This article is about discrimination against pregnant women.
Did anybody else notice that only 10% of the company is male?
If I had a company that was 90% male, and I discriminated against some guy for having too large a beer gut, I would get crucified for not hiring women.
There would be \”glass ceiling\” lawsuits, sex discrimination lawsuits, you name it.
Welcome to America. This article demonstrates the blatant double standard that exists in this country.
\”Elephant? What elephant? There\’s no elephant in this room.\”
I understand why you would think that by having a work force that is 90% women, this company is discriminating against males. But C\’MON…Mother\’s Work…how many men do you think apply? I was surprised it wasn\’t entirely women. Think before you write, you\’ll end up making a fool of yourself.
I understand why you would think that by having a work force that is 90% women, this company is discriminating against males. But C\’MON…Mother\’s Work…how many men do you think apply? I was surprised it wasn\’t entirely women. Think before you write, you\’ll end up making a fool of yourself.
I believe you to be the fool here. If this was a called Fathers Work, it would never have gotten off the ground without hiring women in the first place and you know it. I agree with your logic, BUT, this country has gone the way of completely discriminating against men, especially, white, straight, no disability, working, married men. I beleive you know that the evidence clearly supoprts this.
Hey Rosie, sorry to burst your bubble, but I am libertarian. How do you have time to be on the computer when you should be washing the clothes and fixing the kids lunch.
\”Hi, I\’m pregnant, which means that if you don\’t hire me I\’ll sue you, and if you do hire me I get to take off twelve weeks once the baby\’s born. You might THINK that you own this store, but the government really does, and since I vote for the dopes that make these laws, I\’m in charge around here.\”
Neo con is an imaginary person made up by the bleeding heart liberals to help pursuade simple minded individuals that big government and oversight is better.
A neocon is like a Racoon, but larger and more aggressive. Apparently, it eats the entrails of Iraqi babies for lunch, and washes it down with the blood of immigrants.
Neocons often disguise themselves as other creatures in order to avoid their most fearsome predator, the coastalib.
The virtual battles between these two fearsome creatures have become legendary in the e-jungle, and have almost completely destroyed the habitat which rationalmoderatians live in.
Approach both neocons and coastalibs with care. Attracting their attention will cause you to be assaulted with totalianistic searches and poorly thought out social welfare taxes.
It\’s best just to keep your head down and hope they drive each other to extinction. Once an ELE for these two species happens, the majority of citizens can rebuild civilazation using common sense and realpolitik.
Yea, with such a large company there are ll sorts of accounting and management jobs that men would want. Often times men make better managers because they dont undulge in as much small talk and they keep the employees in line and are less emmotional
Do any of you have any information with regards to mail applicants at this particular company? It is possible that men have also been discriminated against, but you can\’t make that call without knowing the numbers.
As far as the rest of the comments, holy crap. I hope you\’re all kidding.
I don\’t know how many \”mail\” applicants they\’ve had, but I don\’t need to know the number to make the call.
This company has only managed to find 500 qualified male applicants? I call BS on that one.
Let\’s board the logic train:
Men make up about 50% of the population.
In a normal corporate environment you could reasonably expect half of the applicants to be men, and half to be women.
These job\’s are at a company that caters to women, so let\’s assume that fewer men want to work there.
If only 1/4 of american men would work at a company that caters to women, that would work out to roughly 12.5% of the applicants.
Assuming you take only the best qualified applicants (based on education and experience) that means about 12.5% of your workforce would be male.
In a 5000 employee company you would have about 650 men. This company has (according to the article) about 500 men.
No possible way there\’s no discrimination. I used conservative estimates of applicants. If half of the men in this country would work for a female oriented company you should have 1250 male employees.
No possible way only that only 10% of the applicants were qualified men, not when there\’s a decent paycheck and benefits at stake.
Simple math says that there\’s a problem here, so don\’t tell me I can\’t make that call.
Unless you seriously think that only 1 out of every 5 guys is willing to work in the accounting department, or warehouse, or shipping department, or operations department, or commercial sales force, or advertising department of a firm because that job helps sell maternity clothes.
You can say what you want, but you still don\’t know. It\’s very easy to make an assumption about a topic that might upset you. You can rationalize all you want about the number of men in the country, or the number of men in the area, or the number of men that want to work at a job that caters to women, but that doesn\’t make it fact. I worked at a retail agency about 5 years ago. There were thirty employees and 5 of us were men. That\’s just one from my own personal experience. I didn\’t say there wasn\’t discrimination, but you\’re assuming there was. It\’s a serious problem when people start making assumptions about things they don\’t know about. For instance, people often make assumption about the guilt of people in court cases when they know nothing or very little of the facts. That\’s a dangerous road to go down.
Any business should be able legally to deny employment or services to anyone for whatever reason. This liberty is more important to a free society than people\’s \”right\” to work or shop wherever they want. The Constitution was written to protect rights, not feelings.
It would be a sin to deny employment or services to someone based on his race, but it shouldn\’t be a crime.
Fair enough, but that\’s not what I was talking about. All I meant to say is that it\’s dangerous to make assumptions about a situation when you don\’t have all the facts.
Maybe at some point, legislation will do away with the ADA, and the sort. Michigan did recently stop using affirmative action. Maybe some day the country will be like you like it. You can always hope.
But I\’m not discriminating right? Hispanics don\’t like or need kimchi, so they\’re not going to apply to drive my trucks right?
Only one out of ten applicants for an opening at my stores to sell kimchi are going to be hispanic right? Why would they want to get paid to sell a product they don\’t like and don\’t eat?
Get the point?
It looks a little different now that we\’re talking about race, and not sex, doesn\’t it?
I think it\’s perfectly safe to assume there\’s discrimination.
And, the difference between not hiring 10 guys (on average) at your job and this company not hiring 2000 men (on average) is pretty significant.
I\’m making assumptions, but I\’m using math to support them.
By the way- I agree with Dykeman. Discrimination should be legal. If you want to ignore a complete group of qualified employees and moneyed customers I\’ll let you.
BET and Ebony make good money catering to a market you shun, and if you think that Barack Obama, Condi Rice and Colin Powell aren\’t worth hiring I\’ll be glad to look at their resumes.
We shouldn\’t outlaw stupidity. We should outcompete stupid people and consign their children to working at McDonalds and Wal~Mart.
Like I said, there\’s nothing inherently wrong with discrimination. I discriminated against every black and Asian woman when I married a Swedish/Irish gal. For me to have a sign on the door of my barber shop that says \”WHITES ONLY\” is understandable, right? It might be less understandable and somewhat boorish to have the same sign on my theater or diner, but so what? Doesn\’t the 1st Amendment guaranty freedom of association? Is your right to eat at my lunch counter more important than my right to run my business as I see fit? Now, government should be colorblind in all respects because everyone pays taxes. But to say that a country club must allow women or eskimoes or whatever is to deny people liberties to a degree that our founders would never have tolerated.
As I said, it is a sin to deny services to people based on race in a private establishment (except perhaps things like barber shops and the like, where people must specialize to some degree). I may have the right as a citizen to force a man to explain to his son why they can\’t eat in my diner, but I do not have that right before God. But I don\’t think that we want government to punish every sin, do we?
You must be new to this website. Take a look at the posts made above your last post to get a feel for what we\’re dealing with here. Something I\’ve learned is to just save your breath (or your keystrokes in this case). You would do better to talk to a brick wall.
Some of us actually appreciate a well reasoned argument.
And, although I support allowing people to discriminate if they choose to do so, I personally will not. I thought my last post made that clear.
If Shocked can come up with better refutation than \”You don\’t know for sure\” I will be happy to listen.
I used simple math, the common law of averages, and argument re-framing to show that the company in the article is probably discriminating.
If you view my argument as being fundamentally the same as the morons talking about \”barefoot, in the kitchen\”, then you should re-read my posts.
If you are not lumping me into that simian sub-category, then thank you, and I agree. People who make statements like that are not capable of rational discourse and should be ignored.
I resent your implication that my responses aren\’t credible just because you don\’t agree with me. Maybe my line was not conducive to this specific topic, but believe me, I still stand by my beliefs and have no problem stating them. The womens\’ libbers of this country have ruined it as well. Latch key kids, unwed mothers, abortions at will, etc. I could go on, but that is for another board. All I can say is this country was better off when men were the primary bread winners and the women stayed home and took care of the kids.
Really. I mean, this thread started as a debate about a preggers woman not getting hired. It\’s ridiculous on the face of it that some gal would expect to get hired when her belly tells the interviewer that she\’s going to take off a few months right after getting hired. How does her inevitable absence help the company?
