Workforce Discrimination – Page 2 – Feminist Legal Clinic

California Drivers Sue Uber, Lyft Alleging Gender Discrimination | The Epoch Times

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Male drivers affiliated with ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft filed lawsuits against the businesses in California, accusing them of enforcing gender discrimination through programs that allow women to opt for female drivers.

The class action complaint against Uber was filed on Nov. 3 at the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco.

The lawsuit took issue with Uber’s “Women Preferences” set of features announced for the U.S. market in July.

Initially, the Women Preferences option was introduced in Saudi Arabia in 2019, which was “overwhelmingly positive,” the company said, adding that the option has since been expanded to 40 nations.

[Ed: Another example of sex discrimination laws being used to reduce women’s safety and opportunities rather than for their protection as originally intended.]

Source: California Drivers Sue Uber, Lyft Alleging Gender Discrimination | The Epoch Times

Army officers ordered to cut ties with men-only members’ clubs | The Telegraph | UK

Army officers have been ordered to “disassociate” themselves from private members’ clubs that refuse to allow female soldiers to join.

Lt Gen David Eastman told regiments to review their affiliations with exclusive organisations that restrict women from joining or bar them from accessing certain rooms, urging troops to “advocate for change”.

The marching orders, believed to be the first of their kind seek to determine whether the rules and culture of the traditionally male-only clubs matched “the Army’s values and the principles of equality and respect”, the general said.

Writing to troops, the military chief said it had come to his attention that some corps and regiments maintained historical ties with clubs whose rules flew in the face of “inclusivity”.

In the letter, Lt Gen Eastman expressed his concerns not only for organisations that barred women entirely but those whose membership rights, access and participation varied based on gender.

Affiliations between the regiments and private members’ clubs are informal and membership is funded by individuals rather than by units. However, the links for some have been historic and long-standing.

Lt Gen Eastman warned that endorsements of such groups carried “weight” and must now be reviewed in an effort to better promote inclusivity.

“It creates an environment in which service personnel may feel an implicit expectation to join to fully participate in social or professional life,” he said.

News of the letter comes days after The Telegraph revealed the Army was facing a major probe into the alleged sexual abuse of recruits at medical testing centres.

Wiltshire Police launched the investigation, with detectives saying the abuse spanned between 1970 and 2016 and involved multiple “perpetrators” across “several locations”.

Source: Army officers ordered to cut ties with men-only members’ clubs

Setting the record straight: The political erasure of our feminist lineage | AAWAA

Women’s rights organisations advocating for sex-based protections and rights from a second-wave feminist tradition have been systematically mischaracterised in public discourse as ‘right-wing’, ‘reactionary’, ‘regressive’, or sometimes even ‘far-right’ or ‘extremist’. These labels are not merely inaccurate: they represent a form of political erasure of women’s organising that obscures the feminist lineage of our advocacy and misrepresents the nature of our concerns and advocacy.

The majority of women in feminist, women’s rights organisations such as AAWAA are rooted in second-wave feminism and the women’s liberation traditions that emerged from progressive movements of the late 1960s and the 1970s. Our advocacy is grounded in materialist feminist analysis: we recognise sex as a biological fact with material consequences for females living under patriarchy.

Historically, this analysis has driven campaigns against prostitution, sex trafficking, male violence against women and girls, surrogacy, pornography, sexualised advertising, misogyny, everyday sexism, and the denial of abortion rights — amongst other things. These we recognise as forms of systemic exploitation of women’s bodies and reproductive capacity: not matters of individual ‘choice’, but structures and mechanisms that enable and support male violence against women and that perpetuate our oppression as a sex class.

These positions were once widely recognised as core feminist positions. They emerge from the understanding that women exist firstly as a sex class before we exist as individuals or within any other class that includes the category of males. And they emerge from the knowledge that structures that commodify women’s bodies — whether through prostitution, surrogacy, or pornography — license prejudice against and the exploitation of women and girls at both the population and individual levels.

Women advocating for feminist stances on sex-based protections and rights are now routinely characterised as ‘right-wing’, ‘reactionary’, ‘regressive’, ‘extremist’, or aligned with political movements opposed to equality and human rights. These characterisations obscure the feminist lineage of our advocacy and misrepresent the nature of our concerns.

Women who raise concerns about policies that create conflicts between sex and gender identity, or that treat the commodification of women’s bodies as ’empowering’, should not be dismissed as bigots, extremists, hateful, or holders of reactionary politics.

Source: Setting the record straight: The political erasure of our feminist lineage

Flexible working arrangements: Experts warn bosses after Westpac loses Fair Work Commission case | SMH

Westpac’s loss at the Fair Work Commission over a staff member’s request to work from home permanently is a warning to bosses that they must be prepared to justify why they require certain workers to come into the office, experts say.

This week, the Fair Work Commission found in favour of an employee from Westpac’s mortgage operations team who challenged the bank after it shot down her request to work from home and insisted she report to the office at least two days a week.

