McDonald's Scenario:

Male Cashier: "Would you like to try a 'Hot & Spicy' McChicken sandwich today? Would you like to Super-Size those fries?"

Female customer: "What the hell did you mean by 'hot & spicy'?" (Later in court) "When he said that, I felt so cheap! And when he said 'super-size', he was all but whipping out his penis just by his words alone!"

Diner scenario:

Waiter, after pouring coffee, says: "Would you like a little cream in that?"

Woman (in court later): "I know what he really meant by so-called 'cream in that'. I felt emotionally raped by his insensitive question!"

And so it goes.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm fair-squared against harassment. But I'm equally against stupidity and frivolity.

Which is why, if proven true in court, I think the second - more substantial - part of this class action suit has merit.

Again, to quote CBS News:

"The suit charges that Wal-Mart, which also operates Sam's Club, systematically discriminates against female employees across the nation by denying them promotions and equal pay.

The suit, filed in San Francisco in June 2001, alleges there are nearly double the number of women in management at competing retail stores and that male Wal-Mart workers get higher pay than women for the same duties. It also says the retailing giant passes over women for promotions and training..."

Sadly, with the way the world works, this is probably the rule rather than the exception in corporate and retail business circles. So, I hope, through this suit, the plaintiffs strike a blow for broads everywhere.

*Begin Heavy Sarcasm Alert*

Things used to be much simpler. Then we men stopped demanding that women be ever pregnant. We allowed them to wear shoes. We showed them that, yes, there was a world outside of the kitchen.

And just look at how they've repaid their benevolent masters!

*End Heavy Sarcasm Alert*

Obviously, Wal-Mart is downplaying this whole "unpleasant episode."

According to spokesperson Mona Williams, "The fact that a man might force female associates to bars and places like that to have meetings, it's very offensive to me and everybody else at Wal-Mart. That's not who we are. We might have some knucklehead out there that thinks that's OK to do. But that's not who we are or how we think."

She added that the briefs illustrated "isolated complaints" against the company.

The fact that the designated spokesperson is a WOMAN proves one of two things: Either that women can move up the Wal-Mart ladder, thus the suit has little merit, or... more likely... that the corporate lawyers are pretty darn slick, and have taken the public relations offensive by having a woman speak, thus both blunting the impact of such a suit through "maximum spin control" and raising the question of its merits.

One final note: The CBS article noted that Wal-Mart Stores Inc is "the nation's largest private employer", which, to some extent, goes a long way toward answering the question:

"What's wrong with America today?"