Bimbo sues for special privileges

Ex-VP sues Goldman over “mommy track”

Hanna, a Manhattan resident, alleged that after her 2005 return from her first maternity leave, Goldman demoted her and made her feel unwelcome in what had become a “boys-only” club.

She said she was fired in February 2009, a week before she was to return from a second maternity leave.

“When Ms. Hanna decided to take the ‘off-ramp’ provided by the firm to devote time to her children, there was no ‘on-ramp’ that enabled her to return to full-time employment,” the complaint said. “Essentially, the ‘off-ramp’ was a direct path to a mommy-track that ultimately derailed Ms. Hanna’s career.”

She made the choice herself. Why on earth should she have special privileges when her male colleagues have to actually show up at the office and do their jobs? Not that I would ever suggest that women are responsible for their own actions.

“It is clear that Goldman Sachs views working mothers as second-class citizens who should be at home with their children,” the complaint said.

That’s their idea of a second-class citizen? One who fulfills her responsibilities? Instead of dumping her kids on strangers being paid minimum wage so she can strut around the office having her ego stroked?

“We have seen more gender and pregnancy discrimination cases since the economy began its downturn,” Wigdor said.

Like I started saying months ago: feminism is a luxury of a healthy economy. We can’t afford to indulge these silly women’s fantasies anymore.

“I attribute it to the fact that managers are typically men who have unfettered discretion about who to terminate,” he went on. “They perceive that working mothers may not work as hard as men, and may not be with the firm as long so they can be with their children.”



One Response to “Bimbo sues for special privileges”

  1. Apollyon Says:

    The sense of entitlement is astonishing (ok, it's expected but you get the point).I once had a discussion with a woman about whether or not pregnant women (who like to work up until the last minute in order to get full pay) work as hard as men (or even non-pregrant women). I said it is unlikely given she has to have frequent bathroom breaks, is uncomfortable, occasionally sick, etc. The response? "I worked just as hard as I did while not pregnant. There was no difference". Obviously this begs the question about her general work ethic.Still, it was impossible to explain that women routinely take time off due to pregnancy (and work less while pregnant) and they also work fewer hours as working mothers and that this alone justifies favouring men in the workplace (never mind the myriad other reasons). Obviously this logic was rejected under the label of 'discrimination'. Discrimination is fine (we do it all the time). We discriminate based upon skills, experience, education, etc and this is acceptable. Discrimination based upon workload, focus, etc is not allowed. Can't have women live up to equal expectations! That's discriminatory!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: