Senator Gillibrand: Pakistan and Afghanistan Better for Women than America

Submitted by Mastodon on Sun, 2014-09-28 20:57

Article here. Excerpt:

'The most animated speaker was Gillibrand, who condemned opposition to expanding paid family leave across the country.

The Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act would establish a national paid family and medical leave insurance program so workers would not have to choose between a paycheck and caring for themselves or a family member, said Gillibrand.

“In every other industrialized, wealthy country in the world they have paid leave,” the senator said. “Europe has up to six months. Even Afghanistan and Pakistan have paid leave, but we do not have paid leave in this country, and because of that when forced to meet a family need, an urgent care need, often times women are forced to leave the workplace because they cannot take that time off unpaid.”
...
Sure Pakistan and Afghanistan have paid leave for women. They also have prisons full of women who left their husbands. There are rather few Afghan women even in the workplace.

Those who are often work for Western NGOs who would provide family leave anyway.

On paper, Afghanistan has some very generous laws for women in the workplace. 100% employer responsibility, sure. Take as many weeks off as you want.

In reality, the justice system is nearly inaccessible, illiteracy is widespread and the average income is measured in cents a day.
...
Men can and do kill women with impunity. But they’ve got weeks of 100 percent paid family leave on the books somewhere. So they’re shining models for the progs.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Gillibrand is a political opportunist cut from the same cloth as her patroness, The Hildebeast. This is why she anointed Gillibrand her successor (egomaniacal ideologues like her connect with others like them, and no class of such person as a feminist does it better) with then-NY governor Patterson's acquiescence as she completed her stepping-stone move from senator to Sec'y of State, allowing Obama to fulfill his promise to Bill Clinton: support me for election if I win the Demo. primary and I'll appoint your old lady as Sec'y of State at least for one term, assuming I win the election. Obama won the election so he appointed The HB. She, predictably, sucked at it, and while Obama couldn't stand her before, he came to despise her while she was the Sec'y of State. But to be fair, Obama's an intolerable idiot who thinks he can run a country. Not even those who believed in his magical ability to somehow make 4 + 4 = 56 could delude themselves for an entire 8 years, with most bailing before or at 4. Others, like Kathleen Sebelius, bailed b/c they were equally incompetent or being shoved around by Michelle, forced to comply with East Wing dictates. (Remember the Great ACA Web Site Rollout Disaster? One of Michelle's old college buddy's company was behind that extraordinary waste of taxpayer money, and between Michelle giving her pal's company the contract with a sham competitive bidding process. Managing a multibillion-dollar IT project isn't amateur hour, yet somehow the Obamas managed to delegate it to idiots and place its oversight into the hands of someone totally unqualified to oversee an IT project even at the 10,000 foot level: Sebelius.)

Not even Eric Holder can stand it anymore. But sayonara there, too. Three words: "Fast And Furious". That's just for openers.

Hard to understand why the good ppl of NY voted The HB into office. She was so obviously a carpet-bagger, yet they put her into offc knowing full well she actually cared zilch for the state and was using it as a stepping stone. Then her protege (or whatever), Gillibrand, was named by Patterson and held up for approval via special election, and actually won. Then for some bizarre reason, they later elected her to a full 6-year term. Good grief.

Well, ppl get the representation they elect, right? Those unhappy with NY politics should probably just try electing people other than political party apparatchiks.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2014-09-30 03:44

the laws in muslim countries there would be women screaming 'from every roof top' at the injustice.

the one that would be particularly interesting is where women get imprisoned for leaving their husbands. we would need a LOT more prisons. however, if they enforced the one where women lose their heads for adultery, well... there goes the need for more prisons.

so that's what they mean by having 'well balanced' law? who knew? one injustice picks up where the last one leaves off. our system of injustice is skewed so far in the opposite direction toward inequality, injustice, lies, unfairness and dishonor for men, its hard to compare the two, except to see how each abomination approaches its version of evil.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by daveinga on Tue, 2014-09-30 16:18