Women & Discrimination

babs, As a responsible ex-manager and consumer, I always considered skill. What I don't do is not consider women or minorities just because they are women or minorities. When I worked in management at Florsheim, I always gave accounting tests to test for knowledge. It didn't matter whether the applicant was man, woman, or minority. I always tried to select the best candidate after a face-to-face interview.

If I've caused grief for women, I'm not sure what I'm guilty of.

bab, BTW, Florsheim never imposed quota on my hiring, and gave me 100 percent freedom.

I think you're wasting your time c.i., Babs can't hear you over the sound of the wheel on which she is grinding her ax . . .

Twack! Setanta hit in face with wrinkled brassiere!

long as that brassiere is filled, i might not mind . . .

Oof! Bad doggy!

When the rosters of any major law firm( the top one hundred) is viewed historically, it can be easily ascertained that more than 35% of the associates in these firms were women in 1990. Since Associates usually become partners or else leave the firm to go elsewhere by the time they have been associates for 8 or 9 years, it is clear that women are not being promoted in the same percentage as partners.

The percentage of women partners in the largest 100 American Law Firms is around 16%.

Why?

Many women associates report that when they went on maternity leave or when they had to take extra time with their children, their prospects of partnership usually vanished.

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/535139.html

what about the slow and steady taking over of women's rights by christian fundamentalists? So much for secularism, and women's rights. Both partial birth abortion decisions (I would rather live to have more children than die, forced to carry a fetus that would kill me.) And this recent Texas ruling forcing pamplets strewn with religiously charged misinformation and 24 hour waiting period.

I like to support planned parenthood, they seem to consistently have the interests of their patients in mind. Here is their page on this topic: http://www.saveroe.com/wow/pba/. They also have a petition you can sign.


I completely agree that hiring should be about finding the best person able to perform the job. If people are discriminating, sue them, but there should not be discrimination to prevent discrimination (as in quotas, affirmative action.) I also think people with a biased racial/sexual membership or a biased payment distribution (like all women in the company making less, and not on account of being bad workers) that the attourney general should have the ability to investigate those situations (sort of like under the voting act) so that it is not the burden of the individual being discriminated against to sue.

I am not going to disagree that a small amount of discrimination against women is occuring, but it is just that - a small amount. If you want equal rights you have them. In fact, I may go so far as to say that you have special rights. And do not even get me started on abortion. When is murder okay? You are taking a truly innocent human being and sentencing him/her to death because it may inconvenience you. What kind of a mother would you be to say that your life is more important than your child's. I just wish people would take a little responsibility and have a little honor. Abortion is wrong in every instance -no exceptions. And you have equal rights. "A people that values its privelages above its principles soon loses both." -Dwight D. Eisenhower

Interesting that you would quote Eisenhower, the head of the U.S. 2'nd. w. war effort; ultimately responsible, for each and every death inflicted by the troops he commanded in the name of 'nationalism', and 'right'.
Is that 'murder' "acceptable"?

Abortion is a weapon in the war 'against' the elimination of life on this planet by overpopulation; the most likely actual cause of the end of humanity.

Don't mistake the idealism here; i also fully support any woman's right to 'choose'!

I do not think you understand the meaning of the word murder. Murder is when one unjustly executes a person. WWII was a just war and I think you should review your standings if you are accusing our veterans of murder. Anyhow, I quoted Eisenhower because he was a man of principle. We are growing in an age of privelage over principle. Mothers now have the privelage of murdering their children. Have we lost all sense of principle?

If you support the right to choose so adamently, would you support the right for a criminal to choose to kill? Freedom of choice can only extend so far. We are responsible for effects of our choices. The effect of abortion is the death of an innocent child. Once again, what makes a mother more important than her child? If you are concerned about equality, why isn't equality extended to the unborn child. Why are you so willing to exterminate an innocent child and then condemn the actions of a great president who put principles first, and was not afraid to do the right thing? Perhaps you should rethink your principles and your ideals. Consider what is right, rather than what is best for you.

A fertilized egg is not the same thing as a child. Murder is when you kill a person. I personally don't look at a fertilized egg under a microscope and think "person," or "child."

The mother is more important than the potential child, becuase a. who knows if it would make it to childbirth. b. the mother has relationships and life experiences. C. the mother could live and be healthy to make more children, who she could be there for to be a mother for (if you're dead, or very ill, you're not of much help to your children.)

The second the sperm hits the egg, a child is not made. It is the potential for a child, yes. And killing a child would be murder. However, human embryos go through the same early stages as other mammal embryos, just like chicken eggs. They are a blueprint of genetic information. Eventually this fertilized egg becomes a fetus, and then it becomes a newborn. Would I kill a newborn? Absolutely not. Would I kill a newly fertilized egg? Absolutely, if it benefited the potential child and/or mother. At that point, the only thing killed is potential. People are better parents when they are mentally, financially, physically able to support their children. Don't forget the number of miscarriages that happen at this early stage.

The difficulty, I feel, with abortion is determining at what point abortion is not okay, at what point the fertilized egg has the value of a baby, or human being. We don't consider sperm and eggs separately to be valuable (except the most strict catholics.) I don't see terminating pregnancy at a very early stage as being somthing without principle - abortion is a difficult thing for a potential mother to do, and it's not pretty, but is sometimes the best choice. It should be the mother's responsibility to make that choice, not the government's, while the her fertilized egg is still in her body.

Even worse, if abortion is outlawed, it hurts doctor-patient privlages, civil liberties, and the health of the mother. I don't think anyone here wants coat hangers and unliscenced doctors to be the method of ending an unwanted pregnancy.

note (for this particluar thread) that I am against partial birth abortions (20 weeks - this doesn't actually happen at birth - 40 weeks) unless it is a health hazard for the mother or a child who would not be able to live/support itself on its own.

I understand your points, and they are valid. But I just can't bring myself to say that the unborn child should be denied the chance at life. I believe that abortion is wrong. I think it is a tragedy when a mother dies giving birth but it is a reality of life. People die every day. The biggest problem is that many women are using abortion as a contraceptive. That is certainly not fair. I don't think we should destroy that human potential because the mother is not ready to have children. Adoption is always a possibility. As for illegal abortions, I have never been one to give in to a policy of appeasement. If we legalized abortion because women were being injured while performing illegal abortions, it would not be just. We have to base our decisions on principles. We cannot legalize robbery just because someone could get hurt in the process. Whatever the case, we have taken abortion too far and millions have been aborted because of it.

Jakart, by any chance are you a vegetarian and wear/use fabrics made only from natural fibers?

Also, I note in other threads that you mention you are in ROTC and can't wait to kill somebody in defense of your country.

Mind if I ask about the logic that leads you to conclude that abortion is "murdering" an embryo because it denys it a chance at life yet at the same time being so eager to deny life to real human beings who's governments happened to have a dispute with your government?

Jackart:

Your reference to a fetus as an "unborn child" tells me you have religious stakes in this issue, as well. This is fine, but should not, as I'm sure you're aware, be the reason for government intervention - as we have a separation of church and state.
Many fertlized eggs never make it to the fetus stage, so I don't see this as an unborn child but a fertilized egg. Later on, a fetus, then an unborn child, maybe at about 30 weeks.

"Many women are using abortion as a contraceptive." This is a silly assertion. Abortion is expensive, painful, and shunned by society. When a woman and man are careless (especially if they are young), she may want an abortion but it is not somthing people repeatedly do. It is the most difficult family planning option out there. There are many other good reasons for women to have the right to get abortions - the condom breaking and an undesired preganancy, being too young, lack of finance, rape, incest, drug addiction, disease... These are not pleasant things to think about, but if you support a law you must think of all of the implications of that law.
note: Thankfully, now they have emergency contraception which may be taken within 72 hours of egg fertilization (sex). The only problem with this is that many women do not know they are pregnant until they miss their period (1 month.)

Adoption is a possibility, and adoption is wonderful. I am so glad women have the option to give thier babies up for adoption. However, if all women who did not want a baby but got pregnant gave up their children for adoption, this would put a huge burden on taxpayers to support the orphanages, and government placement agencies necessary. It also puts a large burden on the mother - having to carry 9 months can ruin a person's life plans - having to drop out of school, being unable to work, etc. Not to mention that that child will always want to find their parents.

My argument about coat hangers is not one about government preventing chaos, but about government violating the doctor-patient privlidge. Doctors need honest information on their patients to treat them well - this is why if you tell your doctor you say, smoked marijuana they wouldn't tell the government. Safe relations exist between doctors and patients in order to provide the best health care possible, and when the government violates this privledge, that's when quack doctors and bad self-help (such as coat hangers) emerges. So, no, the government doesn't have to protect people from themselves, but it should not violate doctor - patient privlidges, as this new partial birth abortion ban does.

Abortion is the destruction of a fertilized egg. I believe a woman of principle would be more interested in providing a good, quality life for her and her children than she would in protecting the genetic possibility of a fertilized egg.
Abortion is a difficult choice, and the government should not be responsible for making that choice. I want the potential mother to have the choice, the government is not the one who has to carry, and care for the child.
Abortion is not murder because a fertilized egg is not the same as a child, it is mere genetic potential. I am greatful science has progressed enough to allow humans to have the option to plan their families.

I acknowledge that abortion is a morally difficult issue, especially at what point abortion is not okay. It is not the place of our government to decide what the women of America can and cannot do with their bodies. The government should have no place inside a woman's uterus.

I recommend going to the planned parenthood website, and hearing what women who have chosen to have abortions have to say.
http://www.saveroe.com/wow/abortionban/index.asp

I have to leave the library soon and get off the computer:my left arm is killing me because I can't adjust the seat height but will read more later.

I stayed home to raise kids and consider myself lucky to have had the choice. My daughter, soon to be 26 and newly married, will have to work even when her kids are infants.

I also bought Boston Magazine's salute to powerful women.

I have been seeking work since finishing my master's degree in 1998. I hate being underemployed and making $10,000 a year. I don't like being in debt or being hungry and I think it is because stay at home moms are disrespected.

I believe in a woman's right to choose. When men begin bearing children, then they'll have the right to choose wheather to carry a child to full term or not.

Overpopulation a huge problem throughout the world. Instead of screaming about terminating pregnancies, all nations should be discussing ways to prevent pregnancy. In India, woman valued so highly, that it brings shame to the family if a mother should happen to give birth to a female child. Their solution is aborting female fetuses, or killing the child at birth.

Can anyone imagine a world where poverty and ignorance no longer existed?

butrflynet, I happen to be a vegan and my cloths are made from natural fibers. My choice.

I'll know this country has finally gotten a huge bug out of its ass when it elects a black woman president.

Hopefully it'll be sooner rather than later, but with the way things have been going as of late...