creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Phyllis Schlafly
Phyllis Schlafly
22 May 2012
Buy American to Eat Safe

The globalists and the lobbyists are lining up to promote another so-called free-trade agreement that gives … Read More.

15 May 2012
Defeat Law of the Sea Treaty -- Again

The stunning repudiation of Sen. Richard Lugar's, R-Ind., bid for a seventh term has sent shock waves through Washington'… Read More.

8 May 2012
Steve King Stands up to the ‘War Against Women'

The abortion industry racks up profits by dumping expensive procedural complications on hospitals, legitimate … Read More.

Feminists Have a Tantrum

Share Comment

The feminists are having another tantrum. The New York chapter of the National Organization for Women and the New York Civil Liberties Union are squealing about a 64-page decision in a workplace, class-action suit brought by their friends in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The feminists are so accustomed to having their gender doctrines prevail in the courts, in the bureaucracy, in the media and in academia that they can't deal with being told the truth, i.e., that their notions don't make sense and are unfair to others, especially employers, husbands and fathers.

Judge Loretta A. Preska of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan tossed out this case in which some female employees accused financial and media services giant Bloomberg LP of workplace discrimination because their bosses failed to pretend that pregnant employees and those who took time off for maternity or other purposes were really doing the same work as those who worked faithfully fulltime on the job. This is another example of the fact that the feminist goal was never equal pay for equal work, but always was more pay for less work.

Referring to the way the women's case was based on a few anecdotes and not statistics, the judge wrote, "'J'accuse!' is not enough in court. Evidence is required."

Mirabile dictu! The judge really shocked feminists, since they usually win when they assert fault against the so-called patriarchy without any evidence or fear of prosecution for perjury.

The trouble with many younger women is that feminism falsely taught them to plan their life career in the workplace without any space or time for marriage, a husband or children. They have a total lack of understanding of how demanding a new baby is, and how they really want to spend their time after a baby arrives.

When Mother Nature asserts herself and babies appear, the women who have been misled by feminist ideology expect their employers and, indeed, the rest of the world, to accommodate their change of schedule. The feminists expect their employer to assume the costs of the priorities and interruptions that once were easily absorbed in the traditional lifestyle of husband-provider and full-time homemaker.

However, as Judge Preska wrote, "The law does not mandate 'work-life balance.'" It's OK for the employer to value employees who give ultimate dedication to their job, "however unhealthy that may be for family life."

Anybody who went to work for Bloomberg LP should have known that the company "explicitly makes all-out dedication its expectation." Furthermore, Wall Street is a naturally aggressive and hypercompetitive 24/7 culture.

Employee decisions that preference family over job come with a price.

Employers have no duty to accommodate their employees' children or child-care needs other than the unpaid leave required by the Family Medical Leave Act.

Judge Preska quoted Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric, as saying: "There's no such thing as work-life balance. There are work-life choices, and you make them, and they have consequences."

The judge wrote that Welch's view reflects, "the free-market employment system we embrace in the United States," and the law "does not require companies to ignore employees' work-family tradeoffs — and they are tradeoffs — when deciding about employee pay and promotions."

How to balance work and family is the number-one topic in women's magazines today. Article after article tries to present a plan for balance between baby and job, plus advice to help the mother not feel guilty when the baby gets the short end of the stick.

However, the articles sound hypocritical because for years, the feminist movement has carried on a strenuous campaign to move all homemakers out of the home ("a comfortable concentration camp," in Betty Friedan's words) and into the workplace. Feminists argue that caring for babies is not a worthy occupation for an educated woman. They have even propagated the myth that for expecting mothers to care for their own babies is an example of the oppression of women by the patriarchy.

Some women have combined a successful career with the role of wife and mother. Margaret Thatcher is a prime example. But that kind of success usually requires a cooperative husband, who the feminists usually lack.

Gloria Steinem noted this in a bitter comment this month when she launched a documentary about her life. Sneering at the two women she apparently hates the most, she attempted to demean Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann as women "only a man could love." That's right; men do love the non-feminists.

Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and author of 20 books. Her latest, written with co-author Suzanne Venker, is "The Flipside of Feminism" published in March by WorldNetDaily. She can be contacted by email at phyllis@eagleforum.org. To find out more about Phyllis Schlafly and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM


Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
Wow, Phyllis, it sounds like you are the one having a tantrum, and sniveling about your senseless notions, without any evidence. I know lots of feminists who are homemakers, and plenty of educated women who have made the CHOICE to stay at home and care for their children. Feminism is simply about women having equal rights, that's all. I think it's a sad, almost creepy thing for a woman to believe that she should not have equal rights.
It's typical of reactionaries like you to paint an entire group with one brush. "This is another example of the fact that the feminist goal was never equal pay for equal work, but always was more pay for less work." Oh, please. I don't know anything about this case, but from what you presented it sounds like the judge made the correct decision. That some feminists are upset about it doesn't mean that women get equal pay for equal work in this country. They don't. And it doesn't mean that women have equal rights or equal opportunities, because they don't.
As to Sarah Palin, she is someone only an idiot would love, male or female. She's full of ignorance and hate.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Zucchini
Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:23 PM
Looking btl also shows us people (or veggies) full of ignorance and hate. Not very PC calling people idiots for simply liking another person is it? What would Obama say?? For shame.

If the debate over maternity leave is ever going to even remotely qualify for "equal rights" then men should have the leave as well, regardless of whether their married/in a relationship with the mother right? They did, after all, contribute 1/2 of the babies genetic profile and will be expected to support the child. And if a woman who chooses not to have a child and leave her job for an extended period of time comes up for a promotion, than the guy shouldn't have his absence held against him if he's competing with her for the position right?

Equal rights should mean just that. Everyone is equal. Kind of impossible when every group/person is screaming about how special they are and should get considered for this and that. That being said, umm...y reading the article and not reacting to the person/ideal behind the article and you'll get more out of it, like how you actually agree without realizing it.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Jess
Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:40 PM
-----The long engineered EUGENICS OP ---otherwise known as
'sexual liberation' ---really is finishing us off.

-----Special 'thanks' to the ULTRA RICH, TAX FREE 'charitable'
foundations.

"Remember, ALLLL behavior in society is engineered, authorized
and prmoted from the TOP -----DOWN. Always. Always. Always."
-ALAN WATT
Comment: #3
Posted by: free bee
Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:52 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Phyllis Schlafly
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

19 May 2009 ACORN Should Not Receive Taxpayers' Money

8 Sep 2009 Training Kids to Be Obama's Servants

14 Oct 2008 McCain's Prospects Depend on Telling Truth About Obama