Millions of women who outsourced their common sense and trusted the media, their teachers, their leaders and their society are now high-and-dry. They were told they could have it all but most can't.There are three times as many single women in their 30's now than there were in the 1970's. By the time these women have established their careers, many are too thread bare and hard bitten to marry, and the good men are all gone.
They are the victims of the most evil, most successful, social engineering program in history. It was designed to give women career instead of family. But until feminists acknowledge that they are victims of a cruel hoax, they won't be able to salvage whatever is left.
I'll elaborate later but first Ill give you a taste of the wisdom of a woman who defines "pathetic."
MS The BOAT
Ms. Gottlieb begins by describing a picnic where she and a friend (both mothers of sperm donor babies) are not feeling "satisfied." Surprise. They miss not having husbands. No doubt the children will miss not having fathers.
"Ask any soul-baring 40-year-old single heterosexual woman what she longs for in life...what she really wants is a husband..." Gottlieb confesses.
While she and her friends "still call ourselves feminists and insist we're independent and self sufficient...every woman I know--no matter how successful and ambitious, how financially and emotionally secure, feels panic ..if she hits 30 and find herself unmarried."Sounding very much like a Jewish hysteric, her advice is to "Settle!" Forget about true love, his annoying habits, his halitosis or abysmal sense of aesthetics. Marriage, she has discovered, is about having a team-mate, even if he's not the love of your life. She even recommends gays as possible mates.
How did she end up like this? Too much "education" I imagine. Too much feminist empowerment and Hollywood- fueled expectations of romance and men. Earlier in life, she dumped someone because, although they had "strong physical chemistry" and their sensibilities were similar, they proved to be "a half-note off, so we never quite felt in harmony, or never viewed the world through quite the same lens."
Apparently, she was looking for a clone.
"Now, though, I realize that if I don't want to be alone for the rest of my life, I'm at the age where I'll likely need to settle for someone who is settling for me. .. We lose sight of our mortality. We forget that we, too, will age and become less alluring. ...Which is all the more reason to settle before settling is no longer an option."
"Take the date I went on last night. The guy was substantially older. He had a long history of major depression and said, in reference to the movies he was writing, "I'm fascinated by comas" and "I have a strong interest in terrorists." He'd never been married. He was rude to the waiter. But he very much wanted a family, and he was successful, handsome, and smart. As I looked at him from across the table, I thought, Yeah, I'll see him again. Maybe I can settle for that. But my very next thought was, maybe I can settle for better. It's like musical chairs--when do you take a seat, any seat, just so you're not left standing alone?
"But then my married friends say things like, "Oh, you're so lucky, you don't have to negotiate with your husband about the cost of piano lessons" or "You're so lucky, you don't have anyone putting the kid in front of the TV and you can raise your son the way you want." I'll even hear things like, "You're so lucky, you don't have to have sex with someone you don't want to."
"The lists go on, and each time, I say, "OK, if you're so unhappy, and if I'm so lucky, leave your husband! In fact, send him over here!"
"Not one person has taken me up on this offer."
Did I say Pathetic?
COMMENTARY
My advice to single women in their 30's-40's is -Do Not Panic. Do not "Settle." You are far better off alone than with a misfit. Also, whatever you do, do not have a child out-of-wedlock or from a sperm bank. That diminishes your chances of marriage big-time. Gottlieb is desperate to "settle" mainly because she has an infant on her hands.
The key thing to realize is that feminism was not spontaneous grass roots social change as portrayed. It was social engineering designed to phase out gender, marriage and the nuclear family. There are half as many nuclear families now than there were in the 1960's. The destruction of the family is part of a larger agenda to destabilize and depopulate society in advance of a thinly veiled totalitarian world government.
Sexual liberation is part of this agenda. Men see no reason to marry now that unfettered sex is so plentiful. I advise women to consecrate sex for long-term loving relationships and end them in 6-8 mos. if marriage is not imminent. Don't waste time on window shoppers.Feminists have been neutered by adopting the male role model and eschewing the feminine one. They need to rediscover their natural feminine instincts. This involves finding a man they can believe in, and nurture, and not settling for less. True love stems from the sacrifice that women make for the person they love. Let him lead and keep quiet about all his faults. But don't let him take you for granted and dump him if he doesn't love you back (i.e look after your interests and needs.)
Generally speaking, the people behind elite social engineering are satanists in the sense they want to override God (Truth) AND Nature. They deliberately do evil against humanity.
Women were designed to marry and have children in their late teens and early twenties. That's when they are irresistible to young men. They should marry men who have graduated and are starting their careers. Raising children is not an afterthought. It is what married people do together, what they have in common. It's natural growth, both biological and in terms of our personal development and fulfillment.
Nature doesn't give rain checks, as millions of women are discovering, the hard way. - Henry Makow
70 comments:
Biased piece of garbage in some spots, profound in others.
I didn't settle for my husband and would never encourage anyone to settle at all. Otherwise you'll wake up next to a beast in the morning and wonder what the fuck you were drinking to get in that position!
In all seriousness, from a practical perspective feminism as applied to normal women and NOT academics was about equalizing opportunity.
We wanted children but also the ability to reach our potential in other areas. There was no sexual harassment legislation and to this day women DO get paid less on average than men of the same positions. Something had to be done/still NEEDS to be done about this.
I don't for a second believe that conflating baby killing with woman's rights has EVER made any sense, but damned if I will be barefoot and pregnant for the rest of my young adult years either, especially since I have other interests.
II often rails against feminists. HOWEVER what she fails to realize is that without the agitation of feminist types, she likely would not have been able to get training as an attorney. And I am certain she does not believe that women are incapable of such jobs traditionally reserved for men.
I think MOST regular, everyday women both in the USA and abroad feel the same way. If we want to have kids and have a job, there is nothing wrong with that at all.
In all seriousness, from a practical perspective feminism as applied to normal women and NOT academics was about equalizing opportunity.
No, feminism was about increasing the tax base and convincing women to work as a means of destroying the family.
The bankruptcy of feminist thought is evident in the fact that work is considered a chore, a nuisance, a means to an end in much of common cultural lore, e.g. "TGIF", "Hump Day".
However, in feminist lore, work is considered liberation, the only way one can be "independent" (as if that is a goal for which to strive).
That cognitive dissonance is only possible when such an unnatural ideology is rammed down the throat of unsuspecting women.
I do not buy for ONE second that without the lesbian Jews Gloria Steinem and Betty Frieden, I would have been unable to get a job or be a lawyer. Hell no.
I come from a Muslim family in which almost all the women are highly educated business women and it didn't take some lesbian Jew "agitator" to achieve that.
Contrary to the very self-serving liberal interpretations of history, women who wanted to do things generally were able. So as you cited Joan of Arc and all the historical examples of women who did bad ass stuff and didn't take no for an answer, the majority of women were content to be mothers and wives. And didn't want to go run around on battlefields.
Those who did. Did.
But just like the women in my family, these historical women always let men be men. Still understood their roles alongside the men and never saw men as their competition.
Women not getting paid as much as men do? Broads need to learn how to negotiate better. I thought they were tough. Could do what men do. If that's the case, negotiate like the men do. But no... feminism tells them they are weak and pathetic and need Big Brother Guvmint to step in to get them better wages.
Sexual harassment legislation? Has simply made men and women unable to talk to each other in the workplace. It has done nothing but drive a wedge between men and women, while men tip toe around their female colleagues and women sit around looking for reasons to get their feelings hurt.
I'm surprised you, of all people, are such a fan of Big Brother in this regard.
"women DO get paid less on average than men of the same positions. Something had to be done/still NEEDS to be done about this."
^^not true. myth. name 1 instance where a women of "the same positions" get paid less.
MacDonald's?
Merrill Lynch?
IBM?
that's an example of saying something enough times until people believe it. manufactured reality.
@ RonWil1975:
"In the US and the UK men’s hourly wages are 25 to 30 log points higher than women’s hourly wages. Next, in northern and central Europe the gender wage gap in hourly wages is between 10 and 20 log points, from a minimum of 11 log points in Denmark, to a maximum of 24 log points in the Netherlands...Such gaps in hourly wages display a roughly negative correlation with gaps in employment to population rates. Employment gaps range from 10 percentage points in the US, the UK and Scandinavia,6 to 15-25 points in northern
and central Europe, up to 30-40 points in southern Europe and Ireland."
from Claudia Olivetti and Barbara Petrongolo
http://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp1941.html
You might also want to look up the Equal Pay Act and find out why it was introduced in the UK and why it continues to be such a bone of contention. Also checkout similar statutes from the EU's ECJ. For the US, the Census Bureau said this in 2004:
"Women make only 75.5 cents for every dollar that men earn, according to a new release by the U.S. Census Bureau. Between 2002 and 2003, median annual earnings for full-time year-round women workers shrank by 0.6 percent, to $30,724, while men’s earnings remained unchanged, at $40,668. The 1.4 percent decrease in the gender wage ratio is the largest backslide in 12 years (since 1991). The 2003 Census data also show the first decline in women’s real earnings since 1995."
I can tell you from personal knowledge that gender pay gap is very real esp in the corporate job sector - gay men are more likely to get a higher salary than an equally qualified straight woman.
"In the US and the UK men’s hourly wages are 25 to 30 log points higher than women’s hourly wages."
^^ KonWoman what is a "log point"? Does that bit of statistical trivia translate into "getting paid less FOR THE SAME JOB"?
My sister is an assistant district attorney in Chicago. Are you telling me she gets paid 25 "log points" less than male assistant district attorneys who started at the same time?
In the US medical schools and law schools now graduate more women than men. Undergraduate schools have more females than males enrolled. The insistence that women "get paid less than men for the SAME job" is is counterintuitive.
II, you've twisted everything I've said to conform to your worldview. I am not a fan of Gloria Steinem or any other people that you've named but I am not a person who is illiterate of history either. Without agitation from women who brought attention to wage gender gaps etc, we'd still be a lot worse off. Your statements make everything about YOU, which is classic. Some people feel like if they are able to make it then everyone else who isn't making it is weak or not good at negotiating etc. Classic thought distortion.
You haven't answered any questions that Konwomyn posed nor addressed the fact that a fighting spirit ought not to know gender. Otherwise, the world would be a screwed up place indeed.
And the fact that your cognitive dissonance runs so deep regarding how you were able to get education as an attorney is proof in the pudding. You stand on the backs of giants and it is sad that you cannot see this.
It wasn't too long ago that person with your appearance would have been laughed away at a law office even if they did graduate first in their class at law school.
You are only referencing what is toxic about the feminist movement and are blinded by anger it seems. It's a shame you cannot appreciate some of the sacrifices of these women so that you could do what you are doing now.
And your stance on sexual harassment legislation is out of the ballpark. Women and men should be able to talk to one another without getting hit on the ass or asked out on a date with a person whom you continuously refuse. I was sexually harassed by my mentor at my first internship. It was a horrible experience. I was only eighteen and had not had work experience except for babysitting. I was deeply depressed as a result.
Men get sexually harassed too. I don't think that sexual harassment should be part of any workplace and I thank legislators for coming up with sexual harassment law because prior to those laws, the workplace could be hostile to women. I can say this from personal experience.
What's up M?
You make some good points. But let's examine a couple of things.
Isn't saying we need Sexual Harassment LEGISLATION because "Women and men should be able to talk to one another without getting hit on the ass or asked out on a date" ... dangerous?
Creating LEGISLATION is a fancy way of asking the Plantation / Government to regulate the behavior between men and women.
Yes, ostensibly, calls for social regulation always start off to achieve seemingly 'noble goods', like protecting women or blacks or gays or children ... but they end up transferring power from individuals to the collective, from the people to the government.
Eventually everyone ends up slaves.
Human beings have been able to create harmonious working relationships for thousands of years without "Sexual Harassment Legislation".
Eventually these types of laws lead to corruption, bogus charges and like "Hate Laws" achieve the opposite of their "supposed" aim, by actually creating disharmony and tension between men and women in the workplace.
I submit that Sexual Harassment ... like the ENTIRE FEMINIST movement, is a Trojan Horse.
Purporting to empower women ... it has actually been a weapon of psychological warfare used against women to divide them from their men and their families, creating weakened embittered people more dependent upon the government for protection and well being.
The Feminist Movement is simply another version of Bait and Switch warfare like "The Civil Rights Movement" or "Save Darfur" or "Operation Iraqi Freedom", where the supposed saviors pretend to save helpless victims... while actually destroying competing authority (churches, families and legitimate governments) creating a monopoly of power and totalitarian control.
Are some women "Sexually Harassed"? Of course. Do some women leverage their sexual appeal to empower themselves in the workplace? Damn right.
Do things have a way of balancing out without the assistance of the government? I think so.
What's up KW?
I don't know about that.
I have NEVER actually witnessed one salary for women and a separate higher salary for men - for the same job.
I've been hearing it all my life ... just like I've been hearing: "Racism still exists" ...
But I haven't actually seen it.
Are you sure that's not just some urban / feminist myth?
Like dude says: Are there two different salaries for Assistant District Attorneys in Chicago? One for women one for men?
DV you are making the same thought distortions that II seems to make, that if you haven't seen it or experienced it then it isn't happening. I can personally tell you that I've seen LOTS of situations PERSONALLY given positions I worked in the past, where there was a gender gap in wages for the same exact job and comparable qualifications. It could be that women should be better negotiators but when this occurs as a trend, then there must be something there.
I've worked places where I've seen men get harassed by women and other men and places where women were harassed by men. There certainly ought to be LEGAL protection for victims of sexual harassment; that is what that legislation is about.
The Bill of Rights outlines peoples rights in a free society, would you criticize that for offering citizens legal protections as do sexual harassment laws?
I don't know M. You keep alluding to this anectdotal evidence ... but not really pointing to a concrete example of "different salaries for men and different salaries for women for the same job".
I would REALLY love to see an example of that. Just like I'd like to see an example of Big Foot. I'm really curious.
You say you've seen LOTS of situations personally. Tell me about one of them. Hip a brother. Edify me.
I think the Bill of Rights is cool. Great actually.
That's all we need.
When man starts making laws ... upon laws ... upon laws ... upon laws ... you end up with bondage.
You end up with cops like the one who threatened to pull a gun on you and your baby after a traffic stop - He didn't see himself as YOUR public SERVANT. He saw you as a servant of the government.
Read II again. I think you are missing it.
Mahndisa,
What principal necessitates paying men and women doing the same job, equally? The principle of "equality" of course. It's a circular argument and when taken to its logical extreme it says females should get to be equally blown up on the battlefield just like their male comrades.
Ms. Gottlieb...another Jew agitator. Gee, what a coincidence.
And can people stop parroting old spinsters' tales about women making less than men for the same jobs? This shit was disproved in the 80s and it's proven young women now make more than men for the same jobs now as a result of these lies.
Welcome to 2009 folks:
In 39 of the occupations Farrell found, women's median earnings exceeded men's earnings by at least 5 percent and in some cases by as much as 43 percent.
According to an analysis of 2005 census data by sociologist Andrew Beveridge, women age 21 to 30 are earning higher wages — between 15 to 25 percent more depending on the city — than men in the same age range in cities like New York, Chicago and Boston.
So is there a wage gap? YES - in favor of women now.
"Women make only 75.5 cents for every dollar that men earn, according to a new release by the U.S. Census Bureau."
Those are not for the same jobs, you f'n morons!
Of course a male engineer will (and should) make more than a female art history major!
Mahndisa is the only one who seems to miss the point. But that is because SHE is indeed the one who is making all this about her. You're taking this too personally Mahndisa.
I too have been subjected to "sexual harassment" at work and I still think the laws against it are bullshit. A man sexually harasses you at work? If there is no solution, find another job. There are millions of them out there.
The laws do so much more harm than good, have destroyed relations between men and women in the workplace and have given women the power to yell fire in a crowded room, regardless of whether there is actually a fire.
I practiced employment law for several years, defending employers from all kinds of silliness from disgruntled, mediocre employees using sexual harassment laws to distract from poor performance. A truly good employee doesn't need laws. She can go elsewhere if she doesn't like it where she is.
Most interestingly, in the large law firm where I worked, the employment lawyers who defended big corporations (including Wal-Mart) against gender discrimination claims were 90% female. Those women were even less sympathetic to this baloney than I am after years of crying wolf.
You're funny Mahndisa. You hate Big Brother when it comes to constitutional rights and the like but you give him a standing ovation when he comes to your rescue when you're a damsel in distress. That my dear is cognitive dissonance. You don't get it both ways.
With regard to pay differential, it's baloney. Women who are good negotiators get good salaries. That a woman is willing to work for less is no one's problem but hers.
Wsup Y'all
Now DV you say the gender pay gap is a myth, but you don't have a problem with holding ALL feminist/women's movements to the standard of Steinman? Henry Makow clearly speaks of Second Wave Feminism but somehow that applies as the universal standard for all? Nevermind that time's marched on since then and nevermind the Black women who were articulating a very different standpoint to Steinman et al at the same time.
No fair DV. These women speak nothing to me and have no understanding of the experiences of Black Women.
Intellectual Insurgent said:
"Those who did. Did.
But just like the women in my family, these historical women always let men be men. Still understood their roles alongside the men and never saw men as their competition"
Exactly; it isn't about naming but about the doing - hence the rift with White feminists and Black feminists who say feminist actions preceded the bra-burning movements. The Black feminists I co-sign with are not about destruction of the family unit but rather celebrate women who choose to mother and women's history.
African radicals like Patricia McFadden who take a stab at patriarchy every chance they get and call for the destruction of the nuclear family, just scream hysteria to me.
Henry Makow has his thing with Gloria Steinman - but fails to appreciate that women like Madonna, Pink, Gwen Stefani undo all o'that man-hating, women's lib jazz. He's so far on this 'feminism is the NWO' vibe he makes the assertion that jeans is the Plantation pushing through an androgynous identity - LOL! Your boy is seriously out of touch with reality. In the pic on his website of the Black couple - sister looks pretty alright to me.
A more useful analysis might be of the size 0 ideal and the android vogue of people like Stella Tenet and Janelle Monae...And still I wouldn't even co-sign with him, but it certainly makes for more interesting reading worthy of debate.
Makow talks about relationships from a narrow masculinist position but abdicates all responsibility to men in these situations. What in the world led him to believe that "good men marry early"? We've all seen many married couples where the man is anything but a 'good man.' - not to say good brothers don't exist but don't make the folly assertion that 'all good men are married men'.
Maybe the buzz words NWO, Second Wave Feminism, Kissinger and Steinman piqued your interest DV but if you are seriously interested in why so many 28/30+ singles exist you need to be talking to some real-life male and female 28/30+ singles. Maybe you know more people who've been to a sperm bank for Makow's rationale to be applicable but of all the people I know, only one friend's aunt went for this - and even then she wasn't pining for a husband. She regretted not having been able to find someone, but she was thankful she had the financial means to make this decision.
I'll join the equal pay debate a li'l later, gotta run for now.
peace
DV said
"Human beings have been able to create harmonious working relationships for thousands of years without "Sexual Harassment Legislation".
And human beings have been able to create degrading, inhumane working conditions for thousands of years. We did both. Some folks thought the laws would help us move away from the negative, but they didn't. Sucks.
To pretend that there wasn't a problem with the way men interacted with many women in the workplace is crazy.
Power corrupts and the proof is in the pudding.
Just like with Affirmative Action, people have seen a program fail to solve a problem and from this concluded that there was no NEED for said program.
That's idiotic. Sure, the Affirmative Action laws and sexual harassment laws were often poorly written and poorly executed. Stuff happens. Given the attitudes of the time when these laws were enacted I'd be shocked if they were perfect in every way.
Unfortunately, instead of folks admitting that there was an injustice and we failed to correct it, we're now having an arguments about whether an injustice actually existed. That's ridiculous.
I can't believe anyone can argue with a straight face that women and other racial minorities in America were offered the same opportunities and treatment as white males when the laws in question were created. I can't believe y'all cats are willing to argue that discrimination was not a problem when these laws were created, and that it persists today. To make that argument requires a complete refusal to recognize reality. And this comes from folks who claim to champion "observable truth."
Crazy.
"And human beings have been able to create degrading, inhumane working conditions for thousands of years. We did both. Some folks thought the laws would help us move away from the negative, but they didn't. Sucks." BM
Big Man,
As usual, you are on both sides of the fence.
Sometimes working conditions are horrible. Sexual Harassment Laws don't work.
... ok.
Why have them?
Both sides of the fence?
Come on now, aren't you the one always preaching against artificially created conflicts that make you believe there are only two sides to every issue? What's your favorite catchphrase, "Hegelian Head Fake?"
I pick all of my stances based on what makes sense to me, and that typically means incorporating several different perspectives.
Unlike certain hyperbolic bloggers, I'm not trying to stir up the pot, or poke fun at the unenlightened. I'm seekng information to help shape my worldview, a worldview that's nuanced.
My point was that the solution created in this case did not work. To completely abandon that non-working solution without offering something in its stead is ridiculous.
Here's what we know:
Women have been discriminated against in the workplace.
This is wrong.
We need to correct this situation because all of us should feel a compulsion to right wrongs, particularly those of us who espouse a Christian, Muslim or Jewish worldview.
The current laws are creating as many problems as they solve.
The answer seems to build on what the current laws do well, while scrapping those aspects that are outdated and unnecessary. That's easy in theory, but difficult in practice, which is why so many folks advocate for leaving things they way they are, or scrapping them completely.
Simple folk like simple solutions.
"Women have been discriminated against in the workplace.
This is wrong." BM
You are right. That is wrong.
Big Man. Who hasn't been "discriminated against in the workplace"?
...?
...?
...?
"We need to correct this situation because all of us should feel a compulsion to right wrongs, particularly those of us who espouse a Christian, Muslim or Jewish worldview.?" BM
We?
Who is "we"? The government? The same people who 'corrected' the wrong of drug use by waging a war on drugs - which created a drug industry - which made selling drugs artificially profitable - which eventually filled prisons and cemeteries with the very people it was supposed to ... "protect" from said wrong?
You get it yet Big Man? The "cures" are worse than the disease.
"The current laws are creating as many problems as they solve." BM
NO. The current laws are creating MORE problems than they solve.
"The answer seems to build on what the current laws do well, while scrapping those aspects that are outdated and unnecessary." BM
No.
The answer is waking up and realizing the supposed "problem solvers" are actually an enemy.
"Affirmative Action", "Sexual Harrasment Laws", "Save Darfur", "Operation Iraqi Freedom", "Vaccines In Africa" - ARE ATTACKS BIG MAN. NOT THE ALTRUISTIC ACTIONS OF A BENEVOLENT GOOD INTENTIONED MASSA.
http://www.henrymakow.com/index.html
Dv
First, is it your contention that because a wrong is widespread it should not be corrected? Your comment sees to be saying that since everybody's been discriminatede against in some way, it's pointless to attempt to end the discrimination of women. That doesn't work for me.
Secondly
We, as I used it, are human beings. We have a responsibility to our fellow man.
Does the government at times help us in meeting this responsibility, yes it does. Does it often fail, of course it does. But, for you to assume that my "we" meant the government has more to do with your worldview than mine.
The problem solvers in my world have always been me and God. Sometimes the solution to my problem might involve seeking assistance from the government, but I've never sat around passively waiting for "massa" to fix my life.
That's a ridiculous characteristic you continue to assign to folks who disagree with you.
To tell the truth, it seems like you're advocating for people to stop letting "government" think for them and instead let Denmark Vesey think for them.
After all, your definition of "blackness" is the default definition. Your definition of a "Plantation Negro" is the default definition. Your definition of health care is the default definition.
Granted, every man is entitled to hold any opinion he wants, but your attempts to create a reality where your opinions hold more sway than anyone else's is crazy.
You spreading memes, the media is spreading memes, hell, everybody walking the Earth is spreading their own personal memes. Now, you are more creative than most, but come on now let's be real.
You're pushing that your solution to the discrimination problem is better than one that's already been enacted.
Cool. Now prove it in a way that convinces folks to get on board with your program so you can enact some change.
Or just keep woofing.
Industry is self-correcting.
If a firm discriminates against worthy employees (whether they are women or whoever)...their competition and business will suffer accordingly. Their bias will become their own punishment.
Of course, if they are rightfully discriminating against underqualified employees (women or whoever)...then their business will improve accordingly. Fairness becomes its own reward.
Artificially putting pussy up on pedestals is both unnecessary and harmful to American business. Which is why our economy has now epic failed. Too much of this manipulation has simply forced us to outsource to fairer, less gender-biased, more qualified work forces in Asia.
GTFOH ... where you been Bra? Or Sis?
Thank You.
Industry, like nature, is self-correcting.
Usually it's the devil ... that wants to play God.
"We Gots To Do Summin'" has caused more problems than has mass vaccinations.
Big Man, this is chess, not checkers.
Affirmative Action, Sex Harass ... Save Darfur ... Sex Ed ... "Planned Parenthood" ... Anthropomorphic Global Warming, War On Drugs are all examples of social engineering Trojan Horses spoon fed to Plantation Negros and Plantation Crackas under the guise of ... "we gotta do summin'".
Please let us not allow the discourse to distill down to the level of whether sexual harassment is "good or bad".
The contention of this post is that Feminism and it's derivative memes like "Sexual Harassment Legislation", is a socially engineered psychological operation designed destroy not build, to divide, not unite.
Feminism is as counterproductive as is Manism.
GTFOH
Where is the proof that industry is self-correcting?
And, say you're right, industry is self-correcting. How long does it take for the impact of discrimination against qualified workers to be felt?
From where I'm sitting, if everybody is praticing the same business practices, there is no real punishment for a failure to innovate. If discrimination is widespread enough, the fallout from discriminating against qualified employees is so negligible that most companies see it as an expected and understood part of business.
Denmark Vesey
You regularly distill those ideas you champion down to the most basic level, but I assume this is another instance where I must play by house rules.
My point has been simple.
Either you agree that there has been and continues to be a problem with discrimination, or you don't.
If you don't, then there is no need for us to discuss the issue, our worldviews are too different.
If you do agree that discrimination is a problem, then I would hope that you would like to see the problem solved. I like solving problems. From my studies, I've learned that's a male trait.
I wasn't around when folks initially tried to address the discrimination problem, so I wasn't in on the brainstorming sessions. But, judging from what I know about sexual harassment policies, it appears that the government tried to legislate morality, while also pleasing everybody. That just can't be done.
If human beings refuse to treat each other justly, then it makes sense to create laws to mandate proper behavior and punish those who fail to comply.
The only problem is determining what is and is not proper behavior, and that seems to be what happened with the sexual harassment laws. In a rush to provide protection for women in the workplace, some laws were enacted that went too far. In addition, unscrupulous folks used the new laws for immoral uses.
Your solution seems to be "scrap the laws." My solution is to try to figure out a way to make the best laws humanly possible. They will still be somewhat flawed, but not as flawed as they are now.
On the larger issue of feminism, I have this to say.
Feminism is the result of a failure of men to correctly fill their God-given roles in society. The Bible sets a high standard for men, husbands in particular and throughout time men have failed to meet this standard. This state of affiars has climaxed in modern times. Thus, we reap what we sow.
We are the direct conduit between God and humans. We have a special place, special authority and special power. If we fail to meet our obligations, it seems like a punk move to complain about the consequences of our failure.
If men had treated women justly and lovingly, we wouldn't have the issues we have. We didn't, so we have to suck it up and deal.
I'm tired of cats blame shifting to women. It's tedious.
If it is unjust for two people to be paid different wages, why isn't it unjust that two people pay different prices for the same car? Or for the same house?
Is the car dealership "discriminating" when it gives a better deal to someone who negotiates better?
Who said it was unjust for two people to be paid different wages?
I said it's unjust for equally qualified people doing the same job to be paid different wages.
But, if you're argument is that people can either negotiate the deal they want or find other opportunities, then that's your argument.
I see some flaws in that position, but no matter what I say, I'm not going to change your mind.
I will say this, your argument is built on the assumption that there is always an ability to negotiate, and there are always more opportunities.
"Where is the proof that industry is self-correcting?"
Right now, American business has gone bankrupt due to these affirmative action policies and other factors. Obviously, the liberal American way of business is not working (as opposed to 50 years ago).
Meanwhile, Asian companies have overtaken the lead because they are not burdened by having to hire and promote underqualified groups (like women).
Therefore, they can produce the same products cheaper and/or better. Proof is in the pudding.
Americans have lost the big picture in focusing in on the narrow interests of special interest groups. Sadly, their small gain is our collective loss.
DV - Agreed.
BM - Check the stats. Your initial preseumption that women are paid less than men for the same jobs is false feminist propaganda.
Liberals replaced productivity with diversity as our business goal.
Unfortunately, diversity is ultimately irrelevant to being the best company.
For example, what difference would it make if Toyota consisted of 100K clones? But still produced the best cars? Absolutely none.
What if the US Dream Team was 100% Black - but won the gold? What's more important - winning or diversity?
Diversity is a false goal designed to tank American business like a WMD. And it's worked like a charm.
The problem with this discussion is that too many liberal assumptions are given unsubstantiated authority.
Not one of the resident liberals has established that paying "equally qualified" men and women in the same job unequal money is wrong, immoral or irrational.
Likewise, none of the resident liberals has established that a first principle of nondiscrimination is right, moral or rational..
In fact, the common theme that runs through both these assumptions is an implied totalitarian mindset that eschews free will and free markets. Meaning, modern liberals despise free people being truly free and the drive to make more and more laws controlling OTHER people's behavior is the best and clearest evidence of such a mindset.
If there were really so many overqualified women getting paid less...wouldn't a company have already just snatched all these cheap, great workers up to create a dominating company?
Or why couldn't women just do this themselves? Start their own company and slash costs 25% by simply hiring women instead of men?
Why would any company hire men at all if they could simply hire women to do the same jobs for 75% of the cost?
You see, if this was all really true, then the market would quickly self-correct itself like this. The fact that it didn't points to the fact that it never was true.
Yes.
You nutless suckas been lied to.
And fell for it.
I said it's unjust for equally qualified people doing the same job to be paid different wages.
Ok, is the car dealer discriminating if it sells a car for a different price to two people with equal credit? Is that unjust? Should the government step in and demand that car dealers sell their cars for only one price?
But, if you're argument is that people can either negotiate the deal they want or find other opportunities, then that's your argument.
That's been my argument since the beginning of this thread. And you've offered nothing to suggest that it is an unfair approach. In fact, I bet deep down you find it so refreshingly free, but you're still trying to process a world without Big Brother telling everyone what to do.
GTFOH said
"Right now, American business has gone bankrupt due to these affirmative action policies and other factors. Obviously, the liberal American way of business is not working (as opposed to 50 years ago)."
LOL
See, this right here is funny. I like how you attribute the decline of the American economy to diversity. You just pulled that out your buttocks.
I mean, I could argue that the decline of the American economy is due the rise in Scientology. After all, before Scientology, American was prosperous, now it's not.
I knew if I pulled that coat you would reveal something ridiculous. Explain to me how diversity affects the bottom line of businesses. Explain how diversity is the culprit in businesses that are OVERWHELMING white.
Diversity caused Wall Street to collapse? Diversity caused all those bank CEOs to run their businesses in the ground?
The idea that diversity is tied to inferiority is the perfect red herring. Tell me, did diversity dilute the product of the NFL? How about the NBA? What about boxing?
Black folks have asked for one thing, and one thing only in the history of this country. To be treated justly. Same thing with women, latinos, Asians and any other group that's not white and male.
It ain't about a handout, it's about doing away with the practice of refusing to hire qualified individuals in favor of giving a handout to Bubba. Or his better educated cousin, Blair.
Diversity didn't wreck the American economy, the lack of scruples and vision from all the white boys in charge did. White boys been in control of everything since this country was established, and y'all want to blame everybody else for you failures?
Really, you're serious about that? Crazy.
Thor
Love your neighbor as you love yourself....
God is no respecter of persons...
God created man and woman. Both he created in his image...
There, it's immoral. Now move along and talk to somebody who hasn't actually read the Bible.
Intellectual Insurgent
If a car dealer has a black price and white price, than yes, it's unjust.
If he's unwilling to sell black people a car at the same price he sold it to white folks simply because of the color of their sin, than yes it's unjust.
Insurgent, I knew your argument all along. As I said, your argument assumes that negotiation is always an option and that there are always better opportunities.
As MSR pointed out in another thread, the assumptions you make are based on the rights you've been provided in this country based on the sacrifices of other folks who had the government legislate more opportunities.
Aggrieved folks have not always had the ability to negotiate or the ability to find other options. Those were concessions won through hard work, not rights given freely to minorities or women in this country.
This country has never been a meritocracy, that's a myth they fed to cats to keep y'all from offering a helping hand to the folks you see struggling.
GTFOH
I just noticed your comment on Asian companies.
So, can I extrapolate that to Asian countries? And if I can, how do you explain the economic freefall currently taking place in Japan? Or, does that not count?
Lil' man,
You think your Christianity informs your politics, but in fact your ideology molds your Christianity.
If God was liberal then we couldn't really know Him,
could we? We know our Lord Jesus because He is particular. Meaning, He conveys Truth...
Your liberalism conveys nothing other than an adherence to "equality and nondiscrimination." Meaning, you AREN'T seeking Truth as first principle.
But then again, you would never tell your wife that you married her indiscriminately, would you? And you would never tell your kids that you'll love them unconditionally, would you? And you would never tell your God that He is equal to other gods, would you?
Your liberal first principles are weak in answering the big questions.
Insurgent, I knew your argument all along. As I said, your argument assumes that negotiation is always an option and that there are always better opportunities.
When is negotiation NOT an option?
Slavery was abolished some time ago. So is it your contention that one cannot choose whether to work at Wal-Mart or not?
You can argue back & forth about feminism, settling for a husband, sexual harassment legislation, women not getting paid as much as men, the government legislating morality, failure of men to fulfill their roles, etc. for infinity and arrive at no effective solution. These are all merely symptoms of the largest SOCIAL ENGINEERING PROGRAM of all-the misteachings, lies and sexism of religions like Christianity & Islam.
Christianity teaches of:
-the father, the son & the holy ghost, where the woman is replaced with a damn ghost,
-where the woman is made from a man's rib (how the hell is the woman who gives birth, produces life gone be made from a damn man?),
-where God is referred to as "He" and "The Father,"
-where all 12 so-called disciples are men,
-where God's so-called only child is a son,
-and the most popular version of its bible, The King James version, was produced by a boy molesting faggot, who, I believe it's safe to assume, did not have much reverence for women.
Islam teaches that all men have a disease called lust, therefore women must bare the burden of men's sickness and cover 3/4 of their bodies, just as 3/4 of the earth is covered by water.
Any society whose beliefs are based on these sexist principles are gonna develop issues such as the ones aforementioned and many, many more.
Of course the issue of feminism and all its aspects are gonna manifest when the beautiful, most significant-of-all roles of women are downplayed, disrespected and not revered in the least.
Of course, modern day women, who were once worshipped and seen as Goddesses in ancient societies like KMT or Egypt (i.e, Auset, Ma'at, Sekhemet, Het-Hru, Queen Tiye, Nut, etc.) want to identify themselves with roles of power. Since our roles- childbirth, midwifery, breastfeeding & other child nurturing acts, providing comfort & harmony for our financially-providing husbands, cooking, healing, caring for the home, etc. have been deemed as insignificant, women have begun to identify with what is seen as powerful- getting an education, having a career, earning money.
What's more, some of our roles have even been taken away from us for the profit of the medical institution, like breastfeeding, which has been taken away by the pharmaceutical co.'s & doctors who push baby formula on new mothers, like midwifery, which was taken away by male doctors who introduced such violence to the birthing process through the use of forceps, performing episiotomies & c-sections.
Of course, with the roles of women being taken over by men & institutions run by men, men will "fail to correctly fill their God-given roles in society" because their too busy messing around in women's business.
Of course, with no sense of respect for the power of the woman, she will be disrespected in the workplace and every other place.
I believe this illmatic, sick psychology is so deeply ingrained in our people, both men & women, that it would be difficult to undo all the workings of it. All I can say is.......2012 y'all!
Peace.
"Tell me, did diversity dilute the product of the NFL? How about the NBA? What about boxing?"
If they did force diversity there, YES IT WOULD! If anything, those sports all HEAVILY over-dominated by Blacks are testament to the fact that lack of diversity is generally more effective for any given field. As different groups tend to be better-adapted to role-specialize in various sectors.
The question then is why liberals FORCE population-proportional diversity in school & business, but NOT sports???
"So, can I extrapolate that to Asian countries? And if I can, how do you explain the economic freefall currently taking place in Japan? Or, does that not count?"
It's not. You see, the difference is that Asian (and some European) countries tend to actually LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS, with reserves.
China & Japan both have huge foreign reserves. As opposed to the US, which is $10 trillion in debt and counting...
When you really look at the bottomline, the US is epic failing - despite the fading image of success.
And forced diversity has certainly hurt this bottomline, and even given the benefit of the doubt, has never been proven an effective business tactic anyways.
If anything, the fact that the new diverse America is failing in competition with homogeneous Asia shows it's irrelevant at best, heavily counterproductive at worst..and that we have been led by liberal pied pipers to our own doom.
Reality is, the more you Africanize business, the more you Africanize the results. And lookign at Africa, that's a very, verrryyyy bad thing.
"If men had treated women justly and lovingly, we wouldn't have the issues we have. We didn't, so we have to suck it up and deal." BM
Big Man, if men had NOT treated women justly and lovingly ... there would be no men and there would be no women.
Be careful with gross categorical generalizations and victim based Group Identity politics. It's a booby trap.
Men no more oppressed women than "whites oppressed blacks".
Men no more oppressed women than "whites oppressed blacks".
This is exactly the type of rewriting of history you do to prove your points DV and that looks ludacrous!
Lady M,
1) His Story needs to be rewritten.
2) The way I write it will set you free.
3) The notion that "men" oppressed "women" or "whites" oppressed" blacks is an obvious fallacy.
4) Groups do not oppress groups. Some individuals oppress some other individuals.
5) Some women oppress some men just as some blacks oppress some whites.
6) Continued participation in these types of fallacious memes and group identity politics ensures a self-denying prophecy of imagined oppression and perceived resentment.
7) Aint a white boy in the world oppress me and I'm the blackest man in America.
8) I'm a man. Any woman who fucks with me gets liberated, not oppressed. Ask 'em.
GTFOH
They already forced diversity in those sports.
That's how come black folks were able to take over.
As far as Asian countries, like I said, you haven't been keeping up with the latest news out of Japan.
Denmark
You have your take on the behavior of mankind and I have mine. I think the majority of the problems in the world are due to a failure by the head of the family unit. Man.
Thordaddy
Like I said:
Love your neighbor like you love yourself...
God is no respecter of persons...
Holla at me when that changes.
Insurgent
You're right. In today's world, people can always negotiate a better deal, or seek a better option.
Nobody prevents this from happening.
Has this been the case throughout history, no it hasn't. But, right now, we have that freedom.
I assumed we were talking about the conditions of the country when the laws in question were enacted. At that time, given the consilidation of power, there was not always another option.
You have no idea what has or has not been the case throughout history in every society on the planet so stop slipping and sliding, trying to nitpick each response based on what conditions existed on March 3, 1926. It doesn't matter.
In today's world, people can always negotiate a better deal, or seek a better option.
Nobody prevents this from happening.
Finally, Big Man, you're starting to get it.
Now if you just make the terrifying leap to admitting that the law has absolutely NOTHING to do with having a choice, you will be on the road to recovery.
If we're not talking about slavery, then one has a choice as to where to work and what to put up with.
Your victim-centric paradigm is worn out and cliche. And really ain't a good look on a man. Which, by the way, is why heads of the family have failed and men are a bunch of bitchy whiners these days. They have embraced the victim-centric view of history and the world.
"They already forced diversity in those sports.
That's how come black folks were able to take over."
Nope, diversity wasn't forced. Forced segregation was simply repealed. There's a difference.
If diversity was fairly enforced in sports now like in schools and business, the NFL, NBA & boxing would be 70% White, only 13% Black, 13% Hispanic & 4% Asian.
"Nope, diversity wasn't forced. Forced segregation was simply repealed. There's a difference."
And this wasn't what happened in the business world?
Insurgent
Victim-centric paradigm is funny.
As is your claim that I'm nitpicking.
Your entire argument is based on the idea that if somebody wrongs you, you should be the one to remove yourself from the situation.
Not fight back, not demand fair treament, just capitulate and move on. So, be a victim and keep it moving.
Insurgent said
"I too have been subjected to "sexual harassment" at work and I still think the laws against it are bullshit. A man sexually harasses you at work? If there is no solution, find another job. There are millions of them out there."
You place the onus on women to move to another job if there is "no solution."
My solution would be changing the situation right were I am.
"And this wasn't what happened in the business world?"
Nope, Black students were bused into White schools and the bars lowered for Black/brown kids & women in college and offices to fill quotas.
When Blacks were allowed into White sports, they never had to lower the bar.
When Blacks/browns/women have been forced into the workplace, they have. They get lower test score standards to get into colleges and women get easier physical fitness testing for stuff like firefighting or the military. Etc.
When you lower standards, you lower performance. It's no wonder we can't compete with Asia now in business, when they haven't handicapped themselves in the same way. Our goal is diversity, their's is simply performance. Which is why we've been programmed to fail and they've been programmed to win now.
BM - If women were really getting such a raw deal, why couldn't they just form their own businesses and kick the asses of all us "lazy, overpaid" men? Wouldn't that be a golden business opportunity?
So why didn't they? Because they truly lacked the skills or initiative? And how is that men's fault?
Big Man,
You would not change the situation then and there. Your would whine and cry to the government and ask Massa to fix it for you. You can euphemistically call it "demanding justice" but what it is, in reality, is whining like a baby until Big Brother arrives.
I do not put the onus on WOMEN to leave. I put the onus on GROWN ADULTS to empower themselves and handle situations they do not find ideal, whether it is to stay and fix it or leave. I stayed and had a thriving career. No lawsuit or intervention from Massa needed.
Like I said, everyone has choices. They don't like their salaries. Negotiate a better one. They don't like how they are treated. Leave.
It's pretty simple.
"I do not put the onus on WOMEN to leave. I put the onus on GROWN ADULTS to empower themselves and handle situations they do not find ideal, whether it is to stay and fix it or leave. I stayed and had a thriving career. No lawsuit or intervention from Massa needed."
Again you are making this about you. Since you were able to stay on and have a good career then everyone should empower themselves like you did.
You do have cognitive disconnect big time. You say what happened in 1926 doesn't matter now, but yes it does. If we don't examine the past, we are doomed to repeat it.
DV you are oversimplifying history to such an extent that you sound insane. Look, some groups have oppressed others throughout the world. You always rag on the Jewish occupation of Palestine and called Cynthia McKinney one of the Blackest politicians for her peace missions there.
YET you cannot agree that women were oppressed as second class citizens VIA LEGISLATION which effectively reduced their rights, same with Blacks. There was a systemmatic and systemic bias towards women and Blacks and you are saying that acknowledging this facts makes me have a victim centric mentality? Nothing could be further from the truth.
In terms of sexual harassment, a loved one of mine was harassed on her job and told her managers and made complaints. She had been with her company for almost twenty years at that point and wasn't gonna let anybody get in the way of her pension and retirement savings. Well this sexual harasser stood behind a door with a chair ready to slam her head with it and only by the grace of God did she get away from him unscathed. She HAD to initiate a lawsuit to get that creep away from her and to apply pressure to her company for dropping the ball.
Sexual harassment legislation is needed. You asked for examples I've seen, well a few years back the women at Lawrence Livermore Labs sued for EXACTLY the type of shit I mentioned above.
When I had my first internship years ago at NASA Ames, there was ten fold more male scientists than females and the women were working on a lawsuit then because the sexual harassment was so bad and they were getting lower wages for the same work in the same department with roughly the same credentials.
Good old boy networks effectively stunted the positions women could get etc.
When I was there as a comely eighteen year old, this one guy was following me around and showing up at my desk looking for me and I'd never seen him in my life. My mentor said sexual things to me like "You look good but watch out because as good as you look you might get raped." That is the most inappropriate bullshit to say to any PERSON on the job.
NASA is funded by tax dollars, I have no problem with the federal government imposing standards in the workplace to protect their workers.
No Mahndisa, your reading comprehension needs a tune up. I simply responded to Big Man's accusation that I cut and run from the situation.
This entire discussion remains all about you. About you getting sexually harassed. About your experience at NASA. About your mentor, blah, blah, blah. Are
In any event, the most enlightening part of this discussion has been your conversion from Small Government Advocate to Cheerleader for Big Brother.
If an employer wants to discriminate on any basis, they should be able to.
You are rude and make this about yourself. I use examples from personal experience because above DV asked me to give some personal examples. You make everything about yourself. If you can make it,so can everyone else. That is shortsighted in the worst way.
Blah blah blah to you too. Your comments are irrational and show that you know very little of history and the need for government to take steps to protect its citizens as a reaction to institutions of oppression.
Notice how you skirt the fact that I mentioned if a company gets government money, it should be held to government standards of conduct in the workplace. If a business is private and doesn't get money from the government, then they can do what they will.
Your previous statements show you to have a lack of empathy for people who are worse off than yourself.
DV asked me to specifically tell about experiences I'd had personally. So I answered his questions. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension.
Every time the air of oppression or social injustice gets brought up, you are quick to side with the authoritarians. YET you say you are libertarian oriented?
You said if you are sexually harassed get another job. How come the asshole bothering you can't get another job? Case in point as to the fallaciousness and irrationality of your quasi reason.
II siad: "If an employer wants to discriminate on any basis, they should be able to."
NOT if they receive any sort of gov't funding.
Mahndisa,
Settle down and quit projecting.
And quit frontin' about my intelligence. To plagiarize DV, this is school for you. Indeed, young grasshopper, your progress on this subject has been quite remarkable.
It only took you 50 comments to go from -
I thank legislators for coming up with sexual harassment law because prior to those laws, the workplace could be hostile to women. I can say this from personal experience.
to -
If a business is private and doesn't get money from the government, then they can do what they will.
I am so glad you finally get it. Maybe you can explain it to Big Man.
"NOT if they receive any sort of gov't funding."
Then explain government-mandated affirmative action (racism) that discriminates against white and asian males who are better-qualified than women and black/brown minorities?
You are off base here and I'm not projecting about your intelligence at all. My stance on these issues has been pretty consistent over the last couple of years. The sexual harassment laws needed to exist to combat rampant workplace abuses.
I've always maintained that a private business can do what it will, so long as the business isn't abusing its workers and obeys laws of its jurisdiction. And 'abuse' is a slippery term but still necessary.
A person can choose to support a private business or not. However, if a business gets money from the government or is a governmental agency, they should be held to federal standards of workplace conduct.
Does that mean that sexual harassment cause of of action is barred in the context of a private business? Absolutely not. Nobody should have to deal with that type of shit on the job at all- male or female.
According to your logic, people should be able to negotiate anything with a potential employer and that both are in position on equal footing. Such naive thinking...really circumvents the historical record.
But here's the thing the discussion started out with you trivializing women warriors and stating that women have no place in war. The bottom line is that your orientation on this subject is incompatible with mine and we will have to agree to disagree. For God's sakes, you are a trained attorney and a woman and cannot see how you've benefitted from the sacrifices of women before you who were willing to go into law, despite it being a 'man's field'.
So much on this thread to disagree with -- where to begin?
--Industry, like nature, sometimes self-regulates in bumpy ways. Without regulation, the rich will get richer until the peons have had enough and storm the Bastille. Think of a society that permits that, and you wouldn't want to live there.
--Affirmative action, even at its strongest, didn't make companies hire unqualified folks it didn't want to. There was always an out: "There aren't any who are qualified to do this job."
--Blaming the decline of American industry on diversity is nonsense. To see that demonstrated in obvious terms, you don't have to look to Asia. There's plenty of America that's not diverse. Idaho, Vermont, Montana, the Dakotas. Southern Indiana. Utah. If diversity were such a crushing burden, those places, being overwhelmingly white, would be the home of numerous industrial juggernauts that dominate the outfits from the downtrodden places where all the dark folks are. Grasping that reality, corporations that started in diverse areas would move. Boise and Provo have had plenty of time to take their rightful place at the top of the heap, powered by all those unburdened white people.
But they haven't, which demonstrates the fallacy of the premise.
--Go to a casino in Vegas and they have signs on the walls telling you that it's illegal to use a handheld calculator to help you count cards at the blackjack table.
Why? Is that a moral wrong?
No. It is the casino operators using government to help enforce their edge.
Everybody does it. That's why lobbyists are paid billions of dollars a year and are working at all levels of government even as we write.
You pay for government, just like the casinos do. If you let other folks convince you that it is somehow punkish to demand that government work for you -- at the same time they are making government work for them -- you have fallen for the okey doke in a big way. Everybody else with their mitt in the trough would love for you to think that the proud, upstanding, manly, non-plantation thing to do would be to go it alone. While they spend your tax dollars to have the levers of government move things their way.
As for me, if Acme Toxic Waste announces plans to open their newest dump right next to my house, yes, I can choose to deal with it or move. I can also try every known measure to get them zoned out of my area code. When everybody else is having their say about how government spends my money, you'd best believe I'm gonna be speaking up, too. Shame on you if you let them convince you to go on about your business while they use your resources to do what they want.
--It's usually the people who cause the problems who think that the solutions are worse than the problems. They yell the loudest when they're forced to straighten up. Like Acme Toxic Waste will scream about all the jobs my neighborhood will lose if they can't dump next door.
They don't have a whole lot of credibility when they claim that everything got worse after they were prevented from doing what they wanted to do.
Same with workplace laws. Some 75 year old black women who say that the work world was better in the 1950s might have some credibility. But if you're younger than 50, you never worked in the world they did. Those laws allowed you to take for granted a better workplace than they saw.
Good stuff A. Charles
"Affirmative action, even at its strongest, didn't make companies hire unqualified folks it didn't want to."
Not true at all, lmao. What a totally unqualified, ignorant, factually-WRONG bald-faced LIE. How can you even make that blanket statement knowing full-well that the well-known facts fully counter that liberal BS???
Not true at all, lmao. What a totally unqualified, ignorant, factually-WRONG bald-faced LIE. How can you even make that blanket statement knowing full-well that the well-known facts fully counter that liberal BS???
