Political Ramblings

[duckluck]

What the ---- something not on the internet

Well, somebody get one of those "smiley making" downloads and make one!

I used to run a forum and we had one where the smiley gets his torch extinguished after the words flash "The Tribe Has Spoken"...then he frowns while it smokes...

 

[hemet dennis]

Since everything you disagree with is automatically Obama's fault.

How about this, and this is just a suggestion so bare with me, We could take all that millions of dollars it would take to post armed guards at every already under staffed under budgeted school, thanks to some of the laws passed in the Bush administration, and use it for prenatal health care and measures to ensure women have equal protection in jobs when pregnant, and paid maternal leave, and paid paternal leave.

Or, and this is just another thought, put the money into the schools for things like teachers and books to better educate students, so they can grow up to be more productive adults less likely to be on the streets committing crimes.

But then that would mean a compromise.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________+

I thought I would answer your post in this thread

I think some of if not all those things will hurt women employment. When an employer has a choice between equally qualified man and woman they will always chose the man because they will have less liability. and less cost.

 

[Capvin]

. When an employer has a choice between equally qualified man and woman they will always chose the man because they will have less liability. and less cost.

I am not sure if what you say is the correct reasoning (i.e. less liability and cost) but it is absolutely true that women are less likely to get the best jobs and even when they do they get paid less then their male counterparts.

 

[hemet dennis]

Quote:
Well Do you agree there's a higher cost to employing women then men generally ?

 

[KristyHall]

Well Do you agree there's a higher cost to employing women then men generally ?

No, unless there is concrete proof, I have not seen anything to support your statement. If you are saying maternity leave, as far as I know businesses are not forced to provide paid maternity leave, some have been known to make a woman take it out of her sick days, vacation days.
Even if they were, it can be argued it costs more to employ a man because men have shorter life spans, on average have poorer health, are less likely to seek preventive care, are more prone to accidents from poor choices (reckless driving, risk taking stunts, etc.) and are usually paid more than women for the same work. Though thanks to the Lilly Ledbetter law signed by Obama, that may come to an end in discriminatory pay, or at least make it harder for employers to pay women less for the same work.
Unless you have proof, legitimate proof, to show otherwise than I DO NOT agree with higher cost of employing women.

 

[KristyHall]

Since everything you disagree with is automatically Obama's fault.

How about this, and this is just a suggestion so bare with me, We could take all that millions of dollars it would take to post armed guards at every already under staffed under budgeted school, thanks to some of the laws passed in the Bush administration, and use it for prenatal health care and measures to ensure women have equal protection in jobs when pregnant, and paid maternal leave, and paid paternal leave.

Or, and this is just another thought, put the money into the schools for things like teachers and books to better educate students, so they can grow up to be more productive adults less likely to be on the streets committing crimes.

But then that would mean a compromise.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________+

I thought I would answer your post in this thread

I think some of if not all those things will hurt women employment. When an employer has a choice between equally qualified man and woman they will always chose the man because they will have less liability. and less cost.

When you moved my post to this thread, you oh so helpfully cut out what I was responding to, I noticed. Then threw in a bit of misogyny on top of it. Nice!

 

[hemet dennis]

Quote:
Wow I had a hard time moving the part I did. I'm sorry if you think I did it on purpose. Are you saying I have a hate or discrimination of women ?

 

[KristyHall]

Quote: When you moved my post to this thread, you oh so helpfully cut out what I was responding to, I noticed. Then threw in a bit of misogyny on top of it. Nice!

Wow I had a hard time moving the part I did. I'm sorry if you think I did it on purpose. Are you saying I have a hate or discrimination of women ?


_________________________________________________________

Really? you had a hard time? Cut and Paste seems like an easy function to me. And you claim women are less hirable because as you say in your pother post that " Well Do you agree there's a higher cost to employing women then men generally ?" after He questioned your above statement in our previous conversation, the way you formed your statement is obviously meant to try and "Trap" someone into a misogynistic statement. Whether you have a personal misogynistic attitude or simply being antagonistic is left up for debate. As I said in the other thread that you cross posted from, my point was obviously, missed. Or ignored. Which ever.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

This guy needs elected.....




To replace this guy....

 

[Capvin]

The statement that it costs more to employ women then men is not based on any facts that I am aware of. In addition I have had personal large corporate experience and I have never heard that argument before. No, I do not believe that it is true.