[Logophile]

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.

[Accygirl]

"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."

Women were treated like second class citizens by the Western world for a fairly long time.

-Women weren't allowed to vote in the U.S. until the the 20th century.

-They weren't allowed to take out a loan from a bank without their husbands' or fathers' permission, receive a divorce, or own their own property until the mid 19th century.

-And the Supreme Court in cases during the late 19th century said it was okay for states to bar women from practicing law or serving on a jury. The decision to bar women from serving on juries was not overturned until the mid-1940s (U.S. vs Ballard).

- Married women could be refused admission into colleges into the 1960s; this was actually the policy at Georgetown. And there were actually college that refused to admit women because they were women. Women weren't permitted to attend the University of Virgina's College of Arts and Science until 1970 and then only under court order(Kirstein v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia).

Sounds like women were certainly considered second class citizens for a very long time to me?

"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."

Gays chose their behavior; women cannot choose their gender. Therefore, why shouldn't there be laws protecting women from discrimination because of their gender, which they can't change.

"and (2) to explain why it is the job of the federal government to tell people that sexism is not OK."

Obviously, based on some of the comments on this thread alone, there's still lots of people who hold sexist 'tudes and who would discriminate against women if given a chance.

"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."

If you're paying a man with the same skills and experience and the same job much more, then it definitely is discrimination.

"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."

Again, why should women be in fear that they'll have no legal protection if they get pregnant? Many families need both salaries.

Moreover, before the EEOC was created, companies could decide to not hire women because they're afraid that the woman might get pregnant five or six years down the road although she might not want kids.

(P.S. most salaried jobs, especially entry level jobs, don't have negotiated contracts. An employer has a right to fire employees at will).

"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."

There were most definitely social norms and mores against it. And there were no laws preventing private institutions from banning women from jobs or higher education because of their gender.

"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."

Oh, women in earlier generations most generally were forced by society into a narrow role. That's a fact. (See above).