|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, what was all that "equal pay for equal work" femmunist mantra we have heard over and over for decades now?
Guess who will have to make up the 20% deficient? Just because 20% less work is being done by the women doesn't mean that there is less work to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Femmunist proposal to enforce unequal pay for equal work is actually a good thing for the men's movement. The Femmunists couldn't have aimed their sights on a less sympathetic profession: not only will their proposal be rejected, it will be exposed for the fraud that it is. Attempting to get satisfaction from the legal profession is lunacy; we should encourage the Femmunists to persist in this folly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, at least some law firms have what is called the "mommy track." The woman gets to be a lawyer, but she is not on track to be a partner, and I believe there is less pressure on her to work as many hours as her male coworkers do. The catches are (1) she will never make partner at that firm, (2) she will not make as much money as the lawyers who bill more hours and work more hours.
Some years, ago, I was in a Toastmasters group with a young woman who was a national debate champion. She then went on to UCLA Law School, and eventually made partner at some law firm or another. She is doing rather well for herself. But her husband is working part-time from home and staying home with their daughter (he is a computer programmer of some sort). She is NOT on the mommy track, but she has chosen what she wants. She and her husband also have enough money to hire a live-in nanny to help out with the kid and the housework.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, at least some law firms have what is called the "mommy track." The woman gets to be a lawyer, but she is not on track to be a partner, and I believe there is less pressure on her to work as many hours as her male coworkers do. The catches are (1) she will never make partner at that firm, (2) she will not make as much money as the lawyers who bill more hours and work more hours.
There's nothing wrong with this; actually I'm not certain that we can force businesses NOT to make irrational decisions, like compensating and rewarding mommy trackers on a par with their non-mommy-track associates. If they want to experiment, let them.
On the other hand, if the Femmunists want to impose this form of theft on law firms through government activism, then encourage them. I could imagine the Femmunists being tied up in financially crippling lawsuits for years by the law firms they intend to defraud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong with this; actually I'm not certain that we can force businesses NOT to make irrational decisions, like compensating and rewarding mommy trackers on a par with their non-mommy-track associates. If they want to experiment, let them.
I am personally all in favor of flexible working arrangements wherever they can be found. I perform medical transcription for a living... I'm semi-burned out on it, but the flexibility is wonderful.
You can work for a hospital, a transcription service, for yourself. You can work part-time, full-time, overtime. You can work by the hour, by the hour plus incentive, or strictly by production (the way I prefer). You can work as an employee, as a statutory employee, or as an independent contractor. You can work at home alone with the cats and the computer. You can go find a job in someone else's office when you get too weird because you have been alone too long. If you're an employee, you might get good benefits. If you work on production, you might have fewer benefits but more money.
Technically, if I wanted to be a single mother and have kids all by myself, this is one job that would allow me to do it (but I haven't).
People have to figure out what they want... and they have to realize that life involves trade-offs. Very few people can have everything they want at the same time. Sometimes people have to find a different way to make a living.
The women lawyers I've met were aware of the partner track versus mommy track issues.
On the other hand, if the Femmunists want to impose this form of theft on law firms through government activism, then encourage them. I could imagine the Femmunists being tied up in financially crippling lawsuits for years by the law firms they intend to defraud.
Yes, I think it would be delicious irony if they went that route.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have a problem with companies allowing parents (of either sex) to work fewer hours, most likely for less pay and/or benefits, so they can spend more time with their kids. I also don't have a problem with an employer saying "No" to that kind of set-up. I think in that arena, the employer has the upper hand.
I could most likely get a job that pays more or has better opportunities for growth, but my company affords me the benefits I need with the flex time I need. It's a trade off I had to make but that I made willingly, knowing it would give me more time at home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal work is expensive enough without (eventually) more expense being passed down to the client, and to support her outside-work lifestyle in addition.
As if not enough, that women demand time-off regularly, now she wants to get paid for her time-off, too. I am not her Salvation Army. All men are.
NOT off-time, nor off subject, but a larger issue is involved:
We are still undergoing a social & socialist revolution of unprecedented proportions & sophistication. This revolution is a fascist order, of Right and Left.
This support of women--this case the mother lawyers only a single manifestation of it-- is state-forced subsidy, enforced by both conventional government means (laws again), and by the Establishment which rules the nation, such as the media. Ironically, at the top of the controlling media, are a few powerful men. And they will use men or women, even tho' this phase of the revolution --in general—conveniently favors the women. But fascist states, left & right wing, once fully in power, are rarely kind to women on the balance.
The earliest & most fundamental goals necessary for the brainwashing are well in their final stages, of the break-down of older traditional societal values. Next comes the reconstruction, that part of the New World Order, which newest euphemism is the Global Society. This latter term was probably promoted by more than any, in a book in 1991, “The First Global Revolution: A Report By the Council of The Club of Rome”, by Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider.
This book’s very first page is a quote:
“Ah love! Could thou and I with fate conspire,
to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,
would we not shatter it to bits and then,
remould it nearer to the heart’s desire.”
----Omar Khayyam
One of the most fundamental requirements of break-down then reconstruction of existing society was clearly stated early in the 20th century: the necessity of breaking the “nuclear family” and reconstructing the “extended family”. This required that the (evil patriarchal) nuclear father be replaced by the society as a father, literally Big Brother government supporting Sisters, by freeing mothers from her role dependence on nuclear dad, sexually & economically. Yet at the same time, keeping little-daddy chained to his role as provider, too—not only for Global Sister, but to keep production-spending continuing to work production & produce further income to oil the wheels of marketing.
“The family is an instrument of capitalist oppression, and its purpose is to protect property,(9) not the happiness of the people involved. Alexandra Kollontaï(10) suggests two requirements for the elimination of marriage:
1. The state must relieve women of the burden of children through money, care of the children when the mother is at work, etc..
2. Women must be prepared for a profession.(11) Bertrand Russell also says that if "parental responsibility were removed, marriage would no longer be felt important".(12)
“The possibility of bringing down the institution of marriage is or should be the strongest argument in favor of socialism.” .
http://home.att.net/~jeroloman/love/index.htm
“Middle-class men, neutered by office life and daunted by feminist rhetoric, are shrinking. Lesbianism is increasing, since anxious, unmasculine men have little to offer. Women are simply more interesting to them. Male homosexuality is increasing, because masculinity is in crisis and because maternal consciousness, severed from the support network of the extended family, has become a psychotic system, forcing the young to struggle for life against clinging personal fantasy. “ “Vamps and Tramps”, Camille Paglia, p. 90.
As Alvin Toffler wrote in part about, in “Future Shock”, the name of the New Order is global nationalism united by an expanding web of communications & industrial & corporate patriotism which supercedes any local state-national boundaries. This network has been & will be to a far greater extent, cooperating with formation of their own intelligence networks and their own quasi-private police forces & military.
Precisely their point, is doing an end-run on each their national governments, and operating in increasing cooperation across & above national boundaries. The wars of the future (already here today) will be between factions of this Global Society.
Neither the national nor the global political situation today is between Left and Right, they are both united, each two arms of the same body, different roles (including created-conflict where beneficial), the Left Hand & the Right Hand.
Toffler is interviewed in http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.05/toffler.ht ml?person=alvin_toffler&topic_set=wiredpeople,
“We said, quite correctly, that the period we are moving into is not the period of the crisis of communism or the crisis of capitalism, but the general crisis of industrialism.”
Self-serving manifestations such as mother lawyers, and hundreds more of hypocritical, prejudiced, and unethical social & legal changes, have destroyed what was remaining of the honored traditional Liberalism, including a large part of the Democratic Party. It also destroyed ethical & fair feminism. This was exactly the point: to create polarization & break-down, in the latest move of two decades, widening the gender gap, again the destruction of both the nuclear family, plus alternative legitimate advanced gender lifestyles.
This gender polarization of the Whites was preceded by a very successful program on the Blacks. The Black family had problems enough to begin with, but now for the vast majority, have been totally destroyed. Not even citing Black divorce, best I recall of recent, around 60% are born out of wedlock. In addition it should be clear, the majority of Black women are now either totally or significantly beholden in slavery to Big Brother support. The Black model is much a sign of the future for a significant amount of other women—even if she be a White Girl beholden to the Establishment’s demands in order to drive her BMW—and we know how dear that is, plus other status, and what a White Girl will do for a Bimmer.
Would anyone sensible define where we’re going as Female Liberation? Our view of Liberation & values across-the-board, are instead, defined by the media, academia, money, and by superficial values. And I suppose, lawyers too, only define their trade by societal values and by those of their masters.
