Dem broads have their panties in a twist... again.

This time, the righteous anger is directed at the Wal-Mart retail chain.

It's always something!

To wit (quoting from CBS News, "Angry Workers Up The Ante At Wal-Mart", 4/29/03):

"Wal-Mart is on the receiving end of what could become the largest class action employment lawsuit in U.S. history...

...The documents, detailing more than 100 complaints by women against the company, are part of a nearly 2-year-old lawsuit against the Bentonville, Ark., retail chain, the nation's largest private employer.

A hearing is set for July 25 in which attorneys for the women will ask a federal judge to elevate the seven-plaintiff suit into a nationwide, class action sex discrimination case."

There are basically two complaints.

The more sensational, and less serious, of the two - which, of course, tops the news article(s) due to its "shock" value - is that male managers at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. have "required" their female counterparts to attend meetings at strip clubs and - ahem! - Hooter's restaurants.

Now that the offended wimmen have said "no more", by having their lawyers file documents in federal court, I have to ask — whatever happened to just plain "no"? Maybe that could've avoided this so-called "more".

Too often in this world, people will simply go along with something - even if they know it's wrong - so as not to rock the boat. Then, at some point, when they've finally had enough, they sue. Welcome to the New Litigious World Order.

This is the same reason why Hitler would've eventually been sued by the Jews. If he hadn't, you know, killed them all before a class action lawsuit could be filed.

I'd be much more sympathetic if a woman (or group of women) at Wal-Mart had refused to attend such a meeting, due to its offensive locale, and had been fired. Then filed a wrongful termination/sex discrimination suit. Sometimes it's better to stand up for yourself, consequences be damned, than to just "go along" with the stupidity. Maybe that attitude is a "guy thing", or maybe I'm just funny in the head.

Of course, the Cynic in me has to ask: Did they go along with it out of fear, or because it began to dawn on them that, perhaps, there WAS a Light at the End of the Big Settlement Tunnel?

I can understand the part about strip clubs. That is a little overboard and, quite frankly, just plain wrong.

But Hooter's restaurants? What next?

Will obese Wal-Mart employees follow suit, and sue management for "requiring" them to eat unhealthy, fattening food during a meeting held at a crap-restaurant?

And I can't help but wonder what would've happened if the roles had been reversed, and a female manager had "required" her male underlings to attend a staff meeting at Chippendales. Probably nothing, because men don't talk about being sexually "violated". It just isn't manly to talk about such things. Unless, of course, you're a man who happens to reside in a maximum-security prison. Then it's pretty much the topic de jour. But that's another column entirely.

If the "Hooter's" portion of the suit isn't tossed out and the case is won with that intact, I wonder where it will end.