astra_nomer: (Default)
[personal profile] astra_nomer
The Supreme Court has decided to make it easier for employers to discriminate against women. I guess the wage gap doesn't bother them in the slightest. Perhaps it's only coincidence that this comes soon after I read this article* about pretty blatant sex discrimination against an assistant professor at UCLA, where "it was discovered during court proceedings that her UCLA department had a secret reserve of money that they used to supplement the salaries of male faculty members only." So if your employer does something behind your back, and you don't find out about it until more than 180 days afterwards, does that mean you don't get to file suit against them? If your employer systematically gave you smaller raises than your male collegues over the past 19 years, it's not a valid claim? Oh right, that is what they ruled.

I used to be pretty naive about sex discrimination - I never really experienced it myself, so I thought. Up through grad school, I felt like I was treated pretty much the same as my male cohorts. Certainly my grades showed that I was as good as them. But as the criteria for success becomes more and more subjective, I'm feeling it more and more. It's nothing truly blatent, just the thousands of tiny paper cuts ("You'll have no problem getting a job, you're a woman." "Did having children in grad school make you take longer?") that bleed you to death. To have the Supreme Court, of all entities, make it harder for a woman to fight discrimination, that makes me all the more paranoid about my chances for success.

What with this and the "partial birth abortion" rulings, it seems pretty clear that the majority of the Supreme Court hates women. I share Ruth Bader Ginsburg's frustration and anger. The end of Bush's term in office and the accompanying chance to rectify the makeup of the Supreme Court can't come soon enough for me.

*seen at Bitch PhD

Date: 2007-05-31 02:05 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] astra-nomer.livejournal.com
I think they basically ruled on a technicality, something to do with the wording of the law. But it's no less disappointing for that.

Date: 2007-05-31 02:30 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capsicumanuum.livejournal.com
Sadly, the odds that Congress will amend the law to fix the technicality are slim to none. I can't decide if I'm actually a cynical bitch, or if the world really does suck that much.

Profile

astra_nomer: (Default)
astra_nomer

January 2018

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21 222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 7th, 2025 10:12 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios