Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Logophile
"Even if most people would agree, it is intellectually sloppy to equate the treatment of blacks with the treatment of women."

Because the same human principles apply... Some people are racist and need to be told this is not okay for society, just like some people are sexist and need to be told that's not okay. Gender discrimination laws protect women from getting fired because they get pregnant or getting paid less for men for the same work. They also protect both women and men from being victims of sexual harassment.

"You characterized the 1950s as a major step backwards for women because of choices those women themselves made."

Choices that were made for them. That's the difference. Women who chose to go to college and have a career would find it near impossible to get a job in the corporate world other than being a secretary.
414 posted on 11/28/2006 4:39:12 AM PST by Accygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies ]


To: Accygirl
Because the same human principles apply... Some people are racist and need to be told this is not okay for society, just like some people are sexist and need to be told that's not okay.

More intellectual sloppiness. Because of slavery, blacks have a unique history in this country which may possibly justify some special consideration under the law. Women do not have a similar history.

Your argument, such as it is, has been used to promote all sorts of social engineering. Right now, for example, homosexuals and other sexual deviants are arguing that they too have been the victims of discrimination just as black people have, and the government should do something about it.

As for some people being "sexists", I would challenge you (1) to define what you mean by sexism and sexist, and (2) to explain why it is the job of the federal government to tell people that sexism is not OK.

Gender discrimination laws protect women from getting fired because they get pregnant or getting paid less for men for the same work.

Why is it any concern of the government's what a private employer pays his employees? If the employer and a particular employee negotiate a mutually agreeable pay rate, no one else should care. After all, it is an agreement between consenting adults.

As for laying off a woman for getting pregnant, that too should be governed by the conditions of the contract negotiated between the employee and the employer. I see no reason why the government should be involved at all.

Choices that were made for them. That's the difference. Women who chose to go to college and have a career would find it near impossible to get a job in the corporate world other than being a secretary.

Nonsense. Who made these choices for them? There were no laws against women going to college or being employed outside the home. There were no laws against them starting their own businesses.

What you cannot seem to grasp is that an intelligent woman might freely chose to forgo a corporate career to be a wife, mother, and homemaker. You assume that the only reason any woman would have done so is that the choice was made for her. Not only does that show an distressing ignorance of recent American history; it also betrays an appalling disdain for Americans of an earlier generation.

428 posted on 11/28/2006 11:40:14 AM PST by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson