TorteDeForm

Kia Franklin

Memo to “Independent Women’s Forum”: You Probably Should Oppose Gender Discrimination

Unfortunately, Michelle Bernard, President of the so-called Independent Women's Forum, must have gotten the wrong memo about the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. There are so many flaws in the arguments she made during a recent Hardball "debate" with Cecille Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, that I almost don't know where to begin. But Nicole Belle over at CrooksandLiars (h/t) was far more patient and provides a great critique as well as a link to the video. Check it out.

I just wanted to point out how it seems that debating tort "reformers" about policies to improve the civil justice system will inevitably result in the tort "reformer" pulling out a (now-wrinkled) piece of paper and reciting the usual litany of stale talking points. One size fits all, apparently. Bernard invoked the following:

1) Employers will stop hiring women as a result of this legislation. Depending on the occasion, this argument puts on different outfits. When it's a consumer protection law, it goes with the "this law will cost consumers more because products will now cost more" get-up. But it's basically arguing that outlawing corporate misconduct will cause the corporate actor to retaliate against the intended beneficiary of the law, so it's not even worth it. Just let the bad behavior continue. Of course, forget that the lawsuits can be avoided by just not discriminating.

2) This is a payday for trial lawyers, will open the gates for all kinds of litigation, some of which will have merit, some of which will not. (Yawn. We're all too familiar with that.)

3) It will make women feel like victims. A common, and particularly annoying, tort "reform" talking point is that enabling people to sue when they are injured by another's wrongdoing only perpetuates an unhealthy sense of victimhood. Often this is tagged onto the critique about Americans being spoiled brats who insist on hanging on to those pesky legal rights of theirs. But when applied to Ledbetter, what's this really saying? That a law that empowers women not to be victims is bad because it acknowledges that their victimization occurs? That it is fine for women to actually be victims of pay discrimination, just as long as they don't feel like victims? And, that being able to sue for those lost wages and simultaneously sock-it-to a bigoted employer is nothing compared to the sense of victimhood women experience because a law actually acknowledges the existence of discrimination and seeks to do something to combat it?

Well, that's pretty awkward, now isn't it?

Kia Franklin: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 9:56 PM, Feb 01, 2009 in Debates with Tort "Reformers" | Debunking Tort "Reform" | Discrimination | Employment Discrimination | Labor/Employment | Legislation | Right to Access the Courts | Tort "Reform" & Gender | Tort Reform Movement's Concept of "Over-victimization"
Permalink | Email to Friend


Comments

Kia: You probably missed this more complete analysis. So I am bringing it back to this post.

I hope Kia looks up the salary of her prior male predecessors who were far less productive, far less intelligent, far less learned. If she wants to sue for a pay disparity, I want to help her do so, in any way I can. I support accuracy in wages, and in her case, I am guessing she is underpaid.

The work of women and minorities is worth less than that of white males. Otherwise, hard nosed business people who know the value of everything they use to the penny would be paying more, including female and minority business owners. Do female employers pay female employees as much as they do male employees, more often? If the answer is no, then there is a compelling business reason.

If this tyrannical, left wing Commie government seeks to impose higher salaries on lower value workers, the unemployment rate among those groups will increase. No one wants to be forced to pay more than the value of the service. If litigation imposes hiring at the point of a gun, then outsourcing to more business friendly nations will explode, and the US economy will suffer.

If females do not like their salaries, let them start their own services and product manufacturing enterprises. They can pay whatever they please then.

Given the feminist control over the legal profession, and the relentless hunt for the white male, the next generation of workers will have inferior male performance. One can see that in the leading indicators of school drop out rates, and school grades, and the shifting sex distribution in education achievement. Males also have higher rates of all biological pathologies and generate a great deal more medical expense.

These laws will then be used to impose excessive high salaries on under-productive white males inferior performance.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | February 2, 2009 11:27 PM

I am very pleased with the thought and don’t feel like adding
anything in it. It a perfect answer and thanks claus for providing such an useful and deep knowledge.
===============
John Assam
personal injury lawyer

Posted by: John Assam | June 8, 2009 4:29 AM

Gender inequality is no questin a product of society, and there are many theories which answer your question.

Because we have gendered institutions, such as school and the workplace, that favor men, women are often victims of discrimination. For example, because men are not allowed paternity leave in the United States just as a women gets maternity leave, some empolyers don't feel the need to promote women if they're going to take the time off and start a family. Men are seen as better workers because they don't need time away from work in the eyes of the employers.

Ryan Decosta

personal injury lawyer

Posted by: personal injury lawyer | June 8, 2009 5:52 AM

Gender inequality is no questin a product of society, and there are many theories which answer your question.

Because we have gendered institutions, such as school and the workplace, that favor men, women are often victims of discrimination. For example, because men are not allowed paternity leave in the United States just as a women gets maternity leave, some empolyers don't feel the need to promote women if they're going to take the time off and start a family. Men are seen as better workers because they don't need time away from work in the eyes of the employers.

Ryan Decosta

personal injury lawyer

Posted by: personal injury lawyer | June 8, 2009 5:55 AM

Gender inequality is no questin a product of society, and there are many theories which answer your question.

Because we have gendered institutions, such as school and the workplace, that favor men, women are often victims of discrimination. For example, because men are not allowed paternity leave in the United States just as a women gets maternity leave, some empolyers don't feel the need to promote women if they're going to take the time off and start a family. Men are seen as better workers because they don't need time away from work in the eyes of the employers.

Ryan Decosta

personal injury lawyer

Posted by: personal injury lawyer | June 8, 2009 5:57 AM