when would you employ a woman in perference to a man

Question

when would you employ a woman in perference to a man?
写一个关于在什么情况下更愿意雇佣女的多于男的演讲，分4段的，要英文版本的，每段大概要80到90个单词~麻烦高手帮帮忙啊~~~
女性从事工作的优点上讲
例如女护士多于男护士是因为女的比男的细心耐心什么的。。。
不要从报纸或者网站截下来的。。。

Answer 1

LEAD: In a broad extension of its decisions on affirmative action, the Supreme Court ruled today that employers may sometimes favor women and members of minorities over better-qualified men and whites in hiring and promoting to achieve better balance in their work forces.

In a broad extension of its decisions on affirmative action, the Supreme Court ruled today that employers may sometimes favor women and members of minorities over better-qualified men and whites in hiring and promoting to achieve better balance in their work forces.

The 6-to-3 decision upholding a California city's affirmative action plan for employees who are women and minority group members was a major defeat for the Reagan Administration and was hailed as a major victory by women's rights and civil rights groups. It was written by Justice William J. Brennan Jr. The ruling was the Court's first involving an affirmative action plan giving job preferences to women over men. The Court rejected a civil rights suit by a man who said he had been the victim of illegal sex discrimination when he lost a promotion to a woman. Balance With Population

The ruling also marked the first time the Court had unambiguously held that without any proof of past discrimination against women or minorities by a particular employer, the employer may use racial and sex-based preferences in hiring and promotions to bring its work force into line with the makeup of the local population or labor market.

In a blistering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the Court's ''enormous expansion'' of prior decisions upholding affirmative action had completed its conversion of a 1964 antidiscrimination law into an ''engine of discrimination'' against men and whites, especially the ''unknown, unaffluent, unorganized.''

Supporters of the decision jubilantly predicted that it would increase the pecentage of women in jobs historically held by men. Opponents said it would prompt employers to discount merit as the basis for hiring and promotions. [ Page B10. ] Impact on Similar Cases Today's decision reduces the risk that employers who adopt affirmative action plans will be held liable in ''reverse discrimination'' suits by men or whites. Some groups of employers, many of which have adopted affirmative action plans over the past 20 years, applauded today's decision.

The Court rejected a suit by a man whom the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency passed over in 1980 for a promotion to the job of dispatching road crews, in favor of a woman with a slightly lower score in a competitive interviewing process.

Justice Brennan said that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Federal job discrimination statute, the same standards that the Court has laid down to assess the legality of racial affirmative action plans should be used in assessing sex-based affirmative action plans. And the standards laid down today for sex-based affirmative action plans would also apply in the racial context, he said.

Experts said the Court's interpretation of Title VII would have a broad impact, strengthening the incentives of both public and private employers around the country to adopt voluntary affirmative action plans.

Terry Eastland, the chief Justice Department spokesman, said:

''We're disappointed that the Court has departed from the moral principle of nondiscrimination for all Americans that is the basis for our civil rights law. This principle holds, and teaches, that employment decisions should not be made on the basis of race or sex.''

The transportation agency, which a lower Federal court found had not discriminated against women in the past, adopted its affirmative action plan in part to achieve ''the long-term goal of a work force that mirrored in its major job classifications the percentage of women in the area labor market,'' Justice Brennan noted.

He stressed that the plan did not go too far in discriminating against men because it considered sex or race as only one of several factors in individual employment decisions, that it was carefully designed to rectify ''a significant problem of underrepresentation'' of women in traditionally male job categories, that the plan did not involve ''rigid numerical standards,'' and that in the immediate case ''any difference in qualifications'' between the plaintiff and the woman who got the promotion ''were minimal.''