[cercis]

I don't think you get my points, Princess.

The excuse ("reason") employers use for hiring fewer women is that they will give birth and might leave the workforce and all that money spent training them will be wasted.

So, the same "reason" can be used to not hire many men - they have risk factors for heart attacks, so we'd lose all that money spent training them. And we can't hire men under 25 - too many killed in preventable car accidents. And men going through midlife crises. Etc.

Men (and far too many women - which appears to include you) point to childbirth as such a good reason to say women are less hireable and it's absolutely indefensible. Period. There are more reasons to not hire a man, but no one takes those seriously.

So, even if a woman chose not to give birth, she'd still be penalized because employers think she will. There is no way to convince an employer that you won't chose to give birth -even being sterile, they will think you will adopt and because you went to such measures will be much more likely to quit and stay home.

As far as I'm concerned, childbirth and the discomfort of being pg were absolutely the easiest part of being a woman. Losing out on my dream jobs, and listening to the crap from men employers - that was the hardest part of being a woman.