Karlene Chandler, who has worked for Westpac for more than 20 years, had moved with her family to Wilton, about 80 kilometres south-west of Sydney’s CBD, in 2021, to be closer to the private school her two six-year-old children attended.

Chandler wanted the working conditions so she could make school drop-offs for her children, noting that it took roughly two hours to travel from the school to a Westpac office in either Kogarah or Parramatta.

She had been approved for flexible work conditions but in January, Westpac reversed this, requiring her to comply with the company policy of working at least two days per week in an office.

Finance Sector Union national secretary Julia Angrisano said working from home “is a right, not a privilege” and that the decision “paves the way for workers who have caring responsibilities to secure work from home rights”.

Sam Nottle, principal lawyer at Jewell Hancock employment lawyers, said the Westpac decision should remind companies that they were legally obliged to respond to requests for flexible working arrangements within 21 days and provide grounds for refusing requests.

“If an employee has worked very well from home in the past, you do have to grapple with and address the business grounds on which you’re refusing the request,” Nottle said. “Westpac didn’t do that in this instance,” he said.

Source: Flexible working arrangements: Experts warn bosses after Westpac loses Fair Work Commission case

From the manosphere to tradwives – why are young women embracing traditional gender roles? | The Conversation

[R]ecent signs suggest young adults may once again be embracing the idea that men should be dominant, while women play a supporting role.

Our research explored a concept called benevolent sexism – a set of patronising attitudes that appear positive while reinforcing women’s subordinate status.

This type of sexism is “benevolent” because it offers praise and protection to women who support traditional gender roles, while protecting patriarchal dominance as the status quo.

Our research, not yet peer reviewed, looked at two aspects of benevolent sexism.

1. Protective paternalism (“paternalism”): the belief that women need men’s protection

2. Complementary gender differentiation (“gendered roles”): the belief that men are naturally providers and protectors and women are naturally best suited to looking after home and family.

In the 2010 cohort, 57% of women disagreed with gendered roles, compared to 43% in 2024. In the intervening years, the dial shifted from “no” to “yes”.

In my 2010 focus groups, many young Australian women believed their male partners would be unlikely to share household and caring duties with them. As a result, they (reluctantly) expected to give up or reduce investment in their careers once they were partnered and had children.

Why do young women seem to expect even more conservative outcomes in their relationships 14 years later?

Some insight may be gained from two online trends that actively promote a return to traditional gender roles: the manosphere and the tradwives movement.

Denizens of the manosphere are loud and aggressive in expressing their criticisms of women.

One criticism has been gaining prominence: that men’s wellbeing is suffering as a result of women becoming more independent.

Misusing ideas from evolutionary psychology, the manosphere promotes the view that women and men are “naturally” suited to different roles.

The female equivalent to the manosphere is a collection of online female influencers. Many of these are “tradwives”, short for traditional wives.

Tradwives mirror the ideals of the manosphere, encouraging women to focus solely on looking after the home, the man and the family.

A key message of the tradwives movement is that “having it all” is too hard and women should allow themselves the freedom to focus on home and family.

This may appeal to young women feeling pressured to achieve in a world where the system is stacked against them.

But in romanticising the homemaker role, the tradwives movement wilfully ignores the risks in these traditional arrangements for women. One such risk is women who are financially dependent on their partners may find it harder to leave abusive relationships.

Source: From the manosphere to tradwives – why are young women embracing traditional gender roles?

How long before UK Jobcentres move from encouraging unemployed women into OnlyFans to mandating it? | Nordic Model Now!

UK job centres are encouraging OnlyFans as self-employment for unemployed women, while stories emerge of male job coaches seeking free access to their ‘content’.

OnlyFans is seen as a bit of a joke and no big deal, partly because, unlike Pornhub, the name allows us to gloss over the true nature of the site’s content. In the Jobcentre, as in life, there is profound lack of understanding of what these sites truly entail, the dynamics involved in making money from them, who drives the profits and who pays the price. For clarity, OnlyFans is a site of primarily pornographic content. Not exclusively but, as its doomed 2021 attempt to shut down sexualised content demonstrated, it is young naked female bodies that keep the site profitable.

[N]ot only does an OnlyFans creator have to pay subscriptions for her own potential exploitation, and possibly fees to a third party acting as a pimp or procurer, she is then required to pay tax on her income for no discernible benefits. That’s a lot of people making money from a so-called employment situation that can’t and won’t protect creators from exploitation that occurs within it.

What is most outrageous is the fact that the DWP regards prostitution as a legitimate career path. In society, the narrative being pushed is that OnlyFans is sexy, fun and empowering. In the DWP, the narrative is that it’s authentic self-employment.

