FemNazis are at it again!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
Kid, No, I mean, uhh... what I'm saying is, that there are logical reasons why there are situations where there are more men in certain type of jobs. If 70 % of applicants are men adn 30% are women to a job, and later on the scene seems to be male dominant, is that a surprise?

Furthermore, in case of women being pregnant, because men can't be, do you think the employer doesn't want to employ that woman because shes a woman, or because she's pregnant, or because she is going to leave the office SOON for a long time? SO, in this light, it's not oppressing. It's the fact that she'll be away. YEah it's too bad but no one said to have babies, and if they have, well, they understand why this is. It IS a different issue if an employer doesn't want to employ a woman becuase she MIGHT get pregnant in the future. This is different.

Some how you are locked on the employer's interests, and you don't give a **** about the womens. I don't care about the isolated value of the women to the employer. She is having a baby which she will hopefully nuture and produce a good citizen. So you say she deserves to be punished for that because of the employers interests. Screw that.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
Yeah it is easy. If someone is pregnant, you know. Make a decision. If someone is a woman, then so what, what could happen could would should could would you know it doesnt' even matter anymore just hire the best one, period.

I don't have a problem with hiring the best person. That doesn't happen though. Employer's discriminate, and they don't give a **** about a person's value to society, only the value to their own company. All this is pretty obvious. All you have to do is look at people's attitudes on this forum.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Once education, amounts of work experience, and similiar job fields were compared (i.e. engineers to engineers, clerks to clerks) then woman made 98% of what a man did.

Of course or they would be facing a law suit. Do you actually think that means that women are not discriminated against. How much do you think nurses would make if the profession was dominated by men.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by St Leo
I find the allusion to the Third Reich offensive on several counts.

Given that he's Finnish it's probably intended as a compliment.

[Last Conformist]

@Kid: If companies declining to hire women because they might have kids is an issue (and it is), the solution is to enforce regulation that makes hiring women more attractive (say, the state pays for maternity leave), not railing against the evil of company leaderships who're trying to make their firm stay in business.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't have a problem with hiring the best person. That doesn't happen though. Employer's discriminate, and they don't give a **** about a person's value to society, only the value to their own company. All this is pretty obvious. All you have to do is look at people's attitudes on this forum.

What the **** is this supposed to mean, Kid?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
@Kid: If companies declining to hire women because they might have kids is an issue (and it is), the solution is to enforce regulation that makes hiring women more attractive (say, the state pays for maternity leave), not railing against the evil of company leaderships who're trying to make their firm stay in business.

I'm just complaining because people here only see the employer's interest. They automatically think that whatever is good for corporations is good for all of us.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


What the **** is this supposed to mean, Kid?

You don't think that people here have a tendency to hire a man over a women. Even Pekka?

[Pekka]

Well of course employers choose their workers. If it wasn't so, it would be even more screwed up. IF the preggo lady is the most skilled and has skills no one else has, heck, employ that person right now. But we shouldn't decide it. They're not their to give preggoes a purpose in life or a break. What are you saying, that employers are only interested in the benefit of their own business.. ? And this is screwed up because.. ?

As for if a woman is hired and later on she gets pregnant, I find that it would be very good if the employer would not make her life difficult about it but have the attitude of helping her out instead, that is making sure she knows you aren't going to let her go, and that you'll get a temp and if you were thinking of giving her a raise, then give it now because they'll be needing the money. And of course congratulate and give a nice gift.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm just complaining because people here only see the employer's interest here. They automatically think that whatever is good for corporations is good for all of us.

Clearly, anyone who thinks that need not be taken seriously.

But I don't see anyone arguing that here. I do see people arguing that if a company pursues the rational option within the existing system, it is not therefore evil.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
Well of course employers choose their workers. If it wasn't so, it would be even more screwed up. IF the preggo lady is the most skilled and has skills no one else has, heck, employ that person right now. But we shouldn't decide it. They're not their to give preggoes a purpose in life or a break. What are you saying, that employers are only interested in the benefit of their own business.. ? And this is screwed up because.. ?

Women are not treated equally. Or at least they are only compensated to the extent that they are like men. There is a value to being a women which they are not compensated for.

As for if a woman is hired and later on she gets pregnant, I find that it would be very good if the employer would not make her life difficult about it but have the attitude of helping her out instead, that is making sure she knows you aren't going to let her go, and that you'll get a temp and if you were thinking of giving her a raise, then give it now because they'll be needing the money. And of course congratulate and give a nice gift.

Why would an employer hire someone who is going to get pregnant if they are acting in the corporations best interest? Why would they promote them?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Clearly, anyone who thinks that need not be taken seriously.

But I don't see anyone arguing that here. I do see people arguing that if a company pursues the rational option within the existing system, it is not therefore evil.

The rational option is to discriminate. There is a real cost to hiring a women because she may become pregnant, or because she has other responsibilities to her family where a man can avoid those responsibilities more easily.

The thing is that there is a social benefit to women (and men) taking care of their families.

Then there is the fact that women are discriminated against even if they don't have families, and won't have any. The employer still takes that cost into consideration.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The rational option is to discriminate. There is a real cost to hiring a women because she may become pregnant, or because she has other responsibilities to her family where a man can avoid those responsibilities more easily.

Duh!

The thing is that there is a social benefit to women (and men) taking care of their families.

Duh!

Then there is the fact that women are discriminated against even if they don't have families, and won't have any. The employer still takes that cost into consideration.

Because the employer can't known whether she'll get a family.

Do you have a point?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You don't think that people here have a tendency to hire a man over a women. Even Pekka?

I don't think that you claiming it makes it true.

I don't know whether it's true or false.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Women are not treated equally. Or at least they are only compensated to the extent that they are like men. There is a value to being a women which they are not compensated for.

What tripe. Now you want us to pay women simply for being women?

**** that.