Debate Between Gloria Steinem and Melissa Harris-LacewellFollow

The fact that these issues of class, race, and sex seem to take precedence over the policies and governing ability of the candidates is, frankly, pretty disgusting.

Racism is the most overplayed card in the western world, if you don't get a job with a company with a company because of the colour of your skin WTF would you want to work for them ANYWAY???

75% of jobs are given on the basis of nepotism anyway, so the chances of "A random dude" getting a job is slim anyway, so unless you are getting a job on the basis of who you know, then it boiles down too three factors.

Can you do the Job?

Will you do the Job ?

And most importantly, how will you fit in with people already doing the Job?

If you have a massive chip on yourr shoulder about the coloUr of your skin guess what? no matter how well you fill items 1 & 2 you will never fill 3 and thats the key factor that decides between equally qualified candidates.

With regards to women, you need to look from a business's point of view. If you are hiring someone for a job that requires very long working hours and conditions that are likely to be detrimental to family life (Which Front-Runners jobs ALWAYS are) then unless a female can give absolute assurances that the business will come before her 7 year old she will not get the job.

Men are EXPECTED to put the business first and if they don't they will not be a front runner for long. the problem is women often think that they should have the possition but not have to put in the hours.

There are obviously expections but they will typically be single or childless women, as high end business is not a place where you can stop at 3.30 to pick up the kids everyday.

In a relationship with children there can only really be one parent who can fight to the top of a business structure unless you are willing to have it adversly effect your kids, it's up to each couple to decide which one of them does and which becomes the primary carer.

You can hardly blame Companies for being reluctant to promote a woman they know wants a family but expects to be able to juggle both parenthood and the responcibilities at work because they know that kids will come first.

it costs alot of money in terms of training and time investment to get people good enough for higher levels of business and often they cannot afford for that person so just turn around and say " I can't work all those hours that other guy does because i have to pick up the kids."

Ask yourself who out of the two SHOULD get promoted.

I know many companies in Britian avoid hiring women under 40 for that exact reason.

Tarv? So, you are saying that white men have more power and make more money because they are more deserving?

**headdesk**


That's what you get out of the whole debate?



ITA. Hilary has always been vilified for the wrong reasons.

Edited, Feb 21st 2008 1:36pm by Annabella

Did you even read what i wrote?

here let me spell it out for you.

PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO PUT THE MOST HOURS AND TIME INTO A BUSINESS WILL GET TOP THE TOP, THIS IS MORE LIKELY TO BE A MAN BECAUSE WOMEN ARE MORE LIKELY TO PUT CHILDREN FIRST.

Yeah, okay, unless they're women of marriageable age because the potential employer might assume they'll want kids someday, whether they do or not.

What does that have to do with the debate? Hilary Clinton isn't going to take maternity leave at this stage of her life. Explain the relevance of your first post, please, cause I'm not seeing it.

Do you mean pundit/columnist opinions or man on the street opinions?

I'm not asking for myself since I don't hate Clinton. I just don't want her to be the nominee. I'm sure she'll make a fine senator for years to come if she so chooses.

Pundits, columnists and message-board armchair politicians in the conservative spectrum.

So you don't read Totem's posts.

So, is Ann Coulter a democratic operative set up to dismantle the republican party by posting content-free, weekly op-ed columns?

So ignore the post justifying not hiring women as a entire group at equal wages when they are in childbearing years and criticize someone who might find it inherently unjust? Nice job, Elinda.

Edited, Feb 21st 2008 3:44pm by Annabella

Hi, excuse me... yes. Ok.

Ummm.... you're, like, not a liberal, you know? So please stop saying you can define us and what we think.

Because you're wrong and your opinion has no merit.

Because you're not a liberal.

That's not really the point though, is it? An employer is not required to pay you based on how hard you work on and off the job. His motivation is to pay you based on how much benefit you are providing to him and his business. If you are a productive employee you'll be paid more. If you are less productive, you'll be paid less. Seems pretty obvious to me.


Turn the argument around. Remember, that an employer is a consumer of labor. He purchases labor and should be free to pay that labor based on what the labor gives to him, and not based on other factors. In the same way that you are free to choose to buy the lower priced of two otherwise identical television sets, right? The fact that one was built by someone who has more mouths to feed at home isn't really a consideration, is it? You are free to research the companies and choose to purchase the higher priced and/or lower quality one out of some desire to reward a company that you like better (maybe it hires only domestic labor, or uses only organically grown whatevers, or fits some other thing you care about). But that's your choice. Just as an employer may choose (and many do) to provide higher pay/title/whatever and/or provide more flexible hours for women who are raising children while working.


The point is that it's a choice of the consumer. It should never be required.

But the original discussion statement that women get paid less as an entire group because they are less productive as an entire group without any evidence and with dismissing gender discrimination as any factor in the pay differential. Not hiring women as a class or promoting them or paying them equal because you believe they will ask for accommodations that men won't despite having no evidence to the contrary is sexism. It isn't about the market. I'll be damned if I will accept being paid according to what an employer imagines about my gender rather than my own merit.

Edited, Feb 21st 2008 5:20pm by Annabella