• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court throws out huge discrimination suit against Wal-Mart

MrVicchio said:
But how can you take money from evil rich people and properly redistribute the wealth without big class action lawsuits??

Think of the lawyers Maggie, they won't be able to buy those 4th homes and second yachts! You are sooo cruel.
Click to expand...

Stop turning this thread into class warfare ****... This really isn't a matter of the haves vs the have nots, it's about discrimination.
 
Whovian said:
33%??

The national average for 'senior management' women is 15%.
Proportion of women in senior management falls to 2004 levels

Still looking for just 'management'.
Click to expand...

And that would have a been argument to should be made in court... I am not going to say Walmart is discriminating and getting away with it now, but I will complain that the court threw the case out before fairly determining if Walmart is discriminating. Scalia's attitude is that if sexism exists, then he doesn't give a **** and that isn't the right attitude somebody on the bench should have. That's my complaint.
 
MaggieD said:
Before you make a decision, how about more facts? What are we going to have now? Affirmative action for women on a class action basis? No. How about on the merits of the individual? How about ten women or a hundred women win individual suits and then look at the stats?



Where's that trial? Oh, too small a payday for the attorneys. How about one step at a time?
Click to expand...

The reason people go into a class action lawsuit is because suing separately is more wasteful in terms of money and energy, and repayment in individual suits tends to be low in comparison to the hassle of filing them. Yeah, the attorney's have economic motive to bundle them together and file them... less time, more money, but we live in a capitalistic society, so why should we expect attorneys to professionally behave differently than everybody else in a capitalistic society?
 
MrVicchio said:
Yes, women can't manage ****, everyone knows this.


OR, women with managerial experience are choosing other places to apply too. Numbers by themselves don't mean diddly squat. You have to prove that gender is a deciding factor.
Click to expand...

Again... arguments to be made in heard in the courtroom... oh wait.. The highest court doesn't give a **** about listening to the evidence one way or another. If they don't give a **** about this conversation and this debate, then why should we?
 
Gina said:
I found his comments very discomforting. I know he was asked a specific question, but I'm very troubled that he finds no protection for women in the constitution. Even if, as you are saying, there is it is in another amendment. He should have mentioned that.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more... We are lucky we can vote with justices like him on the bench.
 
MrVicchio said:
It's not, this ruling or others like it that folks like you gnash your teeth over do not take us anywhere near that point. You've been told to hate success, fear prosperity and be jealous of those that do well. That's the real shame.


If that were in anyway a reality you might have a point, however as all you are doing is regurgitating talking points from class warfare rhetoric you can be dismissed. You should put on a tin foil hat son.
Click to expand...

So what are you claiming, that you're wealthier and more successful than the other poster just because you're a Conservative? I am willing to be you're both most likely in the same social class and life roughly the same lifestyle... :shrug:
 
Aunt Spiker said:
LOL - fine example of what I was referring to.

There was an entire chapter dedicated to how gender issues can affect - negatively - your potential for doing well in the workforce.

An example:
Women tend to highlight and punctuate casual conversation sentences with laughter or giggles more than men. To many managers (etc) that were interviewed on this subject - this was ANNOYING and to the point of being a serious distraction and would actually discredit the employee and encourage one to take that person LESS seriously.

:shrug:

Is it necessary to punctuate your sentences with a small giggle?
Why do women do this?
Are we born with this innate obnoxious habit?

It is actually learned over the years - and believe it or not - is not sexist to say "knock it off, stop it" - But yet many people feel as if they're being picked on and offended by the mere suggestion to stop laughing spontaneously at innapropriate times.

IF people took the time to learn more about the workforce preferences that they have to contend with - get to know theirselves and the qualities that they have which might be a problem - then maybe they'd have better success. Many women HAVE done this and HAVE succeed very well.
Click to expand...

I really don't think success is a matter of acting like a man and not a woman, it's a matter of acting professionally. Nothing is inherently wrong with emphasizing sentences with giggles or whatever... if a man does it or a woman. If a man does it, he isn't being girly, nor does it automatically make him a fag. I have chatted with men online, casually, and they refuse to write "lol"... they'll write "funny" instead.

Instead of asking why women act that way... inborn or not? Maybe we should instead be asking why we think expressing more emotion or fun in conversation is feminine and unacceptable for men?

