Roberts Demonstrates Contempt for Women
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:32:12 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Roberts Demonstrates Contempt for Women
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Roberts Demonstrates Contempt for Women  (Read 2006 times)
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 26, 2005, 08:16:43 PM »

http://www.now.org/news/note/081905.html

"[T]he recent documents released by the Reagan Library (isn't it funny that so many documents have vanished, just coincidentally after their review by White House lawyers) demonstrate vividly [Roberts'] contempt for women and for equal treatment. When asked whether a staffer could be nominated for a Clairol award that recognized women who had changed their lives and made a contribution, he smirked: "Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good." And this from a young lawyer who was only 5 years out of law school at the time. He also criticized the concept of pay equity for women as "staggeringly pernicious" and "anti-capitalist" and repeatedly questions the very existence of our concerns, as in references to the "purported gender gap" and "perceived problems of gender discrimination."
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2005, 08:20:31 PM »

Nclib demonstrates he's NOW's bitch once again.

The "concept of pay equity" Roberts was criticizing there was the complete socialization of the American economy, in which the government would seek out jobs in which mostly men work (such as trucking) and jobs in which mostly women work (nursing) and tell them what to pay.

Anyone who supports that concept is a brain dead idiot, which explains why NOW is so into it.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2005, 08:20:48 PM »

http://www.now.org/news/note/081905.html

"[T]he recent documents released by the Reagan Library (isn't it funny that so many documents have vanished, just coincidentally after their review by White House lawyers) demonstrate vividly [Roberts'] contempt for women and for equal treatment. When asked whether a staffer could be nominated for a Clairol award that recognized women who had changed their lives and made a contribution, he smirked: "Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good." And this from a young lawyer who was only 5 years out of law school at the time. He also criticized the concept of pay equity for women as "staggeringly pernicious" and "anti-capitalist" and repeatedly questions the very existence of our concerns, as in references to the "purported gender gap" and "perceived problems of gender discrimination."

Yawn.  After watching the behavior of radical feminists for the past 20 years, I'm no longer interested in their agenda.

And there isn't necessarily a benefit to society if a homemaker becomes a lawyer.  Lawyers are at worst a scourge on society, and at best a necessary evil.  Society needs a certain number of homemakers in any case, something that radical feminists fail to recognize.

With respect to the wage gap, Roberts was probably referring to efforts to require that women be paid the same as men for less work.  That is really what the whole "gender gap" in wages is all about.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2005, 08:24:33 PM »

Close, except replace 'less' work with 'different' work. They want to make female jobs (nursing, teaching) pay the same as male jobs (trucking, unskilled labor), even if the jobs are entirely different.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2005, 08:25:04 PM »

Nclib demonstrates he's NOW's bitch once again.

The "concept of pay equity" Roberts was criticizing there was the complete socialization of the American economy, in which the government would seek out jobs in which mostly men work (such as trucking) and jobs in which mostly women work (nursing) and tell them what to pay.

Anyone who supports that concept is a brain dead idiot, which explains why NOW is so into it.

I agree.  The "wage gap" is a myth in any case, which is being pushed by radical and pernicious groups like NOW to gain political advantage.  Women work fewer hours than men, at jobs with less economic value.  That's the reason they make less money.  

In my experience, women in general are not willing to make the sacrifices that men make to get promoted to higher paying jobs.  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  The implication of feminist philosophy is that the sum total of a person begins and ends with her career, but I think it's healthy to have other priorities, and balance in your life.

So NOW's answer is to force companies to pay women who have not worked as hard as men have, and have not made the sacrifices that men have made, the same amount as the men who have made those sacrifices.  Why am I not surprised?
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2005, 08:28:04 PM »

Close, except replace 'less' work with 'different' work. They want to make female jobs (nursing, teaching) pay the same as male jobs (trucking, unskilled labor), even if the jobs are entirely different.

Yes, it's the "comparable worth" argument, whereby somebody in the government decides what a job is worth relative to another job.

It's an absolutely horrible idea, and Roberts was right to ridicule it.

And BTW, I completely agree with statement about NOW -- brain dead idiots describes their supporters quite well.  Hateful is another word that describes NOW well.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2005, 08:35:36 PM »

And BTW, I completely agree with statement about NOW -- brain dead idiots describes their supporters quite well.

Members of NOW are on average better educated than the general public.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 26, 2005, 08:37:30 PM »

http://www.now.org/news/note/081905.html

"Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."

This is an anti-lawyer joke, not an anti-woman joke.  

And for the record, those "unskilled" jobs generally pay less (at the start even) than the "skilled" jobs and there is a greater balancing of the sexes in jobs like nursing and teaching.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 26, 2005, 08:39:53 PM »

And BTW, I completely agree with statement about NOW -- brain dead idiots describes their supporters quite well.

Members of NOW are on average better educated than the general public.

In propaganda fluff programs like "Women's Studies?"  I don't consider that education.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 26, 2005, 08:41:37 PM »

And BTW, I completely agree with statement about NOW -- brain dead idiots describes their supporters quite well.

Members of NOW are on average better educated than the general public.

So was the Politburo.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 26, 2005, 11:58:14 PM »

Hateful is another word that describes NOW well.

The Religious Right is far and away more hateful than NOW.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 27, 2005, 06:37:15 AM »
« Edited: August 27, 2005, 09:35:54 AM by dazzleman »

Hateful is another word that describes NOW well.

The Religious Right is far and away more hateful than NOW.

