Oh. My. God. I especially love the part about the 100 lb policewoman for back up, because ALL women weigh 100 lbs, and NO men do.

And if a woman has a LEGAL right to take maternity leave with pay, she should have it for ANY job, not just the lower-paying ones. What a douche.

"First of all, I must admit that I am a male chauvinist..."

Gee I wonder if that has anything to do with his perceived differences he sees in said letter?

I once read this psychology textbook from the 70s that claimed menstruation would make women unfit for ANY profession. The author seemed to be under the impression that menstruation would cause women to "take time off", it was a really bizarre argument. It was clearly made by someone who didn't know the first thing about periods.

And then of course, there was that boy I knew in seventh grade who didn't believe pregnant women should teach, because they're too hormonal.

If only Mr. Blachut here was 12 years old....

How many male police officers feel comfortable with a 100 pound female backup?"

So, he thinks female police officers are okay, as long as they weigh at least as much (if not more) than their male counterparts?
You heard the man, lady cops! Eat more donuts, damn you!

I can't believe any paper would publish a letter from a self-professed male chauvinist! If this guy thinks that men in government don't take time off to seek medical treatment, or even take extended sick leave, then he's sorely mistaken!

At times like these, it does one good to remember Pat Schroeder (D-CO) who famously retorted to some schmuck (how can you be a mom and a US Rep) "... I have a uterus and a brain, and I use them both".

I've been wondering about that too, Webbess-- there's a scene in Rosemary's Baby where two of the little old ladies are talking about being put out of commission by their periods. Granted, the state of feminine hygiene before 1970 was less grab 'n'go, but still, it struck me as odd.

Would I be correct in assuming that legislators' health insurance also covers their families? In that case any male representative or senator without a vasectomy is just a health care burden waiting to happen. Because that's what precious, holy fetuses turn into, right? A worthless drain on taxpayers.

There are so many sexist assumptions in this letter it's hard to pick one thing. I'm just flabbergasted the paper would print such driel. I hope its readers will fire back with letters of their own. Or better yet, cancel their subscription.

Well, to start with I have met 100 pound female police officers. I am not sure how their male co-workers feel about it, but they accepted to the academy and did the same training as their male counterparts. Secondly, this guy is a complete moron. Not only do people in government collect insurance (which is a monthly fee, it's not like it's actually costing the people more money for her to go to her prenatal appointments) but their families as well. Why should be pay for a public officials wife to give birth and have a child, but not a government official herself?
Also our government pays for any prenatal care for any woman who financially needs it, while it doesn't pay for birth control or abortions. So not only are we paying for this woman's pregnancy, but thousands of others, not because women necessarily even got pregnant by choice, but couldn't gain access to birth control.

Apparently this newspaper will publish anyone's letter--if you keep reading, there's one from a man who thinks that the teaching of evolution is what caused the Columbine massacre. Because there's no God in the theory of evolution, and if there's no God, we might as well do anything we want and kill everyone. You have seen those roving gangs of murderous Scientists roaming the streets, just looking for an excuse to start a bloodbath, right?

Ow. I think I rolled my eyes too hard.

There are so many sexist assumptions in this letter it's hard to pick one thing. I'm just flabbergasted the paper would print such drivel. I hope its readers will fire back with letters of their own. Or better yet, cancel their subscription.

Regarding the idea that menstruation was oh-so-debilitating back in the day: when I got the Period Movie, in 4th grade (1981), we got a booklet to take home, and I still remember that the booklet insisted that just because you had your period didn't mean you were sick (or had to act like it), and that you could still go to school and do gym class, and do all the stuff you usually did. The level of unusual insistence suggested to me - even at such a young non-analytical age - that someone somewhere believed that must be the case.

Oops. Sorry I posted my comment twice.

It's like the Onion, except even funnier.

And here I thought that "male chauvinist" was an attack phrase these days. 4th wave here we come. :(

There are only two relevant questions.

1) How much extended medical leave to we afford representatives?

2) How much time will she need off?

If 2

ARGH! I've got to remember that this forum hates brackets.

If the answer to 2 is less than the answer to 1, it shouldn't even be up for discussion.

And I suppose male politicians should have to reimburse their salaries for ever hour they're chatting up underage teens or soliciting sex in bathrooms.

OK, then any Congressman or male Senator whose wife gets pregnant while he's in office should have to pay all expenses related to the pregnancy out of pocket.

I mean really. Besides, don't elected officials get lifetime health coverage and a pension, no matter how long they serve. Why doesn't this idiot male supremacist complain about that gravy train?

This type of thinking pisses me off no end. She's taking time off for a medical reason. Would he be saying the same of a Congressman undergoing treatment for cancer? (I'm not comparing pregnancy to cancer, just the situation) Forget that- it's none of his business why she takes time off.

His comments regarding the 'differences' make women out to be tiny little beings that can't pull their own weight. My angry side wants to see how he would hold up against a 100lb female krav maga student.

I would like to suggest that all those male members of Congress who are convicted felons should reimburse the US taxpayers for all the time they miss due to serving their deserved prison sentences.

Except that...they don't go to prison. Oh well.

Didn't Dick Cheany get a heart transplant or some such thing? Should he have not been paid for the three or four weeks he spent in recovery, and for the week he probably spent prepping for the surgery? What about all of those days President Bush spent playing on his ranch?
This guy is an asshole.

Personally, I love when the paper prints letters from idiots. Especially because the local paper in my (small, Republican, East Texas town) always prints my radically liberal responses. ;)

This writer is an idiot.

I happen to believe there are jobs that *people* are not qualified to do, for various reasons such as physical strength, etc. I should not be a firefighter, lifeguard, or anywhere else heavy lifting or prolonged physical exertion is required. I do not associate such qualities as strength, only with being male. Women who succeed in such fields should rightly be proud of themselves and their gender. I love it when women succeed and surpass men myself. There is nothing like proving oneself when others do *not* believe.

The reader mentions being in the armed forces or serving on the police force. If someone, male or female, young, old, thin, obese, makes it through the training, it is that training and equipment such as a gun that will allow them to perform their duties. If I were to stereotype at all, I would say that we most definitely could use more female police officers. Because of ingrained cultural values, they could be perceived as less threatening, and less likely to escalate violent situations than "manly" officers pumped up on testosterone. There may even be criminals who do NOT want to attack female officers because of the perceived differences or possible backlash from the public or in the jury box.

Would I be comfortable with a female at my side or watching my back?* If they are wearing the uniform, why shouldn't I? Perhaps this reader forgets that a hundred fifty million men are not in uniform. They are either too young, too old, didn't qualify, got out of their own accord, were kicked out, or made the choice not to take the risks the job entailed. However, many women willingly make that choice and take those risks to serve, in spite of, or because of these troubled times.

Oooooo. Women workers might get pregnant, cuz they are having teh sexx. What a concept. That is what childcare, partners and extended family are for, which seems to be the way of humanity since the beginning. If some man does not want to support his partner or find her proper support, particularly when working, perhaps he can go without children.

*In addition to having a nursing license, I am awaiting a position as a Transportation Security Officer (TSO) for the TSA, the federal security officers in airports. At the interview, I had just one question: do officers carry weapons? The answer was "No." Just "No." I said "OK," thought "Darn," because *I* wanted the gun, and that was that. Even then I would not fear serving at the local airport, with the approximately 50% female force, all of us preserving *ha* our homeland security in Hawaii, where Al-Qaida is so itching to strike. There have been one or two incidents of people breaking through the checkpoint at the local airport with guns. I am fairly unconcerned by that, or the fact that all officers would be unarmed. I have faith in the training.

How many male police officers feel comfortable with a 100 pound female backup?

That is why they make GUNS. Also, with the training they get, most of them could probably kick my 150 lb. ass pretty easily, bare-handed.

Besides, I'd have to imagine that one's trust of one's partner is based primarily on experience, as it is in most things.

Also, what about all the time that our elected representatives spend campaigning for the next election? Think of all the taxpayer money we could save if we didn't pay them for that!

Beautiful. The same shit gets thrown around in every corporation in this country though: women shouldn't be promoted above a certain level and should be paid less because their "family responsibilities" and the potential for pregnancy will take focus and time away from their jobs. Every corporation in this country. There's always at leaset one sexist asshole that thinks pregnancy and menstruation and "female troubles" are something we should apologize for. Nevermind that the almighty cock plays pretty much a 50/50 role in the first one.

http://www.linkedin.com/find/b/b60/b60_42.html

From this guy's Linkedin business profile:

Ron Blachut
Retired from Disney - ABC-TV

Current: Retired, Disney - ABC

Past: TV Engineer, ABC-TV
Military Police, United States Army

Education: Knowledge, Life Full of Experiences

Also, that guy's personal contribution to that sentator's medical bills is probably about 10 cents. Ouch. STEEP.

Personally, I don't know how we can reliably elect anyone. What about people with speeding tickets? They could get into accident and have to go to the hospital. People who have a family history of heart disease are obviously out. And every non-castrated male is at risk for testicular cancer! And speaking of cancer, skin cancer is the most common type of cancer there is! How are we going to find enough skinless representatives???????

See how easy it is to get worked into an idiotic frenzy over things that are just a natural consequence of life? Almost as easy as it is to forget that, oops, men are involved in the baby-making process, too.

I love how he uses "Ms" for Gillibrand but the only women taxpayers who are worth addressing are the "Mrs" ones.

"Didn't Dick Cheany get a heart transplant or some such thing? Should he have not been paid for the three or four weeks he spent in recovery, and for the week he probably spent prepping for the surgery?"

A heart condition is involuntary. Pregnancy is a choice, not an illness.

I just did my final investigative paper on cpcs v.s. legitimate centers like Planned Parenthood. On a local website for their, "A Caring Pregnancy Center," webpage, the link for men says, "If she truly is pregnant then she is already being overwhelmed by hormone changes that hinder her from making good decisions." When I interviewed the executive director about the statement she said it was medically backed, and factual because she gets over-emotional due to her hormones. When I interviewed the cpcs they made either unfactual errors, or brushed off the questions. The director got a little angry with me when I started asking about other elements of their business and cpcs beliefs. Apparently they are expanding and are planning a CPC that will serve the needs of 'business women' and students. Apparently the idea that women are incompetetnt while pregnant seems to be part of their bread and butter manifesto and they are attempting to add validity to that belief! How are these CPCs even legal!!

http://www.acpcpueblo.org/for-men.html

If a letter started out with "first of all, I must admit I'm a big stinkin' racist" I doubt they would have published several paragraphs extolling the differences between races. I seriously cannot believe any paper would publish this crap.

Carrying a weapon while serving in the Armed Forces and firefighting are not suitable lines of work for women to prove that they are physically equal to men.

The arrogance of the assumption that men somehow figure into every decision that women make is stunning.

I second whoever brought up that Chaney should reimburse us for all of his hospital stays, doctor visits, etc...I mean he had the heart problems before he became V-P. Pre-existing condition! Most people who came onto a job with Chaney's health problems would get denied by their insurance provider.

"Beautiful. The same shit gets thrown around in every corporation in this country though: women shouldn't be promoted above a certain level and should be paid less because their 'family responsibilities' and the potential for pregnancy will take focus and time away from their jobs."

That attitude most certainly is sexist, and unfortunately the situation many mothers with careers or former SAHMs find themselves in, because childcare mainly falls upon them.

However, if someone male or female, for any of a variety of reasons including family emergency or child rearing, spent a prolonged period of time away from work, months or years, perhaps unable to accomplish what their peers did, and not attaining the same skills or level of experience, would it be unfair NOT to offer them the same opportunities as those peers whose work was uninterrupted? (Those peers could be singles, people without children or whose children are grown, people without sick family members, or people without serious or chronic health disorders.) My brother was a stay at home dad for a year and a half in addition to being a computer programmer six years out of the loop, and is paying the price*. I have been out of the country for 12 years gaining no relevant job skills or experience, went back to college at 37, was unemployed for nine months, was a man trying to get into nursing, and I am paying the price.

*Wife demanding a divorce and full custody of child, as a matter of fact. From an economic standpoint, I do not blame her, if a male breadwinner is what she expected of marriage.

I consider it quite natural to face serious difficulties for my lifestyle (I do not claim pregnancy or parenthood is a choice), as well as a drastic cut in economic opportunity. My male and female classmates who chose their careers immediately after high school or college are now likely in management or other mid to top levels in their organizations, while I am a 39 year old newcomer to the workplace. I consider it humbling and amusing that a 21 year old Filipino female RN can be my boss, not because I look down upon her for her age or gender, but because of the drastic differences between us in competence and experience (advantage - hers). Also, by my age, a worker should be well on their way to retirement (25 years gov't service) and social security benefits. I start from zero at 39. I will be working past 67, no matter what I do.

My grandmother worked for the government for years and years years, she has the same health care the congressmen do. So by that logic I guess we should stop paying her healthcare too?

This is just so ridiculous.

"My grandmother worked for the government for years and years years, she has the same health care the congressmen do. So by that logic I guess we should stop paying her healthcare too?"

Why would someone think that about your grandmother?

So, has 88mph been banned yet? Just checking.

Oh, so my point to the post above. My brother and I, for our own reasons, are six and 14 years, respectively, out of the loop, while classmates and peers - male and female - forged ahead. He is 43, and I am 39. Male. The employment challenges and lost opportunities and wages are all our own responsibility, not due to discrimination. Why should it be any different for people in similar situations?

I have no issue with govt. officials or anyone getting pregnancy, medical, or family leave.
However, during these times, the officials that we elected are unable to serve us in the capacity promised when elected. It is unreasonable to think that a new mother, or someone with cancer, or someone who is caring for an aging parent... can serve in their position as effectively as someone who is not. And voters have a right to see their elected officials serve full-term instead of someone they didn't want.
So should there be an elected "backup" for all government positions like vice president? At work, 4-5 of my coworkers can cover for me and help me out when I'm gone for a few months. But elected government positions are different.

Admittedly I wouldn't notice if the Bush administration instead of Bush were running the country, but who is going to shake hands with the other world leaders if he gets sick? His backup, the VP.

This would probably create a bloat of elected government offical jobs - where do we stop?

It is an interesting issue. Is democracy (the republic/elections) more important than the individual elected?

Food for thought anyway, for me.

Congress is one of those very rare jobs where it's not "all about the employee."

So as a result, I can actually see it being reasonable to ask those serving in Congress to try to schedule their voluntary/planned things in such a way that they wouldn't miss a significant amount of the session, assuming they could make those changes without much hardship or fuss. But that's as far as I'd go.