Paradoxium
Making Your Head Explode
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2002
- Messages
- 22,485
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Maybe, maybe not, but McCain has consistently voted against women's rights and equal pay.
jag
My first point: Did you know in the UK, feminist lobbyist push to have a law installed that forced employers "not to ask" if a female applicant would have child soon? Sounds good on paper right? To protect the privacy of women. Except - as I mentioned before - all this did was now is cause UK businesses not to interview young women (or a lot less) to statistically avoid getting someone mat leave right after hiring them. Some women watchdogs realized this was actually hurting women then helping. Does going against something like this from the precept make you sexist? My entire point is, women can hurt other women with good intents.
Two: I am ignorant of McCain's record on women''s rights and equal pay. But the closest one to memory is the Ledbetter Act. I refer to Diana Furchtgott-Roth
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would create an extraordinary new set of rights for plaintiffs in employment disputes. For the first time, employers would typically face no time limits on when suits may be filed, a legal status generally reserved for crimes such as murder.
This would be a radical change from present law because employees could argue that their current compensation flows from discriminatory decisions made years back. An employee could even sue a previous employer whom she left many years ago. This would generate massive lawsuits against current and former employers.
Mr. Obama's statement that women are paid 77% of what men earn comes from outdated Census Bureau calculations that compare full-time median annual earnings of all women with those of all men. This is a spurious comparison. It does not take into account differences in education, job responsibility, years worked for an employer, occupation, hours worked in a year, and time in the workforce.
Lower pay can reflect decisions — by men and women — about field of study, occupation, and time in the workforce. Those who don't finish high school earn less. College graduates who major in humanities rather than the sciences typically have lower incomes, and more women than men choose humanities majors. Many women take time out of the workforce to stay home with children, or choose jobs with shorter hours.
An economics professor at Baruch College, June O'Neill, analyzed data for men and women on demographics, education, work experience, children, and scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test. When such differences are accounted for, men and women earn about the same.
When Mrs. Palin became governor, she did not receive 77% of her predecessor Frank Murkowski's salary. She knows better than anyone that it takes skill and perseverance to get to the top of the career ladder. Ratcheting up litigation is no substitute.
Now you get tons of potential lawsuits, maybe some have merit, but quite a few won't. What do you think will happen now once business realizes this potential problem? They will stop hiring young women. Some of them will end up wasting their money on legal fees on false accusations (like we need that now in the current climate). Now the false accusers (women) are hurting the women with legitimate problems. You know "the boy who cried wolf?". Does this make me sexist for pointing this problem out? No - I am saying sometimes legislation like this could end up HURTING women.
Last edited: