A good review of Shelley Correll’s study:

"We created two applicant profiles that were functionally equivalent," Correll said. "Their resumes were very strong; they were very successful in their last jobs. In pretesting, no one preferred one applicant over the other; they were seen as equally qualified."

Next a memo was added to one of the profiles, mentioning that the applicant was a mother of two children, and her resume was modified to show that she was an officer in a parent-teacher association. The memo and resume in the second applicant's materials made no mention of children.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Aug05/soc.mothers.dea.html

What immediately struck me was this: anyone who includes in their resume that they are a parent is a bad hire. My gut reaction (and reviewing resumes is primarily based on gut reactions) was “the only reason this potential hire is telling me this now is because their parenting interferes with their ability to perform the job, and they’ll need accommodations to excel/perform in a satisfactory manner.”

However, Correll’s study showed that this only worked against mothers not fathers. Which is in part based on broadly correct assumptions. A man who indicates he’s a father on his resume could be partnered or a single father. Odds are he’s partnered. That means he shouldn’t have any home-work conflicts (based on certain long-existing social expectations). A woman who indicates she’s a mother on her resume could be partnered or a single mother. If she’s a single mother, she could have home-work conflicts. If she’s a partnered mother, odds are she’s the primary caregiver and could have home-work conflicts. And if she is hired, she’ll likely be paid less because either “her husband will be the primary breadwinner” or “she’s a single mom, more desperate and will take the lower pay.”

Yeah, that sucks, but some of these assumptions are correct.

As best as you can, many people ought to conceal their age, marital status or parental status on their resumes. At least then you can get your foot in the door.

The money's not in the sport. It's in the endorsements. How many female athlete/endorsers can you name? How many men?

A girl's gotta take it off.

In matters of administration policy and behavior of officials in their capacity as officials, you don't get to say "I'm not going to talk about it." What is Bush? An angst-y teenage girl storming up to her bedroom and slamming the door? Maybe he'll also blast some angry chick rock on his stereo. Whatever. I'm Audi 5000.

“I never asked to be born!”

That’s not just an angry teenage rant, it’s a fact. Really, the only major event that happens in our lives over which we have absolutely no control is our own creation. Them’s the breaks. You can’t choose your parents. You can’t make them tell you anything about their pasts. You can’t make them have any sort of meaningful relationship with you. You can’t make them love you. Not if their only real contribution to you came in a Dixie cup. Not if you live in the same house.

Infertile couples don’t have a “right to parenthood,” as Re_lyc put it. Your insurance doesn’t have to pay for it. Your government doesn’t have to subsidize it. Your doctor can refuse to inseminate you. Your only right is to your own body (and often times not even that). There is no right to parenthood. It’s a basic physical process for which many have the ability. But if you don’t, you have the right to pay for it from a willing seller.

Same stats, different spin. From the BBC article:

The government also claimed a recent rise in donor numbers. Indeed, the latest official figures do show an increase... of 15. Yes, 15 whole donors.

_

The small increase is thanks to recent media coverage of the issue. But it's what economists refer to as Dead Cat Theory: a slight rise in numbers doesn't necessarily indicate a return to glowing health - even a dead cat will bounce when you drop it.

Those 15 are the 6%.

Velora writes:

>>Your rights end where another person's rights begin.<<

_

I couldn't agree more. The "right" to remain anonymous ends when it bumps up against the child's right to not have his biological heritage kept hidden from him on purpose.

Why do you believe a child's right to his "biological heritage" (what does that mean, by the way?) trumps a donor's right to anonymity?

Pyrian writes: “The offspring didn't sign the contract.”

Uh, but the mother and the donor did. Children (and the not born) cannot lawfully enter into contracts, but their legal guardians can.

"Now we know what happened to the shrink-wrapped $9 Billion in crisp $100 bills that disappeared upon arrival in Iraq."

Holy crap. Any chance that could actually be true? Yes, I realize it's a glib comment, but where is that $9 billion???