Larry Elder endorsed pregnancy discrimination, criticized governor for being a working mom

Written by Eric Hananoki

Published

Larry Elder on Fox News

In his books, right-wing radio host and leading California recall candidate Larry Elder endorsed pregnancy discrimination in employment, suggesting that working mothers aren’t “dedicated” and able to give an “all-hands-on-deck commitment” to work. He also attacked a Republican governor for leading her state after having kids, claiming that “to tell women they can run a state, have family and children, and be equally attentive to all—is a lie.”

California will be holding an election on September 14 to determine whether Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom should be recalled and, if so, who should replace him. (If the answer is no, the second question becomes moot.) Elder has become the leading recall candidate based on polling and money raised. 

Elder has a long history of making toxic remarks as a commentator. 

The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that Elder’s commentary has included suggesting that certain “women were too unattractive to be sexually assaulted”; writing “that Democrats had an advantage over Republicans because they were supported by women, and ‘women know less than men about political issues, economics and current events’”; and claiming that “women could be misled because ‘the less one knows, the easier the manipulation.’”

Media Matters found additional sexist commentary in his 2002 book Showdown: Confronting Bias, Lies, and the Special Interests that Divide America. 

In one section, Elder endorsed employers discriminating against women based on pregnancy. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission states: “The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) forbids discrimination based on pregnancy when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, such as leave and health insurance, and any other term or condition of employment.” 

Elder defended venture capitalists asking women whether they plan to have children by comparing it to sports teams forbidding their players from engaging “in hazardous conduct not related to their sport. Call it protecting an investment.” He then wrote, “Are there legitimate business reasons for a venture capitalist to ask a female entrepreneur whether and when she intends to have children? Hell, yes.” He then relayed a quote stating that a woman can slow down in the workplace after having children and suggested that it shows women who have children aren’t “committed” to work. 

He continued: “Forget about venture capitalists. How about regular ol’ employers? Why can’t they ask the same questions? Many businessmen and businesswomen deal with this reality every day: Will the woman who applies as a sales manager give me enough steady, committed time on the job to warrant my investment?” 

Elder then complained that laws like the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “increase the cost of hiring women, and the expense is passed on to consumers” and added: “But ask a woman if she intends to have children and expect a hot call from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A heavy thing, asking somebody for dough. Along with a solid business plan, venture capitalists seek an all-hands-on-deck commitment. Are you dedicated? Will you give me 24/7? Sissies need not apply. Or can I not say that?” From that section: 

SEXISM IN FUNDING? 

Women now succeed in business at a phenomenal rate. According to a recent USA Today article, between 1992 and 1997, 70 percent of all new jobs came from female-headed start-up companies. Yet while women owned 26 percent of all companies, they received “only” 4.4 percent of investment money. Sounds like the landscape looks pretty grim. Is sex discrimination at work here? 

Well, not exactly. A female venture capitalist said, “I don’t care if the entrepreneur’s name is Sam or Susan. I care about: Have they done it before? Are they credible? Can they come in and defend their business case?” It turns out that women receive only 12 percent of doctorate degrees in engineering and 39 percent of business degrees, credentials looked upon favorably by venture capitalists. Also, female businesses tend to concentrate in the service and retail areas, smallish businesses not likely to appeal to home-run-seeking venture capitalists. 

But the USA Today article implies unfairness, if not discrimination. How? Well, some venture capitalists—get this—dare ask these female entrepreneurs whether they intend to have children. One female entrepreneur sought advice from a male mentor: “When [Christine] Warren, 32, was planning her start-up near Philadelphia, a man she approached for advice asked if she had any children. She said she had a 4-year-old and a 1-year-old. ‘So you’re done?’ he asked. Warren recalls thinking: ‘Are you really asking me that?’” Yeah, he was really asking you that. And why not? 

When a venture capitalist ponies up tens of millions of dollars to invest in a start-up or expansion, he wants to safeguard his investment. Suppose Danny Daredevil approaches you for millions for his high-tech start-up. He presents a detailed, if optimistic, business plan that shows gradual increase in revenues with a huge payoff in five to ten years. But Danny, on the weekends, enjoys competitive stunt skiing. He also likes to drag race, again, just on the weekends, mind you. Question: Do you insert a clause forbidding Danny Daredevil from engaging in his enjoyable, but high risk, weekend hobbies? Of course you do. In fact, many professional sports contracts forbid baseball, football, and basketball players to engage in hazardous conduct not related to their sport. Call it protecting an investment. 

Are there legitimate business reasons for a venture capitalist to ask a female entrepreneur whether and when she intends to have children? Hell, yes. In fact, USA Today quotes a professor who says, “Some women may be slowed by child-rearing. But others start companies so they can better control their schedules to spend more time with their kids.” In the article, one female entrepreneur admits that if she had never had kids, she “absolutely” would have begun a company sooner. Doesn’t the fact that “some women may be slowed by child-rearing” warrant an obvious, sensible question? Are you committed? 

Forget about venture capitalists. How about regular ol’ employers? Why can’t they ask the same questions? Many businessmen and businesswomen deal with this reality every day: Will the woman who applies as a sales manager give me enough steady, committed time on the job to warrant my investment? Employers also face the mandatory Family and Medical Leave Act, allowing an employee, after the birth of a child or for a family emergency, to keep his or her job and take time off with employer-paid medical benefits. These laws, quite simply, increase the cost of hiring women, and the expense is passed on to consumers. But ask a woman if she intends to have children and expect a hot call from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

A heavy thing, asking somebody for dough. Along with a solid business plan, venture capitalists seek an all-hands-on-deck commitment. Are you dedicated? Will you give me 24/7? 

Sissies need not apply. Or can I not say that?

In the preface of the same book, Elder complains of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: “The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claims it ‘levels’ the playing field in hiring and promotion. But threats of lawsuits from women and minorities make private employers skittish about hiring the very people the government designed the EEOC to help.”

In another section, Elder criticized then-Republican Gov. Jane Swift of Massachusetts for supposedly sending the wrong message by running the state after giving birth to twins. Elder wrote: “Will someone please tell the victicrats that life consists of trade-offs? … During her political career she saw her family, two-and-a-half hours away, on weekends and perhaps once or twice during the week. Would anyone dare suggest pregnancy and motherhood incompatible with the demands of running a state? Apparently not.” 

He added: “To tell women they can run a state, have family and children, and be equally attentive to all—is a lie.” From that section: 

MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR JANE SWIFT SAYS WOMEN CAN HAVE IT ALL—WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM THE STATE

Will someone please tell the victicrats that life consists of trade-offs? 

Acting Massachusetts Governor Jane Swift (Republican) gave birth to twins in 2001. Confined by doctor’s orders to bed rest, the governor made arrangements to continue legislative business while in the hospital. During her political career she saw her family, two-and-a-half hours away, on weekends and perhaps once or twice during the week. Would anyone dare suggest pregnancy and motherhood incompatible with the demands of running a state? Apparently not. Governor Swift says, “It does make an important statement to young girls, particularly in Massachusetts, that you can achieve a position of authority without sacrificing your personal life.”67 Without sacrificing your personal life? 

The Family and Medical Leave Act requires employers to continue paying medical benefits for an employee absent to care for a “family matter.” But suppose an employee cannot afford to take time off from work? Not a problem, says Governor Swift, who supports paid parental leave. Under a current proposal, Massachusetts employers would make “contributions” to a fund, with the state providing millions of dollars in tax credits. The proposal allows an employee, following the birth of a newborn, to take up to twelve weeks off while “earning” as much as $477 per week. 

Here’s a thought. Why not relieve the typical American family’s tax burden instead? People would have more choices, employment prospects for women wishing to work outside the home would increase, and it would become easier for stay-at-home moms to do so without economic sacrifice. If the governor wants women to know they can “achieve a position of authority without sacrificing your personal life,” how about giving taxpayers back their money and increasing their options? But to tell women they can run a state, have family and children, and be equally attentive to all—is a lie.

Elder similarly endorsed pregnancy discrimination in the workplace in his 2000 book The Ten Things You Can't Say in America. He complained about FMLA and said, “A business exists to make money, not as a device for social engineering. And, given the choice between an equally competent man versus an equally competent woman, shouldn’t a rational boss take into consideration the additional burdens imposed by law should he hire the woman?” 

He also defended a company that doesn’t hire a woman who could become pregnant, writing: “The ‘feminists’ and other toe-tag liberals don’t give a damn about a company’s bottom line. Companies, in their minds, possess an unlimited bag of money to accommodate the it-takes-a-village mentality.” From that book: 

The Family and Medical Leave Act increases the cost of doing business. It makes hiring those likely to use the Family and Medical Leave Act—women—more expensive. It imposes burdens on businesspeople. The law requires an employer to provide leave for family emergencies or other “important” personal matters. The employer must—during the leave—keep the job open and continue to pay health benefits. Many activists think this a good thing, that the businesses recognize the “dual responsibilities” of women and force employers to demonstrate flexibility and sensitivity. But a business exists to make money, not as a device for social engineering. And, given the choice between an equally competent man versus an equally competent woman, shouldn’t a rational boss take into consideration the additional burdens imposed by law should he hire the woman? 

This law raises the price of hiring a woman. What, a prospective employer might say, happens if she gets pregnant? Oh, the employer thinks, she has two kids. What happens when the inevitable crises come up? How can I afford to keep a job open, and pay benefits despite her absence? Of course, the “feminists” and other toe-tag liberals don’t give a damn about a company’s bottom line. Companies, in their minds, possess an unlimited bag of money to accommodate the it-takes-a-village mentality. 

“Feminists” simply do not trust enlightened employers to institute policies that make sense for employer, employee, and the bottom line. Some “feminist” activists refuse to believe that companies, out of their own self-interest, will say, as many have already done, “Hey, if we want to attract top-notch females, many of whom have children, we need to do something.” 

And, what of the other employees who must pick up the slack for the woman out on family leave? What about single workers, perhaps less likely to use family leave? The Family and Medical Leave Act assaults the relationship between a willing employer and a willing employee, mandating, controlling, directing, and demanding that employers “do the right thing,”—provided, of course, government gets to pick “the right thing.”