Zinsmeister: ‘I’ll Never Hire Another Woman Because They Just Get Pregnant And Leave’
Zinsmeister: ‘I’ll Never Hire Another Woman Because They Just Get Pregnant And Leave’
Karl Zinsmeister is currently President Bush’s chief domestic policy adviser, hired when Claude Allen stepped down after being charged with shoplifting.
Before joining the White House, Zinsmeister was editor in chief of The American Enterprise, the conservative think tank’s magazine. In a piece he wrote in 1996, Zinsmeister stated, “[C]olorblindness has become a real risk today. … The penalty for the person who, ignoring race, turns down the wrong street today can literally be death.”
A new article in The New Republic shows that Zinsmeister was also hostile toward women. A former American Enterprise editor, Karina Rollins, remembers that Zinsmeister constantly attacked the magazine’s art director, Jo Roback-Paul, criticizing her for going to a doctor’s appointment and for taking maternity leave:
But the biggest grievance harbored by the magazine’s staff concerned Zinsmeister himself. “He went to his son’s basketball game, and then he would give Jo [Roback-Pal] a hard time about a doctor’s appointment,” Rollins says. … While Zinsmeister frequently complained about Roback-Pal to other staffers at the magazine — telling [then-business manager Garth] Cadiz that she was “useless” and “never there” — her former colleagues say that she never missed a deadline and that he was “abusive” toward her. When she angered him by taking a four-month maternity leave, Zinsmeister told Cadiz, “I am never going to hire another woman because they just get pregnant and leave.”
Unfortunately for Zinsmeister, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act states that employers cannot discriminate on the “basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”
The Bush administration has a track record of using pregnancy as an excuse to not hire women. It’s unclear whether Zinsmeister has lived up to his no-women pledge while at the White House.
(HT: CorrenteWire)
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
133 Responses to “Zinsmeister: ‘I’ll Never Hire Another Woman Because They Just Get Pregnant And Leave’”
Topic Cloud
Archives
An attitude right out of the 1950s…where it should stay.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:26 pmWOW. Seems like a REAL open-minded guy…
May 21st, 2007 at 3:27 pmAnother stellar administrative selection by that friend of bigotry, George Bush.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:28 pmWhy do Republicans hate women and babies?
May 21st, 2007 at 3:29 pmShould’ve kept the shoplifter and quit while we were ahead, eh?
May 21st, 2007 at 3:29 pm“Why do Republicans hate women and babies?”
they only hate the babies AFTER they’re born
May 21st, 2007 at 3:30 pmI’m sure his mother is in full support of that statement.
Hating the Repukian Mafia daily
May 21st, 2007 at 3:30 pmI’m not hiring anymore men cause all they do pick up on me!!!
May 21st, 2007 at 3:30 pmwhat a sexist idiot. I’m guessing he’s a republican :)
May 21st, 2007 at 3:31 pmwhat’s to be expected from people in the Bush administration? War mongers, killers, racists, liars, and on and on and on.
They and their buddies like limbaugh and hannity claim that people who oppose the government and its wars must “hate” america or are with the terrorists (or whatever other crap they spew), but the reality is this - people like our buddy Karl - and the rest of them - are acting with complete hatred for everything this country stands for…..
that’s my ramble. some reading on this:
“The America-Haters Strike Again”
May 21st, 2007 at 3:33 pmhttp://www.populistamerica.com/ the_america_haters_strike_again
Hmmm, I think he’s kinda cute.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:34 pmHe looks like a cross between pee-wee herman and Ted Nugent wearing that cammo.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:37 pmSo much for the family-values-oriented political party!
May 21st, 2007 at 3:38 pmI’m now completely convinced that the neocons are pre-neanderthal examples of unintelligent design.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:42 pmI was wondering what side of the aisle found this fellow “cute”
May 21st, 2007 at 3:42 pmhe seems to not like things involved with breeding, and the combination is even more like a bush appointee
what better way to put down both groups, get one to restrict the other
Well let’s see.
His first article dealt with race, the second with sexes. How much do you guys wanna bet the next one will be about gays?
May 21st, 2007 at 3:43 pmSomeone said pro-lifers are really “pro-birth” cuz after that, they don’t give a sh!t.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:44 pmI agree with Zinsmeister. I never hire women. What a waste of resources.
In fact, along with Forbes.com, I advise men to avoid marrying career women. (forbes.com/home/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html)
What are you feminists gonna do next? Pass a male only “man tax”?
Pay women extra because of the 76 cents to every dollar MYTH?
Are you going to pass a law making us marry you vile creatures?
Are you going to Pass a law requiring men to piss sitting down? Or else!
You love big daddy government don’t you?
The “Pregnancy Discrimination Act” LMAO!
May 21st, 2007 at 3:44 pmmy comment is not sexist, it is just questioning as to whether this is the photo he would want shared for his political self, and or if his attitude may be skewed by some other factors. I don’t give a hoot, but I don’t want to ask it the wrong way either
May 21st, 2007 at 3:44 pmHe would have made a great Nazi. Kinda looks like a good Nazi guy.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:45 pmMaybe he keeps getting the ladies pregnant?
May 21st, 2007 at 3:45 pmLet me get this straight…..
Attending kid’s basketball game — OK!
Getting medical care — NOT OK!
Get bent Zinsmeister.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:46 pmYou give a bad name to those of us with “Z” names.
“The penalty for the person who, ignoring race, turns down the wrong street today can literally be death.â€
Good thing Karl isn’t having babies, he’d be skaaaaared of the pain. Wuss
May 21st, 2007 at 3:47 pmjonney= gay man on Rove’s rump rangers brigade. Heh.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:47 pmI think sex with hot babes is really important. This is stupid.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:48 pmWhy does he hate his mommy? Is this the bastard child of Dr. Laura?
May 21st, 2007 at 3:48 pm“I agree with Zinsmeister. I never hire women. What a waste of resources” -jonny
jonny can’t hit on women, better odds
May 21st, 2007 at 3:51 pmComment by jonny — May 21, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Don’t worry, hun. Any woman would go to the electric chair before she’d marry you — or touch you. You’d like that, wouldn’t you?
Find yourself a nice man and settle down.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:52 pmLMAO!
Comment by jonny
________________
It would have to be one BIG laugh.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:53 pmI would suspect that pregnant woman have a higher turn over rate than non-pregnant people. If that is the case, I would think that business’s would be less likely to higher them. However I have not done the googling on this, so I may be wrong.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:53 pmAre you going to Pass a law requiring men to piss sitting down? Or else!
You love big daddy government don’t you?
The “Pregnancy Discrimination Act†LMAO!
Comment by jonny(misogynist hendler) — May 21, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Geez, is there any question why you’re still a virgin at 40 years of age?
May 21st, 2007 at 3:54 pmIs JMH’s attitude towards women due to his virginity, or is his virginity due to his attitude?
Inquiring minds really don’t want to know!
Turns out he doesn’t like old people either - he used an alias to advertise for ‘young’ applicants, according to the New York Sun. Hmm - doesn’t like older people and women - kinda screams Mommy Issues to me.
Nice cammo, Karl - too bad you never served in the military.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:55 pmsquegeebooo,
It may be true, but it is illegal to not hire based on that.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:55 pmwow, his mother must be so happy she gave birth-to a turd
May 21st, 2007 at 3:58 pm#18.
You never hire women? Didn’t realize that janitors made hiring decisions at the Tastee-Freeze.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:58 pmI sometimes pee sitting down. You don’t have to make as much as an effort to aim and stuff.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:59 pmI once had a boss who wouldn’t let me have a morning off to take my kids to the first day of school - but he golfed every Friday afternoon - THAT was networking. He was the biggest jerk I ever worked for.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:00 pmThe legislation really isn’t that hard to follow. They get pregnant, you appoint an interim. They come back, they reassume their job. Come on, let’s be flexible here. Even when they’re on leave, they’re usually still doing something to keep up. Certainly couldn’t be any “worse” than telecommuting.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:02 pmHis first article dealt with race, the second with sexes. How much do you guys wanna bet the next one will be about gays?
Comment by Rebel in CA
And since he surly isn’t married or has kids, he’s likely just another closeted gay basher.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:02 pmI can’t pee sitting down.
The waters too cold! and deep, too!
Budump bump, (ching)
thank you, thank you all very much. don’t forget the waitresses!
(sorry, couldn’t resist)
May 21st, 2007 at 4:03 pmI’ll feel sorry for him when he gets old and has to use Viagra.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:03 pmComment by squegeebooo
It’s difficult for pregnant women to turn over Squishy. Ever been with one?
May 21st, 2007 at 4:04 pmHe would have made a great Nazi. Kinda looks like a good Nazi guy.
Comment by ForTruth — May 21, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
I think he IS a “good Nazi” but I hate to argue with you.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:05 pm“People in Washington are morally repugnant, cheating, shifty human beings.”
May 21st, 2007 at 4:05 pmKarl Zinsmeister, President Bush’s domestic policy adviser, August 2004.
Excellent DRxJ,
I thought I was the only one who sometimes touched the water while sitting down.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:05 pmjonny - really dear that is just the name cops use for you when you’re picking up transvestite hookers, you don’t really need to use it here.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:07 pmSorry if I have contributed to the degradation of this thread. Thanks for the tolerance.
Jonny is gay.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:07 pm#18 - so glad i dont know you, it’s crap like you that makes me glad i’m self employed
May 21st, 2007 at 4:11 pmI sometimes pee sitting down. You don’t have to make as much as an effort to aim and stuff.
Comment by ForTruth — May 21, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
I’m pretty sure jonny doesn’t ever worry about aiming, it seems he’s pretty comfortable pissing all over himself.
OT, though, the Curb Your Enthusiasm last night had Larry David falling in the toilet because he pees sitting down. But he’s successful and married, jonny wouldn’t understand.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:11 pmI don’t know whether to laugh, cry, or scream. Where do the Republicans find these miscreants? “Doin’ a heckuva job there, Zinnie!” Incompetence raised to the level of a virtue! Welcome to Crazy World…
May 21st, 2007 at 4:11 pmWhat a fraud, wearing camouflage for some portrait!! Perfect for BushCo…these poor wretched people should just be embarrassed for their juvenile behavior!
May 21st, 2007 at 4:12 pmI can’t pee sitting down.
The waters too cold! and deep, too!
Comment by DRxJ
Well I’m getting a visual of that and now I feel like we’re very close friends.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:13 pmShane your funny. Good stuff. LOL
May 21st, 2007 at 4:14 pmExcellent DRxJ,
I thought I was the only one who sometimes touched the water while sitting down.
Comment by ForTruth — May 21, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
Brag, brag, brag … and with poor jonny reading.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:15 pmNote to self: Never let anybody I know name their son Karl!
May 21st, 2007 at 4:16 pmJonny might be getting turned on by this weener talk. Ewww.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:17 pmThis really is a problem for employers.
Why do you think we silently discriminate against thirty-something women who have a boyfriend, but do not yet have any children?
Because once they get the job, they WILL also get pregnant and I, as an employer, not only lose the work contribution of that particular women and have to pay for her pregnancy, but I will also have to hire another person to temp for her.
Get pregnant on your own or your spouse’s money!
May 21st, 2007 at 4:18 pmTake off the glasses and put a blond wig on this fool and he look’s like ann coulter….Oh! it is her/he…Blessings
May 21st, 2007 at 4:19 pmAre you sure that isn’t Ann Coulter in drag, or the other way around? You just can’t mistake those adam’s apples. Hmmmmm………
Peace! and most of all LOVE!
May 21st, 2007 at 4:20 pmGet pregnant on your own or your spouse’s money!
Comment by MAF54 — May 21, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Hey look! Jake’s back!!! and continuing to make no sense, what so ever!
May 21st, 2007 at 4:21 pmI am an African-American and a progressive. And I am finding it increasingly difficult to read this blog. Although it’s all to easy to claim that some ill-advised statement has been “taken out of context” in this case, you’ve really done it. You could just has easily chosen this quote– “Yes, color-blindness is essential to public policy, where racial hierarchies combined with the coercive power of the state can have horribly divisive and even deadly consequences– from the same article. You did not. Another hatchet job, like the one on Lou Dobbs a few weeks ago. Intellectual dishonesty is supposed to be the hallmark of the other side.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:27 pmPLC (29),
You win the best line of the day. Thanks!
May 21st, 2007 at 4:28 pmhe looks like he’s got something stuffed down his throat
May 21st, 2007 at 4:32 pm#56.
Did I miss some technological advance? Is it now possible to get pregnant “on money?” If so, than discriminate away. If not, you best be holding the other partner equally responsible for your lost profit and expenses as an employer. I know! Fire (or refuse to hire) women who may be fertile and impose a “semen” tax against men who have or may be able to impregnate women. Wow, the revenue would be incredible, since even old farts can conceivably (no pun intended) be impregnators. Might even solve our national debt.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:34 pmmaf54-your compassion is overhelming
May 21st, 2007 at 4:36 pmGet pregnant on your own
Comment by MAF54
Thats impossible no matter what the Bible says.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:36 pm#64: I just point out the facts. This is the way it works out for an employer: there are no benefits, just costs involved in hiring a woman. If she gets pregnant, you’ll end up paying for her “vacation” and you’ll have to find someone else to do her work, too.
Also note that as long as the employers are financially punished this way for hiring women, the system harms those women who voluntarily don’t want kids and want to concentrate on their career instead. They’ll seem a risky investment, too.
May 21st, 2007 at 4:45 pm#66.
Wow, dude! Your vacations must really suck if childbirth and the first few weeks of caring for an infant are your idea of a vacation.
You are right, though. Why should poor, beleaguered corporate America be inconvenienced by the pesky need to propagate the race? Someone (else) must pay!
Question for you–do you screen potential job applicants for cancer and heart disease, as well as for potential pregnancy? You know those sick slackers can really take a toll on a company with their hospital vay-kays and nausea-induced attitude problems. What’s a reasonable, fiscally-responsible employer to do?
May 21st, 2007 at 5:03 pmDrxJ & ForTruth
Thanks for the best laughs I’ve had all day. I needed that!
May 21st, 2007 at 5:05 pm#66 — Everyone knows that all women ever do is get pregnant every year and go on “vacation.”
There are NO women alive who are not currently trying to get pregnant, pregnant, or having just given birth — just in time to try to get pregnant again.
Good god, you’re an idiot.
May 21st, 2007 at 5:10 pm#67
MAF54 may put it inelegantly, but what he states is a fact. Most people don’t work for corporate america, they work for little companies like mine who really need them. Twice I have hired women who got pregnant, went on maternity leave, then came back and quit to stay with the baby.
All the while, my little company was suffering from holding their position for them. For a small business like mine, it’s really tough.
As a woman, I want to have solidarity, but the government needs to come up with a better solution than to put it all on the backs of small businesses like mine.
May 21st, 2007 at 5:13 pm#70.
Point taken. I do agree that small businesses get the shaft on almost all of these social obligations because they do not have the resources nor the support of big business. However, I think that Zinsmeister and #64 go a bit beyond “inelegant” and are well on their way to “misogynistic,” not to mention a tad paranoid (for God’s sake–we’re not all out to get paid “vacations” at their expense). I also REALLY object, AGAIN, to the female part of the equation being the only one who takes it on the chin in the employment area. Female employees don’t get pregnant on their own. Heaven forbid we come up with some sort of pro-family/pro-small business subsidies that would address this ridiculous situation, like those “communists” in Norway and Sweden do!
May 21st, 2007 at 5:30 pm#69: Did I say anything about women trying to get pregnant every year? No. One pregnancy already, be it intended or accidental, means that the employer has lost both a significant work contribution and money in the process.
This is a hard, cold fact and pretending that it isn’t (or, as I am reading between the line: should not be) a problem for an employer doesn’t make it so.
May 21st, 2007 at 5:31 pmMichele (71): To be honest, the government subsidies here (Norway) do not cover the entire salary of a pregnant employee and that’s why the employers are still hesitant to hire women - especially if a woman in question is in a relationship but has no children, yet. Any discrimination is, of course, illegal, but the employers tend to be very good at avoiding the legal pitfalls, too.
May 21st, 2007 at 5:39 pmComment by MAF54 — May 21, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
It’s a fair point. In the UK it’s seen as part of the social contract for the employer to provide maternity leave. If the US has a different point of view then so be it.
May 21st, 2007 at 5:39 pmCorporate culture, and by extension current Republican dogma, is profoundly anti-family. Corporations don’t want strong, cohesive families. Corporations don’t want employees with children. If an employee has a family and children, it is harder for the corporation to screw them, to send them where they want, when they want, to cut their pay. Corporate culture wants single people. Single people consume more things, will work for less and will go where you tell them to go.
And then there is this infatuation corporate culture has with homosexuals. Johhny, a Bush cultist, was thinking of women when he posted this: “Are you going to pass a law making us marry you vile creatures?” Johnny boy, try to keep in mind that your father probably married one of these creatures. She’s called your Mother.
May 21st, 2007 at 5:44 pmThis is a man George Bush sought out and to whom he gave high office. His chief domestic policy adviser.
George, I can see where Herr Professor Doktor Zinsmeister might fit in well on a duck hunting trip with Dick and Antonin. But, it’s hard to imagine him in front of anyone but Richard Mellon Scaife and Jerry Falwell and getting a standing ovation. No wonder you stay in your bubble; in there, it’s not 1958, but 1858.
May 21st, 2007 at 5:46 pmWhat the????
I guess he prefers young men.
Figures. My gaydar is pegged at 9 when aimed at his pic.
May 21st, 2007 at 5:50 pmNow, this is just a smart businessman.
May 21st, 2007 at 6:00 pmFor the purposes of this subchapter-
(b) The term “employer” means a person engaged in an industry affecting
May 21st, 2007 at 6:03 pmcommerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of
twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year,
and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include (1) the United States
#67
You’re absolutely right about one thing.
Women, on average, use more health care dollars and thus end up costing the company more. They’re in the same boat as people with bad hearts.
May 21st, 2007 at 6:05 pm… I wonder how Zinsmeister would feel if women started aborting males — in order to be sure that no one will ever, ever, ever hire another misogynist?
May 21st, 2007 at 6:13 pmYeah but, his statment is true, darn it anyway.
May 21st, 2007 at 6:18 pmGay boys like M13 use up healthcare dollars from having indiscriminate butt sex in the backrooms of gaybars.
May 21st, 2007 at 6:21 pmHow many babies has Condi had?
Stupid idiot doesn’t get that if some woman doesn’t have his babies, he can’t spread that viral man seed of his… Ugh… Now I gotta go vomit….
May 21st, 2007 at 6:21 pmm13: “Women, on average, use more health care dollars and thus end up costing the company more.”
A modest proposal: Let’s level the playing field. Men commit over 90% of violent crimes and constitute over 90% of our prison population. Men are 10 times more likely to commit a crime of violence. Men, therefore, cost our society much more than women do. If we’re going to make it tough for women to work, maybe we should make it tougher for men to commit crimes. I suggest a barcode tatooed to each man’s neck encoded with his criminal record. In addition, I suggest the tatoo be encoded with the man’s dating history and that women be able to cheaply purchase a barcode reader to be used before accepting any offers for dinner or a date.
May 21st, 2007 at 6:23 pm#85
There is no need to bother with anything of the sort.
We need to simply streamline the justice system so we can execute murderers, rapists, and child molestors all in a timely fashion.
No need to tattoo anything on a dead man’s neck.
May 21st, 2007 at 6:31 pmBut if 90% of violent crime in America is perpetrated by men, and those men are interacting with women, I think women need an edge, especially if corporate America is going to whine about hiring them. If you’ve ever beaten a woman or taken her money, this info would show up on your scan. When a man asks a woman out for a date, she can simply scan his neck, take a look at his history and give him an answer based on his history. Remember, if you haven’t done anything wrong, why are you complaining about the bar code tatoo on your neck?
May 21st, 2007 at 6:37 pm#80.
Are you suggesting that it is okay to discriminate based on the projected cost? What exactly is your point? 50% of the population is not entitled to work or to receive benefits because they cost more than the other 50%? Where do we stop the discrimination? Maybe I’d prefer not to pay for therapies that treat prostate cancer. It’s never going to affect me–why should I contribute to benefits packages that pay for it? Specious and ridiculous argument. Nobody has the right to judge the quality or value of another person’s health and, in true “market-worshiping” fervor, we have reduced this argument to dollars and forgotten these statistics represent actual people.
Also, the root cause of pregnancy is semen. In fact, it has been implicated in all known cases of the disorder. If you want to purge this financial plague from our society once and for all, you must first eradicate (or at least heavily tax) the root cause.
May 21st, 2007 at 6:48 pm#69: Did I say anything about women trying to get pregnant every year?
Comment by MAF54
Sarcasm, idiot.
BTW: Are you one of those who gets all riled up if a woman wants to use birth control or have an abortion? Cuz that would really be a problem for your point of view on this topic.
May 21st, 2007 at 6:52 pmAlso, the root cause of pregnancy is semen. In fact, it has been implicated in all known cases of the disorder. If you want to purge this financial plague from our society once and for all, you must first eradicate (or at least heavily tax) the root cause.
Comment by Michele Manion
Heh. Brilliant!
May 21st, 2007 at 6:54 pmBluedog - what a great idea! I can think of a few dates I wouldn’t have made.
May 21st, 2007 at 7:00 pm#87
If you’ve beaten someone up, you should be incarcerated for life, and thus be unavailable to asking anybody out on a date.
Besides, bar codes can be easily faked. We already have more effective personal identification, namely, fingerprints and DNA.
May 21st, 2007 at 7:45 pmIt’s never going to affect me–why should I contribute to benefits packages that pay for it?
I don’t know. Why should you?
Nobody has the right to judge the quality or value of another person’s health and, in true “market-worshiping†fervor
If you want the rest of society or your employer to give you a healthcare buffet, they obviously have a right to know what exactly they are financing.
May 21st, 2007 at 7:47 pmWow, did this blog get out of hand. By the looks of it, it would seem the damn trolls took over. Very little argumentative substance. Just a bunch of nonsense more appropriate for a chat room.
May 21st, 2007 at 8:23 pmAs usual.
May 21st, 2007 at 8:30 pmMr Zinsmeister certainly looks like he’s in good physical shape and young enough to enlist for his war. How come this chickenshit ain’t serving in the Armed Forces for Herr Butcher’s War?
May 21st, 2007 at 9:39 pmann dover,
Don’t you think he looks like he could be Ann Coulter’s twin brother?
May 21st, 2007 at 9:53 pmI am thinking ole Zinny would miss a few days of work while being hospitalized if he said that in real life. Pansy.
May 21st, 2007 at 10:01 pmCan he be prosecuted for saying that? He is clearly discriminating in his hiring practices.
May 21st, 2007 at 10:02 pm“If you want the rest of society or your employer to give you a healthcare buffet, they obviously have a right to know what exactly they are financing.”
So, if I want healthcare benefits, I’m obligated to turn over my entire medical history to my employer or to the “rest of society” (who exactly are you referring to here)? Apparently this obligation is “obvious” to you. Thank God for HIPPA and other patient confidentiality measures that don’t see this obligation in quite the the same way.
How does having coverage for pregnancy equal a “healthcare buffet?” Please, please tell me that you weren’t appointed by GWB to run the Dept of Health and Human Services and that you only visit the liberal blogs in your spare time (something his appointees seem to have lots of) to dazzle and persuade liberals with your flawless grasp of the issues and compassionate conservatism?
You obviously are a troll. ‘Nuff said.
May 21st, 2007 at 10:05 pmAnother right wing shrill. Nice.
May 21st, 2007 at 11:53 pmLittle girls should not be fighting wars anyway, but staying home so they can cook dinner and clean the house for us men. :-)
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:24 amThose “turns down the wrong streets” he spoke of that can mean death. Perhaps is his fear to implode into his disillusioned superiority.
Those “turns into those streets were meant for him perhaps.
A real family values type of republican a fundemental faithful could believe in.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:24 amThe saddest part of it all is that millions of fools who voted for that party’s top chimpanzee.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:08 pmHe and his administration has set this nation back 75 years and up to 100 years.
There isn’t ONE topic where policy has not affected it, all in a negative way.
dis is vinnie.
This country is completely baby crazy. I hate the republican party and George Bush, but come on. Having a kid is a choice even if you think some ghost in the sky commands you not to have an abortion, it is still a choice. How is taking 4 months off to give birth and care for your new pet any different from taking 4 months off to do anything else that you have CHOSEN to do? It makes perfect sense to discriminate against women who are considering having children. Someone said this is a 1950’s idea…so is the idea of legal contracts between g/f and b/f and child bearing being one’s “duty” and the entire world pausing while you take care of that.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:16 pmHere we go again, another Bush guy taking the focus off the prize.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:21 pmOur President appoints only those who are his extentions, in ability & beliefs. These comments should be angry about the President not his minions. Any who have tried to actually do a job on behalf of the American people are removed or pigeoned holed away.
While your all distracted they continue to steal America. Chenney & his ilk take our money, the “Energy plan,”" the War on Terror” etc, livlihoods, outsourced to India & China or like Circuit City & Alberson’s Markets,etc, freedoms, the “Patriot Act” and everything the last 12 years of Republican control of the Legislature has passed with little or no opposition from the Democrats, Diebold voting machines, etc. And we make this about only women, it should always be about all of us. The “We the people stuff.”
Don’t get fooled & distracted again, Bush et al need you to, otherwise we would be in armed revolt.
Yep as a hardcore liberal I can safely assume that Zinsmeister is the posterchild for the Republican party and that anyone who associates themselves or is affiliated with Republicans automatically hates women. Right on!
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:23 pm“I think he’s cute.” — You’re a dumb bitch.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:42 pmI hate to say it, but pregnancy is not a “medical condition”, it’s a choice. He could’ve wore a rubber, she could have got an abortion. Sometimes religion comes in to it, in which case, should the company be held financially responsible for leaves of other religions (You know, the ones aside from Christianity). Say someone undergoes cosmetic surgery requiring an extended leave of absence, should the company be held responsible then too?
