Re: The answer is simple: Don't hire a woman...

On Jan 28, 7:29 pm, justwax...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
X-No-Archive:
On Jan 29, 4:29 am, "MCP" <gf010w5...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/2009/01/answer-is-simple-dont...

The comment below may be something that was never expected by feminists and
their ongoing demand for female supremacy. But we have the male-haters like
Hillary Clinton to thank for this bit of misandry..

  The answer is simple: Don't hire a woman
  January 24, 2009
  Patrice Lewis

  Ha ha. Want to hear something funny? When I was offered this column last
year, I honestly wondered if I could find something suitably interesting to
write about every week.

  I shouldn't have worried. Fortunately, we have our federal government as a
constant source of hilarious entertainment.

  The latest piece of mayhem, er, legislation to catch my attention is
H.R.1388, the Paycheck Fairness Act, introduced (surprise surprise) by
Hillary Rodham Clinton in July 2008. This Act takes "critical steps to help
empower women to negotiate for equal pay." There's that word - empower -
possibly the silliest term to enter our vocabulary in recent history (right
along with "sustainable" and "self-esteem"). We're told women are so weak
and helpless that we need empowerment from Hillary.

  "Every American deserves equal pay for equal work," Hillary sniffs in a
link that was removed three days ago. "It is disgraceful that four decades
after the Equal Pay Act was signed into law, women in this country still
earn only 78 cents on the dollar. The Paycheck Fairness Act is an attempt to
right this historic wrong and I am proud to reintroduce it today."

  What's not said is why women earn only 78 cents for every dollar a man
earns. Could it be women are doing other things besides advancing in their
careers? Could it be that they're raising children and running households?
These things quite rightfully distract a woman from her outside job. Men
tend to pursue their careers with single-minded intent. Women have more
important things to do.

  Most women, that is. I guess Hillary is the exception. I seem to remember
her huffy dismissal of the thought of baking cookies with Chelsea.

  Charlie Jones and Jane Smith could have identical jobs - let's say, loan
officers in a bank - but it's very likely Charlie has more experience
because Jane keeps taking time off to have babies, shuffle her kids around
day care, stay home with them when they're sick, and attend school meetings
and activities. Charlie does none of that, and so he ends up with a better
work record. Jane can only do 78/100ths of the job Charlie can do. See the
logic here?

  "The Paycheck Fairness Act would address this reality [pay discrepancy]
through a number of needed reforms," notes Hillary. "The Act would create a
training program to help women strengthen their negotiation skills; enforce
equal pay laws for federal contractors; and require the Department of Labor
to work with employers to eliminate pay disparities by enhancing outreach
and training efforts."

  Interesting how it's automatically assumed any pay discrepancies are due
to evil men discriminating against women.

  What does this mean in plain English? Well, according to Mike Eastman,
executive director of Labor Law Policy with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
this legislation would:

  * Eliminate the caps on punitive and compensatory damages. [This means a
woman can sue McDonald's for a kazillion dollars because 10 years ago when
she was a teeny-bopper, she made less money flipping burgers than her
boyfriend did.]

  * Make punitive and compensatory damages available for even unintentional
pay disparities. [Unintentional. That means the boss didn't mean to do
anything wrong. Who cares! Sue him!]

  * Eliminate employer defenses for pay disparities, such as paying people
differently because they work in different parts of the country with
different costs of living. [This means no excuse, no matter how legitimate,
will cut the mustard. The employer is always wrong.]

  * Make it easier for trial lawyers to file large class actions. [Get lots
of women together so they can whine in a big group.]

  * Impose comparable worth "guidelines," second guessing market forces
about the relative worth of different types of jobs. [Oh, my gosh. This
means you have to compare one job with a completely different job to make
sure women are paid comparably. How does a secretary compare to, say, a
plumber? How does a teacher compare to a construction worker? This will be a
logistical nightmare.]

  * Re-impose debunked statistical analyses and auditing methods used by the
Labor Department. [Bring back archaic comparison methods that didn't work to
begin with. That's why they were debunked. Helloooo?]

  [My comments in brackets.]

  Is anyone familiar with the Law of Unintended Consequences? An unintended
consequence is when an action results in an unexpected reaction. It often
happens when a simple system (such as the government) tries to regulate a
complex system (such as the American people). According to a landmark 1936
paper by sociologist Robert Merton, some causes of unanticipated
consequences include ignorance, error, immediate interests and basic values.

  In other words, when something is touted as "good" for a segment of the
populace -children, minorities, women, environmentalists, whatever - it
usually backfires because politicians cannot or will not visualize the
logical and practical outcome.

  What will be the unintended consequences for this legislation? Easy..
Employers will be reluctant to hire women.

  Oh, not in huge corporations in big cities, of course. Large businesses
have Human Resource personnel to make sure they kowtow to the letter of the
law. If they don't, Hillary will sniff them out. But in Real America where I
live - in small towns and rural areas across the country - the quiet,
unspoken ripple effect will be a greater wariness and less frequent hiring
of women. Naturally, these small businesses can't admit it for legal
reasons, but that's reality.

  I've already been told by at least three small businesses that they won't
hire a woman because it's too risky. I agree. Look at a woman wrong and
you're accused of sexual harassment. Open a door for her and you'll get
hassled into enrolling in a "sensitivity" course. Complain when she needs
yet another day off to take care of her sick kid, and you're accused of
gender discrimination. It sure is a whole lot easier to hire a man!

  You see, in Real America the solution is quite simple: Don't hire a woman
and all your problems will be solved.

  Thanks, Hillary.

  Posted by Christian J.

This idea is currently being floated in Australia. Unions want 6-12
months paid maternity leave and a guaranteed job at the end of it.
Employers already pay compulsory superannuation for all employees as
well as doing the tax office's work by doing GST calculations and
payments either monthly or quarterly. Employers already pay huge
amounts in employee benefits and the wages here are very high. If this
comes in, the only way women of child bearing age will be hired is
through some sort of legislation. Why should employers be responsible
for people's fertility choices?

Why? Because women have all the power and men have none, except of
course if a man has money.

Don't believe for a second that they won't hire women. They'll be
made to hire women make no mistake about that.

Smitty
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The answer is simple: Dont hire a woman...
    ... H.R.1388, the Paycheck Fairness Act, introduced by ... empower women to negotiate for equal pay." ... executive director of Labor Law Policy with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ... means you have to compare one job with a completely different job to make ...
    (soc.men)
  • The answer is simple: Dont hire a woman...
    ... H.R.1388, the Paycheck Fairness Act, introduced by ... empower women to negotiate for equal pay." ... executive director of Labor Law Policy with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ... means you have to compare one job with a completely different job to make ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: The answer is simple: Dont hire a woman...
    ...   The answer is simple: ... empower women to negotiate for equal pay." ... means you have to compare one job with a completely different job to make ... Employers will be reluctant to hire women. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Equality move could hit white men
    ... Ministers are preparing an equality law that would allow bosses to give ... preference to other candidates under a change in discrimination law being ... clear and, if it isn't, employers may be reluctant to use it. ... which campaigns on equal pay. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: McCains health care plan
    ... McCain suggests that we eliminate the "tax break" that employees get by having their employers pay health care benefits. ... Under McCain's plan, that exclusion would be eliminated and if your employer pays health care benefits, you will pay tax on them under McCain's plan. ...
    (soc.retirement)
Loading