And as far as professionalism goes, there are number of typical male behaviors that are inappropriate for a professional setting as well...


Women are not naturally at a disadvantage and need to be taught or relearn how to act properly and like men to be successful. We were taught and told how to act like ladies so we could succeed at being submissive and finding a good husband to care for us, and now we are being told to act like men to succeed in the workforce.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
It's ironic that all three female justices are having issues with this gender case and only one male.

I do *not* feel that wrongdoing on such a wide scope can be proven - period. Such things are on an individual case by case basis or in RE to a small group of females who can argue their individual case.

But 1.5 million women? Whose to say that 1/2 of them weren't just crappy employees who put in for a promotion and didn't remotely qualify or deserve one? I think it would be MORE unjust to give judgemen against Walmart on behalf of all those females when perhaps only a portion were actually *really* wronged.
Click to expand...

I really see the women and one male as saying the case was worth listening to, hearing the defense, and making a fair judgement... The other judges just said that the Constitution shouldn't concern women and discrimination against them, and brushed the entire thing off.

Who is to say that all of them weren't crappy employees... that would have been heard in the court. I am honestly not leaning to take the side of the women, I think winning the case was a long shot, These cases don't work out well, unless there is a lot of evidence, not just mere speculation. The judge was out of hand making the statement he did though.

If he didn't want to hear the damn case, he could have said something more reasonable and, aherm, less sexist
 
SheWolf said:
I really see the women and one male as saying the case was worth listening to, hearing the defense, and making a fair judgement... The other judges just said that the Constitution shouldn't concern women and discrimination against them, and brushed the entire thing off.

Who is to say that all of them weren't crappy employees... that would have been heard in the court. I am honestly not leaning to take the side of the women, I think winning the case was a long shot, These cases don't work out well, unless there is a lot of evidence, not just mere speculation. The judge was out of hand making the statement he did though.

If he didn't want to hear the damn case, he could have said something more reasonable and, aherm, less sexist
Click to expand...

you sure seem to have a dog in this hunt, but why?

no evidence exists showing discrimination. quotas are not evidence. If they ever become evidence, the concept of justice is dead.
 
SheWolf said:
I really don't think success is a matter of acting like a man and not a woman, it's a matter of acting professionally. Nothing is inherently wrong with emphasizing sentences with giggles or whatever... if a man does it or a woman. If a man does it, he isn't being girly, nor does it automatically make him a fag. I have chatted with men online, casually, and they refuse to write "lol"... they'll write "funny" instead.
Click to expand...

There are numerous things that one should avoid while at work - and apparently giggling when there's no joke to laugh at is one of them. I can easily see how obnoxious it would be - and if a person does it frequently I wouldn't see myself dying for them to work more in tandem with me.

Instead of asking why women act that way... inborn or not? Maybe we should instead be asking why we think expressing more emotion or fun in conversation is feminine and unacceptable for men?
Click to expand...

Female bosses, too - not just men.

And as far as professionalism goes, there are number of typical male behaviors that are inappropriate for a professional setting as well...
Click to expand...

Very true - and likely they can cause problems, prevent promotion, etc - you'll just never hear of men filing a class action lawsuit.

Women are not naturally at a disadvantage and need to be taught or relearn how to act properly and like men to be successful. We were taught and told how to act like ladies so we could succeed at being submissive and finding a good husband to care for us, and now we are being told to act like men to succeed in the workforce.
Click to expand...

I don't look at the workplace and see 'gentlemen, lady' I see 'good employee, bad employee' . . . I see it through gender-less eyes. Maybe the problem is that many people do look at it from a gender-perspective when they shouldn't.

SheWolf said:
I really see the women and one male as saying the case was worth listening to, hearing the defense, and making a fair judgement... The other judges just said that the Constitution shouldn't concern women and discrimination against them, and brushed the entire thing off.

Who is to say that all of them weren't crappy employees... that would have been heard in the court. I am honestly not leaning to take the side of the women, I think winning the case was a long shot, These cases don't work out well, unless there is a lot of evidence, not just mere speculation. The judge was out of hand making the statement he did though.

If he didn't want to hear the damn case, he could have said something more reasonable and, aherm, less sexist
Click to expand...

I don't think his statement was out of hand - I think, maybe, it would give precident for them to revisit this case *by breaking it down smaller - maybe state by state* in teh future.

It is obvious by various opinions that they felt there was something *real* to the case - but the sheer size was a negative.

How they should have approached it: smaller cases - state by state - NOT the supreme court.
 
ARealConservative said:
you sure seem to have a dog in this hunt, but why?

no evidence exists showing discrimination. quotas are not evidence. If they ever become evidence, the concept of justice is dead.
Click to expand...

I am not supposed to judge the evidence, neither are you... that's what the justices on the bench are for. We didn't even hear their arguments and counter arguments... but the justices would have, if they accepted the case. I have a dog in the race, because I am American and that's my supreme court.
 
SheWolf said:
I am not supposed to judge the evidence, neither are you... that's what the justices on the bench are for. We didn't even hear their arguments and counter arguments... but the justices would have, if they accepted the case. I have a dog in the race, because I am American and that's my supreme court.
Click to expand...

So when the national average of women holding management positions is 16% and WalMart shows their management force at approx 33% of the force...its a fauxrage I tell you!!!
 
Aunt Spiker said:
There are numerous things that one should avoid while at work - and apparently giggling when there's no joke to laugh at is one of them. I can easily see how obnoxious it would be - and if a person does it frequently I wouldn't see myself dying for them to work more in tandem with me.



Female bosses, too - not just men.



Very true - and likely they can cause problems, prevent promotion, etc - you'll just never hear of men filing a class action lawsuit.



I don't look at the workplace and see 'gentlemen, lady' I see 'good employee, bad employee' . . . I see it through gender-less eyes. Maybe the problem is that many people do look at it from a gender-perspective when they shouldn't.



I don't think his statement was out of hand - I think, maybe, it would give precident for them to revisit this case *by breaking it down smaller - maybe state by state* in teh future.

It is obvious by various opinions that they felt there was something *real* to the case - but the sheer size was a negative.

How they should have approached it: smaller cases - state by state - NOT the supreme court.
Click to expand...

The most unprofessional person I work with is a male, and it's because he runs his mouth off... all the damn time. He never shuts up, and it's really annoying. He also has a knack for saying really uncomfortable things... Just today asked an Asian how much he knows about Japan, right after he was done asking a black MBA about drug use.... WTF.

I don't honestly think women have an uphill battle to fight their femininity so they can be "professional" and get job promotions... When women act masculine, they usually take **** too. Hillary Clinton is well know for that, and for being considered "dykey," making lesbian jokes, and some places made it an issue to sell Hillary nutcrackers.

Femininity isn't negative... nor is it antonymous for "professionalism."

How many grown women giggle for no reason? I don't work with any... My 10 year old niece doesn't even giggle uncontrollably. Some people do that when they are nervous, some say "umm" or "you know." People have little ticks about them, but when did anybody ever lose their job or get demoted because of giggling?

People lose their jobs for theft, fraud, being late, not being dependable, not showing up to work, etc... and that goes across gender and racial lines. Why are minorities paid less on average? Because they sag their pants in the workplace?

The way I see the issue is 1. there is nothing wrong with NOT being gender blind, seeing gender and race is ok, 2. being discriminatory based on race and gender is not ok. I am not afraid to see differences in people... but I don't struggle to not be racist or sexist either.

I don't expect people to act like ladies or gentlemen either... I really don't think it's possible to go work and ignore people are feminine and people are masculine. If I notice a male is feminine, I usually think he's gay... and that button doesn't switch off when I suddenly clock in. We can't ignore those traits, albeit, they are subjective to some degree. What is less subjective, however, is professionalism and you're basically claiming that women are inherently less professional because of our feminine behavior and I don't buy it. I have worked with gay men who are more feminine than a lot of women I know, and none of them stand out as being excessively unprofessional to me.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
That's one big huge YAY! from Maggie. Hope the attorneys all worked on contingency. They thought they had a biiig payday. That ruling was huge in that precedent would've been set for future class actions of this kind. For a change, the good guys won.

Note that individual suits can be filed. And isn't that the way it should be? Each on its own merits.
Click to expand...

But...but...but...individual lawsuits don't draw near as much media attention to the e-ville corporations.

I think alot of the people in this suit should take a long hard look at themselves and ask: "Am I really management material?". And, "Am I actually earning the money that I make now and would I be actually earning the money I would make if I got a raise?".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom