Oh and for the number I didn't include females who got pregnant because I live in one of the highest single women pregnancy and teen pregnancy rated counties in the country.

Also I don't know if I can remember all of them lol.

Welcome back Kate.

Not back just had to post on this. A bunch of white men talking about minorities without getting their opinions is not ok to me.

I understand the personal experience you've had and how that can affect your hiring decisions afterwards, but the danger is assuming the negative characteristics in a new person based on their demographic similarities to others.

I mean, stereotypes exist for a reason right?

Let's say I'm a landlord, and I have 6,7,8 whatever tenants in a row all of whom are black and all of whom are terrible renters that result in evictions each time. Time, money, effort that I have to waste each and every time.

When I'm ready to rent again - I decide to not rent to a black person based on my personal history. Still illegal discrimination, right?

Really you could put anything in place of "black" there - but I find its usually the one that elicits the most defensive input. Most people would say they'd never do that.

I mean the basic point of what Chloe said vs what Im saying is you can validate whatever degree of discrimination however you want, doesn't make it not discrimination. We probably all do it a lot more than we realize - me and any other liberal included.

jp though its illegal to base the choice entirely on if they have children or not. It is not illegal for it to be a factor, especially in the case of small businesses where losing a person is such a big deal.

From a business perspective i dont see it as discrimination at all.

Also being black or a female is not comparable to having a kid, so I don't agree with your analogy in this case.

"A bunch of white men talking about minorities without getting their opinions is not ok to me."

Not everyone participating in the discussion is white and/or male, and since the article in question wasn't taking that sort of tone, I don't see it as being helpful here.

you are correct. both daughter and i are females. and i wasnt talking about the article, i was talking about the comments.

Fair enough. Bringing race into this discussion isn't helpful, I agree. Too many emotional reactions as a result.

What I found interesting, is that if the assessment of the data in the article is correct, the gender wage gap is almost non-existent based on hours worked. It's a very far cry from what is typically fronted by particular groups.

I was curious to see if anyone saw any fundamental flaws in the data or argument, but I haven't really see one presented yet.

My wife is a stay at home mom and what amazes me is when other females, almost exclusively strong liberals, look down on her for making that choice. That's why articles like this one are quite interesting to me.

ramble ramble...

I agree, but I get flack for being a strong woman and not settling down. There are two sides to every coin.

I think it's unfair that we discriminate against uneducated people. They need jobs too.

Wait, what's that? Education is a factor in whether or not a job candidate is going to do a good job?

Guess what, so is availability to be at work. If a woman is admittedly going to spend more time away from the job than a man, why should they choose the equally qualified woman (who will put in less hours) over the equally qualified man (who will put in more hours)?

I'm obviously playing devils advocate here, but there is definite truth in question. I don't fell men are better employees than women, but there are circumstances where I can understand a company preferring to hire a man over a woman. ESPECIALLY since asking questions such as "do you have or are you planning to have kids" is strictly forbidden. If this question were allowed to be asked, and the woman could put down "no", then discrimination in the form JP is talking about would be lessened.