[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Discrimination Laws Intended To Protect Both Sexes: Court
posted by Nightmist on Saturday August 18, @07:48PM
from the inequality dept.
Inequality The 8th U.S. Court of Appeals has overturned another court's acceptance of the University of Minnesota's appeal of a sexual discrimination lawsuit filed by a male professor, according to this story on Excite News. Amazingly, one of the university's arguments was that anti-discrimination laws were intended to protect women only! The male professor filed the lawsuit as a result of women-only pay increases after a 1989 sexual discrimination lawsuit settlement. In response to the University's second argument, the appeals court ruled both men and women are protected under sexual discrimination laws. Update: You may e-mail the university's Board of Regents here.

<  Study Blames Male Behavior For Increased Female HIV Risk | NOW Promoting More Gender "Hate Crime" Laws  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
New Anti-Male Jim Crow Laws and Practices (Score:1)
by cshaw on Saturday August 18, @10:04PM EST (#1)
(User #19 Info)
Prior to the American Civil War, our Constitution clearly elucidated and outlined the equal rights of all persons. But despite that fact, slavery and discrimination was promulgated by law and custom. The same set of circumstances are now present with regard to the treatment of males, especially white males, despite clear Constitutional mandates that forbid the same. The defendants in this case openly state that the Congress of the USA and, by implication, the Federal government promulgates discrimination against males,especially white males, by what are, in fact, "Jim Crow" laws and practices of the Federal government similar to those that were in effect against blacks before and after the Civil War. I, certainly, hope that males, especially white males, stand up, like the Plaintiff in this law suit, to government sponsored sexism and racism as did those brave men and women who fought the "Jim Crow" laws that applied to blacks prior to and for a period after the Civil War.Males,including white males, should fight governmental and cultural mandates, that force them to "the back of the bus" by law and custom, although it is clear that fighting the same will result in many economic and social bruises and sacrifices.
 
Re:New Anti-Male Jim Crow Laws and Practices (Score:2)
by Nightmist (nightmist@mensactivism.org) on Sunday August 19, @11:41PM EST (#2)
(User #187 Info)
What's particularly frightening to me is that the case had to get to the 8th Court of Appeals before somebody finally affirmed that Congress did not intend to exclude men from anti-discrimination laws. I believe, in fact, that the story/school specifically said "anti-discrimination" and not "gender discrimination" laws. If the school's argument had been accepted, then someone could later interpret that to mean that black men could be excluded from race discrimination laws, elderly men could be excluded from age discrimination laws... as long as they're male... It could have conceivably set back every single civil rights cause fought for in the U.S., with the exception of feminism, of course. I think it's pretty irresponsible of the university to make that argument in particular.


[an error occurred while processing this directive]