But hey, I guess i’m a sexist.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:49 pmThe chair of our state’s “Family Committee” ( a *female* “progressive” Democrat state senator) has the exact same policy for her staff.
People who live in glass houses and all that…
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:58 pmSomeday that ‘pet’ and millions like it will be the only workers the economy has. Taking some time to make sure that ‘pet’ gets off to a good start and will become a well adjusted, self-sufficient adult is worthwhile because that pet’s taxes are going to fund your retirement. Sure is nice of women to provide that service for free.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:01 pmHey, you should rate this assmeister on The Boss Awards. http://www.thebossawards.com
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:09 pmI don’t think you realize that having a child (even if you have planned/chosen this) is not exactly like taking four months off to go to the Bahamas or something. You guys are making it sound like that a woman who’s pregnant is going out clubbing every night or is out sipping martini’s on the beach, rather than vomitting, having hormonal mood flings, could be suffering from depression or any other severe medical side-affects, nevermind the whole birth process which can be life-threatening and then adjusting to a newborn baby… Choosing to have a child isn’t the same as choosing to go visit Aunt Patty for a few months in Florida. You can’t liken something like cosmetic surgery to bringing a child into the world–it’s sad enough as is that the child grows up to say that his mother shouldn’t be covered for having done so.
On that note, I guess there aren’t any Employers who have a wife working somewhere who may become or have become pregnant? I’m sure if it was YOUR wife and YOUR child you’d want her to be covered.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:25 pmThis is not an uncommon sentiment. Many managers have been burned by female employees who take positions knowing that they are going to get pregnant immediately and not return to work after maternity leave. My own sister-in-law did it, and didn’t feel guilty about it.
As a woman, I was disgusted at my sister-in-law because she was knowingly abusing the system and making all women look bad. The women I work with (Ph.D. chemists and engineers who love their jobs) who have have children have reported being grilled by managers, HR, and even coworkers throughout their pregnancy as to whether or not they would be coming back. No, they are going to chuck all that schooling and experience and milk the system. Good Lord. It’s disgusting that all women are being punished because of the bad apples.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:08 pmHe’s sounds like a blooming idiot just like W. How ignorant can these people be?
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:24 pmZinsmeister is right. You either want to have a career, or you want a baby. These two don’t mix together. What the hell is the point of joining the White House for a month and get pregnant a month later? No work would be accomplished. It’ll just require more hassle from everyone else in filling in the missing position. I’m going have to agree with Zinsmeister on this one and I’m not being sexist. Bottom line is: you either choose your career or your baby. Simple as that.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:39 pmI could not agree more with EEmaio. Many men find it impossibly difficult to multitask, or to work with anything else on their minds, at least into their mid-forties. Those men should choose: work or baby.
No doubt this shortcoming leads to their belief that women are similarly limited. Fortunately, though, women consistently demonstrate and test with more developed multitasking skills.
Sadly, the greatest application of this ability is in supporting and raising alone the children of ex’s who are doing NEITHER. Nevertheless, it proves there is no basis at all for limiting a woman to one choice.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:51 pmOh, here’s a brief follow-up:
Women do not leave the workplace permanently in large numbers when they have a baby. The neanderthal in this article may want to consider that they leave HIS workplace because–as one employee pointed out–he is a jerk to women with kids while feeling free to enjoy his own.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:53 pm“Why do Reps hate women and babies”???
No, no. You don’t get it. They don’t hate women (much) until they become adults, and they don’t hate babies until they are born.
In both cases, women and babies are hated only because they have hung around too long. Obviously their own fault.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:56 pmWhat is anyone surprised that people running this world are screwed up?
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:03 pmWhy is anyone surprised that people running this world are screwed up?
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:04 pmThis is not an uncommon sentiment. Many managers have been burned by female employees who take positions knowing that they are going to get pregnant immediately and not return to work after maternity leave. My own sister-in-law did it, and didn’t feel guilty about it.
———-
I think you will find that American women DO go back to work after pregnancy. The economy now requires it, especially with a child to support.
Your s-i-l may have delayed returning to work because the shared effort she had reasonably anticipated in caring for a family did not appear. But no matter how much she totes the barge alone, she will eventually be forced back into the workplace. At which time, she will still haul the home burden all by herself.
The Zinmeister’s warped view probably includes a wife who has ALL the home and child responsibility (maybe hired help) so that a “manly” parenting activity like attending his kid’s game doesn’t have to compete with “women’s work” like hauling a sobbing child with an earache and another infant to the pediatrician.
