From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:52:01 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Oct12.221746.17073@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.150249.27832@das.harvard.edu> stewart@geophysics.harvard.
>edu writes:
>>*  Support efforts to ensure fair wages for all
>>   workers, regardless of gender; and to ban
>>   gender-based discrimination in federal hiring,
>>   promotion and contracts.

>>*  Hire and appoint more women at all levels of
>>   government so that a Clinton/Gore Administration
>>   better reflects this country's population.

>Does the hiring of more women include the firing of men or an increase
>in the size of the gov?
Every new prez fires/hires a whole new staff from cabinet-level down to janitor

>Does the hiring of more women mean that qualified men will be bypassed?
Clearly, the hiring of more QUALIFIED women will mean that qualified men will
be "bypassed".  Anymore stupid questions?

>>*  Sign into law the Family and Medical Leave Act,
>>   which George Bush vetoed in 1990, so that no
>>   worker is forced to choose between maintaining
>>   his or her job and caring for a newborn child or
>>   sick family member.

>I guess that all workers work in companies that employ more that 50 people.
>And if your a women, don't advance too far because the top 10% wage earners
>are not covered either.

Obviously a little creative license has been taken.  Thank you for pointing it
out.  In your statement, that should be "you're a woman" not "your a women".
[Subtle jab at the same level as his first statement.]

BTW, why do you say "if your a women [sic]", anyway?  If it's the top 10%
IRRESPECTIVE OF GENDER, it doesn't seem such a bad idea.  After all, the whole
point is to help those people who can't afford daycare.

Sure, there aren't a lot of women at the top (yet), but [psychoanalyzing from a
post--bad boy] it seems like you have a problem with WOMEN advancing more than
you do with the 10% rule.  Come to think of it, isn't your argument the one
that the radical feminists should be using?  It's sexist 'cuz it's designed to
keep women out of the top 10% 'cuz they need the daycare money.  You'd have
been far better off to cry "reverse discrimination" 'cuz it's currently
predominantly fathers who are at the top and aren't gonna get their paternity
daycare money.

>>*  Create a child care network as complete as the
>>   public school network, tailored to the needs of
>>   working families; give parents choices between
>>   competing public and private institutions.
>
>Just what we need, more gov. agencies and beauracracy.
We might actually agree on this issue, but everybody knows we don't need more
gov. agencies and beauracracy.  OTOH, this *might* be one of the ones we do
need; there are 10 others you could find that could be cut for it with no real
loss.

>>*  Establish more rigorous standards for licensing
>>   child care facilities and implement improved
>>   methods for enforcing them.
>
>Just what we need, more gov regulations.
Actually, even disallowing for the media-hype over child-care centers, there do
seem to be a high number of poorly run places.

>>*  Crack down on deadbeat parents by reporting them
>>   to credit agencies, so they can't borrow money
>>   for themselves when they're not taking care of
>>   their children.  Use the Internal Revenue Service
>>   to collect child support, start a national
>>   deadbeat databank, and make it a felony to cross
>>   state lines to avoid paying support.
>
>Can you say "Big Brother?"
Below you say "Laws that ... are already on the books, use them".  Here you
won't allow specific measures that will do just that [for different laws, but
the principle is yours].  Can you say "Inconsistent?"
BTW, at least they got it right with deadbeat parents.

>>Ensure affordable, quality health care for all
>>Americans
>>
>>*  Provide health coverage for all Americans with a
>>   core benefits package that includes ambulatory
>>   physician care, in-patient hospital care,
>>   prescription drugs, basic mental health services,
>>   and important preventive programs like pre-natal
>>   care and annual mammograms.
>
>Why is this classified as a "women's issue?"
Maybe the feminists are actually for something that's *not* directly related to
just women.  This is a crime now?  Weren't you one of the ones complaining the
feminists aren't involved in the registration/draft issue?

>>*  Develop a comprehensive maternal and child health
>>   network to reduce both the infant mortality rate
>>   and the number of low birth-weight babies.
>
>Free prenatal health care is already available.
Yeah.  But I don't think it's all that good.  Do you?  Oh, gee, maybe this is
why the feminists consider health coverage a women's issue.

>>*  Sign the Violence Against Women Act, which would
>>   provide tougher enforcement and stiffer penalties
>>   to deter domestic violence.
>
>Laws that punish violence are already on the books, use them.
No contention here.  But they're *not* being used now, and how do we make the
courts/cops start enforcing them?

>>*  Governor Clinton required every state agency to
>>   develop and implement a sexual harassment policy.
>Why doesn't Arkansas have civil rights legislation?
In the debates, I believe Clinton claimed the State Congress messed it up.

>>*  Hired women to manage his gubernatorial
>>   campaigns; his longest-tenured chief-of-staff was
>>   a woman.
>>
>Some of my best friends are women.   :)
Yeah, well, so it's not exactly much of a point in his favor.

>>*  Advocated passage of the Equal Rights Amendment
>>   from the beginning; urged Congress to pass a
>>   strong Civil Rights bill to prohibit job
>>   discrimination in 1991, and appointed an Arkansas
>>   task force to develop complementary state
>>   legislation.
>
>Where is it?
Where is what?
The ERA?  You can't be asking that.
The Civil Rights bill of 1991?  I don't know.  I doubt that's what you mean.
The Arkansas task force?  Uh, in Arkansas?  :-)
The legislation?  You already asked that.

>>*  Bill Clinton has consistently supported
>>   legislation to overturn Supreme Court decisions
>>   which limit the rights of women, cosponsoring the
>>   Equal Remedies Act to provide women greater
>>   opportunity to gain compensation for employment
>>   discrimination.
>
>What employment rights for women have been limited by the Courts?
Read more carefully.  It may be a run-on sentence, but it seems clear to me
that they did not mean what you ask.  I would presume the Supreme Court
decisions include abortion decisions.  The Equal Remedies Act is a distinct,
unconnected issue.  As it's below, it does not belong here.  Want another
grammar/spelling flame as another subtle hint that that's the level you're
hitting?

>>*  Cosponsored the Equal Remedies Act, which will
>>   remove limitations on dollar amounts of
>>   compensatory and punitive damage awards in cases
>>   of intentional employment discrimination against
>>   women.
>
>A lawyer's dream come true.  Who proves intent or is the employer
>guilty until proved innocent?
As always, the defendant (employer) is innocent until proven guilty.
What makes you think they wouldn't be?  I see nothing to indicate this.
I don't know enough about how the limitations are computed to say much more.

>>Families and children
>>
>>*  Al Gore cosponsored the Family and Medical Leave
>>   Act which President Bush vetoed.
>>
>Does that make Gore a hero?
It is considered (from the view-point of the author, natch) a point in his
favor, just as all the things above are.  What's the big deal?
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism