General Business
GBS 205
Week 1
Professor Wenzlau
January 17, 2014 pp.17-18 Critical Legal Thinking Case This statute looks like is fair because it cared about women’s health. In my opinion, it is not fair. I don’t think the statute would be lawful today and it shouldn’t be a “progressive science”. Because，first of all, all people should have equal rights under the law no matter men or women. Seems like in this statute, it try to protect women but I just can see sexual discrimination. For example, if a woman wants or needs to work, it will be illegal to stop her from doing the job without any scientific proof that can proof it is bad for her health or she doesn’t have requirements of this job. It is the case that men trying to deprive women’ rights. Secondly, in this statute, women cannot get the same benefit with men. If men can work more hours than women, then they can get more salaries and benefits such as medical insurance. It is unfair for women for who wants or need to work. It seems like women get advocates of special rights but not equal rights. As America turned to industrial employment, the employers just wanted get their benefit maximization and forgot woman’s equal rights. In upholding the law, the Illinois Supreme Court said that “ Woman’s physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence.” I think what the court said only is correct when woman is doing same physical works with man. Of course woman’s strength is not bigger than man but woman’s power could be bigger than man. For what the Illinois Supreme Court said, I hardly can agree with it. Last, it could unfair for man because some reasons. For instance, men have to work more than ten hours and do more works than women in a same factory just because the law prohibited women who were employed in factories and other manufacturing facilities from working more than 10 hours per day. So men have to get more works than women in which
Week 1
Professor Wenzlau
January 17, 2014 pp.17-18 Critical Legal Thinking Case This statute looks like is fair because it cared about women’s health. In my opinion, it is not fair. I don’t think the statute would be lawful today and it shouldn’t be a “progressive science”. Because，first of all, all people should have equal rights under the law no matter men or women. Seems like in this statute, it try to protect women but I just can see sexual discrimination. For example, if a woman wants or needs to work, it will be illegal to stop her from doing the job without any scientific proof that can proof it is bad for her health or she doesn’t have requirements of this job. It is the case that men trying to deprive women’ rights. Secondly, in this statute, women cannot get the same benefit with men. If men can work more hours than women, then they can get more salaries and benefits such as medical insurance. It is unfair for women for who wants or need to work. It seems like women get advocates of special rights but not equal rights. As America turned to industrial employment, the employers just wanted get their benefit maximization and forgot woman’s equal rights. In upholding the law, the Illinois Supreme Court said that “ Woman’s physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence.” I think what the court said only is correct when woman is doing same physical works with man. Of course woman’s strength is not bigger than man but woman’s power could be bigger than man. For what the Illinois Supreme Court said, I hardly can agree with it. Last, it could unfair for man because some reasons. For instance, men have to work more than ten hours and do more works than women in a same factory just because the law prohibited women who were employed in factories and other manufacturing facilities from working more than 10 hours per day. So men have to get more works than women in which