Re:Gender Differences in Executive Compensation and Job Mobi...
by facepalm on Tuesday January 26, 2016 @05:00PM
(#10976477)
By making it illegal, governments simply weaseled out of the issue and put the burden on business owners. If they really would have wanted to solve the issue, they should have compensated business owners for the risks of hiring women instead.
It being illegal is pretty irrelevant for the discussion - in Nazi Germany it was illegal to be a Jew. Laws are being made by fallible people.
Is it really discrimination if arguably the man brings higher value to the company than an equally skilled woman? This is very different from discrimination against minorities, because there is an actual relevant difference between men and women.
It's not fair, but that is what nature has handed us. If societal consensus is to make up for the difference, society should do so via their governments, not shift the burden to random private people. It's not a business owner's fault if you get pregnant, especially since it's probably illegal by now to have sex with an employee.
Acknowledging the 'issue' you described above isn't taking a brave stance against overreaching feminism. It is actually illegal. Not to say that people don't do it all the time. (Yay, at-will employment!)
This conversation is actually a perfect illustration of how one aspect of gender-based discrimination works.
And if we're going to talk about speaking statistically, according to the Disparate Impact clause, if whatever criteria you use for employment happens to statistically discriminate against a protected class, what you're doing is also illegal.
(And while we're here, black people are more likely to get arrested, and Russians are more likely to be alcoholics. I'll be sure to mention that the next time hiring is under debate.)