there are now plenty women doctors, physicians, chemists, yet no invention , not even a single one , could it be feminism? which teaches laziness? waiting to b paid like everyone when you don't work like everyone? why are women not making big in those fields? or they are just making a figuration?

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sex.cfm
^ statistic of sex-based employment discrimination charges. data from govt. and includes the amount of litigation settlements etc.
YES you have to go to court etc to proove ur case. how many people are willing to go through all that just to right a wrong of their male coworker being paid more. and usually once the case is settled, that man/woman (90% of the time is a woman) most likely has to leave that workplace for his/her own sanity.

CAMEROONPRIDE: blah blah blah balh .
leave paganism alone
the meme is for when a woman is not making any sense. just like c.fours
i don't have any authority on this forum , so i don't think my meme can influence a person esp a feminazi like you and your friends, so stop whining . no one is forcing you to stay in the kitchen.

Whatever, there is no difference between your paganism and other sexist religions like Islam and Christianity.

99cent: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sex.cfm
^ statistic of sex-based employment discrimination charges. data from govt. and includes the amount of litigation settlements etc.
YES you have to go to court etc to proove ur case. how many people are willing to go through all that just to right a wrong of their male coworker being paid more. and usually once the case is settled, that man/woman (90% of the time is a woman) most likely has to leave that workplace for his/her own sanity.

The data does not say whether the wage gap is the cause of the suit
It could be denial of advancement based on gender or plain old sexxual harassment


STill not this wage gap

this may be relevant although it applies to both gender and racial job discrimination:

June 24, 2013
Supreme Court Raises Bar to Prove Job Discrimination
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

In two decisions issued on Monday, the Supreme Court effectively made it harder for workers to prove that they had suffered employment discrimination.

One ruling narrows the definition of what constitutes a supervisor in racial and sexual harassment cases, while the other adopts a tougher standard for workers to prove that they had faced illegal retaliation for complaining about employment discrimination.

In both cases, the rulings were decided by a 5-to-4 majority, with the dissenting justices, the court’s four most liberal members, calling on Congress to fix what they said were overly restrictive rulings.

In Vance v. Ball State University, in which an African-American worker accused her supervisor of racial harassment, the court held that the person she accused was a co-worker and not a supervisor — a distinction that requires a higher burden of proof for the plaintiff’s employer to be found liable.

The majority decision, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., rejected the definition of “supervisor” advanced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as someone authorized to take “tangible employment actions” or direct the employee’s daily work activities.

Rather, the court ruled that being a supervisor should be limited to someone authorized to take “tangible employment actions” like hiring, firing, promoting, demoting or reassigning employees to significantly different responsibilities.

Justice Alito, noting that there are numerous definitions of who is a supervisor, wrote that “the ability to direct another employee’s tasks is simply not sufficient” to declare someone a supervisor. He ridiculed the E.E.O.C’s definition of supervisor, saying it was a “study in ambiguity.”

The plaintiff, Maetta Vance, a banquet worker at Ball State University in Muncie, Ind., asserted that Saundra Davis, who is white and was described as a catering specialist, had glared at her, slammed pots and pans around her and blocked her on an elevator. Both sides agreed that Ms. Davis did not have the authority to hire or fire employees.

Under previous Supreme Court decisions, plaintiffs claiming racial or sexual harassment faced a lower burden to prove an employer liable when the harassment was committed by a supervisor rather than a co-worker. For instance, if the harassing supervisor was found to have taken adverse actions against an employee, like demoting the person, the employer was strictly liable for that action. And even when a supervisor’s harassment did not culminate in a specific negative employment action, the employer could be held liable if the employer failed to prove that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing behavior.

But for an employer to be held liable when a co-worker is accused of harassment, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the employer was negligent by not stopping the behavior.

The court upheld a decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that held that Ms. Davis was not a supervisor and that Ball State was not negligent with respect to her behavior. Justice Alito emphasized that the court’s adoption of a narrower definition of supervisor did not leave plaintiffs unprotected, but left them with a different burden of proof.

In a stinging dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the majority opinion “is blind to the realities of the workplace.” She wrote that it is not easy for an employee to tell a harassing supervisor to “buzz off” even when the supervisor does not have the power to fire or demote.

“An employee who confronts her harassing supervisor risks, for example, receiving an undesirable or unsafe work assignment or an unwanted transfer,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “She may be saddled with an excessive workload” or a shift that disrupts her family life.

Asserting that the ruling undermines Congress’s desire for “robust protection against workplace discrimination,” Justice Ginsburg warned that the decision would relieve employers of responsibility for the behavior of many of their supervisors.

“The ball is once again in Congress’ court to correct the error into which this Court has fallen,” she wrote.

In a second employment decision issued on Monday, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the court tightened the legal standard for plaintiffs who assert that they faced adverse employment actions in retaliation for complaining about employment discrimination. The court held that the plaintiff must prove that the retaliation was not just a motivating factor in a negative action like a demotion but the determinative factor.

The majority decision, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, engaged in lengthy textual interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Justice Kennedy said retaliation cases should have a different, tougher standard of proof than in regular employment discrimination cases under the act. In typical discrimination cases, employers can be held liable if wrongful discrimination is a motivating factor.

The case involved Naiel Nassar, a physician of Middle Eastern descent, who claimed that he faced hostile treatment from a hospital superior because of his religion and ethnic heritage. He further claimed that he had been retaliated against — that he was not given as good a job offer as he had hoped — because he had complained of discrimination.

Justice Kennedy said it was important to have the proper causation standard in retaliation cases because the number of such cases filed with the E.E.O.C. has nearly doubled in the last 15 years, rising to more than 31,000 in 2012. The court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Writing the dissent, Justice Ginsburg said the tougher “but-for causation standard” that the court was adopting for retaliation cases would undercut efforts to fight employment discrimination. She also warned that juries would be confused in hearing cases in which employment discrimination claims would be judged by one standard and related retaliation claims by a tougher standard.

Justice Ginsburg concluded that Monday’s two employment-related decisions “should prompt yet another Civil Rights Restoration Act,” a 1987 law that in effect overturned several Supreme Court rulings.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: June 26, 2013

A picture caption on Tuesday with an article about two Supreme Court rulings that made it more difficult for workers to prove job discrimination misspelled the surname of a justice who dissented from both rulings. As the article correctly noted, she is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, not Ginsberg.

fellis:

Whatever, there is no difference between your paganism and other sexist religions like Islam and Christianity.

you don't even believe in what you u just typed

like i said . show me where in our book women are mistreated? , stop making assumptions. c.fours is wrong and stupid. disagreeeing with her has nothing to do with sexism or whatever you want to call it.

As i'm typing Paganism is the only religion where women can lead prayers , go figure

here we go again with the copy and paste

biolabee:

The data does not say whether the wage gap is the cause of the suit
It could be denial of advancement based on gender or plain old sexxual harassment


STill not this wage gap

ok. wtf are you still going on about? haven't we settled that we are on different wavelengths.
I don't live in nigeria clearly so I am speaking based on employment practices in USA. there is such thing as WAGE GAP. gender and racial.and YES for exactly the same kind of job.
for example, I could have the same job as a coworker (even she could be a black female just as me!) and she could be earning more than I am without my knowledge. all we are arguing is that such a pattern exist for gender.
u will not disagree that it exists for race. so why do u have such a hard time agreeing that it exists for gender.

usually in unionized work places, it is harder to see this kind of discrimination. but in non-unionized work places, ur boss can determine ur salary however he/she sees fit. if u don't like it, u can find a job elsewhere or report to EEOC if you feel u r being discriminated against.

where do you work @ biolabee? is it a unionized profession?

@biolabee, i'm sure things aren't as rosy as you claim they are for women in work places. Maybe we need the perspective of female professionals in Nigeria because I have an impossible time believing that nigerian women fare better in the work place than in western countries. bahh.

---
Wangari Maathai in her early years of activism:

Maathai continued to teach at Nairobi, becoming a senior lecturer in anatomy in 1974, chair of the Department of Veterinary Anatomy in 1976 and associate professor in 1977. She was the first woman in Nairobi appointed to any of these positions.[23] During this time, she campaigned for equal benefits for the women working on the staff of the university, going so far as to attempt to turn the academic staff association of the university into a union, in order to negotiate for benefits. The courts denied this bid, but many of her demands for equal benefits were later met.[24] In addition to her work at the University of Nairobi, Maathai became involved in a number of civic organizations in the early 1970s. She was a member of the Nairobi branch of the Kenya Red Cross Society, becoming its director in 1973. She was a member of the Kenya Association of University Women. Following the establishment of the Environment Liaison Centre in 1974, Maathai was asked to be a member of the local board, eventually becoming the chair of the board.

ooo gawd not again not again

biolabee:

The data does not say whether the wage gap is the cause of the suit
It could be denial of advancement based on gender or plain old sexxual harassment


STill not this wage gap

se.xual harrasment is actually much harder to prove than wage gap. unless there is email or phone evidence how do u prove sexual harassment?
of course these are all part of the things feminism exists for.

love how you say "plain old" se.xual harassment as if it is something so irrelevant and inconsequential. as if women's jobs do not get threatened by it. esp in nigeria and african countries where the legal system isn't as protective.
besides that, it is a way to also mentally, psychologically and physically demean women.

don't worry ^^^ no one is going to sexually harass you ...like for real , you can sleep with your two eyes.

https://www.nairaland.com/709508/single-ladies-discriminated-against-hotels

^ this thread caught my eyes.
something a poster observed is that when the same story was published on linda ikeji (a female)'s blog, women spoke out against the policy.
but on nairaland, as u read the thread u see many males in support of it and even giving reasons why such a policy is justified!!

seriously we are closer to middle eastern cultures in d way we treat women than we like to think.

just like sagging is forbidden in many places.
of course you know the people targeted are the prostitutes. but no you want to turn this into something else

I would like to ask, is this Chimamanda Adichie single or married?

druid06: I would like to ask, is this Chimamanda Adichie single or married?

why do you ask?
because she's feminist, she must be unmarried? do u assume that all men are anti-feminist like you?
even if all men are anti-feminist, na by force to marry?
anybody can pretend before marriage and then bring out their true colors afterward, then what?

chimamanda is a brave genuine intelligent woman. in a class of her own

99cent:

why do you ask?
because she's feminist, she must be unmarried? do u assume that all men are ignorant anti-feminist like you?
even if all men are anti-feminist, na by force to marry?
anybody can pretend before marriage and then bring out their true colors afterward, then what?

Babe, take a chill pill and chillax. I'm just asking out of curiousity so stop the mumbo jumbo. Is Chimamamada married or not. YES or NO?

99cent:

why do you ask?
because she's feminist, she must be unmarried? do u assume that all men are anti-feminist like you?
even if all men are anti-feminist, na by force to marry?
anybody can pretend before marriage and then bring out their true colors afterward, then what?

chimamanda is a brave genuine intelligent woman. in a class of her own

just answer the question dumbo.

CAMEROONPRIDE: just like sagging is forbidden in many places.
of course you know the people targeted are the prostitutes. but no you want to turn this into something else

re-read the thread. it doesn't say prostitutes are banned. it says single women are banned!!
in fact, if a man brings a prostitute or ten prostitutes in with him, the hotel allows it!
but a woman by herself is not allowed in a hotel. what a policy!! are we in Afghanistan?

the reason sagging is forbidden is because of racism. haha we all know that. but at least the law doesn't say "young black men are forbidden" it clearly says "sagging is forbidden"
in nigeria's case, they didn't even cover anything up, they just went staight to the point and banned women from the hotel!! unless she is there with a man. what a disgrace

@99cent it would be nice if I get a response to my question.

CAMEROONPRIDE: just answer the question dumbo.

silly monkey, must u always butt into my conversations?

druid06:

Babe, take a chill pill and chillax. I'm just asking out of curiousity so stop the mumbo jumbo. Is Chimamamada married or not. YES or NO?

No she's not.

99cent:

No she's not.

So your icon, legend and your idol is not married?? Hmmmmm, I wonder why!!!

druid06:

So your icon, legend and your idol is not married?? Hmmmmm, I wonder why!!!

many of my icon, legend and idols are married, single, divorced, married again, widowed and twice widowed. marital status is not my criteria for a woman's worth.
ie a woman's worth or accomplishment is not in her MRS.

Chimamanda is famous for her books and speeches. that's what we love her for.
again, I don't know the circumstances u grew up in but u need to catch up to 2013. seems ur still living in 1900s.

99cent:

silly monkey, must u always butt into my conversations?

shut up fat azz

99cent:

many of my icon, legend and idols are married, single, divorced, married again, widowed and twice widowed. marital status is not my criteria for a woman's worth.
ie a woman's worth or accomplishment is not in her MRS.

Chimamanda is famous for her books and speeches. that's what we love her for.
again, I don't know the circumstances u grew up in but u need to catch up to 2013. seems ur still living in 1900s.

Babe, I don't think you have any solid points left. Just go do something else like paint your face or take pictures in your bathroom since it's what your girls of this generation are good at doing and leave feminism for those who understands it's values. You're just a copy cat and I am sorry for you like seriously. With the rate at which you're going, you're going to end up like your role model Chimananda of whatever the fu-ck her name as an old bitter woman with no husband, children and cat's for company. Got get a life baby.

99cent:

re-read the thread. it doesn't say prostitutes are banned. it says single women are banned!!
in fact, if a man brings a prostitute or ten prostitutes in with him, the hotel allows it!
but a woman by herself is not allowed in a hotel. what a policy!! are we in Afghanistan?

the reason sagging is forbidden is because of racism. haha we all know that. but at least the law doesn't say "young black men are forbidden" it clearly says "sagging is forbidden"
in nigeria's case, they didn't even cover anything up, they just went staight to the point and banned women from the hotel!! unless she is there with a man. what a disgrace

again, the policy is for prostitutes, that's why they will probably ask the reasons of her presence before putting her out.period.

druid06:

Babe, I don't think you have any solid points left. Just go do something else like paint your face or take pictures in your bathroom since it's what your girls of this generation are good at doing and leave feminism for those who understands it's values. You're just a copy cat and I am sorry for you like seriously. With the rate at which you're going, you're going to end up like your role model Chimananda of whatever the fu-ck her name as an old bitter woman with no husband, children and cat's for company. Got get a life baby.

Dude, ur crazy. Chimamanda actually is married. so now what? what solid point do you have left?
go suck ur thumb wuss.

In other news:

President Joyce Banda of Malawi was speaking at the 67th Session of the United Nations General Assembly last month, before the same audience that listened to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President Michel Joseph Martelly of Haiti and President Barack Obama.

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, president of Liberia, also talked about women's issues in her speech to the group of 193 heads of state: "We have made strong strides in gender equality, but much more must be done for girls' education and women's empowerment."

Both Banda and Sirleaf escaped violent marriages and struggled through single motherhood to overcome poverty and eventually make history as the only two female leaders in the modern history of Africa. And both women have placed the issues of reproductive health and family planning at the center of their national agendas.

CAMEROONPRIDE:


again, the policy is for prostitutes, that's why they will probably ask the reasons of her presence before putting her out.period.

re-read the topic again. it says "single women"
unless u are saying all single women are prostitutes then in that case, I won't be surprised. that's not very much unlike you now is it, monkey?

99cent:

Dude, ur crazy. Chimamanda actually is married. so now what? what solid point do you have left?
go suck ur thumb wuss.

Married my ar-se you pathetic liar. I have an internet connection like you do.