Really? Because when employers fire someone because they are pregnant, they probably aren't going to commit that to paper--they might even advise the employee to resign to make it easy on themselves. Now, I know that all anyone has to do anymore to make a smear stick is say it out loud and let people's biases do all the work, but yes, women have been let go from employment because they were pregnant. Sometimes it was difficult to prove--and other factors might have influenced one's decision whether to fight it or not. I just don't feel like this is an absolute "gotcha!"
I totally get people on the right running with the idea that she's claiming a form of victimhood, but I think that isn't really the situation, here. She's describing an experience many women had at the time. It really seems to me like a case where people who experience sex discrimination can also run into factors making it difficult to prove or to fight--and honestly? That's not a news flash. I don't think her statements have been disproved, and I don't believe people on the left (even if they favor another candidate) should want to run with this.
Post a Comment