Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
I think the premise of the male chauvenist perspective (if it is to have any objective and/or moral underpinning at all) is that the work of raising a family including economically providing for it must be divided according to the male's and the female's respective strengths and weaknesses, i.e., what each is best suited for doing well. So I think that employers' judgments that women are disproporationately attaining that creditential that is most meaningful to employers for predicting future success in demanding and high paying full time employement is self-evidently highly relevant. You have yet, by the way, to address this simple, common sense point.
|
Up until this post, you refused to make "this simple, common sense point."
I don't agree with the perspective that women are better suited for raising a family because they are naturally unsuited to the workplace. Thus, I agree with you that employer interest in highly educated females is indicative of their collective inherent ability.
If one is to make an argument that women are to stay at home, there are better reasons to support it than to say they are weak in the workplace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
I know you are Boyd K. Packer's cyborg but sometimes your position is so untenable all you are capable of doing is throwing up sophistry. You are relentless, I'll give you that.
|
Up until this post, I didn't take a position. So it would impossible for it to be "untenable."