Feminist Law Creep

**Percy** · 13th-January-2009

American Legislation is none of my business ?

OF COURSE IT IS.

The weave and weft of the Anglosphere has warp as well.

What passes in one legislature soon comes to pass in another. And so the cancer metastacises and spreads.

Here is another attempt at creeping feminism. The lawyers will be the beneficiaries, of course. The jobs created for and filled by women, at their noisy and noisome demand, were not enough to get any employer into the Heroic book.

But as any unilaterally husband has found, where women are concerned, 'The Good that Men do, Seldom does them any Good'.

Stop the Bailout for Trial Lawyers

Call your Senators today and urge them to vote against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act!

http://capwiz.com/eagleforum/issues/alert/?alertid=12422356

Last Friday, in one of its first actions of the 111th Congress, the House of Representatives passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. Although the bills purport to ensure equal pay for men and women, in truth they are a stimulus package for trial lawyers and liberal/feminist special-interest groups.

The Senate is expected to vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R.11) as early as Wednesday of this week. This Act would eliminate the current statute of limitations (either 180 or 300 days, depending on the state of employment) on discrimination claims so that a worker can sue in federal court for alleged pay discrimination 20 years earlier.

The statute of limitations was included to prevent frivolous lawsuits against which employers are not able to effectively defend themselves. For example, the bill's namesake, Lilly Ledbetter, who worked for Goodyear Tire & Rubber for more than 19 years and retired from the company with benefits, brought suit more than a decade after the alleged discrimination when her allegedly discriminatory supervisor was long dead.

The Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R.12), which is not yet scheduled for a vote but is sure to follow, would remove existing statutory caps and allow for unlimited money damages to be awarded, even without proof of discriminatory intent.

It would mandate new federal "guidelines" about the relative worth of different types of jobs, a long-sought feminist goal called "comparable worth," which means imposing wage control by freezing wages of jobs traditionally held by men and inflating wages of jobs traditionally held by women.

At a time when more than 11 million Americans are unemployed, the highest unemployment rate in sixteen years, these bills would expose large and small companies to vast new liabilities extending back decades. What our economy needs now is for businesses to hire more workers in America, but they are not going to do that if it means exposing themselves to expensive and frivolous litigation.

The only things these two bills will stimulate are more litigation and a further exodus of jobs out of the United States.

The Senate will be in session this week, so the vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act could come as early as Wednesday, January 14th. Call AND write your Senators and tell them you expect them to vote NO on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act!

**christianj** · 13th-January-2009

Yes, I have noticed it as well and spend many times expressing it..

What happens in the USA spreads worldwide like it's some type of standard or precedence in common law..

Doesn't that suck, The feminazy have USA by the balls so by their (Men's movement) inaction we will all suffer and pay the consequence..

Hopefully our American brothers can eventually get their shit together..

One lives in hope..

**novaseeker** · 13th-January-2009

Quote from christianj

Yes, I have noticed it as well and spend many times expressing it..

What happens in the USA spreads worldwide like it's some type of standard or precedence in common law..

Doesn't that suck, The feminazy have USA by the balls so by their (Men's movement) inaction we will all suffer and pay the consequence..

Hopefully our American brothers can eventually get their shit together..

One lives in hope..

I agree, but if anything Canada appears to be worse -- in terms of which countries in the Anglosphere are most feminist. The US is more a case of coastal elites and everyone else.

**Incognito** · 13th-January-2009

Quote from Percy

American Legislation is none of my business ?

OF COURSE IT IS.

The weave and weft of the Anglosphere has warp as well.

What passes in one legislature soon comes to pass in another. And so the cancer metastacises and spreads.

Here is another attempt at creeping feminism. The lawyers will be the beneficiaries, of course. The jobs created for and filled by women, at their noisy and noisome demand, were not enough to get any employer into the Heroic book.

But as any unilaterally husband has found, where women are concerned, 'The Good that Men do, Seldom does them any Good'.

Twenty years is far too long to expand the statute of limitations. Though I believe 180 days is too short, maybe it would be fair enough to extend the limitation to two years....but 20 years? That's insane.

**E. Irizarry** · 13th-January-2009

I'm so glad that I'm outside of the Anglosphere. Life's grand, babypaw!

**novaseeker** · 13th-January-2009

Two years would be workable, I think. Twenty won't fly. The democrats seem to be forgetting that they don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and both of these laws are very anti-business. A 20 year statute of limitations is quite insane and burdensome on employers, and the idea of comparable worth -- well according to this female economist, it would be a very bad idea indeed. It would basically mean artificially increasing (that is outside of market forces) the wages of certain female-dominated professions. What this has led to, where it has been tried (state and local govt) has generally been a *decrease* in the number of such positions, in order to save money -- something which effectively hurts lesser skilled women, who are shut out of positions they otherwise would have filled. The feminist critique of this is essentially that the market is sexist, and the market undervalues these jobs precisely because women do them. That seems dubious to me -- the market compensates on the basis of supply and demand. These rules are not sexist. Nursing is very highly compensated and is dominated by women. If the market were sexist, nurses wouldn't be paid very well, but they are paid *very* well because the demand for them is very high relative to the supply. But don't tell that to the radicals at Harvard and Wellesley.

**Incognito** · 13th-January-2009

Yes, what Novaseeker said...and...

Percy, too..

This kind of law would open up the door to a flood of lawsuits, and without a doubt, you'll see women suing for pay discrimination where discrimination was never the issue for their lower pay. It would be a nightmare for the judicial system...as well as for businesses and business owners.