General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: why I suspect reaction to Hobby Lobby is somewhat hair-on-fire [View all]Chan790
(20,176 posts)The Harris ruling on public sector unions is probably actually worse for women and is getting no attention because it was released the same day as Hobby Lobby. As I said in reply #50, I think this was intentional.
Which is the worse ruling:
*The one that lets your boss control your genitalia? (This isn't me using the rhetorical trick of posing a long complex choice against a simpler one to frame one as less important. I just think there's nothing to explain about why the Hobby Lobby ruling is terrible for women that hasn't already been said. We all know it's an offensive and terrible ruling that acts to allow employers to compel pregnancy on women, denigrates the rights of women, and allows an employer to impose their religious values on employees.)
or
*The one that destroys unions and ultimately depresses wages and benefits in a employment-sector dominated by women (I don't have the national numbers but someone told me here in CT home health-aides are ~90% women; that reflects my impressions and is probably pretty close nationally and everywhere) and one of the few jobs that pays well while not requiring a lot of training or education; a job that is an entry-way to meaningful employment for single parents (more often women than men), caretakers to their own parents and children (more often women than men), and women who may be escaping the oppression of misogynistic men who want to keep them from entering the workforce from a lifetime of child-rearing and housemaking...applicable skills to that career-field?
Neither. They're both fucking awful...but one is getting no attention. Both rulings are about keeping women down and gender-inequality.