Lotta bluster there, but not surprisingly, no factual backup.
Sorry, but this is not 1981; Reagan propaganda doesn't just fly by any more.
FYI:
Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 24, 1965 required Equal Employment Opportunity. The Order "prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do over $10,000 in Government business in one year from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."[1] Contractors are also required to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."
The Executive Order also required contractors with 50 or more employees and contracts of $50,000 or more to implement affirmative action plans to increase the participation of minorities and women in the workplace if a workforce analysis demonstrates their underrepresentation. Underrepresentation is defined as there being fewer minorities and women than would be expected, given the statistics of the area from which the workforce is drawn. The statistics used are those minorities and women qualfied to hold the positions available, not all minorities or women in a given geographical area. Pursuant to federal regulations, affirmative action plans must consist of an equal opportunity policy statement, an analysis of the current work force, identification of underrepresented areas, the establishment of reasonable, flexible goals and timetables for increasing employment opportunities, specific action-oriented programs to address problem areas, support for community action programs, and the establishment of an internal audit and reporting system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11246
That's LBJ's doing; before Bakke and Reagan-era orders and court decisions started whacking away at affirmative action.
Hope you noted the important parts: if an employer had too few minorities and women, it had to COME UP WITH A PLAN to increase their numbers. And "too few" was defined by the number of QUALIFIED minorities and women around.
Which means that a black woman without a science degree could not walk into NASA and demand to be hired as a flight engineer on the basis of the fact that the job was all white men. "There aren't any qualified minorities" meant that employers weren't expected to have any.
And if there were qualified minorities, employers just had to COME UP WITH A PLAN to try to hire some. "Here's all the ways we tried, but we still can't find one of the qualified ones to come here" was a standard, effective excuse.
So if your "well-known facts" consist of somebody telling you that you didn't get the job because affirmative action laws required them to give it to some unqualified minority -- you've been had. Like many of the right-wing bashers of affirmative action.
"it had to COME UP WITH A PLAN to increase their numbers. And "too few" was defined by the number of QUALIFIED minorities and women around."
Unfortunately, that plan then became lowering the bar because there are simply too few qualified black/brown minorities and women around, period. This is a well-known fact now. Numerous standards had to be lowered to fill these quotas.
Yes, it defies the intent of that original plan and should be illegal...but that doesn't mean it still hasn't happened. You can't base your view of reality on a pipe dream 50 years ago - you have to assess it on what has ACTUALLY HAPPENED SINCE THEN.
Unfortunately, that plan then became lowering the bar because there are simply too few qualified black/brown minorities and women around, period. This is a well-known fact now. Numerous standards had to be lowered to fill these quotas.
Yes, it defies the intent of that original plan and should be illegal...but that doesn't mean it still hasn't happened. You can't base your view of reality on a pipe dream 50 years ago - you have to assess it on what has ACTUALLY HAPPENED SINCE THEN.
Apparently, you've bought all the propaganda demonizing affirmative action without understanding how it worked.
I'm pointing out to you how affirmative action was supposed to work way back when to demonstrate that even when the concept was at its apex, when it was most broadly accepted as a means of increasing minority and female employment, it allowed employers a BIG out: "We can't find any that are qualified."
Since the 70s, affirmative action hasn't expanded. Its goals have been chipped away and the exceptions have grown.
Here, take this minority set-aside program in Richmond, VA. Well-known Supreme Court case to people who were really paying attention to the truth about AA, rather than the propaganda.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=488&invol=469&pageno=508
Richmond wanted to set aside 30% of its city contracts for minority vendors. If a non-minority general contractor won a bid, it had to give 30% of the deal to a minority business.
But there was an out.
The Plan authorized the Director of the Department of General Services to promulgate rules which "shall allow waivers in those individual situations where a contractor can prove to the satisfaction of the director that the requirements herein cannot be achieved." 12-157. To this end, the Director promulgated Contract Clauses, Minority Business Utilization Plan (Contract Clauses). Paragraph D of these rules provided:
"No partial or complete waiver of the foregoing [30% set-aside] requirement shall be granted by the city other than in exceptional circumstances. To justify a waiver, it must be shown that every feasible attempt has been made to comply, and it must be demonstrated that sufficient, relevant, qualified Minority Business Enterprises . . . are unavailable or unwilling to participate in the [488 U.S. 469, 479] contract to enable meeting the 30% MBE goal."
That's the "We can't find any that are qualified" card. In this case, the city didn't buy the company's story. They sued, won, and the city's program got invalidated. Too unfair to the white men.
And that's twenty years ago, by the way. In the meantime, there have been several major federal cases that have contracted affirmative action and none that expanded it.
What has actually happened in that period is what I've told you. Even when companies got charged with having low minority and female numbers, they were not forced to hire -- they were forced to come up with a plan to show how they'd do better in their hiring.
Recruit at this job fair, at that school, put ads in this paper, etc. You didn't have to hire, you just had to show you were making an effort to hire IF there were qualified minorities and women.
If you think that's not enough wiggle room to let corporate America avoid hiring the unqualified, you need to think again.
And as I said before, if AA really had been as much of a burden to American industry as you claim, companies in non-diverse parts of the country would be dominating.
They aren't.
"In this case, the city didn't buy the company's story. They sued, won, and the city's program got invalidated."
Exactly. I rest my case. Your "out" never actually flies.
The actual facts dramatically SHOW that test scores and fitness scores have been lowered for Black/brown men and women to fill quotas. And that they have been admitted over better qualified white & asian men. Those are documented FACTS now, so please quit playing dumb here.
"companies in non-diverse parts of the country would be dominating"
They're not? Silicon Valley is over-dominated by white and asian men. Very few Blacks in that area. And that's probably the most successful American business sector out there.
I rest my case. Your "out" never actually flies.
Your interpretation is off.
The Richmond set-aside didn't get invalidated because the Supreme Court believed there were really no qualified black contractors.
It got invalidated because even with the out, an anti-affirmative action Supreme Court didn't like such a pro-minority remedy.
The bottom line: even the most expansive affirmative action programs have always had a "none are qualified" out, and those programs have been gone for twenty years.
Claiming that American industry tanked because it had to hire unqualified minorities and women is false and lame.
The actual facts dramatically SHOW that test scores and fitness scores have been lowered for Black/brown men and women to fill quotas.
Why don't you post a link to some of those "actual facts," then?
They're not? Silicon Valley is over-dominated by white and asian men. Very few Blacks in that area. And that's probably the most successful American business sector out there.
If the success of Silicon Valley was due to its lack of diversity, then similarly white and more white areas would do as well or better.
So while you're posting links, please post some that show how non-diverse Butte is doing better as a home for industry than diverse New York.
And to return to Silicon Valley for a moment, no company there has the record for the biggest corporate profits in history.
The company that does is ExxonMobil.
Headquartered in the Dallas suburb of Irving, and with lots of employees in Houston.
Both locations being places with plenty of blacks and latinos, and therefore, both being places where a company would have to hire unqualified minorities if affirmative action laws made them do so.
ExxonMobil talks a good game about diversity.
http://www.blackenterprise.com/business/business-news/2008/10/16/executive-leadership-council-awards-black-executives
And they're making money by the ton.
So affirmative action clearly didn't bring them down.
If it's the all-powerful negative force that you claim it to be, how is it that EM thrives?
Hi! Best idea, but will this really work?
Post a Comment