|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:40 AM September 24th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
The company I work for offers Pregnancy Leave so that mom gets to spend time with her newborn. Anyone who gets pregnant is eligible for thirteen weeks paid leave after the child is born. An additional two weeks of paid leave is available if the child is sick or needs medical care. To qualify, a person must have worked for the company for six months and be pregnant. This automatically eliminates new fathers because, well, men just do not get pregnant. Could this not be considered "indirect gender discrimination?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kyo on 10:06 AM September 24th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
What's "indirect" about that? Others get a benefit that you're biologically incapable of getting. Direct discrimination all the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 10:22 AM September 24th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
seems to me that employing women is more expensive than men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Gregory on 10:42 AM September 24th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
"seems to me that employing women is more expensive than men."
definitely. What we're seeing here are situations in which an employer must discriminate in favor of women (and against men) so as not to be seen as discriminating against women, either intentionally or effectively. All this does is confirm my conviction that the last thing feminists want is for women to be treated equally. They don't want equal treatment, they want privilege.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:12 AM September 24th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
"seems to me that employing women is more expensive than men."
True, but not employing women can be more expensive. I refer to law suits women can take against employers if a men get jobs which women want.
Upholding the principles of femequality, the courts invariably screw any employer who faces such a law suit.
All genders are equal but some genders are more equal than others.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:49 AM September 24th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
The article below is on the same general theme of "equality" in employment. I saw it on angryharry and I thought it described the realities of "equal employment" just about perfectly.
The Recurring Pattern, Of Modern History by NiceGuy ...
Step 1: Men invent a new industry or technology.
Step 2: As soon as the new industry or technology becomes super-safe to use and/or glamorous enough to be trendy, small numbers of women (brave "pioneers"!) become interested in it.
Step 3: Brave pioneering women start to discover the new field isn't a bowl of cherries.
Step 4: Brave pioneering women get their feelings hurt and complain that men have developed the industry/field to suit themselves and have unfairly shut women out of their private little boy's club.
Step 5: After court papers are filed, men start to create special programs to lower standards and advance the number of women to top positions in the field while paying less attention to such irrelevant things as qualifications and ability.
Step 6: After women achieve a number of high-level positions in the field, they begin gloating that men have lost their edge and no longer have what it takes to compete in this brave, new world of 'ekwalitee'.
Step 7: Repeat.
Niceguy runs the Mancoat Forum - mostly for young MRAs - requires registration
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 02:10 PM September 24th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:43 AM September 24th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
There is an interesting and disturbing new trend in gender-discrimination legal principles, which basically say that even behaviors that are not directly about gender may be found to be discriminatory against WOMEN.
The Volvo case suggests that work processes must be re-engineered to compensate for human evolution that makes women on average shorter than men.
Another recent case criminalizes male expression, ruling that if women "subjectively perceive" a man's behavior to be threatening, then the behavior itself is evidence of INDIRECT gender discrimination, even if no actual communication towards women happened.
Women only need to allege that they "felt" threatened and women's subjectivity has become the "standard of reason."
----
Under the “reasonable woman” standard devised in an earlier case, Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991), the qualitative differences in the subjective and objective effects of the behavior are the way to determine whether men and women were treated differently. Because women found the behavior subjectively more intimidating than men did, and reasonable women would do so, the conduct treats women differently. …
This case means that when employers permit abusive behavior in the workplace, their toleration carries a higher risk. If the abusive behavior will be actually and reasonably perceived as disadvantageous by women, the behavior may be discrimination.
Link at -
http://www.littler.com/nwsltr/asap_MaleTantrums_9_ 05.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:47 PM September 24th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I am too short to be a male model, but I am too tall to be a female model. I guess that's discrimination...! Goll'!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:49 PM September 24th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I forgot to mention that I'm also too ugly to be a model at ALL! Maybe THAT'S discrimination, too.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:10 PM September 24th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
And, as your posts here have proven, your main disqualification for ever being a successful model is that you're smart, and you don't accept instructions very well.
"Strike the pose Thundercloud?"
NOT freakin' likely.... ;-)
(roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:22 AM September 26th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Roy.
A lot of male models seem like wussie-poopies to me.
That's just my opinion, though. I'm sure there are those that aren't.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:10 AM September 25th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Similarly, many fire services have had to remove height/weight restrictions on women serving because to do otherwise, would be discrimination from an employment perspective.
From a moral perspective, the fact that a 5'4, lightly built female would struggle to pull your average unconscious male out of a burning building is irrelevant.
(By the way, this argument of mine is based on pure common sense and talking about majority situations. I mention this to prevent the periodic counter claims that an "exceptional" woman blah blah blah, and the reverse where an above average height/weight female has to be carried by a below average height/weight male)
S'all about the equality dontcha know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:23 AM September 25th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"From a moral perspective, the fact that a 5'4, lightly built female would struggle to pull your average unconscious male out of a burning building is irrelevant."
Yes, but the feminists will argue that women firefighters must therefore be exempted from running into burning buildings. Indeed women must be exempted from doing anything they dont want to do because they are fragile flowers.
However, their fragile flower status must not restrict them from doing anything they DO want to do.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:30 AM September 25th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
It seems that men have decided that they are OK with living out their lives in a society engineered to constantly appease petulant child-women... a strange not-quite infant / not-quite-adult species that is stuck in arrested development.
Attempting to relate to women today is like trying to deal with a three year-old brat who has a really good lawyer on retainer, owns a cell phone, and knows how to speed-dial 911.
No wonder more and more men are deciding they just don't need the brain damage...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:37 AM September 26th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
".........a strange not-quite infant / not-quite-adult species that is stuck in arrested development."
Absolutely spot on! One of the best summaries of your average feminist I've heard in a long while.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:27 AM September 26th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, MUCH better wording; "Your average feminist".
I don't want to drag all women into this category. Although there are certainly more than enough who do fit it. But it is mainly feminists ones.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:54 PM September 27th, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes the feminist ones, aka: all of them.
Death To women's Rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:12 PM September 28th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
No, not all.
A lot, Too many, but not all.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:36 PM October 20th, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
What ever happened to hiring the person who is physically and mentally capable of doing the job?
This nonsense of "I'm a short female so you have to adjust your facilities to accomodate me" is iritating, not to mention highly unfair to the company.
It's all over the world now and 90% of the time when a woman gets the postition, that is normally filled by a male, they can't pull their weight. A male that works in the same field has to work harder to help the female keep up. I know this because I've seen it and I've done.
The military is the worst case of them all. The females don't follow the same physical training criteria, they get pregnant on purpose so they don't have to go on deployment, they get out of assigned tasks by using thier "monthly cycle" as an excuse, and as i said before half the time they aren't capable of doing the job as effectfully as a male.
Face it. There are just some jobs that men do better than women and jobs that women can do better then men. This is why I say hire the right person for the job because of their ability to do it, not because of their gender.
Sounds like common sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