And if she were knocked up instead of married, her absenteeism would be much higher than if she were married becuase of kiddie sick days and doctor visits. But here she is making a living off of suing companies that are living in the real world, while she is living in the feminist construct of government-granted rights. It boggles the mind.
As the first poster I started the debate because I thought it was ludicrous somebody sued this company for discriminating on one basis while completely ignoring the other discrimination going on.
There have been lawsuits successfully promulgated in this country based solely on the numerical percentages of races hired/fired by a given company.
The fact that this company has not hired 50% of it\’s workers as males is grounds for a lawsuit alone.
I\’m astonished that any ambulance chaser willing to take a case based on discrimination would take one with four plaintiffs and ignore one with thousands of plaintiffs.
I think we fundamentally agree on how ridiculous this society has become, but I\’m just blown away that somebody in this culture missed an opportunity to strike a blow for legally mandated mediocrity.
I love the comments regarding us being better off when men were the primary breadwinners and women stayed home. How much do you think it would cost western civilization to completely lose up to 1/2 it\’s collective brainpower by eliminating women from the workforce? It looks like the radical Islamic countries have done this for centuries – could this possibly explain why the west dominates the world and the Ottoman/Turkish/Islamic empires crumbled and they still live in the economic and cultural equivelant of the dark ages???
I love women – beautiful ones get my attention initially, but if they have no brains I quickly tire of them. Smart women stimulate my brain as well as my body, and I prefer them any day of the week. (And women are getting smarter every day as education and career opportunities become more and more available in the US – god I love this country!)
Look man, I\’ve read your responses, and I get what your saying, but just because a company does not have an equal share of employees based on the percentage of applicants (even though we don\’t even know that info), doesn\’t mean they have been discriminatory. You don\’t have the facts to make statements like that. We don\’t even have enough facts to figure out if the pregnant women that were fired, was discriminatory. In this country, if you discriminate against certain groups of people and get caught, you\’re in trouble. If the men that had worked there felt they had been discrimiated against, they have the legal recourse. Maybe that will happen, but we just don\’t know. You\’re little math equation proves nothing. Why aren\’t there more black NFL and NBA coaches? Why do I work in an office in the middle of the Southwest with a Latino staff of about 1%. Why did I work in an office in Detroit with no black employees. Are all of these situations discriminatory???? Who knows. The point was and is, YOU DON\’T HAVE THE INFO!
You don\’t think there was any discrimination going on in the three cases you present?
You haven\’t read any of the allegations about racism in the NFL? You think that there are an appropriate number of Black and Latino GMs and coaches?
What possible job environment in the Southwest could fail to attract more than 1% of hispanic applicants? Did you work at a white supremacist organization?
I\’ve lived in Royal Oak and worked in Bloomfield Hills. You had zero black employees? Again… was it a supremacist organization?
You consider these examples to be valid arguments refuting my assertion?
Buddy, if anything, you\’ve just proven it.
Unless, of course, you can give a valid explanation as to how there can be such a mind boggling disparity between the numbers of employed minorities and the hiring environment. An explanation that doesn\’t involve discrimination, that is.
The explanation as to how not a single black person could qualify to hold a position at a company located in SE Michigan better be pretty riveting.
Although, I am aware that there is a difference between a firm with 30 employees located in one city and 5000 employees located across several states.
I can see how a specialized firm with 15 employees could fail to fill… say… 50% of it\’s position with women.
That argument doesn\’t hold true when you look at 5000 employees and the many-thousands of hiring decisions necessary to generate that 90/10 ratio.
So please explain why the NFL is dominated by black players – is it hatred of white players by all of those white coaches? What about the fact tht there are no Korean coaches in the NHL? Why not cry about there being no Inuit coaches in the NBA?
The reason that the NBA and NFL are dominated by black players is because there are apparently more and better black athletes than white ones. In other words, it\’s merit-based. GASP!!!
Isn\’t that proof of —– discrimination!?!??! Oh my!!! So maybe if the faculty at MIT is mostly white and Asian, it\’s because of —— merit?!?!?!?!
No no no, when minorities are under-represented, it\’s evidence of racism, but when they are in over-abundance it\’s because of merit. So NFL owners know that they are discriminating against Eskimoes and Chinese and Polynesians and Hispanics in their coaching ranks, because being racist is more important to them than having good coaches, but they are colorblind when it comes to signing the best players. Is that it?
Let\’s try a merit-based society, where people succeed because they deserve to, and let the market sort things out. Wow, what a strange idea.
Dykeman…
And what you just said is why there are rules about hiring. We can\’t always count on people to hire the most qualified. We can\’t always count on schools admitting the most qualified. And we can\’t count on people in general treating people equitably. I think we have outlined here, racism and sexism is alive and well.
Unfortunately, I think you and mjolnir have missed the point that UW and Shocked were talking about. I read all of the posts from both, and neither said anything with regard to whether the company in this article or the examples listed in the last post are proof of or a rejection of discriminatory hiring practices. Their point was that without a full set of information, you just don\’t know. The example of professional athletes is a very good one. Many people can type 60 wpm, or put mail in a slot or put food on a shelf. Most cannot catch a 50 yard pass on the run between defenders. So, are blacks better athletes? Or does that mean that with an overwhelming black majority in professional sports that all owners are racists? We don\’t know what positions men held in the company in this article. Of the 500 men working for the company, are 250 mgrs or above? Do 499 work in the mail room? Is the company in Detroit so small that not a single black person ever applied? Is that company in the Southwest a company that has just moved there and 90% of the employees relocated from another area? So, it seems to be pretty obvious that you need to know more than just the numbers of employees before you can make a statement on discrimination.
You miss the point: I don’t need all the numbers or facts to determine that it is wrong for the government to force someone to associate with people with whom he wants nothing to do. It might be right for Church, but it’s wrong for government.
The government’s proper job is to punish wickedness and vice and defend the border, not to make people nice. If some black guy wants to hire no whites to work in his warehouse in an all-white community, it’s his business. If blacks are indignant about this, they won’t work for him. LET THE MARKET DECIDE. Let free people make free decisions. No one has a right to work for anyone except himself.
I live in an integrated neighborhood. My son’s girlfriend is half-white. I shovel the black lady’s driveway across the street, and we have keys to each other’s homes, and on and on. Racism is not the point. The point is that because property rights were destroyed by “civil rights” legislation in the name of forcing people to associate -in violation of the 1st Amendment- the government has been on a forty-year power grab with no end in sight. Now preggers women can sue for not being hired. It’s madness.
This is too bad for you Dykeman, it sounds like maybe you\’re living in the wrong century. We already fought a war over this crap, and guess what, you\’re side lost. Maybe you can invent a time machine and go back to the 19th century. That way, instead of shoveling your neighbors snow, you can have her pickin\’ yo\’ cotton and using the drinkin\’ fountain around back. That damn civil rights movement, gone an\’ screwed up our entire country. And how timely that this is all comin\’ after celebratin\’ that damn MLK birthday on Monday. Ya\’ must be in a livin\’ hell.
A. Learn how to spell \”proclamation.\”
B. People\’s rights to their property are next in importance to their right to life.
C. If you have read my posts here and that\’s all you can come up with, then go pound sand.
This article is about discrimination against pregnant women.
Did anybody else notice that only 10% of the company is male?
If I had a company that was 90% male, and I discriminated against some guy for having too large a beer gut, I would get crucified for not hiring women.
There would be \”glass ceiling\” lawsuits, sex discrimination lawsuits, you name it.
Welcome to America. This article demonstrates the blatant double standard that exists in this country.
\”Elephant? What elephant? There\’s no elephant in this room.\”
I understand why you would think that by having a work force that is 90% women, this company is discriminating against males. But C\’MON…Mother\’s Work…how many men do you think apply? I was surprised it wasn\’t entirely women. Think before you write, you\’ll end up making a fool of yourself.
I understand why you would think that by having a work force that is 90% women, this company is discriminating against males. But C\’MON…Mother\’s Work…how many men do you think apply? I was surprised it wasn\’t entirely women. Think before you write, you\’ll end up making a fool of yourself.
Nicole,
I believe you to be the fool here. If this was a called Fathers Work, it would never have gotten off the ground without hiring women in the first place and you know it. I agree with your logic, BUT, this country has gone the way of completely discriminating against men, especially, white, straight, no disability, working, married men. I beleive you know that the evidence clearly supoprts this.
I did think before I wrote.
I thought that any company that offers competitive wages, hours, and opportunities would attract a range of qualified applicants.
I thought that any company with 5000 employees and operations in multiple locations must be successful, and must attract many job seekers.
I thought that there is no possible way that only 10% of the applicants who apply to the company are male.
I thought that operations like Sport Cuts who almost totally cater to men have more than 10% of their work force as women.
I thought some before I posted this, too.
I think you analyzed the situation poorly.
I think it\’s ludicrous to assume that a successful firm only sees male applicants 10% of the time.
I think it\’s pathetic that you fail to realize that discrimination is institutionalized in this country.
I think it\’s scary that this country will allow some groups to discriminate, but not others.
I think that this country really needs to have a conversation about discrimination- when it\’s appropriate, and why.
I think that people should be allowed to have an opinion, even if it\’s reactionary and unpopular.
I think that I\’m not the fool here.
Can anybody say \”HOOTERS\” ???
Can\’t we just go back to the good old days when women stayed home and took care of the house and kids and remained barefoot and pregnant.
Compman, thanks for reminding us all why the Neocons had such great success in the 2006 election
Hey Rosie, sorry to burst your bubble, but I am libertarian. How do you have time to be on the computer when you should be washing the clothes and fixing the kids lunch.
\”Hi, I\’m pregnant, which means that if you don\’t hire me I\’ll sue you, and if you do hire me I get to take off twelve weeks once the baby\’s born. You might THINK that you own this store, but the government really does, and since I vote for the dopes that make these laws, I\’m in charge around here.\”
This used to be a free country.
Libertarian: A Neocon too embarassed to call himself a NeoCon.
There\’s books to help you deal with your self-loathing.
What the hell\’s a \”neocon\”?
Neo con is an imaginary person made up by the bleeding heart liberals to help pursuade simple minded individuals that big government and oversight is better.
A neocon is like a Racoon, but larger and more aggressive. Apparently, it eats the entrails of Iraqi babies for lunch, and washes it down with the blood of immigrants.
Neocons often disguise themselves as other creatures in order to avoid their most fearsome predator, the coastalib.
The virtual battles between these two fearsome creatures have become legendary in the e-jungle, and have almost completely destroyed the habitat which rationalmoderatians live in.
Approach both neocons and coastalibs with care. Attracting their attention will cause you to be assaulted with totalianistic searches and poorly thought out social welfare taxes.
It\’s best just to keep your head down and hope they drive each other to extinction. Once an ELE for these two species happens, the majority of citizens can rebuild civilazation using common sense and realpolitik.
The View was divine today, girlfriend. give my love to Kelly and the kids.
Priceless, just priceless. I couldn\’t agree with you more!
I heard Compman has a small penis.
Yea, with such a large company there are ll sorts of accounting and management jobs that men would want. Often times men make better managers because they dont undulge in as much small talk and they keep the employees in line and are less emmotional
Holy Frijoles…
Do any of you have any information with regards to mail applicants at this particular company? It is possible that men have also been discriminated against, but you can\’t make that call without knowing the numbers.
As far as the rest of the comments, holy crap. I hope you\’re all kidding.
I don\’t know how many \”mail\” applicants they\’ve had, but I don\’t need to know the number to make the call.
This company has only managed to find 500 qualified male applicants? I call BS on that one.
Let\’s board the logic train:
Men make up about 50% of the population.
In a normal corporate environment you could reasonably expect half of the applicants to be men, and half to be women.
These job\’s are at a company that caters to women, so let\’s assume that fewer men want to work there.
If only 1/4 of american men would work at a company that caters to women, that would work out to roughly 12.5% of the applicants.
Assuming you take only the best qualified applicants (based on education and experience) that means about 12.5% of your workforce would be male.
In a 5000 employee company you would have about 650 men. This company has (according to the article) about 500 men.
No possible way there\’s no discrimination. I used conservative estimates of applicants. If half of the men in this country would work for a female oriented company you should have 1250 male employees.
No possible way only that only 10% of the applicants were qualified men, not when there\’s a decent paycheck and benefits at stake.
Simple math says that there\’s a problem here, so don\’t tell me I can\’t make that call.
Unless you seriously think that only 1 out of every 5 guys is willing to work in the accounting department, or warehouse, or shipping department, or operations department, or commercial sales force, or advertising department of a firm because that job helps sell maternity clothes.
Fat chance.
You can say what you want, but you still don\’t know. It\’s very easy to make an assumption about a topic that might upset you. You can rationalize all you want about the number of men in the country, or the number of men in the area, or the number of men that want to work at a job that caters to women, but that doesn\’t make it fact. I worked at a retail agency about 5 years ago. There were thirty employees and 5 of us were men. That\’s just one from my own personal experience. I didn\’t say there wasn\’t discrimination, but you\’re assuming there was. It\’s a serious problem when people start making assumptions about things they don\’t know about. For instance, people often make assumption about the guilt of people in court cases when they know nothing or very little of the facts. That\’s a dangerous road to go down.
P.S. Thanks for correcting the \”mail\” typo.
Any business should be able legally to deny employment or services to anyone for whatever reason. This liberty is more important to a free society than people\’s \”right\” to work or shop wherever they want. The Constitution was written to protect rights, not feelings.
It would be a sin to deny employment or services to someone based on his race, but it shouldn\’t be a crime.
Dykeman,
Fair enough, but that\’s not what I was talking about. All I meant to say is that it\’s dangerous to make assumptions about a situation when you don\’t have all the facts.
Maybe at some point, legislation will do away with the ADA, and the sort. Michigan did recently stop using affirmative action. Maybe some day the country will be like you like it. You can always hope.
Let\’s say I operate a business. That business employes 5000 people across several states.
Let\’s say that business makes and distributes kimchi, a food item that appeals to mostly (but not exclusively) people with Korean heritage.
Let\’s say each of my stores is located in an urban area with a poulation that is roughly 50% Korean, and roughly 50% hispanic.
Let\’s say that I, and all of my management team, are Korean and we REALLY like kimchi.
Now let\’s say that only 10% of my employees are hispanic.
Counter clerks, truck drivers, accountants, store managers. 90% Korean, 10% hispanic.
But I\’m not discriminating right? Hispanics don\’t like or need kimchi, so they\’re not going to apply to drive my trucks right?
Only one out of ten applicants for an opening at my stores to sell kimchi are going to be hispanic right? Why would they want to get paid to sell a product they don\’t like and don\’t eat?
Get the point?
It looks a little different now that we\’re talking about race, and not sex, doesn\’t it?
I think it\’s perfectly safe to assume there\’s discrimination.
And, the difference between not hiring 10 guys (on average) at your job and this company not hiring 2000 men (on average) is pretty significant.
I\’m making assumptions, but I\’m using math to support them.
By the way- I agree with Dykeman. Discrimination should be legal. If you want to ignore a complete group of qualified employees and moneyed customers I\’ll let you.
BET and Ebony make good money catering to a market you shun, and if you think that Barack Obama, Condi Rice and Colin Powell aren\’t worth hiring I\’ll be glad to look at their resumes.
We shouldn\’t outlaw stupidity. We should outcompete stupid people and consign their children to working at McDonalds and Wal~Mart.
Like I said, there\’s nothing inherently wrong with discrimination. I discriminated against every black and Asian woman when I married a Swedish/Irish gal. For me to have a sign on the door of my barber shop that says \”WHITES ONLY\” is understandable, right? It might be less understandable and somewhat boorish to have the same sign on my theater or diner, but so what? Doesn\’t the 1st Amendment guaranty freedom of association? Is your right to eat at my lunch counter more important than my right to run my business as I see fit? Now, government should be colorblind in all respects because everyone pays taxes. But to say that a country club must allow women or eskimoes or whatever is to deny people liberties to a degree that our founders would never have tolerated.
As I said, it is a sin to deny services to people based on race in a private establishment (except perhaps things like barber shops and the like, where people must specialize to some degree). I may have the right as a citizen to force a man to explain to his son why they can\’t eat in my diner, but I do not have that right before God. But I don\’t think that we want government to punish every sin, do we?
Shocked,
You must be new to this website. Take a look at the posts made above your last post to get a feel for what we\’re dealing with here. Something I\’ve learned is to just save your breath (or your keystrokes in this case). You would do better to talk to a brick wall.
Some of us actually appreciate a well reasoned argument.
And, although I support allowing people to discriminate if they choose to do so, I personally will not. I thought my last post made that clear.
If Shocked can come up with better refutation than \”You don\’t know for sure\” I will be happy to listen.
I used simple math, the common law of averages, and argument re-framing to show that the company in the article is probably discriminating.
If you view my argument as being fundamentally the same as the morons talking about \”barefoot, in the kitchen\”, then you should re-read my posts.
If you are not lumping me into that simian sub-category, then thank you, and I agree. People who make statements like that are not capable of rational discourse and should be ignored.
I resent your implication that my responses aren\’t credible just because you don\’t agree with me. Maybe my line was not conducive to this specific topic, but believe me, I still stand by my beliefs and have no problem stating them. The womens\’ libbers of this country have ruined it as well. Latch key kids, unwed mothers, abortions at will, etc. I could go on, but that is for another board. All I can say is this country was better off when men were the primary bread winners and the women stayed home and took care of the kids.
Really. I mean, this thread started as a debate about a preggers woman not getting hired. It\’s ridiculous on the face of it that some gal would expect to get hired when her belly tells the interviewer that she\’s going to take off a few months right after getting hired. How does her inevitable absence help the company?
And if she were knocked up instead of married, her absenteeism would be much higher than if she were married becuase of kiddie sick days and doctor visits. But here she is making a living off of suing companies that are living in the real world, while she is living in the feminist construct of government-granted rights. It boggles the mind.
Check and mate.
Wow.
As the first poster I started the debate because I thought it was ludicrous somebody sued this company for discriminating on one basis while completely ignoring the other discrimination going on.
There have been lawsuits successfully promulgated in this country based solely on the numerical percentages of races hired/fired by a given company.
The fact that this company has not hired 50% of it\’s workers as males is grounds for a lawsuit alone.
I\’m astonished that any ambulance chaser willing to take a case based on discrimination would take one with four plaintiffs and ignore one with thousands of plaintiffs.
I think we fundamentally agree on how ridiculous this society has become, but I\’m just blown away that somebody in this culture missed an opportunity to strike a blow for legally mandated mediocrity.
The one where I\’m defending my assertion that what is commonly recognized as discrimination in this country is happening at this company?
Or the post where I distance myself from the mouth-breating knuckle draggers?
Or the conversation over whether or not discrimination should be allowed?
I love the comments regarding us being better off when men were the primary breadwinners and women stayed home. How much do you think it would cost western civilization to completely lose up to 1/2 it\’s collective brainpower by eliminating women from the workforce? It looks like the radical Islamic countries have done this for centuries – could this possibly explain why the west dominates the world and the Ottoman/Turkish/Islamic empires crumbled and they still live in the economic and cultural equivelant of the dark ages???
I love women – beautiful ones get my attention initially, but if they have no brains I quickly tire of them. Smart women stimulate my brain as well as my body, and I prefer them any day of the week. (And women are getting smarter every day as education and career opportunities become more and more available in the US – god I love this country!)
Look man, I\’ve read your responses, and I get what your saying, but just because a company does not have an equal share of employees based on the percentage of applicants (even though we don\’t even know that info), doesn\’t mean they have been discriminatory. You don\’t have the facts to make statements like that. We don\’t even have enough facts to figure out if the pregnant women that were fired, was discriminatory. In this country, if you discriminate against certain groups of people and get caught, you\’re in trouble. If the men that had worked there felt they had been discrimiated against, they have the legal recourse. Maybe that will happen, but we just don\’t know. You\’re little math equation proves nothing. Why aren\’t there more black NFL and NBA coaches? Why do I work in an office in the middle of the Southwest with a Latino staff of about 1%. Why did I work in an office in Detroit with no black employees. Are all of these situations discriminatory???? Who knows. The point was and is, YOU DON\’T HAVE THE INFO!
UW,
You should take your own advice. I think I get what you mean.
You don\’t think there was any discrimination going on in the three cases you present?
You haven\’t read any of the allegations about racism in the NFL? You think that there are an appropriate number of Black and Latino GMs and coaches?
What possible job environment in the Southwest could fail to attract more than 1% of hispanic applicants? Did you work at a white supremacist organization?
I\’ve lived in Royal Oak and worked in Bloomfield Hills. You had zero black employees? Again… was it a supremacist organization?
You consider these examples to be valid arguments refuting my assertion?
Buddy, if anything, you\’ve just proven it.
Unless, of course, you can give a valid explanation as to how there can be such a mind boggling disparity between the numbers of employed minorities and the hiring environment. An explanation that doesn\’t involve discrimination, that is.
The explanation as to how not a single black person could qualify to hold a position at a company located in SE Michigan better be pretty riveting.
Although, I am aware that there is a difference between a firm with 30 employees located in one city and 5000 employees located across several states.
I can see how a specialized firm with 15 employees could fail to fill… say… 50% of it\’s position with women.
That argument doesn\’t hold true when you look at 5000 employees and the many-thousands of hiring decisions necessary to generate that 90/10 ratio.
I\’m all ears.
It does seem quite a stretch to accuse a company that has been convicted of discrimination of… discriminating.
That smoke is probably just dust, and not a fire.
So please explain why the NFL is dominated by black players – is it hatred of white players by all of those white coaches? What about the fact tht there are no Korean coaches in the NHL? Why not cry about there being no Inuit coaches in the NBA?
The reason that the NBA and NFL are dominated by black players is because there are apparently more and better black athletes than white ones. In other words, it\’s merit-based. GASP!!!
Isn\’t that proof of —– discrimination!?!??! Oh my!!! So maybe if the faculty at MIT is mostly white and Asian, it\’s because of —— merit?!?!?!?!
No no no, when minorities are under-represented, it\’s evidence of racism, but when they are in over-abundance it\’s because of merit. So NFL owners know that they are discriminating against Eskimoes and Chinese and Polynesians and Hispanics in their coaching ranks, because being racist is more important to them than having good coaches, but they are colorblind when it comes to signing the best players. Is that it?
Let\’s try a merit-based society, where people succeed because they deserve to, and let the market sort things out. Wow, what a strange idea.
Dykeman…
And what you just said is why there are rules about hiring. We can\’t always count on people to hire the most qualified. We can\’t always count on schools admitting the most qualified. And we can\’t count on people in general treating people equitably. I think we have outlined here, racism and sexism is alive and well.
Unfortunately, I think you and mjolnir have missed the point that UW and Shocked were talking about. I read all of the posts from both, and neither said anything with regard to whether the company in this article or the examples listed in the last post are proof of or a rejection of discriminatory hiring practices. Their point was that without a full set of information, you just don\’t know. The example of professional athletes is a very good one. Many people can type 60 wpm, or put mail in a slot or put food on a shelf. Most cannot catch a 50 yard pass on the run between defenders. So, are blacks better athletes? Or does that mean that with an overwhelming black majority in professional sports that all owners are racists? We don\’t know what positions men held in the company in this article. Of the 500 men working for the company, are 250 mgrs or above? Do 499 work in the mail room? Is the company in Detroit so small that not a single black person ever applied? Is that company in the Southwest a company that has just moved there and 90% of the employees relocated from another area? So, it seems to be pretty obvious that you need to know more than just the numbers of employees before you can make a statement on discrimination.
Exactly appauled.
You miss the point: I don’t need all the numbers or facts to determine that it is wrong for the government to force someone to associate with people with whom he wants nothing to do. It might be right for Church, but it’s wrong for government.
The government’s proper job is to punish wickedness and vice and defend the border, not to make people nice. If some black guy wants to hire no whites to work in his warehouse in an all-white community, it’s his business. If blacks are indignant about this, they won’t work for him. LET THE MARKET DECIDE. Let free people make free decisions. No one has a right to work for anyone except himself.
I live in an integrated neighborhood. My son’s girlfriend is half-white. I shovel the black lady’s driveway across the street, and we have keys to each other’s homes, and on and on. Racism is not the point. The point is that because property rights were destroyed by “civil rights” legislation in the name of forcing people to associate -in violation of the 1st Amendment- the government has been on a forty-year power grab with no end in sight. Now preggers women can sue for not being hired. It’s madness.
This is too bad for you Dykeman, it sounds like maybe you\’re living in the wrong century. We already fought a war over this crap, and guess what, you\’re side lost. Maybe you can invent a time machine and go back to the 19th century. That way, instead of shoveling your neighbors snow, you can have her pickin\’ yo\’ cotton and using the drinkin\’ fountain around back. That damn civil rights movement, gone an\’ screwed up our entire country. And how timely that this is all comin\’ after celebratin\’ that damn MLK birthday on Monday. Ya\’ must be in a livin\’ hell.
A. Learn how to spell \”proclamation.\”
B. People\’s rights to their property are next in importance to their right to life.
C. If you have read my posts here and that\’s all you can come up with, then go pound sand.