Being that I identify as a libertarian more than anything else (it's still not perfect, but it's closest to my philosophy), I do still see a lot of sexism within fiscal conservancy.
The argument is that companies should not ever be obligated to hire anyone they don't want to hire, which I largely agree with and is already done. If you have certain habits, a certain credit score, can't lift a certain weight, can't sit for a certain amount of time, etc., etc., a company has every right not to hire you. Of course, these standards become legal issues when they're matters of genetic material that has been given to a person by nature without their desire or consent (except religion which gets its own special little acceptance).
It's sad to me how women are always the exception when it comes to discrimination. Surely, a business wouldn't dream of openly discriminating against a black, a Jew, a Latino, a Muslim....as long as that person has a penis. Somehow, discriminating against a woman is different and thereby acceptable.
We hear it nonstop from fiscal conservatives, "Well, the chance that she'll get pregnant and quit is very high and we can't afford to have people leaving jobs of such high positions and responsibility to just up and quit like that to go be a mommy."
It would be reasonable to say that you don't want to employ someone that you think isn't reliable and will flippantly leave a high power job. Of course, what's to stop a man from doing so? Well, you have to earn your way to a high power job and by someone earning their way there, hopefully that person has proven themselves worthy of the job. However, as is usual, with great power comes great responsibility, and unfortunately, great stress.
A man could just as easily find himself suffering a cocaine problem, experiencing a midlife crisis, taking to embezzlement, wrapping his car around a telephone pole because he got wasted the other night, taking long lunch breaks and leaving work early go see a hooker, masturbating in the middle of a street somewhere, any number of human vulnerabilities that would cause him to "up and quit" or be asked to resign, leaving a stain both on the company's reputation and his own legal record.Yet, you'd NEVER hear a company refuse to hire men because men are much more vulnerable to these situations.
Even assuming a more innocent problem....companies will claim that they "can't afford" to have a woman in a high power job decide to just take eight weeks off of work so that she can recover from her pregnancy. Again, what guarantees a male employee won't, at some point, need to take eight weeks or more off of work because of a medical problem? A stroke, a heart attack, cancer, a work related accident, a non-work related accident, all of these things could occur to a man. Again, you won't hear a company say, "Well, we can't afford to have a man in this high power, high stress position because he might have a heart attack and end up in the hospital for weeks or even die."
But of course, that's not the point. If it were the point, then people would be forced to face that they're sexist apes that get their "morality" from the cave era. The point is to have an excuse to openly, blatantly discriminate against women and pass it off as a legitimate business risk.
Having a vagina doesn't even guarantee pregnancy will occur. Even assuming it does occur, pregnancy is not a crime that will leave a stain on both the company's reputation and the woman's legal record. Again assuming pregnancy does occur, would you really want to cut off half the population, who may have amazing strengths and talents, just because it's possible that the person MIGHT have to take six or eight weeks off at some point? The potential for pregnancy doesn't guarantee a woman will quit her job or become a less reliable employee.
What guarantees that a man is, by nature, a secure, trustworthy employee that won't do something random to damage himself and the company? Not a damn thing!
Image stolen from quickmeme.com, who likely stole it from someone else.Pin It