Friday, April 1, 2011

Gender 101: Woman = Victim by Connie Chastain*


If you've been following the women's Wal-Mart discrimination case, Wal-Mart vs Dukes, you know that it went before the Supreme Court Tuesday. This is specific to the United States, but it should interest folks across the globe where feminism has gained a toe-hold (or stomped a big footprint), so you can see what might be coming at you in the future.

I have been following it, a little, so I know that what went before the court was not whether Wal-Mart discriminated against women, but whether, if they discriminated against a few of 'em, they have to pay several million.

Archivist no doubt understands all this perfectly, but maybe, since I'm a legal layman, I'm not completely understanding the thing. But that's what I've gotten out of the several news reports I've read. I've also read that the Court seems divided ... along gender lines (what a surprise) ... and that it isn't likely to rule until June.

But when and how the Court rules isn't what interests me most at this stage, although I realize that if the plaintiffs win, it will likely sound the death knell for American business. Women make up the majority of the work force here, and if the principle that discrimination against a few women proves discrimination against all, no company subject to the laws of the United States will be safe. Just what we need in the middle of a dismal economy.

As fascinating -- or perhaps chilling is a more accurate term -- as that is, for now two other aspects of the case really grab my attention.

One is that it provides us with insight into one method whereby feminism has made such great inroads in a society that is neither compatible with it nor bettered by it -- the manipulation and misapplication of jurisprudence and its brother, legislation. Just listing the laws and rulings midwifed by feminists and their minions the last half-century would take a whole essay, and readers of this blog are no doubt familiar with some or most of them already. With the Wal-Mart case, we get to see it happening before our very eyes.

The other fascinating thing is what I found in comment threads that follow news reports about this case. Of course, like nearly all comment threads, the posters are anonymous, even when they provide a name. But, you can tell the gender of the poster by what they say and how they say it. There are exceptions, of course, but men are usually rational and stick with the subject while women tend to emotionalism and the emphasizing of victimhood.

At the height of second-wave feminism, Helen Reddy released the feminist anthem that declared, "I am woman, I am strong." Perhaps it's time some third-wave feminist released a new anthem -- "I am woman, I am victim."

It's sure to be a big seller in the music department at Wal-Mart.

*Connie is an FRS contributor. Her personal blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/ 

7 comments:

Archivist said...

Great one, Connie.

AfOR said...

OT, but symptomatic of how fucked up our system is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372497/Home-The-twins-snatched-state.html

atlas said...

Someone needs to start a new law firm and call it "Victims R Us".

Regardless of how the SC rules this summer, the gender divide at the SC tells us much how such future cases will be decided. The current three women SCJs are ideologically far left and do not even represent what can be called America's female liberal camp. Going beyond gender, some SC male Justices are also of the progressive mindset.

If the SCJs rule in favor of the lawsuit moving forward and it is won then we will see more big business programs favoring women employees with more men being knifed while small firms will probably fear hiring women.

It's going to be interesting.

Anonymous said...

Tell me I've stepped into
bizarro land where everything is upside down and backwards,and upon awakening this will be logical again.

Kegan has NO Judicial experience.WTF?

Lyn87 said...

Here's an interesting tidbit since the OP mentioned Helen Reddy's feminist anthem, "I am woman." That is the first song on her "Greatest Hits" release. Another of the big hits on the same album?

Wait for it...

"That Ain't No Way to Treat a Lady."

You can't make this stuff up.

Anonymous said...

"...since I'm a legal layman"

That's layPERSON,Connie. "LayMAN" is SEXIST!

I kid, but seriously, whatever happens with the Walmart case is going to be a big win for the MRM. If the women win, the legal system that props up feminists will be undermined along with the giant corporate systems that covertly support and promote its policies, Walmart does a lot of promotion of fund-raising for breast cancer and other women's interests. Half of its products tout their connection to such causes.

Feminists and women who abuse legal mechanisms for financial profit are gutting american industry,like they gut the finances of any man stupid enough to marry them. The difference here is that they can't just move on to the next "man" when they are finished destroying America, this is one ship they'll have to go down with and they'll take every woman in America down with them.

It's unfortunate that innocent men and women will pay a price for their larceny, but ultimately they will kill their entitlement movement along with the policies that hurt those of us who aren't gender ideologues. If the women win, this will be a turning point in the battle against feminists, the war will turn IN OUR FAVOR as companies take their businesses oversees and America is bankrupted. All we have to do is stand back, wait, and make sure everyone knows who's responsible when it happens.

Just like that, no more chivalry, manginism, or feminism. Gone.

I am rooting for Walmart,because I know a lot of men's lives will be impacted by this, but whoever wins, we win.It cannot be otherwise,feminism is a parasite and the host can only support it for so long.

Human-Stupidity.com said...

The anti-feminist suggests men should counter-sue. What do the legal experts say?


Women’s Rights Group Plans to Sue Burlusconi for Damages

If there existed such a men’s rights lobby group in Italy, it could make a counter-claim against the feminists who passed the original anti-prostitution laws that criminilized the sexual choices and restricted the opportunities of all Italian men. Including the feminist advocacy lobby groups that lobbied for such laws (that no doubt include the group behind this absurd claim against Berlusconi). As I and others have documented, such lobbying has clearly been based upon deliberate lies, falsehoods, and exaggerations. Let’s put the femiwhores on trial and make THEM justify their passing of these laws on something other than it increasing the appeal of their aged and unwanted vaginas to Italian men