And nobody corrects him, because unlike men with courage, the men who work for him are afraid for their jobs if he finds out they take any responsibility for their families.
Oh, by the way, when the Reps have annihilated the middle class, this will all be much simpler. Underpaid people will have to work at what they can get, and take the pay they can get, kids or not, while people like him will not have to take care of their families. We’re pretty well on that slippery slope already, you will notice.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:26 pmDon’t you just love this administration? Just when you think it can’t possibly be any more sordid, yet another Bush hiree shows their true colors. Women-haters can rest assured that their interests will be attended to by the Bush administration.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:37 pmI haven’t read all the comments, but I have one point to make:
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:15 pmsince the majority of households are dual income, if working women don’t have babies, we won’t have future workers to replace those of us who want to retire one day. Or maybe Jonny thinks babies still arrive via the stork.
123: Actually, my SIL had this whole “milk the system” plan in place before she got pregnant. That’s what really pissed me off. Luckily, my BIL makes enough so that she can stay home permanently without going massively into debt. Of course she is going to be SOL if they every divorce.
I understand your point though - some women expect to have a more equitable division of labor at home, then decide to leave when the husband’s help doesn’t materialize. Although that still ruins it for the rest of working women who love their jobs AND want kids, I try to be understanding and feel sorry for the women whose husbands are just in it for the Kodak moments.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:39 amThink about it. Women first wanted equal rights. OK. Now they want extra rights, due to their physical differences. That’s why they originally had different roles in the first place.
I’m all for equal rights as long as women take equal responsibilities, dress conservatively as men do in the office place, and don’t ask for extra rights such as pregnancy leave and child care.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:29 amI think he’s right, all u librals are makeing the asumption that he’s republican trying to act smart when you know for a fact that he is… he should be able to say whatever he wants, and i agree woman get knocked up and stop goin to work.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:51 amThe president once gave the Chancellor of Germany a backrub. Obviously, this is not an administration that is particularly sensitive to a woman’s ability to be equal to men. Why should we be at all surprised by this type of behaviour?
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:35 amThis is a Man who is just telling it like it is.
All you politically correctnicks can’t handle the truth.
Get over it.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:33 pmO.K. How many of you who think it’s wrong for women to reproduce and have jobs too are willing to admit that you really hate mothers? I mean, do you think reproduction is disgusting? Do you talk about breeders and so on and think it’s all pretty nasty? Is mother a dirty word to you?
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:13 pmTo tell you the truth, it horrifies me to think that co-workers are sitting around grousing about how a woman got maternity leave. That is pretty sick and indicates that some people need to get a life.
Look around you at the people who are failing for lack of money and lack of nurture. Why is that? Could it be because in the U.S.we treat too many mothers like dirt and make life as unpleasant as we can for them at every turn?
I totally admire women who are working and doing a good job of bringing up their kids in the face of the general social contempt for mothers, particularly for single mothers. They are investing in the future. I don’t say motherhood or parenthood is for everyone but a society that does not invest in children has no future.
The idea that families are a social good and not a “personal choice” is of course alien to many in this day and age of rugged individualism and me-firstism.
I envision fewer children but better cared for children. I’m all for ZPG. This means maternity leave and day care. Contraception, abortion, yes, if needed.
Men are defaulting so much on paying for their offspring that women simply have to work. And I feel that even mothers should have the right to fulfilling careers or at the very least decent jobs. In other words, I would like to see some consideration toward giving mothers and children some privileges, even some that childless people don’t have, such as subsidized maternity leave and preschools.
Selfishness is NOT a virtue, in my book. And children are the future. Your future, even if you do not like them or want them.
Go take your soma now.
To all of you woman haters,
Your mothers should have ABORTED YOU!
May 24th, 2007 at 1:33 pmHi,
May 30th, 2007 at 12:00 amreading this i wonder have any of you taken into account the women of rape who for their own beliefs cannot abort a baby but it is not there fault they are pregnant, and yes whilst they can chew up money so does everything else, and to state a point this man is a sexist and racist pig, the rest is just that, and also in order to pay for our children to be born and to make sure they are healthy we have to have a income! you want future workers you can under pay and over work? then dont bloody complain by god man you really are a idiot! children are our future & if you dont like become a gay, you wont have a child that way! or could it be this man and maf54 have either gotten a woman pregnant by “accident” or they just hate their mothers?? either way its your fault to we cant have kids without a little help genius! i wonder if either of you are married? if not dont get your hopes up