. It sets up a system in which women are forced to choose between having a career and having children. It also sets up a hierarchy amongst employees where women will not be promoted at the same rate as men because women might possibly take time off to have a baby.