But did the law allow for that? If all the black women were fired first, could a complaint of sexist or racist discrimination be made if there were plenty of white women and black men who weren't fired? I don't know and don't have time to read Crenshaw again now.
-
-
If there was evidence that black women were targeted as a class, yes, it would be illegal discrimination even if the motives for it weren't racism because black men kept their job or sexism because white women kept their jobs. It's still race and sex based discrimination.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
You read the Crenshaw thing and the rulings saying that cases couldn't be judged like this which was later overturned and now they can?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Did I read the entire 31 page document you linked? No. I can tell you in the highlighted portion she has the facts of the case wrong. Black men were also laid off and were filing suit.pic.twitter.com/3CrPLU0UP4
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @doublespeak152 @HPluckrose and
The court wanted to combine the cases but the plaintiffs refused because the claim that black women were being doubly discriminated against. That's what the court was responding to in the section she quotes
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, I know. There wasn't a way to complain of that. Now there is. Is that a bad thing?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @doublespeak152 and
I'm going to leave it here. The article reported what Crenshaw did accurately. If you think this is itself is bad, think about whether you'd like to be able to complain if straight, white men get discriminated against by SocJus ppl when just one of those identities wouldn't be.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I've literally been trying to explain for hours that it ISN'T the case that you can discriminate against a subset of a protected class by narrowing parameters so it's not "racism". Never once said "it's ok if ppl can discriminate against black women". Not once
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm not saying you did! You seem to be answering things that weren't said and not addressing what Crenshaw did say which was reported accurately in the article. Did you not see what the courts ruled & that it was decided this required a change in law & that that happened?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The article reported what Crenshaw wrote. I didn't say it mischaracterized Crenshaw. Obviously got her argument correct. My tweet was saying her argument mischaracterized the case.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
This argument? I'm prepared to believe she could have got this wrong even tho she is a professor of law who focused on this because she was ideologically motivated. I don't understand your explanation tho. The law was later changed to fill this gap so it must have existed.pic.twitter.com/X5wVsbIhK6
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.