Discrimmination

[Renegade]

I'm going to stop picking on RB because it seems like we have enough posters addressing her position. So, I will rant for a bit....

It seems obvious to me that men and women are different. They are different not just genetically but also in their wants, needs and desires. Societal norms and infuence will sometimes accentuate those differences. There is strong evidence that even in the absence of environmental influence, in general, men and women will make different choices under similar circumstances.

My point in this is that it is very misleading to use % participation rates in professions, etc, as evidence that one gender is being discrimminated against. As an example some women may find law too confrontational a profession for their liking, wheras men may find the confrontation exciting. Or a woman might choose to leave the profession to nurture children. In each case, who are we to say that choice is wrong and we should introduce practices and programs to reverse that trend?

I agree with Melanie that there are soceital pressures which exert on women to take certain roles. More specificly attitudes do seem to exist that try to shame women if they return to work after having children. I have found that these attitudes exist in individuals rather in corporate culture. A corporation benefits from having an already trained employee return to the workforce so they are more likely to encourage this behaviour. I'm not sure what it takes to change individual attitudes, but encouragingly, with time attitudes seem to become more enlightned.

I readily acknowledge that much of what I have said above is generalizations. Some women will make choices and have priorities which are different than most women. The same is true for men. I have always advocated that the individual's choices must be respected. Our methods of measuring discrimmination seem to be oblivious to the fact that there are real differences between men and women.

[mirror]

If you don't call this discrimination what do you call it?

L.A. to London Flight Diverted to Boston

[Renegade]

mirror, you really are jumping to a conclusion in assuming it is discrimination, aren't you? The story doesn't describe in detail their suspicious behaviour was so it is impossible based on the informaition presented to determine it was discrimmination. I'll reserver judgment until I see more details on the story.

Maybe it was discrimmination maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was just parnoia on the part of the passengers and the crew who are so hyped up over the London bombings that they make irrational assessments.

If you point is that discrimmination exist, yes I agree it exists and the victimized groups are constantly changing. It reinforces my point that we should strive to eliminate discrimmination against ANY group.

[mirror]

Of course it was descrimination based on the colour of their brown skin.

Yes, terrorism is a very serious issue, but we have to stop deluding ourselves with denial when faced with facts. Otherwise we are going to have more incidents like that unfortunate situation in London last week where that Brazilian fellow got killed by the police.

[Renegade]

I will agree with you that the curb of civil rights has gone way too far. Much of it borne from the paranioa and ignorance which seems to have everyone in their grip.

[RB]

How else can you account for my stats (which come directly from the Courts themselves) that the Supreme Court has 4 women and 5 men and the Alberta Court of Appeal 8 women and 6 men...I noticed you conveniently ignored these facts in your further rant.

FTA Lawyer

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only about 26 percent of women are elected federal judges of 1029, this is the 2002 stats

This means that of those 54% female lawyers who have the qualifications to be judge I can draw some conclusion and say that women do not reflect a demographics of judges and are still underrepresented in making partners or higher positions from your stats.

OK - this is usually the point I want to make - women are given a chance to enter into a profession but hardly allowed to succeed to be wealthy. I mean if women can secure top jobs as the majority of men do, they can become very independent and obviously they would not depend on men

Here is another consideration that tells a story, in 1990-Ontario, 1,372 women sought appointments to the bench, can you explain to me why the number of women applying of recent has dropped to 30 applications. Can I say there is some trend happening that need investigation, plus why is this trend coinciding with the number of women lawyers who are leaving Bay Street after 3 years.

You think they are feeling they are not part of the law company’s environment and or maybe they are concluding like me that a law firm is a good place to learn where rules are made and where power rests.

[RB]

Renegade,Jul 26 2005, 10:47 AM]

I'm going to stop picking on RB because it seems like we have enough posters addressing his position. So, I will rant for a bit....

Not everyone who post on this board are males.

I am a girl.

[Renegade]

Renegade,Jul 26 2005, 10:47 AM]

I'm going to stop picking on RB because it seems like we have enough posters addressing his position. So, I will rant for a bit....

Not everyone who post on this board are males.

I am a girl.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My mistake and apologies. I fixed my post.

[RB]

.....

I readily acknowledge that much of what I have said above is generalizations. Some women will make choices and have priorities which are different than most women. The same is true for men. I have always advocated that the individual's choices must be respected. Our methods of measuring discrimmination seem to be oblivious to the fact that there are real differences between men and women.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't disagree with your statements at all. But here some observations:

That whatever choices men are women make, men are winners.

By a huge margin what men do is less determined by women.

Whatever men do affects women much more than vice-versa.

So men are much less interested in what women do as it really does not impact their choices or behavior.

Other the other hand women tend to observe everything men do because it will impact their lives.

Men have unearn advantages.

[Renegade]

That whatever choices men are women make, men are winners.

Let me understand what you mean by this. If a man chooses to stay in a profession and work vs a woman who decides to leave the workforce and nurture children, how does that make the man a winner? Each has chosen what they value more. How do you measure a winner in this context?

By a huge margin what men do is less determined by women.

Whatever men do affects women much more than vice-versa.

So men are much less interested in what women do as it really does not impact their choices or behavior.

Other the other hand women tend to observe everything men do because it will impact their lives.

Men have unearn advantages.

Do you have some examples on what you mean?

[FTA Lawyer]

Only about 26 percent of women are elected federal judges of 1029, this is the 2002 stats

This means that of those 54% female lawyers who have the qualifications to be judge I can draw some conclusion and say that women do not reflect a demographics of judges and are still underrepresented in making partners or higher positions from your stats.

OK - this is usually the point I want to make - women are given a chance to enter into a profession but hardly allowed to succeed to be wealthy.  I mean if women can secure top jobs as the majority of men do, they can become very independent and obviously they would not depend on men

Here is another consideration that tells a story, in 1990-Ontario, 1,372 women sought appointments to the bench, can you explain to me why the number of women applying of recent has dropped to 30 applications.  Can I say there is some trend happening that need investigation, plus why is this trend coinciding with the number of women lawyers who are leaving Bay Street after 3 years. 

You think they are feeling they are not part of the law company’s environment and or maybe they are concluding like me that a law firm is a good place to learn where rules are made and where power rests.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, we have to be careful with percentages and conclusions about what numbers tell us. 54% women graduating law school does not mean that 54% actually become lawyers...they may go into government, UN posts etc. with their degree. Further, you have to be a lawyer for 10 years to be appointed to the bench, so, if more women than men leave the profession before that point, the fact that only 26% of Federal judges in 2002 were women may have little at all to do with discrimination.

Perhaps Alberta is far more enlightened than Ontario if your stats regarding appointment applications are accurate...one thing I'll never profess to understand is what makes Ontarians tick...lol!

Don't get me wrong, I understand the argument you are making, what I am saying is that my experience as a lawyer in Calgary tells me the opposite...last I heard a QB Judge (Federally appointed) in Alberta makes $280,000.00 a year, and of the 78 listed for 2005, 25 are female. That's 32% already and considering that many of the male judges have been sitting for 15 years or more, that number is undoubtedly going up. As I've said, its 57% on the Court of Appeal right now.

My conclusion is that women are doing pretty damn good as lawyers in Alberta these days, and if I haven't made it clear from my previous posts I applaud the situation...makes me a proud member of the Law Society of Alberta.

FTA Lawyer

[Melanie_]

Let me understand what you mean by this. If a man chooses to stay in a profession and work vs a woman who decides to leave the workforce and nurture children, how does that make the man a winner? Each has chosen what they value more. How do you measure a winner in this context?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Last time I checked, there was no salary, pension plan, workers compensation benefits, EI, CPP, business trips, or financial bonuses to nurturing children. Several posters on this forum believe in a health care system that would favour those who can afford to pay for quicker service, and the dismantling of other social programs so that people pay or do without. Staying at home would definitely put women at a disadvantage in these scenarios, and they would likely feel pressure to go back to work. Women who choose to stay home are financially dependant on someone else, but if they choose to continue to work, they spend a huge proportion of their income on child care, and still are seen by many as abdicating their parental responsibilities.

(Before we start another debate on the topic, I'm not advocating free child care; as I've said before, parents should be expected to pay a reasonable amount for their care. But the full cost of care would make it out of reach for almost any family, especially if they have more than one child; a public system with a sliding scale for fees is my preference.)

[Renegade]

Last time I checked, there was no salary, pension plan, workers compensation benefits, EI, CPP, business trips, or financial bonuses to nurturing children. Several posters on this forum believe in a health care system that would favour those who can afford to pay for quicker service, and the dismantling of other social programs so that people pay or do without. Staying at home would definitely put women at a disadvantage in these scenarios, and they would likely feel pressure to go back to work. Women who choose to stay home are financially dependant on someone else, but if they choose to continue to work, they spend a huge proportion of their income on child care, and still are seen by many as abdicating their parental responsibilities.

(Before we start another debate on the topic, I'm not advocating free child care; as I've said before, parents should be expected to pay a reasonable amount for their care. But the full cost of care would make it out of reach for almost any family, especially if they have more than one child; a public system with a sliding scale for fees is my preference.)

So Melanie, how does that make the woman the loser? Knowing full well that there is no salary, pension, workers comp, EI, CPP, etc, the woman who stayed home still chose to stay home, because that option gave her non-monatary benefits which to her outweighed the monatary benefits the workpalace offered.

If a man chose to stay home his options would be no different.

[RB]

That whatever choices men are women make, men are winners.

Let me understand what you mean by this. If a man chooses to stay in a profession and work vs. a woman who decides to leave the workforce and nurture children, how does that make the man a winner? Each has chosen what they value more. How do you measure a winner in this context?

In the short term, life must be beautiful without worries for the female, all she has to do is look pretty and domesticated.

OK, men are winners for the obvious reason they are current in the labor force and continue with some upward mobility. women who decided to stay are home and away from the labor market and find it difficult to adjust and unable to compete on their return since their skills are outdated and plus their education is not able to match current minimum requirement.

that's not all women depend on the men for support financially during the period of staying at home.

Trouble is at age 39 and upwards you divorce these women 38% of the time.

They then become single parents and they are awarded custody of the children over 60% of the time. So now they are saddled with child care issues, no education, and limited work experience. Not surprising then that 45% of single mothers make between 5-20k. Only 31% would make over 30k this would compare to single males of which 64% of you make 30k and over.

a better picture would read something like this 68% of lone-parent family has income 10k or above the LICO compare to 34% female headed family

Lesley Harman wrote that in Canada 84% of women will spend part of their adult live without spouses - looking after themselves and children and at every stage of their lives women are more likely to be poor trapped in poverty.

I didn't mention women of color, lesbians and aboriginal who are made to feel as if they are the "other" and are discriminated against

As long as labor reproduces itself as power and exist in the hands of patriarchy women will remain powerless.

So as I said before women need to access those opportunities beyond the glass ceiling in order to enrich their own lives. It is not enough to say women are having education, and are working and be grateful for those privileges.

What I can never understood why women decided to use the term "feminism" and give it such a hype as in breaking out of impoverishment. Feminine is such a hopeless, devalued and oppressed word.

[Renegade]

OK, men are winners for the obvious reason they are current in the labor force and continue with some upward mobility. women who decided to stay are home and away from the labor market and find it difficult to adjust and unable to compete on their return since their skills are outdated and plus their education is not able to match current minimum requirement.

Who is forcing them to stay home? Certainly they are making the choice of their own free will. When they make the choice they surely understand the hurdles they overcome to get back into the labour force. If a man decides to stay hom and away from the labour market, he faces the same obstacles. If I decide to trek around the world for 2 years and my skills degrade, would you not expect me to bear the consequences of that decision?

that's not all women depend on the men for support financially during the period of staying at home.

So what? That is by private agreement between the couple. The couple is free to decide that it is the man who stays home, or that neither stays home. In any case, I would assume that there would have been appreciation on the part of the partner staying home for the one who is subsidizing the cost of that decision, not resentment at having been suported.

Trouble is at age 39 and upwards you divorce these women 38% of the time.

You have some evidence that it is men who initiate divorce more than women? In the divorced couples I know, virtually always, the initiator has been the women.

They then become single parents and they are awarded custody of the children over 60% of the time. So now they are saddled with child care issues, no education, and limited work experience. Not surprising then that 45% of single mothers make between 5-20k. Only 31% would make over 30k this would compare to single males of which 64% of you make 30k and over.

Courts have an extreme bias toward awarding custody toward women. A woman either has to agree to joint physical custody or not want it at all before it is awarded to the man. The non-custodial party, is forced to make considerable child support payments. So, it's hardly like the single divorced mothers are going at it alone. I'm not sure where you get your stats, but let me ask this are the "single males" you quote are divorced single fathers, or the single male population in general? Further have you looked at their income after payments like spousal support and child support? Post the source of your figures, because without backup they can be completely misrepresentative.

a better picture would read something like this 68% of lone-parent family has income 10k or above the LICO compare to 34% female headed family

Lesley Harman wrote that in Canada 84% of women will spend part of their adult live without spouses - looking after themselves and children and at every stage of their lives women are more likely to be poor trapped in poverty.

The only significant barrier which you have pointed to between men and wormen, is that overwhelming that women have the responsibility to rear the children. But, did they not undertake this responsbility of their own free will? No one forced them become parents, and endure the sacrifices being a parent entails. If your point is that in a couple the women shoulders more of the burdern of being a parent, then the man. In general I agree with you, but that is a private arrangement that needs to be addressed between the couple. I fail to see why society in general should be forced to give women privileges, to compensate for what is essentially a private dispute between the couple.

I didn't mention women of color, lesbians and aboriginal who are made to feel as if they are the "other" and are discriminated against

As long as labor reproduces itself as power and exist in the hands of patriarchy women will remain powerless.

This is just a bit of a rant. I have consistently said that if women (or men) of colour, lesbians, aboriginals, and others who are discrimminated against, it should be addressed by eliminating that descrimination. It its just as bad to try and redress it by implementing reverse discrimmination. I have seen many workplaces in Canada and I have found discrimmination to be rare.

[Guest eureka]

Lesley Harman wrote that in Canada 84% of women will spend part of their adult live without spouses - looking after themselves and children and at every stage of their lives women are more likely to be poor trapped in poverty.

What a foolish citation! This includes, quite obviously, spinsters and widows and is no support for your "grievances."

[RB]

Let me understand what you mean by this. If a man chooses to stay in a profession and work vs a woman who decides to leave the workforce and nurture children, how does that make the man a winner? Each has chosen what they value more. How do you measure a winner in this context?

This senario was flawed to begin with - it put the genders into their traditional roles. It does not support plans for symmetrical relation where both men and women work and share childcare

Nowadays every person would agree that attitutes towards men and women roles in work and house duties should be shared.

However the orientation towards these roles differ. What I mean men place less value in assuming house duties - I must have said this before hence the context in which you build your senario. Most women want a balanced life of child and work. But if males were questioned and they answered truthfully, they usually want their mates to stay at home. They then retreat to the traditional role of father as a provider and view child care as female issues.

For women the burden of child, or house duties and work conflicts. Her commitment to both is that of superwoman. Lets don't forget the other discrimination part - work also do not support child care. Well there are some changes, but also noted, there is parental leave available for fathers. However the percentage of men taking advantage of this falls below 6%.

I can basically claim then that the roles and definitions for both men and women are still ascribe for work and family

What I see in your senario is that child care and work are trade offs for women and exist interdependent. Whilst, work and family are independent issues for men

I mean what is fair here

Regarding you other point of males taking time out to lapse and then returning to work - they will do much better than the females for the mere fact of this perceived notion of provider role.

[FTA Lawyer]

As long as labor reproduces itself as power and exist in the hands of patriarchy women will remain powerless.

So as I said before women need to access those opportunities beyond the glass ceiling in order to enrich their own lives.  It is not enough to say women are having education, and are working and be grateful for those privileges.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

RB,

Seriously, where is the "glass ceiling" and lack of power for Chief Justice Beverly McLaughlin? You've never really answered this. Arguably a Supreme Court Judge is the most powerful occupation in our entire country...even more so than being Prime Minister because of the immense supervisory role created by the Charter. AND SHE'S THE BOSS OF THE REST OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES!

This is a women born in Pincher Creek, Alberta who moved to B.C. to practice law and quickly (and meritoriously) worked her way up to the highest position that can be held in the Canadian justice system.

Oh woe is Beverly...if only it weren't for that damn glass ceiling holding her back. Vile patriarchal society! I'm sure she wishes every day that her parents would have just dressed her as a boy so that her life wouldn't have turned out to be such a futile struggle to achieve.

Since I've harped on about the legal profession mostly up 'till now, take a look at the following link:

http://www.profitguide.com/w100/2004/w100.asp

Here you'll find the list of the top 100 Women Entrepreneurs for 2004...another scathing indictment of how impossible it is for women to be successful in the "men-only" world of business. At #1, Rebecca MacDonald has 256 full time employees beneath her and her company did a mere 733 million dollars in revenue in 2003. Oh the humanity! If only she could be successful like all men are!

The top 38 on the list all run companies (that they created and built) that did over 10 million in revenue in 2003. How much lack of success can any one woman take?

Playing the victim role in as thick a way as you are doing is maybe a little like ice fishing in May...you've got nothing left to stand on.

[Melanie_]

So Melanie, how does that make the woman the loser? Knowing full well that there is no salary, pension, workers comp, EI, CPP, etc, the woman who stayed home still chose to stay home, because that option gave her non-monatary benefits which to her outweighed the monatary benefits the workpalace offered.

If a man chose to stay home his options would be no different.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know its a typo, but I love the imagery of the "workpalace"!

There absolutely are non monetary benefits to staying at home, and sometimes we are fortunate enough to be able to juggle both (when my two younger kids were small, I restructured so I only taught night classes, and picked up contracts that I could do from home on my own schedule. It wasn't great for my career path, but I was able to spend the time I wanted with my children, which was more important to me). I agree that it is a choice that people make with their eyes wide open (hopefully), but I think your assessment of the contract between the partners is idealistic. In reality, the lines of power in a relationship are often connected to who brings home the money.

[Renegade]

This senario was flawed to begin with - it put the genders into their traditional roles. It does not support plans for symmetrical relation where both men and women work and share childcare

You have stated that the choices are unequal for men and women and that men usually end up the winner. I have pointed to the scenario which illustrates the largest divergence in choice between men and women and illustrated why it is not a case of a man being a winner. If you have a alternative scenario to discuss, point it out.

Sure you can have a symmetrical relation between men and women where each both work and share childcare. How does that make the man the winner and the woman the loser?

Nowadays every person would agree that attitutes towards men and women roles in work and house duties should be shared.

I agree that attitudes have changed and for both men and women role definitions in a household are more flexible than they used to be. Roles and responsibiliteis should partitioned to the mutal agreement of the couple. That doesn't necessarily mean an equal division of labour. As I have previously said, these are individual arrangments to be worked out and there is no "one formula fits all".

However the orientation towards these roles differ. What I mean men place less value in assuming house duties - I must have said this before hence the context in which you build your senario. Most women want a balanced life of child and work. But if males were questioned and they answered truthfully, they usually want their mates to stay at home. They then retreat to the traditional role of father as a provider and view child care as female issues.

Ok I'll agree that most men prefer not to assume the household duties. I also know that many women, given the choice between working and household duties would choose to stay home and perform the household and childcare duties. And so what if men answered that their preference is that their spouse stayed home? Its about valid a preference as saying most women prefer the man to be the primary financial provider. My point is that if they do assume traditional roles of men as father and provider and women as homemaker, this is a choice which has been mutually agreed to by BOTH parties. The woman has equal say in the relationship and if she assumes duties it is by her preference or acquiesce.

For women the burden of child, or house duties and work conflicts. Her commitment to both is that of superwoman.

If the burden of child care or house duties unwillingly falls on her, and that conflicts with committments to work, isn't that in issue she should take up with her spouse? Who better than the couple itself is free to decide the divisions of labour and evaluate the consequences that ensue? Or is your argument that the a woman has these responsibilites shoved on her, and she has no say in the relationship to change it?

Lets don't forget the other discrimination part - work also do not support child care. Well there are some changes, but also noted, there is parental leave available for fathers. However the percentage of men taking advantage of this falls below 6%.

Let's not forget that its the parents who make the CHOICE to have children. Are they not the ones to assume the consequences of that choice, including the financial burden, the increased labour, arranging for childcare etc? So what if a low percentage of men take advantage? What exactly does that show? Obviously men don't have the choice to give birth to a child, but all other choices are available to both men and women, and they choose it based upon the differences between men and women as I described earlier, and their own individual circumstances.

I can basically claim then that the roles and definitions for both men and women are still ascribe for work and family

What I see in your senario is that child care and work are trade offs for women and exist interdependent. Whilst, work and family are independent issues for men

A marriage contract does not dictate that childcare and household duties are the exclusive domain of women, and that the provider role is the exclusive domain of men. If you have some evidence that roles are not the product of the free choice within the couple, then present it. The division of responsibilites is the domain of the couple and so is the dependance or independance to employment.

Regarding you other point of males taking time out to lapse and then returning to work - they will do much better than the females for the mere fact of this perceived notion of provider role.

Your kidding right? The way I interpret what you are saying is that men can easily return to work because it is considered "natural" for them to do so, and the same is not true of women. So a man will be welcomed back to work and a woman shunned? If that's not what you mean, then please elaborate.

I know of no employer who provides any greater obstacles to women than men returning to the workplace. I'd like to see what evidence you have of this because in our world as it is today, I see no indication of this.

[Renegade]

I know its a typo, but I love the imagery of the "workpalace"!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Till you pointed it out I didn't even notice. Must be my subconscious taking over. I'm going to add it as a new word to my lexicon.

In reality, the lines of power in a relationship are often connected to who brings home the money.

The leading cause of dissolution of relationships is due to disagreement over financial issues. Yes, in some (sometimes unhealthy) relationships, earning capacity is used as leverage to obtain power. Equaly in some relationships, withholding sex is also used as leverage to obtain power. Do you not think that it is the responsibility of the man and woman as part of deciding to have a child, need to work out a mutually acceptable division of responsibilites?

[mirror]

Oh those poor folks in Oz, what discrimination the poor smokers must feel. Even on Bondi beach. Maybe all that smoke was impacting on the view. There is some amazin' scenery at that beach:

Australian smokers will be extinct by 2030, researchers say

And with smoking now banned on Bondi Beach, consuming tobacco looks destined to become a habit confined to private places

[RB]

Your kidding right? The way I interpret what you are saying is that men can easily return to work because it is considered "natural" for them to do so, and the same is not true of women. So a man will be welcomed back to work and a woman shunned? If that's not what you mean, then please elaborate.

Discrimination is a serious issue.

The world of work revolve around a male social contruct still hence the emphasis on uneven balance between the sexes. Men are coming to terms with the demands of women, but still there is much lip service. Its an androcentric world from my view. In order to make it to top jobs it required women to become virtually men.

If there was a world seen though the female lens, women would dominate the heights of power and facilitating what we now call speacial needs for women would not be a stuggle and an agenda.

Seriously, where is the "glass ceiling" and lack of power for Chief Justice Beverly McLaughlin

4 women as voices on the nation's highest callings is history. McLachlin has kept a low profile on gender issues. I guess the line is they were hired based on qualification over men to do a good job with no feminist agenda. I would hope though that their voices in numbers are not stifled. But indeed women still have a very long way to make it to the top. I mean you can probably list all the powerful women in the world in one page here that make over 125k. You'd take serveral days to list all the men.

Women in politics represent less than 30% on all levels - Conservatives are the worst to discriminate women

the parents who make the CHOICE to have children

you keep mentioning the choice of children - as if this CHOICE is the one way, I mean if thats the way life were - we'd never have to worry about the darn abortion debates.

The real smart women know they can need to have a career first, be financially stable, then children, when they can support the child independant of these men.

So what if a low percentage of men take advantage?

The low percentage participating in parental leave would indicate lack of interest in child care or domestic duties. And indeed show the relation between work and family that I previously mention. This is also an opportunity to continue to keep women depressed and away from the workforce and prevent them from accummulating expereince and hours.

[Renegade]

The world of work revolve around a male social contruct still hence the emphasis on uneven balance between the sexes. Men are coming to terms with the demands of women, but still there is much lip service. Its an androcentric world from my view. In order to make it to top jobs it required women to become virtually men.

If there was a world seen though the female lens, women would dominate the heights of power and facilitating what we now call speacial needs for women would not be a stuggle and an agenda.

RB, you are restating your opinion here, but you have yet to provide clear evidence of discrimmination or examples of what kind of discrimmination you mean.

you keep mentioning the choice of children - as if this CHOICE is the one way, I mean if thats the way life were - we'd never have to worry about the darn abortion debates.

The real smart women know they can need to have a career first, be financially stable, then children, when they can support the child independant of these men.

Are you saying that the tradeoffs that a woman makes is not a choice of her own free will? Is someone making her bear children? You have stated that "smart" women will put their career first. That is only true if you equate "smart" to putting financial considerations first. For many people of both genders, that is not necessarily the prime consideration.

The low percentage participating in parental leave would indicate lack of interest in child care or domestic duties. And indeed show the relation between work and family that I previously mention. This is also an opportunity to continue to keep women depressed and away from the workforce and prevent them from accummulating expereince and hours.

So you are arguing that there is some kind of consipircy by men "to keep women depressed and away from the workforce"? If that is your argument, it is nonsense. As I have said before there are differences in men and women that lead them to have different preferences and priorities, and the fact that they do is no evidence of discrimmination.

[Renegade]

Interesting one of the scenarios we discussed in this thread has become an issue and is now before the courts: Equality battle of another kind

It will be interesting to see the outcome