NEWS: The Supreme Court Hates Women

CULTURE: The Supreme Court Hates Women

AARRRGGGHHH.

That's it, ladies. Officially being a good little girl and giving your employer the benefit of the doubt is going to fuck you over. What you want to be doing now is demanding knowledge of your coworkers salaries from day one, and every time there's a raise or a promotion, and don't forget you want details of their benefits, work experience, transfers, titles, and perks. From here on out, anything that raises even the slightest doubt in your mind, you file suit -- no more with the looking for "patterns" of discrimination. If you wait, then it doesn't matter if discrimination existed -- you basically asked for it, so it's your fault, you complacent little slut. I bet you secretly want to be raped, too.

Seriously. Equal pay for equal work? We're still fighting over this? Not the details of what it means, but the simple idea that it's the fucking law? What? The? Fuck?

When the Supreme Court of the United States starts offering the same anti-feminist bullshit arguments that you regularly hear from 18-year old frat boys -- "can you point to the specific moment when that was sexist? No? Well that just proves that you feminists only want to complain" -- then you really want to start just bashing heads.

Bitch_PhD wants to know what all the other newswire bloggers are getting paid, wink wink.

who doesn't? ...lousy good-for-nothing broads.

this makes sense to me somehow. but it would be cool if she could have squeezed some $$ out of them.

maybe all those secretaries that got chased around their boss' desk should sue too

witness the power of scalito!

Sucks to live in the US, eh?

The UK's fair-pay laws might be weak, but at least they're enforced sometimes.

Putting a time line on being paid fairly for the work that you do, regardless of gender, is asinine. How can the Supreme Court justify this? Employees are not privileged to payroll information and often don't have a clue what co-workers make unless said co-worker tells them.

"Aw, you should have found out about it sooner. Sorry!"

Give me a break! I found out that a co-worker who had no telecommunications experience of any kind (he could use a phone, so I suppose that counts) and was hired only because he was a Director's brother, was making more than any of the other field technicians - even the ones who'd been there for years. I went to my boss, who knew about it but couldn't do much because the Director was over him (somehow? my boss was one of the owners, but somehow this director was over him - that was the way things worked under the old management - strange, no?), and eventually it made its way to the top. The CEO himself gave us all a raise and admitted that he'd made a mistake and that the former employee (fired for failing three drug tests in a row) should not have been paid what he was being paid or hired in the first place.

Obviously that doesn't fit under the discrimination umbrella, but if you go along with the Supreme Court's logic, I should have been all "aw, shucks, I didn't find out about it soon enough to file a complaint. Guess I'm fucked!"

Bah!

It sucks, but it's true. My mom makes about half of what her male colleagues make, and my starting pay as supervisor was more than my former boss' pay after she had been supervisor for 4 years.

that's hilarious...glad i've got a swinging set. sorry gals, you should have born dudes.

and you people are surprised? it goes down like this: any time it comes down to a legal decision on the rights of the citizenry vs. the rights of the corporation, the system will always choose the rights of the corporations.

this is what campaign contributions and corporate lobbying groups have bought you america. hope you're fucking happy.

who knew i kicked such ass, i make more than the guy who's job i'm taking over. i hate that whole leftover man brings home the bacon bullshit

seriously. we know you ladies arent very good at math; we thought you wouldnt notice?!

Are there statutory limitations on other forms of civil litigation, particularly discrimination suits?

OK, so the Supreme Court didn't pull this out of their ass. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that claims must be filed within 180 days. They were simply upholding the Act.

So I'll shift my ire from the Supreme Court to a poorly thought-out portion of the Civil Rights Act.

i've got to agree, this is a bad limit to put on this kind of law...although, bitchphd in her usual fog of misandry has failed to mention that this law applies to everyone and not just women

i bet she's gonna have loads of fun working there now...

Um.. You started life as a girl. All men did. So you should make as much as we do, cause once upon a time, you didn't have balls either.

And for the record, this is bullshit. i hope they appeal it, since, at least in Michigan, we're not legally allowed to know what any of our co-workers make, unless our co-workers tell us outside of the work place. If we're not legally allowed to have that information, how can we file within 180 days?

oh, so being a woman is the new black?

20 years!?

On the one hand, if anyone doesn't notice something like that for two decades, tough frelling luck. On the other, I know I'd want to sue somebody if it were me.

And in a typical defensive guy maneuver, you're failing to realize that women are the usual targets of workplace discrimination, and that the case in question was brought by a woman.

Um, the problem is that the only way to prove--or even notice--discrimination is to see a *pattern*. A single instance of discrimination is easy enough to explain away.

What he said. Sometimes the interpretation of the law is techinically correct, and it's the law that needs changing.

Not to say I think this is a good result. Women get less time to consider whether they want to file a case, which I think will result in procrastinating away some and filing others with less compelling evidence available. And if standards for proof drop to accomodate rushed suits, I bet there's a corresponding rise in frivolous lawsuits.

hmmm. i wonder if i can get Scalito to put forward a no bra and panties law on Mondays. Think he'd goferit?

this is not, biologically, the case. you are either male or female from the moment of conception. this is determined by the type of chromosome pairing you have.

you are sort of correct, however, that the sex organs are similar until some time in the second trimester when the testes start to descend, etc. that does not make a male into a female though...just a guy with hidden balls

So it's true. Nothing can defeat the penis.

MOOHAHAHAHA!