Right.........Christian teaching (however imperfectly implemented it may be at times) is much more hateful than a bunch of shrill man-hating zealots stridently demanding the "right" to murder their babies as they are delivering them.  You keep denying that you use drugs, but there has to be some explanation for your thinking.  Unless of course, you don't really believe what you say.  Which is what I really think.  You are too doctrinaire and facile in what you say to really believe it.  You could be quoting from crazed left-wing talking points, rather than using your own brain.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 27, 2005, 08:01:12 AM »

the funny thing is, liberals think NOW is the voice of all women.

Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 27, 2005, 09:25:41 AM »

And BTW, I completely agree with statement about NOW -- brain dead idiots describes their supporters quite well.

Members of NOW are on average better educated than the general public.

Education doesn't necessarily instill common sense, reasoning skills, or wisdom.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 27, 2005, 09:36:27 AM »

And BTW, I completely agree with statement about NOW -- brain dead idiots describes their supporters quite well.

Members of NOW are on average better educated than the general public.

Education doesn't necessarily instill common sense, reasoning skills, or wisdom.

Absolutely, and that's certainly the case with those NOW shrews.
Logged
Everett
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,552


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 27, 2005, 02:33:26 PM »

I don't even really understand the problem here. Where exactly did Roberts demonstrate 'contempt for women'?

Oh right - we're talking about an article from NOW. Never mind making sense.

And just for the record, I would not want my mother to become a lawyer even if some radicals seriously think that homemaker -> lawyer is a massive achievement for womankind and merits vast amounts of honour and praise. She would probably make an excellent lawyer, but there is no benefit in her working as a lawyer and earning massive paychecks if she never got to spend any time with me anymore, if she wasn't happy being a lawyer, et cetera. I think that she is at least content with being a teacher (and never mind the complaints about teaching is a woman's job!!! if you're a woman, don't become a teacher! become a lawyer! or a doctor! or an engineer!!!) and was content with being a homemaker previously (although her ex- husband has no respect for homemakers).

As for the wage gap, get over it! If a woman works the exact same job, the exact same hours, and with the exact same competency as a man and still gets paid less than said man, then there's an issue. Why should anyone be paid more for doing less work, regardless of the person's age, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, et cetera?
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 27, 2005, 04:13:35 PM »

I don't even really understand the problem here. Where exactly did Roberts demonstrate 'contempt for women'?

Oh right - we're talking about an article from NOW. Never mind making sense.

And just for the record, I would not want my mother to become a lawyer even if some radicals seriously think that homemaker -> lawyer is a massive achievement for womankind and merits vast amounts of honour and praise. She would probably make an excellent lawyer, but there is no benefit in her working as a lawyer and earning massive paychecks if she never got to spend any time with me anymore, if she wasn't happy being a lawyer, et cetera. I think that she is at least content with being a teacher (and never mind the complaints about teaching is a woman's job!!! if you're a woman, don't become a teacher! become a lawyer! or a doctor! or an engineer!!!) and was content with being a homemaker previously (although her ex- husband has no respect for homemakers).

As for the wage gap, get over it! If a woman works the exact same job, the exact same hours, and with the exact same competency as a man and still gets paid less than said man, then there's an issue. Why should anyone be paid more for doing less work, regardless of the person's age, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, et cetera?

^^^^^^^^
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 27, 2005, 04:25:30 PM »

"Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."

some might.  You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a lawyer.  But hey, we can always use a few thousand more.

Let's see if we have this straight.  Roberts questions whether abandoning a child at home at enrolling in law school, of all things, "contributes to the common good."

I wouldn't know where to begin to pick apart your post.  Just let me know when the Philosophy Department assigns you to do the Logic & Syllogism 101 lecture.  I want to enroll in that one.  Should be interesting.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 27, 2005, 04:28:28 PM »

If we had more abortions, we'd be more economically sucessful.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 27, 2005, 04:30:07 PM »

If we had more abortions, we'd be more economically sucessful.

right....we should just stop having children.  They're such a burden and expense.  Brilliant....

Children are an investment in the future, one that feminists completely discount the value of.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 27, 2005, 04:30:48 PM »
« Edited: August 27, 2005, 04:36:31 PM by phknrocket1k »

If we had more abortions, we'd be more economically sucessful.

right....we should just stop having children.  They're such a burden and expense.  Brilliant....

Of course, we could outsource more jobs to China or India or give H1-B Visas to foreigners or even encourage more Mexicans to cross the border. Even with increased automation in service-sector jobs, there is no need to keep producing more welfare reciepients.

Don't get too emotional about children, the only thing that counts in the end is the dollar and the GDP.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 27, 2005, 04:32:30 PM »

If we had more abortions, we'd be more economically sucessful.

and if we had more hammers, the school system would be much better.

See nclib, we're already practicing for your logic class. 
Logged
Everett
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,552


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 27, 2005, 05:28:09 PM »

If we had more abortions, we'd be more economically sucessful.

and if we had more hammers, the school system would be much better.

See nclib, we're already practicing for your logic class. 
angus, I love that quote. I'm putting it in my signature, if you don't mind. Smiley
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 27, 2005, 05:42:09 PM »

whether you're laughing with me or at me is less important than the fact that you're amused, I'd imagine.  Sure, it's always an honor to be quoted. 
Logged
Everett
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,552


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 27, 2005, 05:43:04 PM »

whether you're laughing with me or at me is less important than the fact that you're amused, I'd imagine.  Sure, it's always an honor to be quoted. 
Just for the record, I'm laughing with you. Tongue
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.048 seconds with 11 queries.