Letters to the Editor
-
To Anonymous
Your access to payroll records proves nothing, even if you are reporting accurately the data contained in them. The fact that one person "at the same level" makes more than another does not necessarily indicate discrimination; it may indicate greater seniority, better educational background, better evaluations by supervisors or any number of other things. Are you telling us that you know that information as well? And your claim that the women in these companies work harder and better than the men is simply unsubstantiated. Again, where is your evidence other than your own bias and prejudice?
And, if everything you said is true, why didn't the women sue? The practices you describe, if true, are clearly actionable under federal law and almost certainly under the laws of the state(s)in which they occurred. Did they sue? If so, what was the outcome? If they didn't sue, why didn't they? Are you a woman? Did you bring a suit? If not, why not? If so, what was the outcome? If you were discriminated against and made no effort to rectify the situation and win damages, your claims ring hollow.
I am an attorney, and one thing I know is that it is easy to make allegations. Anyone can do it. But when you go into court, you face an opponent who has the right to defend him/her/itself, and a jury whose members are not on either party's side. Until those companies you refer to have an opportunity to defend themselves, your naked allegations don't impress me.
-
Neither do yours.
Hey, Robert Franklin, your baseless "women CHOOSE to earn less" diatribes don't impress anyone but anti-feminists either. At least the anonymous poster had some actual data. You have nothing but your bigoted bias.
-
Response to Robert Franklin
Yes, I know the specifics of seniority, educational background, performance, evaluations, etc.
The women in these companies didn't sue because they didn't know this information. They certainly knew their own information, but did not have access to confidential information on their male peers. When you are the one paying an attorney's fees out of your pocket, you wouldn't do so based on a hunch.
Your bluster about court being the ultimate proving ground does not impress me. As you and I both know, you get the justice you pay for.
-
RE Larry Summers
First of all, Larry Summers, DID NOT say that he thought women couldn't be scientists, were less capable scientists or anything of the sort. In a whole list of ideas which he suggested should be considered as reasons why fewer women chose science as a career, he mentioned inherent differences between male and female as one issue to be looked at. He didn't endorse this idea, just presented it among a number of possible reasons to be examined. Instead of arguing back, flatly rejecting this possibility or taking it into consideration, feminists called for the smelling salts! Talking about confirming what every male chauvinist pig ever said about women being of weak constitution! The woman who alerted reporters of this oh-so-important story actually said that she had to leave the room when he said this as she was going to be sick. If that's how women in academia respond to an idea they don't like, then Larry Summers didn't really go far enough and should have whole-heartedly endorsed the idea that women are just inherently inferior and not strong enough to withstand the rigors of scientific pursuits! As a woman I am appalled and disgusted that such a weak-minded ninny could claim to represent or defend womankind at all! The response to his comments (and the complete and utter distortion of what was actually said) demonstrates women who are underdeveloped, mentally incompetent and immature to the nth degree. Gee, thanks for letting the world know women are even stupider than anyone alive today could have guessed!
As for Larry Summers "abrasive" management style, If the poor man is dealing with the sort of nincompoops who can't hear an idea they don't like without needing medical attention to assuage their hurt feelings, then June Cleaver would seem abrasive to them. This may fly in the refined world of academia, but to those of us living in the REAL world, the fact that such people still have jobs and haven't permenantly been sent on vacation to care for their delicate nerves is what's really appalling. Between this and the little blow-up over people who were upset at Jada Pinket Smith for talking about her life in a "hetero-normative" way, you can be sure that when my kid finishes high school at the age of 16, he won't even consider attending someplace like Harvard where sissy seems to be a nurtured value rather than an un-pc insult.
BTW If someone wants to sue for discrimination and they have any case, a lawyer will take their case free of charge for a cut of the settlement. So the idea that women don't sue because it's expensive is ridiculous.
-
They took "self-loathing" out of the dictionary
And replaced it with the rant above.
-
Traister - O'Beirne Lunch
Did Traister have to agree not to ask O'Beirne certain kinds of questions in order to obtain this interview? It is the only logical explanation for Traister failing to ask O'Beirne about her history of abortion. Yes, abortion. O'Beirne claims to be a REAL Catholic, a pre-Vatican II Catholic, an anti-legal abortion and anti-legal birth control Catholic. How is it that she only has TWO children? Does anyone believe that she limited her family to two children on natural family planning alone? And even if she did, she is STILL a bad Catholic. Her husband was a military officer. He could well afford a large family. (When I was in the military I knew NCOs with eight or more children. They saw it as an affirmation of their anti-abortion beliefs.) And why didn't she adopt children from foster care? Was that too much like work?
The right wing is full of women who either chose not to give birth to children - Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Elizabeth Dole, Ann Coulter - or had few: Laura Bush; Lynne Cheney (although she is gay. And who can blame her for not wanting to have sex with Dick.)Why didn't Traister ask this?
If you really want to read an excellent book on women and children, check out "Mother Nature: Women, Infants, and Natural Selection" by Sarah Hrdy. (Yes the spelling is correct.) Rick Santorum was so threatened by this book, he denounced it from the Senate floor. 'Nuff said.