If a Work Coach mandates a claimant to apply for a job and the claimant fails to do so, it is very much within the Work Coach’s purview to nominate that claimant for a sanction on their monthly benefit payment. This sanction is very often a reduction to zero, meaning that the claimant is left with no money to cover essential expenses for the month. So, what becomes of the woman who struggles to find a job but won’t accept sexual exploitation as an alternative? Her benefit will be reduced and she’ll be edged further into poverty. What if she encounters a vindictive Work Coach who seeks to make an example of her for not providing him with ongoing free content? Likely the same.

Right now, in the DWP, sexual exploitation is being reframed as an employment issue. People should know about this and we should fight against it.

Source: How long before UK Jobcentres move from encouraging unemployed women into OnlyFans to mandating it? | Nordic Model Now!

Nine officers at Charing Cross Police station suspended after allegations of ‘criminality and misconduct’ | EveningStandard

Nine Metropolitan Police officers have been suspended over allegations including excessive use of force and misogyny, it has emerged.

The suspensions stem from a BBC investigation, in which a reporter obtained a job as a civilian detention worker in the custody suite at Charing Cross police station.

Accusations, which will feature in an upcoming Panorama documentary, include excessive use of force, discriminatory and misogynistic comments, and failing to report or challenge inappropriate behaviour, the police watchdog has said.

The officers being investigated range in rank from police constable to sergeant, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said.

Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist said: “As a result of information received on 9 September 2025, enquiries were immediately launched by our Directorate of Professional Standards into allegations of criminality and misconduct by officers and staff based at Charing Cross Police Station

“The behaviour as reported is disgraceful and nine officers were suspended within 24 hours of the allegations being assessed and another two officers have been removed from frontline duties.

Charing Cross police station has previously come under fire after a 2022 report by the IOPC revealed officers had exchanged highly offensive messages, including repeated jokes about rape, domestic violence and violent racism as well as homophobic language and derogatory terms for disabled people.

Source: Nine officers at Charing Cross Police station suspended after allegations of ‘criminality and misconduct’

THIS IS HOW MEN KEEP WIFE SLAVES: MAN DEVALUES WOMEN’S LABOR SAYS IT’S EASY TO TAKE CARE OF 6 KIDS – YouTube

Male Supremacists Have Activated in Over 60 Countries | Into the Badlands

Male supremacists are rearing their ugly heads in governments across the world, with the goal of suppressing as many female populations as possible. We must be prepared to confront the biggest assault on female autonomy, liberation, and self-determination we’ve ever seen in recent times.

I’ve compiled a list of recent sexist phenomena tied to males in positions of power. . .

[Ed: Lengthy list of countries follows with links to news of assaults on women’s rights.]

So here’s what we have to do:

[Ed: please access original article at link below for details].

Organize Our Communities

Create Strong Support Networks

Connect With Female Professionals

Practice Female Separatism

Reduce Contact With Males

Withdraw From Co-Ed Spaces

Create Our Own Organizations

It’s important to remember that males are separatists. They share wealth, power, and control with one another. We should do the same. There is no reason for us to continue giving what we will inevitably, never get back.

[Ed: Unfortunately male supremacists are at least one step ahead of us and have legislated gender identity ideology to make many of these activities unlawful.]

Source: Male Supremacists Have Activated in Over 60 Countries

Data reveals worst sectors for gender pay inequality in Australia | Australian economy | The Guardian

Major new research has found that men are paid more than women in 98% of occupations, with female workers in Australia typically paid 70 cents for every $1 earned by their male colleague after a decade in work.

The report also showed that gender segregation in Australian workplaces was proving stubborn to shift: in about seven in 10 occupations there had been no progress on gender balance in 15 years.

The 30% average pay gap across workplaces identified in Jobs and Skills Australia’s new report stretches to nearly 40% for First Nations women.

Experts blame the persistent gender pay gap in large part on the “motherhood penalty” – the phenomenon where Australian women’s earnings drop by 55% in the five years after having their first child.

A higher likelihood of returning to part-time rather than full-time work, and missed opportunities for promotion during time away, mean that penalty is only slightly improved 10 years after giving birth.

More gender-balanced occupations tended to have more equal pay, but the research revealed these jobs were in a minority: only one in five Australian workers were in occupations with a relatively equal mix of men and women.

Ambulance officers and paramedics, dentists, and barristers were roles that had become less male-dominated, while vets and school principals had moved from gender parity to moderately higher shares of women.

But gender segregation was most acute in lower-skilled occupations, where there had been little change in the mix of men and women in a decade-and-a-half.

While no occupation showed meaningfully higher pay for women over men, the report found that occupational pay gaps widen to be at their worst among the most segregated occupations – regardless of whether they were male- or female-dominated.

Female registered nurses, for example, were paid $89,720 on average, or 21% less than the $114,420 typically paid to their male peers. That’s despite women accounting for 90% of that workforce and only working 10% fewer hours.

Even in the case of childcare – where almost the entire workforce were women – men were typically paid 14% more: $56,240, versus $48,340, according to the JSA’s analysis of Australian Taxation Office data.

Source: Data reveals worst sectors for gender pay inequality in Australia | Australian economy | The Guardian