FUCK THE PATRIARCHY (trigger warning)

loveislouder

lyndausvi said:

HaileyDancingbear said:

lyndausvi said:

What I take from this is laws haven't caught up to technology.   A lot of states have passed up skirting laws when they realized they didn't exist in their own state.     

When this country was started cameras didn't even exist.   When they were invented they were these huge ass cameras that you couldn't be sneaky like that.  Now here we are with technology that can do disgusting creepy things like this but the laws are not there to make it illegal.

While disgusting and unmoral, the judge might be right.   But that doesn't mean a law can't be passed to make it illegal.     

Drunk driving laws were all but non-esistent when  was younger.   Now most of you don't know any different because someone said "WTF?" and got the laws to change.

Even if there isn't a specific law about up-skirt photos, there are laws about harassing/endangering minors and possession of child pornography.  

 If pictures of kids in their underwear were child pornography then there would be a lot of parents in jail.      Most child porn and peeping Tom laws are against "nude" and "naked" photos being taken. Not clothed.   That is what makes this thing difficult to swallow.  When they passed a lot of those laws cell phone cameras were not the norm.

Sadly something like this is exactly why new law is created.  Some asshole does something that is morally reprehensible, but not necessarily illegal under the current laws.

A quick search shows only 2 states have such up skirting laws.  Texas had the law but it's being rewritten because of it's wording went against the first amendment. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I very well may be. But doesn't child pornography have a lot to do with the intent of the pictures? Like, 'your own children in the bath because they made a shampoo mohawk and it's cute? Not child pornography. Up skirting a 13 year old girl in Target for sexual gratification? Child pornography. Yes? No?

lyndausvi

loveislouder said:

lyndausvi said:

HaileyDancingbear said:

lyndausvi said:

What I take from this is laws haven't caught up to technology.   A lot of states have passed up skirting laws when they realized they didn't exist in their own state.     

When this country was started cameras didn't even exist.   When they were invented they were these huge ass cameras that you couldn't be sneaky like that.  Now here we are with technology that can do disgusting creepy things like this but the laws are not there to make it illegal.

While disgusting and unmoral, the judge might be right.   But that doesn't mean a law can't be passed to make it illegal.     

Drunk driving laws were all but non-esistent when  was younger.   Now most of you don't know any different because someone said "WTF?" and got the laws to change.

Even if there isn't a specific law about up-skirt photos, there are laws about harassing/endangering minors and possession of child pornography.  

 If pictures of kids in their underwear were child pornography then there would be a lot of parents in jail.      Most child porn and peeping Tom laws are against "nude" and "naked" photos being taken. Not clothed.   That is what makes this thing difficult to swallow.  When they passed a lot of those laws cell phone cameras were not the norm.

Sadly something like this is exactly why new law is created.  Some asshole does something that is morally reprehensible, but not necessarily illegal under the current laws.

A quick search shows only 2 states have such up skirting laws.  Texas had the law but it's being rewritten because of it's wording went against the first amendment. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I very well may be. But doesn't child pornography has a lot to do with the intent of the pictures? Like, 'your own children in the bath because they made a shampoo mohawk and it's cute? Not child pornography. Up skirting a 13 year old girl in Target for sexual gratification? Child pornography. Yes? No?

I would think it varies from state to state based on how the laws are written. 

From the limited reading I did on this specific issue the one of the sticking points was this 13 year old was fully clothed.   Had she not been wearing underwear the case would have gone a different way. 

Which sucks.  I mean is a grown man really taking pictures up a 13 year olds skirt for artistic reason?  Doubt it.   However, IF the law is specifically written about taking photos of a naked children and not clothed children, then that is what the judge has to be followed.   

Quite frankly you don't want a judge to say "Well I think when they made this law they just forgot to mention this type of situation so I'm going to just add it myself".  It doesn't work that way and shouldn't either. 

Technology has made these types of things very easy to do.  Now it's time for the legislator to catch up and make these situations illegal.

mrsdee15

That is disgusting.  So is the breastfeeding one.  I just can't even come up with words to express how gross those rulings are.

One thing that makes me feel a little better is a case in San Diego where a guy who set up a major "revenge porn" site has just been convicted.  Exes would submit personal info (like addresses, where they work, and so on) of their ex as well as photos including nudity.  The pictures were mostly of women, and this guy charged about $350 to have the info and photos removed.  The site was taken down, and now he faces 20 years in prison.  I hope he gets the full sentence.

KatieinBkln

JCbride2015 said:

rcher912 said:

banana468 said:

rcher912 said:

My rage was triggered at the patriarchy earlier this week when the Supreme Court refused to hear a case where a woman was fired for needing to breastfeed (needing privacy to pump).

The lower court had ruled against her because...

wait for it.....

It's not sexist to fire her because men can sometimes lactate, too, (and ostensibly, they can handle it much better than a hysterical woman can).

I read that the other day. That is really fucked up.    I thought there were laws in place to protect women who breastfeed?  Having to give them a private non-bathoom place?   I guess not.

There are. I feel like there has to be more to that story. Based on some of the comments, some portions were left out. It still sounds screwed up but I feel like Nationwide didn't present their side in the article which makes it hard to assess the truth.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. The strangest part was that they had the accommodations, they just weren't made available to this woman (something about needing 3 days to process the paperwork), and it also sounds like this woman got stuck with The Worst Supervisor Ever, who's the one who made the really offensive comments and told her how her resignation letter should be written (and also apparently told her that all the work she missed on maternity leave must be made up in the next 2 weeks) -- none of this sounds like company policy, just an awful, awful, sexist boss.

Still not sure what "sometimes men lactate" has to do with it.

To make a long story short, it's because of bullshit Equal Protection cases that essentially said, you aren't violating Equal Protection if what you're doing doesn't exactly draw a line between men and women.  There's a famous case in which the Court ruled that pregnancy discrimination did not count as sex discrimination.  The Court said, "This box has pregnant people in it [all women]" and "This box has non-pregnant people in it [women and men]."  So since the rule benefits "non-pregnant people," which includes both women and men, it's not discriminatory on the basis of sex.  Congress actually went and passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in response to that ruling.

So I can see them dividing up the classes as "lactating people" and "non-lactating people" and saying that theoretically there could be both women and men in both classes.  Hence, not sex discrimination.

That is some damn fine lawyering moral gymnastics to make that argument.  I don't like it one bit.  But it actually makes sense in the fucked-up world of Supreme Court jurisprudence.  **Opens up Google to make sure it wasn't my law firm's case...**

ETA: I think Snopes seems to present both sides of the case pretty well.  Interesting stuff.

-------------CAN ONLY FIX ONE BOX, UGH--------------

What I don't understand about that, though, is that it isn't the act of lactation that requires a nursing mother to pump. It's the fact that she must pump in order to feed her child. I don't get why the lawyer on the other side couldn't bring that up. A lactating man couldn't pump his milk even if he wanted to (not much actual milk is actually produced). 

Does the law focus on the physical characteristics of the person only, or the actual real-life consequences of those physical characteristics? Because uh...it seems like that's the thing that matters.

Dreamergirl8812

mrsdee15 said:

That is disgusting.  So is the breastfeeding one.  I just can't even come up with words to express how gross those rulings are.

One thing that makes me feel a little better is a case in San Diego where a guy who set up a major "revenge porn" site has just been convicted.  Exes would submit personal info (like addresses, where they work, and so on) of their ex as well as photos including nudity.  The pictures were mostly of women, and this guy charged about $350 to have the info and photos removed.  The site was taken down, and now he faces 20 years in prison.  I hope he gets the full sentence.

Yes, we are quite proud of this one.

What I don't understand is how the pedophile in Target couldn't be prosecuted for harassment, stalking, or assault. Someone shoving a camera at your crotch is incredibly threatening, and threatening someone is assault.

I don't fault the judge for following the law. Hopefully it won't take too long for cases like this to cause state legislatures to write the necessary laws.

lyndausvi

KatieinBkln said: JCbride2015 said: rcher912 said: banana468 said: rcher912 said: My rage was triggered at the patriarchy earlier this week when the Supreme Court refused to hear a case where a woman was fired for needing to breastfeed (needing privacy to pump).
The lower court had ruled against her because...
wait for it.....
It's not sexist to fire her because men can sometimes lactate, too, (and ostensibly, they can handle it much better than a hysterical woman can). I read that the other day. That is really fucked up.    I thought there were laws in place to protect women who breastfeed?  Having to give them a private non-bathoom place?   I guess not.


There are. I feel like there has to be more to that story. Based on some of the comments, some portions were left out. It still sounds screwed up but I feel like Nationwide didn't present their side in the article which makes it hard to assess the truth.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree. The strangest part was that they had the accommodations, they just weren't made available to this woman (something about needing 3 days to process the paperwork), and it also sounds like this woman got stuck with The Worst Supervisor Ever, who's the one who made the really offensive comments and told her how her resignation letter should be written (and also apparently told her that all the work she missed on maternity leave must be made up in the next 2 weeks) -- none of this sounds like company policy, just an awful, awful, sexist boss.
Still not sure what "sometimes men lactate" has to do with it. To make a long story short, it's because of bullshit Equal Protection cases that essentially said, you aren't violating Equal Protection if what you're doing doesn't exactly draw a line between men and women.  There's a famous case in which the Court ruled that pregnancy discrimination did not count as sex discrimination.  The Court said, "This box has pregnant people in it [all women]" and "This box has non-pregnant people in it [women and men]."  So since the rule benefits "non-pregnant people," which includes both women and men, it's not discriminatory on the basis of sex.  Congress actually went and passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in response to that ruling.
So I can see them dividing up the classes as "lactating people" and "non-lactating people" and saying that theoretically there could be both women and men in both classes.  Hence, not sex discrimination.
That is some damn fine lawyering moral gymnastics to make that argument.  I don't like it one bit.  But it actually makes sense in the fucked-up world of Supreme Court jurisprudence.  **Opens up Google to make sure it wasn't my law firm's case...**
ETA: I think Snopes seems to present both sides of the case pretty well.  Interesting stuff.



-------------CAN ONLY FIX ONE BOX, UGH--------------


What I don't understand about that, though, is that it isn't the act of lactation that requires a nursing mother to pump. It's the fact that she must pump in order to feed her child. I don't get why the lawyer on the other side couldn't bring that up. A lactating man couldn't pump his milk even if he wanted to (not much actual milk is actually produced). 
Does the law focus on the physical characteristics of the person only, or the actual real-life consequences of those physical characteristics? Because uh...it seems like that's the thing that matters.      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

From what I read, the main reason for the district court to dismiss the case was they said Nationwide was acting reasonable to try an accommodate the woman. This all went down the first day returning to work.   They apparently offered a wellness room (that ended up being used by someone else) and then a private office until the badge was issued. The badge was to be ready the next day. Not sure why there are badges, but the courts felt they were acting in a reasonable manner trying to accommodate her.  I.e  this was the first day back and sometimes there are issues, but as long as those issues are being addressed quickly as possible then that is all Nationwide can do.

Now to the insensitive asshole boss.  Even with the boss saying all those sexist, insensitive things and writing up a letter of resignation for her (who does that?),  they felt she should have reported this to HR. I'm guessing that means that the opinions of the asshole boss are not necessarily the opinions of the company. They should have been given a chance to fix the issue.  Remember she "resigned" after only a few hours back from leave.  Can't fix something you don't know about.

The other point  the district court said was even if the above  was not true it's not discrimination under the pregnancy discrimination act because lactating is not always a result of pregnancy. Men lactate (rolling eyes really hard here), but most importantly adoptive moms can lactate without begin pregnant.  Which is true.     

KatieinBkln

lyndausvi said:

KatieinBkln said:

JCbride2015 said:

rcher912 said:

banana468 said:

rcher912 said:

My rage was triggered at the patriarchy earlier this week when the Supreme Court refused to hear a case where a woman was fired for needing to breastfeed (needing privacy to pump).

The lower court had ruled against her because...

wait for it.....

It's not sexist to fire her because men can sometimes lactate, too, (and ostensibly, they can handle it much better than a hysterical woman can).

I read that the other day. That is really fucked up.    I thought there were laws in place to protect women who breastfeed?  Having to give them a private non-bathoom place?   I guess not.

There are. I feel like there has to be more to that story. Based on some of the comments, some portions were left out. It still sounds screwed up but I feel like Nationwide didn't present their side in the article which makes it hard to assess the truth.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. The strangest part was that they had the accommodations, they just weren't made available to this woman (something about needing 3 days to process the paperwork), and it also sounds like this woman got stuck with The Worst Supervisor Ever, who's the one who made the really offensive comments and told her how her resignation letter should be written (and also apparently told her that all the work she missed on maternity leave must be made up in the next 2 weeks) -- none of this sounds like company policy, just an awful, awful, sexist boss.

Still not sure what "sometimes men lactate" has to do with it.

To make a long story short, it's because of bullshit Equal Protection cases that essentially said, you aren't violating Equal Protection if what you're doing doesn't exactly draw a line between men and women.  There's a famous case in which the Court ruled that pregnancy discrimination did not count as sex discrimination.  The Court said, "This box has pregnant people in it [all women]" and "This box has non-pregnant people in it [women and men]."  So since the rule benefits "non-pregnant people," which includes both women and men, it's not discriminatory on the basis of sex.  Congress actually went and passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in response to that ruling.

So I can see them dividing up the classes as "lactating people" and "non-lactating people" and saying that theoretically there could be both women and men in both classes.  Hence, not sex discrimination.

That is some damn fine lawyering moral gymnastics to make that argument.  I don't like it one bit.  But it actually makes sense in the fucked-up world of Supreme Court jurisprudence.  **Opens up Google to make sure it wasn't my law firm's case...**

ETA: I think Snopes seems to present both sides of the case pretty well.  Interesting stuff.

-------------CAN ONLY FIX ONE BOX, UGH--------------

What I don't understand about that, though, is that it isn't the act of lactation that requires a nursing mother to pump. It's the fact that she must pump in order to feed her child. I don't get why the lawyer on the other side couldn't bring that up. A lactating man couldn't pump his milk even if he wanted to (not much actual milk is actually produced). 

Does the law focus on the physical characteristics of the person only, or the actual real-life consequences of those physical characteristics? Because uh...it seems like that's the thing that matters.

     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

From what I read, the main reason for the district court to dismiss the case was they said Nationwide was acting reasonable to try an accommodate the woman. This all went down the first day returning to work.   They apparently offered a wellness room (that ended up being used by someone else) and then a private office until the badge was issued. The badge was to be ready the next day. Not sure why there are badges, but the courts felt they were acting in a reasonable manner trying to accommodate her.  I.e  this was the first day back and sometimes there are issues, but as long as those issues are being addressed quickly as possible then that is all Nationwide can do.

Now to the insensitive asshole boss.  Even with the boss saying all those sexist, insensitive things and writing up a letter of resignation for her (who does that?),  they felt she should have reported this to HR. I'm guessing that means that the opinions of the asshole boss are not necessarily the opinions of the company. They should have been given a chance to fix the issue.  Remember she "resigned" after only a few hours back from leave.  Can't fix something you don't know about.

The other point  the district court said was even if the above  was not true it's not discrimination under the pregnancy discrimination act because lactating is not always a result of pregnancy. Men lactate (rolling eyes really hard here), but most importantly adoptive moms can lactate without begin pregnant.  Which is true.     

But I'm thinking it could still be good old fashioned gender discrimination because while anyone can lactate, only a mother (who is a woman) can breastfeed. 

Like, anyone can bleed from their crotch (hell, I'd be happy to facilitate that for certain people), but only women can menstruate. It just seems like such a miniscule and even irrelevant thing to focus on.

I realize that in this case it was an addendum and the company would've won anyway (rightfully, it seems, if they were actually giving her a shot and she was just gun-shy of her dick boss). But as a legal precedent it seems weak as hell to me.

lyndausvi

KatieinBkln said:

lyndausvi said:

KatieinBkln said:

What I don't understand about that, though, is that it isn't the act of lactation that requires a nursing mother to pump. It's the fact that she must pump in order to feed her child. I don't get why the lawyer on the other side couldn't bring that up. A lactating man couldn't pump his milk even if he wanted to (not much actual milk is actually produced). 

Does the law focus on the physical characteristics of the person only, or the actual real-life consequences of those physical characteristics? Because uh...it seems like that's the thing that matters.

     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

From what I read, the main reason for the district court to dismiss the case was they said Nationwide was acting reasonable to try an accommodate the woman. This all went down the first day returning to work.   They apparently offered a wellness room (that ended up being used by someone else) and then a private office until the badge was issued. The badge was to be ready the next day. Not sure why there are badges, but the courts felt they were acting in a reasonable manner trying to accommodate her.  I.e  this was the first day back and sometimes there are issues, but as long as those issues are being addressed quickly as possible then that is all Nationwide can do.

Now to the insensitive asshole boss.  Even with the boss saying all those sexist, insensitive things and writing up a letter of resignation for her (who does that?),  they felt she should have reported this to HR. I'm guessing that means that the opinions of the asshole boss are not necessarily the opinions of the company. They should have been given a chance to fix the issue.  Remember she "resigned" after only a few hours back from leave.  Can't fix something you don't know about.

The other point  the district court said was even if the above  was not true it's not discrimination under the pregnancy discrimination act because lactating is not always a result of pregnancy. Men lactate (rolling eyes really hard here), but most importantly adoptive moms can lactate without begin pregnant.  Which is true.     

But I'm thinking it could still be good old fashioned gender discrimination because while anyone can lactate, only a mother (who is a woman) can breastfeed. 

Like, anyone can bleed from their crotch (hell, I'd be happy to facilitate that for certain people), but only women can menstruate. It just seems like such a miniscule and even irrelevant thing to focus on.

I realize that in this case it was an addendum and the company would've won anyway (rightfully, it seems, if they were actually giving her a shot and she was just gun-shy of her dick boss). But as a legal precedent it seems weak as hell to me.

WHY ARE THERE NO BOXES???




When you file a discrimination case you need to site the law that protects you.  Her lawyers tired to use the pregnancy discrimination act.  The courts said she was not protected under the pregnancy discrimination act because others can be lactating without being pregnant.  Sure lactating is often caused by pregnancy, but not everyone who lactates has been pregnant.    

However, this does not mean her lawyers can't come back and re-file.  They just have to find another law to use as why she is in a protective class.   

KatieinBkln

lyndausvi said:

When you file a discrimination case you need to site the law that protects you.  Her lawyers tired to use the pregnancy discrimination act.  The courts said she was not protected under the pregnancy discrimination act because others can be lactating without being pregnant.  Sure lactating is often caused by pregnancy, but not everyone who lactates has been pregnant.    

However, this does not mean her lawyers can't come back and re-file.  They just have to find another law to use as why she is in a protective class.   

Fascinating--I had no idea, but I suppose it makes sense that if you're going to sue someone for violating a law, the onus would have to be on you to state which law you believe was broken.

sophhabobopha

lyndausvi

KatieinBkln said:

lyndausvi said:

When you file a discrimination case you need to site the law that protects you.  Her lawyers tired to use the pregnancy discrimination act.  The courts said she was not protected under the pregnancy discrimination act because others can be lactating without being pregnant.  Sure lactating is often caused by pregnancy, but not everyone who lactates has been pregnant.    

However, this does not mean her lawyers can't come back and re-file.  They just have to find another law to use as why she is in a protective class.   

Fascinating--I had no idea, but I suppose it makes sense that if you're going to sue someone for violating a law, the onus would have to be on you to state which law you believe was broken. I'm not a lawyer, but that is what I'm getting from the situation.

It sort of makes sense if the act was written to only protect pregnant women and not also breastfeeding women.  Pregnancy is different then BFing.  Sure they are connected, but you don't have to be pregnant to be able to BF.      It's not exactly fair that a BF mom who was pregnant would be protected but an adoptive mom who is able to BF can't be because she was never pregnant.

Splitting hairs? Sure.  But law has everything to do with wording.