An honest traitor could never dream of doing so well as his own common countrywomen. For the price of a welfare check & a BMW, we have sold out our country and ourselves. For the price of a skirt, we males have sold out, too.
This polarization into two cooperative impossibles, has left the best of ethical people with no alternative. To put it bluntly as to our national politics, an ethical & aware person—or simply a knowledgeable reasonable person—cannot belong to the Republican or Democratic Party.
“The First Global Revolution” in its foreword, writes of the later stages, tagging this present stage roughly coming together in 1968,
“A number of individuals close to decision-making points became concerned about the apparent incapability of governments and the international organizations of foreseeing, or even attempting to foresee, the consequences of substantial material growth... It was felt that the creation of a group of independent thinkers concerned with the longer term and deeper issues would be useful in complementing the work of the formal organizations.” --p. ix.
“We are convinced that the magnitude of these changes amounts to a major revolution on a worldwide scale.” p. xx.
In the book’s next-to-final chapter “The Resolutique”,
“Elites everywhere reconcile easily despite the surface controversy. The general public is not involved, only manipulated, in debates of this type. The gulf between elite thinking and thinking at a popular level is enormous. Here is where we find distortions and tensions difficult or even impossible to resolve.” p. 244.
For those not members of the elite, that latter sentence especially, is in code, meaning the elite will take command to resolve them. And the entire passage above should be clear to anyone: Democracy is not only totally hopeless, it is dangerous. However, the manipulation of the illusion of democracy is necessary.
This is the infamous Club of Rome, the book cited, writ by honored members. The entire first page after the foreword, is the book’s dedication by “Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Message to the Twentieth Anniversary, Conference of The Club of Rome, Paris 1988.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fascist states, left & right wing, once fully in power, are rarely kind to women on the balance.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If I were a woman, I would be very concerned by what the genfems are nearly pulling off. I wouldn't want to be a man, when it comes time to pay the piper, but I moreso wouldn't want to be a woman.
The genfems may well end up hurting women more than men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if we follow this flashy catch phrase (putting aside experience and whatnot) we may assume that the male lawyers will also get 20% time off to compensate for the time the female lawyers get? right? and if so, then the firm is simply running at 80% of what it used to be. as such, this would be their new standard. right back where we left off at equality. of course, this assumes that equality is what everyone is aiming for. goodness knows that's not the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
--George Orwell (1903–1950), British author. Animal Farm, ch. 10 (1945).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 09, @05:38PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
This has to be some kind of sick joke.
unbelievable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Karen Selick has a web site in case you're interested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Karen Selick has a web site in case you're interested.
Warning! Do not click on that link. Clicking on that link will cause your eyes to be assaulted and will result in temporary or permanent blindness. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Almost. Not one to let anything go without a comment:
1. Why is it one of the highest paying jobs in the country is the whines about needing more time off? I don't see anything demanding women [or god forbid men] factory workers deserve 20% less work if they're raising families - apparently they don't like their families.
2. They either chose that profession or they chose to have children, they didn't suddenly wake up one morning with 2 kids and realize "hey, I'm working a whole lot, I don't have a lot of time to spend with kids - I wasn't aware this profession or children would need a lot of attention!" Rewarding people for stupid decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 12, @06:05PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
In the legal profession, it isn't merely women who need more time off, all lawyers, at least at large and mid-sized law firms, need time off.
The difference between factory workers, who produce mostly through braun, and attorneys whose work demands tremendous mental concentration and focus, is that factory workers tend to work 40 hours a week and receive credit for all the time they are on the clock. Attorneys at large firms tend to work 65-70 hours per week and only end up billing, say, 45-50 hours per week.
If you think those cushy white collar jobs are cushy and easy, think again. Try spending 12 hours a day engaged in focused, analytical thought processes, composing beautiful legal prose, all in a high pressure, high stress environment. Aside from the money, status, and prestige, the factory workers probably have it better. It's much easier to spend 8 hours working with your body than it is with your mind. I've done both--I know which is easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man.
The land I love is becoming rapidly the land that sickens me.
I can't believe that such radfem bologna is happening anywhere, nevermind here. Or rather, maybe I shouldn't. We are a rather liberal country.
Yay.
Women aren't better than men.
Men aren't better than women.
We're just different. Deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, now... Let me get this straight: The female lawyers are on the verge of being able to work 20% fewer hours FOR THE SAME SALARY? Did I understand that right? Now, as a prospective client, one who would be inclined to be selective about counsel, I would avoid hiring a female attorney, and (for example in the U.S.) I'd be perfectly well allowed to make this selection. This would not be regarded as discrimination, since there are a number of practitioners in private practice and I'm allowed to pick the one I want just like I might walk into one supermarket over another one, maybe just because I didn't like the color of their wallpaper. And I would avoid a female attorney just because she is available to me, in terms of when she can show up for court or meetings or on the phone, 20% LESS time, making my life just a little bit more inconvenient. Furthermore, law firms are now going to be required to pay these women the SAME SALARY for LESS WORK, and the amount of work they get will be DECLINING!!
Are these people stupid? Don't they see what this will lead to?
1) Less revenue for any law firm that hires female lawyers;
2) Law firms avoiding the hiring of female attorneys;
3) Fewer female attorneys in practice (and therefore fewer female candidates for judgeships).
Maybe this isn't such a bad thing for men!! Maybe we should just let this one play itself out :-)
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Femmunists couldn't have aimed their sights on a less sympathetic profession: not only will their proposal be rejected, it will be exposed for the fraud that it is.
Actually, judging by Karen Selick's essay, it seems that the Canadian Bar Association has already adopted at least (compromise) parts of the policy. The other parts will probably be raised again. Of course, it remains to be seen how individual law firms will respond, but we have to remember that the bar association passing such a proposal is an important step toward turning the concept into law -- a law that ultimately might be applied nationally to all businesses. In fact, Selick's essay states that "these recommendations were to be considered a legal duty."
In any case, though, I think you're right that this sort of extreme lunacy on the part of our rulers (the feminist matriarchs) may greatly undermine them in time.
Are these people stupid? Don't they see what this will lead to?
1) Less revenue for any law firm that hires female lawyers;
2) Law firms avoiding the hiring of female attorneys;
3) Fewer female attorneys in practice (and therefore fewer female candidates for judgeships).
This, of course, is not the scenario envisioned by the genfems. Their hoped-for scenario is:
1) No decrease in revenue: Women without children, men without children, and fathers will do more work. (There may be a little more blood that can squeezed from those turnips, especially the oppressor-pig notawomen.) Also, since lawyers generally work on billable hours, firms can hire more lawyers. Ultimately, the pay, adjusted by hour, will simply be less for those working full-time-plus as attorneys than women who work far less as attorneys and then do hard parenting chores or watch soccer tournaments or Oprah;
2) The government will force law firms to hire women;
3) More female attorneys in practice. Why pass up a deal like this? More women will go into law and, again, the government will force firms to hire them.
This is what the genfems hope for. Only time will tell how this will actually play out.
An additional point: While Ms. Selick may or may not consider herself a feminist, her prejudice glowers through. She states, "the truth is that the increasing polarization of the legal community is not along male-female lines - it is along ideological ones. Wilson and her supporters advocate a collectivization, a socialization of the legal profession." This declaration is disingenuous at best. She has already written, "Nor is there any suggestion a father will be accommodated." Since the recommendations are to apply only to women the polarization is along both male-female and ideological lines.
If mothers are compensated and fathers are not, this is clearly another attempt to have men work and then to take money from them and give it to women while giving nothing in return. Last time I checked, that was called slavery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am still stunned at the absolute lack of logic behind this law. First it makes an arbitrary assignment of 20% and the amount of time it takes to raise a child. One question I would ask would be to produce the research that this value is based on. My second question would be directed extending the same concept to other areas of our lives. Maybe women who are going to college to become a lawyer or doctor and raising a family should do 20% less work to earn the same degree?
It is obvious that the people involved in this are brow-beaten by the gender politics used against them and afraid to speak out against any feminist rhetoric in fear of being labeled anti-female. This is a prime example of how current popular feminism has been corrupted by the political power it wields. It has come to the point that any feminist proposal can ONLY be questioned to clarify the issue but NEVER to challenge it.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday March 10, @10:04PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Along the same lines, maybe mothers running for office should be required to have only 80% of the votes of their male opponents to be considered victorious?
Garth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Along the same lines, maybe mothers running for office should be required to have only 80% of the votes of their male opponents to be considered victorious?
Bahaha!!
-----
This signature has been infected with Anthrax. Take your medicine.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
