LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Yes, they affirmed it was the policy to treat women that way. That doesn’t mean it was officially written down. An unofficial policy can be just as damaging to those affected as a written down policy.
More Evidence Emerges Elizabeth Warren Lied About Being Fired for Pregnancy
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
C
Cathoholic
Guest
LeafByNiggle . . .
The application to Warren’s individual situation might be different, but with what I have seen, I will need more evidence than her merely saying this.
Especially considering all the other circumstances (her prior talk giving other reasons, the county record, her history of “Indian” claiming, her phony Pow Wow Chow recipe, etc).
If you want to think otherwise, you go ahead and think that Leaf.
I could ask you the same question.
So you are putting your memory of speech pathologists in 1971 up against the women who claimed they had a position of power in negotiation by virtue of their scarcity?
My answer is based on the larger principle. And it is correct, in my opinion anyway.
The application to Warren’s individual situation might be different, but with what I have seen, I will need more evidence than her merely saying this.
Especially considering all the other circumstances (her prior talk giving other reasons, the county record, her history of “Indian” claiming, her phony Pow Wow Chow recipe, etc).
If you want to think otherwise, you go ahead and think that Leaf.
I could ask you the same question.
So you are putting your memory of speech pathologists in 1971 up against the women who claimed they had a position of power in negotiation by virtue of their scarcity?
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No. I have no memory of the status of speech pathologists in 1971. I am trusting the word of the many women who experienced what they did at the time.
As for the specific argument that Warren had such valuable skills they would not have let her go, I will remind you that Warren did not have all the education that others in her field had, and so it was necessary to waive some requirements to allow her to teach at all, which they did! (Temporarily, until they found out she was pregnant.) Again, not a very remarkable story, and therefore quite believable.
To hear the way Warren describes this, they learned she was pregnant and terminated her for it.
But you make it sound like she left on her own because she thought they might.
Which is it?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
She was not “terminated”. Her contract for the following year was not renewed, despite the promise that it would be. Their minds were changed once they found out she was pregnant. Why do people find this very ordinary story so hard to believe? It happened a lot to many women.LeafByNiggle:
To hear the way Warren describes this, they learned she was pregnant and terminated her for it.
But you make it sound like she left on her own because she thought they might.
Which is it?
T
Theo520
Guest
Lizzy is the one who changed her story 180 degrees
I don’t have to know or prove which version is true
At least one of the versions of ‘her truth’ must be a lie.
Because it came from the lips of a politician.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Nope.n The stories are not mutually exclusive.
The story about being let go because of her pregnancy has good evidence to support it.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
None of the quotes here have shown her to contradict herself. She left out certain facts in some tellings of her story when she was being interviewed in a different context. That is not a lie.LeafByNiggle:
Lizzy is the one who changed her story 180 degrees
I don’t have to know or prove which version is true
At least one of the versions of ‘her truth’ must be a lie.
Many would consider this a lie of omision.
D
dvdjs
Guest
My goodness. Now this has morphed to an accusation she lied when she did not discuss the impact fo her pregnancy. Wow.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
You are morphing speech pathologists into other types of historically women’s jobs.
But that was not the case for speech pathologists. Back then or now.
The fact that they “waived requirements” in the first place lends support to exactly what I am saying.
If it was a problem, the principal would not have brought her up before the board for re-hiring, and the board would not have re-hired her.
You are making my point Leaf. You just are not going to put it that way.
There is no evidence of the principal firing Warren due to pregnancy. (Outside of her late newfangled claims.)
There IS evidence Warren likes to play the victim card.
There IS evidence Warren was re-hired.
My opinion? She’s lying unless more information is presented that convinces me otherwise.
Last edited:
G
gam197
Guest
Common sense would dictate that this was not true. Many of the teachers at least in the public school system were and are married woman with children. Nothing has changed.
This is the 1970’s not the 1950’s, Elizabeth Warren was a married woman expecting a child, why would she be disparaged?
If she was not married, I’d say the story may have some truth.
This is the 1970’s not the 1950’s, Elizabeth Warren was a married woman expecting a child, why would she be disparaged?
If she was not married, I’d say the story may have some truth.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It would be a lie of omission if the question she was answering was “were you denied your job because you were pregnant?” Since that was not the question, there is no obligation to mention it.LeafByNiggle:
Many would consider this a lie of omision.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
D
dvdjs
Guest
Not sure how old you are and how far back you remember. But things have changed.
One certainly does not make a pattern, but it is worth noting that in the 70s it was not uncommon for a teacher to be pregnant.
G
gam197
Guest
I have a number of female teachers in my family of various ages. All have children. This may have been an issue in 1950’s but I can’t believe it was an issue in 1970s when Warren had her first child as a married woman.
The mid sixties was the “burning you bra” age, Women rights were at the forefront of politics, but even prior to this many of the school teachers were married women with children. The day when women were required to be single to become a teacher dates back to 1800’s.
Warren would have us believe we went backwards instead of forward.
The mid sixties was the “burning you bra” age, Women rights were at the forefront of politics, but even prior to this many of the school teachers were married women with children. The day when women were required to be single to become a teacher dates back to 1800’s.
Warren would have us believe we went backwards instead of forward.
D
dvdjs
Guest
While that is nice, if true, the fact remains that women at that time in Warren’s school have affirmed that was not that case, by policy, at that school. Why is no significance attached to that testimony?
Last edited:
- Status