So if there's a rule that says "black women are fired first" it's both race based discrimination and sex based discrimination. Doesn't matter if the employer doesn't have a problem with black men.
I'm more concerned about the ideology than the law cases which seemed quite a strong argument. I thought you might know more about the law changes but you keep talking about something else very abstractly as tho it wasn't something that actually happened & the rationale recorded.
-
-
If she actually reported it incorrectly. I'd like to know but I think someone would have said so in all these years because she has a lot of critics. She's not wrong to say all the black women were laid off because black men were too because both of those things that can be true.
-
My point here is that by omitting the fact that black men were also laid off, she's letting the reader believe black women had a substantive claim beyond simple race based discrimination
-
That's the claim, yes. I'm not sure it needs for no black men to have been laid off to be true. You're arguing it could well just have been racism & the black women were wrong to think it was a compound of racism and sexism?
-
It's possible that she had no grounds to think this & I can't be bothered to look into the reasoning they gave for this. I don't know that she was right in this case. We probably agree that she was right to say there must be a way to address compound cases?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.