tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4180841405563390250.post6100474701348987680..comments2010-05-07T15:30:13.504-07:00Comments on Feminist Philosophy @ Rhodes: Sexism, Common Sense, and CapitalismDoctor Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13189506916480012553noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4180841405563390250.post-45069797613408010132010-03-28T19:27:38.944-07:002010-03-28T19:27:38.944-07:00the rest of the country does not have to paternity...the rest of the country does not have to paternity laws claifornia does no. However im merely pointing out areas where it can be a poor decision to hire a woman. If a key position has to be left vacant, it could damage a companyJaredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09404379730435316211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4180841405563390250.post-65704490061142877552010-03-14T12:41:28.321-07:002010-03-14T12:41:28.321-07:00I could be wrong about this, but I think it's ...I could be wrong about this, but I think it's not only France but most if not all the countries in the EU that now make it mandatory to offer paid paternity leave. If it were mandatory in the US to offer men the exact same amount of paternity leave and all the benefits/compensation that go along with it, maybe (in an ideal world) more men would choose to take the leave, so employers would not be able to automatically assume that if a woman wanted a child, she would take off extended time or quit altogether.<br /><br />Also, you mentioned California's protection for pregnant women as employees, but I wonder about the rest of the country. As far as I know there is no federal law that requires employers to hold women's jobs or even pay them for maternity leave. (Please, prove me wrong if you can.) Aside from having to hire someone else, the company really doesn't lose anything if it simply chooses to not provide these benefits to its female employees.Lindsay Chaissonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04170854657108008923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4180841405563390250.post-10013836743214722122010-03-10T14:55:40.380-08:002010-03-10T14:55:40.380-08:00Your post is very thought-provoking. It brings abo...Your post is very thought-provoking. It brings about many issues, but I'll try to focus on one.<br /><br />A CEO, when hiring someone, will not only consider what that person may cost them, but first what benefit they'll bring to their company (skills, contacts, etc).<br /><br />Therefore, between a qualified female and a less qualified man, it'd be smarter, in that case, to hire the female for a job, just by considering their skills. <br /><br />If you think about things that may jeopardize the financial profits of the company, then you have to consider that hiring a straight single man can potentially lead to sexual harassment, or that hiring a racist person may lead to trouble, as well. <br /><br />I am using stereotypical examples on purpose, just to show that, if pregnancy has a (slight) financial impact on a company, other things may as well. <br /><br />It is just assumed that a woman (especially if she's young), will want children. A racist person can hide what they think during an interview, a woman can't hide her gender, and the stereotypes that go along with it. <br /><br />And just to correct something you said about France: Nicolas Sarkozy changed the law last year. Women can now decide whether or not they want to go on a maternity leave, and men have the right to take on a paternity leave as well. The law has become much more flexible, taking social changes into consideration.Marjoriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00506209972673080494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4180841405563390250.post-19497521502233851932010-03-07T20:43:28.415-08:002010-03-07T20:43:28.415-08:00More food for thought. Wouldn't making sure th...More food for thought. Wouldn't making sure that women recieve equal pay make companies much less likely to hire a woman, all things consideredJaredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09404379730435316211noreply@blogger.com