RB

All I am saying is women need to adjust with changes and set standards for themselves-(oh and if they take a benchmark from the men-well that’s a start, look at the statistics and find that men have much going for themselves), be independent and so you give women tools: information and their rights, then let them make informed decisions based on ALL the choices available. If that’s one of the objectives of aa and the feminist groups, I support it. So women are faced with the dilemma of career and motherhood, they are the ultimate ones to make the choices. History has shown that those 40% failed marriages, the women are the ones to suffer in the marketplace. This is because they have no contingencies in place and depend economically on the male. reality check is harsh when the relationship failed between the couples and the women sadly are the ones who lack up to date skills for the workplace, and usually take up several menial jobs to look after the self and children, what a tough going. It is a problem and the government knows this, and has set up programs to help mothers returning to work even if they have been away for 5 years. There are subtleties about economic power in relationships, if there were no contributions from the women obviously the disposition of being submissive, docile and nurturing falls naturally into roles and this wrongly defines women. In my opinion women should plan as in a career, and take responsibilities for the self, and dictate their own future, whether they choose to have career mostly now or then, but to choose wisely.

what’s this convergence of some kind i have to apologise as i am unable to address all the posts right away in the late 70’s voluntary affirmative action was set up by the canadian government, and note there were no significant changes were brought about, hence the legislature for employment equity and even so systemic discrimination exist today, it is far too deeply rooted and traditional and the mere fact that you are a women means you face this barrier, plug in some other stats that HRDC tracks such as: - age, -youths as defined under 29, -visible minority, and I am seeing this more often: -your are over-qualified or over-educated as a new canadian seeking a first work opportunity you can’t look one person and the few people in the 100 best run companies by the chatelaine magazine of women entrepreneurs to base the argument, this is a very minute picture of women in the workplace. Government of Canada buys into to any kind of program that would promote and help the identified groups because they are consistently face conditions of disadvantage in the labor market and they are serious were they track the stats of: -Women, -Aboriginals, -Visible and Minorities when use in combination descrimation is at its worst “According to a 1995 study commissioned by the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 97% of the senior managers of the Fortune 1000 Industrial and Fortune 500 are white, and 95-97% are male. This is occuring while 57% of the workforce is either Ethnic minorities, woman, or both. The study also found that African, Hispanic (Latino), and Asian Americans do not earn the same pay for comparable positions, African Americans earning an astounding 21% less than their white counterparts in the same job” here is some other stats to check http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/jobpat/2000/national.html no woman should financially depend on another person (such as the male) for comfort, her motto should be independence, it is preposterous to wildly suggest when a women should choose to have a child. All I am saying is that mostly the independent women nowadays builds the career in her twenties and really gets established, its the best choice really, instead of starting out late in the marketplace such as in her thirties as history has shown, and has not build enough resources to retire (and she might be on her own based on those divorce rates). women need to be educated and liberal in their thinking and its why groups like the AA exist to enforce and promote awareness

the reality is that there are groups consistently underprivileged when it comes to equity, so be serious now, some people can make choices in life but there are no fixes for subtle institutionalized barriers, AA promote equity in terms of employment of women, members of visible/racial minorities, aboriginal people and persons with disabilities, and at least some problem areas are address, and adjustments made based on some policy. women are rightly looking out for themselves financially, establishing a career first and think children after. most career minded women would have a first child in their thirties, and .... i would go further to make a selection of a sex type, which excludes men. women are not advancing fast enough to the top for the reason that the only appeal the women have is to men – so being brazen enough would often pose the question to men as to why women in comparable jobs as men are not paid equally and it unbelievable amounts to 3-5 days a month difference – the glass ceiling still exist and as it turns out the ones who actually struggles to the top are the world's biggest "*****es" so no appeal to them either – its all unfair

i think a lot of people would like to see the end of affirmative action, it is absurd in modern times but if you take the wording away as it pertain to affirmative action you leave groups vulnerable, groups such as women, trend has shown in past number of years they have increased in numbers as it relates to joining the job market, minorities, whose reality exist, they do not have equal access to employment, wealth and education in jobs men are far happier 23% more so that women in comparable jobs because they see themselves being promoted and they usually settle at the very top (and a you can dissect this further as to which male group is at the top) well putting it into perspective the white male are more incline to anti-AA and the well informed women would vote 2:1 in favor of AA rewording affirmative action to suit today's environment might be the way to go as for the LSAT scores, i am not sure how long it will take to readjust certain groups, but somehow they are still remain economically underprivileged and the scores reflect this, and yes i intended to infer that education and wealth have a relation - i look at it as fair representation to accept a % of other groups who would not otherwise make it into law school simply because of the very high competitive scores i am not aware if the canadian universities also have this allowance for the LSAT scores but i say with experience they are quite competitive also

Well like I said previously the US do not succumb to international laws for the fear it takes precedence over their own domestic interest. employment with regards to women is the interest for me and yes inequalities exist in the US and Canada not as prevalent as long ago, but still exists. But what I meant was that if the US so believe in women rights, then signing into to some agreement with an international body would make it moral to reinforce, buttress some rules that is universally accepted, in this case iraq, taliban who is in serious violation of the treaty. I couldn’t be more pleased that the US led invasion will help liberate the women of the arab region and give them freedom of choices. All I am saying is that there is a perception that the US has identify others as behaving inappropriately based on whose standards – the US, or the UN whose rules that the US did not ratify. So this justifies the US taking mis or appropriate actions, and then who monitors the US?. Really the crux of the matter says that the US really don’t give a damm about UN or anyone for that matter, and really looks after its own interest. Btw “Article 12” Quote "1993, 68 Senators-[they represent the people voices no] — more than the 2/3 majority necessary to ratify a treaty — signed a letter in favor of CEDAW ratification – for the Center for Reproductive Rights believes it would be preferable to ratify CEDAW without such restrictions in order to ensure subsequent implementation of CEDAW’s principles of non-discrimination in the U.S"unquote...still did not ratify. So what really has the US agreed and signed with UN, - the international labor law with regards to child work exploitation and what else? One has to admit that the US is a major player and influences worldwide activities, with its lack of support to the UN you really have to beg the initial question on the post about UN.

Hi Ronda you really do like an argument, yes, i hope you are in politics ...well lets just say that the US really did not ratify CEDAW for the same reason they don’t believe in ICC – basically the US do not answer to international bodies. Carter did sign into CEDAW but was rejected by the senate. I see this as such hypocrisy-double standard really, wanting to be leaders influencing women’s suffrage worldwide (oh I agree the us do much for women,...hmmm replace clinton with rosalind franklin-double helix) but they are just as non-committal, cannot buy-into international agreements, how more immoral and non-binding can one get. "CEDAW is about gender inequality and consists of 30 articles of what constitutes discrimination against women and action to end it..well it includes discrimination in areas such as education, employment, health care, marriage and family relations, politics, finance, and law"...should be adopted by those who are genuine about women's issues

Hi Hugo regarding women as long as they are heard, i don't mind who represents them. the world is borne out of a strong patriarchal culture, prejudice and discrimination are a reality and issues for women of the world to deal with. i sometimes think it is so ironic that the US is wanting to "emancipate" the depressed women of those arab regions. The UN adopted CEDAW and many countries ratified the treaty to eliminate discrimination against women. But nothing supersedes the US who took a stance, we will free the afghan and iraqi women and children, bring western values, change cultures, some democracy to the land but couldn’t surrender to ratifying - a country who is borne on freedom - but like americans they only surrender to their own domestic matters and laws, compliance to the UN - none, so rendering the UN useless