(no subject)

[alexseanchai]

So the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that one woman getting less pay than her same-position-equal-experience male colleague and another getting passed over for a promotion in favor of her less-qualified male colleague and a third being told by her male colleague to "doll up" and a fourth getting all of the above are examples of four different discriminations, not four examples of gender bias, and the women in question have to each sue Walmart independently (yeah, good luck with that) instead of as a class.

When meret et al say America is waging a war on women, they're not exaggerating. I had really hoped they were.

Comments

[tptigger]

*facepalm*
Let's hope Thomas is forced into retirement. (I mean, come on, this one has his name written all over it)

[alexseanchai]

Yeah, let's hope. I think Scalia wrote the opinion on this one, though, so it's probably his fault too.

[tptigger]

Let's not even get into Scalia.

[grimsqueaker]

Actually, this isn't an example of America (or rather, certain institutions of the United States of America) waging war on women.

It's an example of the United States of America waging war on anything that threatens the bottom line, and all class-action suits (which are what this case has effectively undermined) are a threat to that bottom line. If this was men taking a safety-issue in a set of mines to SCotUS, the response would have been the same, for the same reason: threats to profits must be destroyed...

[alexseanchai]

Which makes an equally scary amount of sense.

[grimsqueaker]

Yep. Marxist narratives: sadly accurate...