[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).

[luckystarmom]

There were/are colleges that didn't admit men also(Texas Women's University and others).

Have you ever read Proverbs 31:

A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.

11 Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.

12 She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.

13 She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.

14 She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.

15 She gets up while it is still dark;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her servant girls.

16 She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.

17 She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.

18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.

19 In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with her fingers.

20 She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.

21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet.

22 She makes coverings for her bed;
she is clothed in fine linen and purple.

23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.

24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.

25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.

26 She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.

27 She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.

28 Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:

29 "Many women do noble things,
but you surpass them all."

30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.

31 Give her the reward she has earned,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

This woman works and takes care of her family.

[Logophile]

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

Even if I were to accept your examples as representative of life in the United States, I would point out that all of them pre-date the 1950s for which you have expressed such great disdain.

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.

Many homosexual activists insist that their sexuality is inborn and therefore not subject to choice. That argument, specious though it may be, seems to be gaining currency in some circles.

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.

You declined my challenge to define sexism and to explain why it is the role of the federal government to change people's sexist attitudes.

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

Discrimination, yes. It could also be a perfectly rational business decision. Again, explain to me why the federal government should have any say in the matter.

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.

As I have said already, such a decision might be completely rational, especially for a smaller company. Why should employers have to hire anyon they don't want to hire?

There were most definitely social norms and mores against it.

Perhaps so, although norms and mores were undoubtedly more flexible than you have imagined. In any case, people in a free society should have the liberty to live according their preferred social norms and mores. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to change people's attitudes about marital arrangements.

And there were no laws preventing private institutions from banning women from jobs or higher education because of their gender.

Nor should there be such laws in a free society.

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

Forced? Nonsense. You really should talk to some women who came of age during the 1950s.

I called my mother, who was a teenager in the 1940s and 1950s, and asked her whether she was forced into marriage and homemaking. She said no; it was her choice. And if you knew my mother, you would know that no one could force her to do anything she does not want to do.

But we do not need to go back to the 1950s (much less the 19th century) to see that intelligent women might freely choose motherhood and homemaking over a corporate career. Women do it all the time today; some have posted on this thread. Have they too been "forced" to forgo a corporate career?