Yep, but you get used to it..:-)
I consider myself a 'pragmatic' feminist---"feminist" in that I think women need to be afforded opportunity based on their abilities, NOT kept from it based on their gender. Same with payscale of course.
I also believe that anybody--woman or man--has to prove they are capable of fulfilling a job based on talent, merit etc. and not given it based on their gender.
In other words, I am NOT an advocate of quotas to advance women.
We need to prove our chops like anybody--BUT we do need to be given the opportunities to do that.
For instance, I don't think women in combat should get a sliding scale litmus test to account for inferior physical strength. This should be a self-filtering reality, and thus not "political"...anyone that is weaker, smaller, slower does not get into jobs that require physical standards thay cannot meet.
That means if a strong, butch Amazon female passes muster---so be it--the standard should be unwavering. But the truth is, women like that will be far in the exception rather than the rule.
If we just would not tinker with common sense and stay true to proven standards of performance (look to the non-politcally correct systems in nature--that's a pretty enduring system!), so much of this would sort itself out.
(I realize how "efficient" and ruthless that may sound..but it is the bedrock, sustainable dynamic)
Having said all that, we certainly do not need to hang onto ages-old bias for their own sake--we DO need to be enlightened and FAIR--give opportunity and credit where it is due.
'Scuse the tangent..sheesh, I got going again..:)
I'd still like hear why you consider the Supreme Court's decision in US v Morrison to be wrong, and what you find wrong with their arguments.