From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore on women....
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:26:25 GMT

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:

>>  [deleted text of Clinton/Gore women's issues]

    JSL:
    Does the hiring of more women mean that qualified men 
    will be bypassed?  

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

I was asking in a not so direct way if the hiring of more 
women was an affirmative action exercise.  Let me rephrase 
my rhetorical question: "Will desire to hire more women 
bypass more qualified men?"

    >>  [deleted text concerning Family Leave Act]

    JSL:
    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.

    RL:
    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.]

Why bother with the grammar flames if you know what I was 
trying to say in the first place?  This kind of tactic to 
imply your intellectual superiority is wasting time and 
space.  I will not respond to such things in the future 
unless the mistake is so bad that the original meaning is 
misinterpreted.

    RL:
    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.

Sorry about excluding men from that statement.  However, I 
think that this legislation is aimed at women who don't 
really need to work.  If the whole point is to help people 
who can't afford daycare then why are small businesses 
exempted?  What makes you so sure that the top 10% wage 
earner can afford daycare (but they probably can)?  It just 
goes to the point that congress thinks it knows what is best 
for an individual business.

    RL:
    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.

If you know that you shouldn't psychoanalyze from posts why
do it?  I have no problem with women at all.  I have a 
problem with government passing legislation that is not in 
the best interest if the country, but rather a political 
ploy designed to garner votes for themselves and embarrass 
the current administration.

    >>*  [deleted text about childcare centers]

    JSL:
    Just what we need, more gov. agencies and bureaucracy.
    RL:
    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.

Please give us ten agencies that you would cut and how much 
money would be saved.  Then give us a cost analysis of 
government  run daycare.

    >>*  [deleted text about childcare centers]
    JSL:
    Just what we need, more gov regulations.
    RL:
    Actually, even disallowing for the media-hype over 
    child-care centers, there do seem to be a high number of 
    poorly run places.

Saying that there seems to be a high number of poorly run 
places doesn't make it so.  Proof by speculation doesn't 
hold much water.

    >>   [deleted text concerning child support dodgers]

    JSL:
    Can you say "Big Brother?"
    RL:
    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.

Exactly.  Why do you think men are reluctant to provide 
child care?  When men are equally able to gain custody of 
children then we can talk about deadbeat parents.  
Who is going to pay for the additional bureaucracy to run 
these "Big Brother" operations?  Since when is it the gov-
ernments business to whom a private institution loans money 
too?

    >>  [deleted text concerning Healthcare]
    >
    JSL:
    Why is this classified as a "women's issue?"
    RL:
    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 femi-
    nists aren't involved in the registration/draft issue?


Then why is this item under Clinton and Gores' position on
women?  No, I had nothing to say concerning the draft, and
if I did, what has it got to do with this subject?

    >>  [deleted text concerning prenatal care]
    JSL:
    Free prenatal health care is already available.
    RL:
    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.

Proof by speculation, again.  Prenatal care is not difficult
to obtain, nor is it difficult to administer.  Free prenatal
care exists.  It must be utilized to be effective.

    >>  [deleted text concerning violence]
    >
    JSL:
    Laws that punish violence are already on the books, use
    them.
    RL:
    No contention here.  But they're *not* being used now,
    and how do we make the courts/cops start enforcing them?

What makes you think that new laws will be enforced when old
ones weren't.  Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law.
Do you expect them to stop breaking new laws?

    >>   [deleted text concerning civil rights]
    JSL:
    Why doesn't Arkansas have civil rights legislation?
    RL:
    In the debates, I believe Clinton claimed the State
    Congress messed it up.

We are now bordering on politics which, belongs in another
newsgroup.  However,  if Clinton is unable to push through
legislation in 12 years as Governor what makes him able to
do it in 4 years as President?

    >>*  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.
    >
    JSL:
    What employment rights for women have been limited by
    the Courts?
    RL:
    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 in-
    clude 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 hit-
    ting?

I am sorry I deleted the header for that category but it was
about employment issues.  What level am I hitting at?  I
have no idea what you are talking about.

    >>*  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.
    >
    JSL:
    A lawyer's dream come true.  Who proves intent or is the
    employer guilty until proved innocent?
    RL:
    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.

Previously, it was only necessary to show a pattern of
discrimination in such lawsuits (through statistics only ie.
not enough of a minority as related to population, there-
fore, discrimination).  Therefore, being a member of a
minority it was assumed that the employer discriminated
against you solely on your minority status, not your quali-
fications.  Now it is up to the accuser to show specifically
how they were discriminated against.

    >>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?

It goes back to my beliefs about the legislations real
purpose.
The big deal is: "VOTE FOR ME, I WILL GIVE YOU SPECIAL
TREATMENT !!!!".

Jeff.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism