As I walked around the city, I can see many people with stereotype, prejudice and discrimination toward a certain group of people.
“Ew! Adam is a gay. Hate that!”
“This kind of uneducated person will only slow down the country from improving.”
“Wear like that, definitely not a good person.”
“Better stay away from the blacks or I may be so unlucky to be targetted by them as a victim.”
I wonder, do they know that their stereotype, prejudice and discrimination may cause harm to the particular group of people?

Stereotyping involves making assumptions and applying an attribute to a group of people without knowing all the facts.
When I was in the crowd, I overheard a group of people saying that Indians are violent and Malays are lazy.
This can lead to prejudice and discrimination.

Prejudice is an attitude or belief on a group of people based on personal or social ideals without considering the facts.
I saw few women were chatting. From the way of a Chinese mother spoke, it showed that she dislikes Indians due to some personal beliefs.
Prejudgment.

Discrimination is the act of being unfair to certain groups of people.
It is based on prejudice.
Continue from the above example, the Chinese mother told her daughter not to play with her Indian friend by telling her that the Indian girl may influence her to become bad.

Prejudice is a state of mind which many people see as harmless to people but discrimination is the action which resulted from prejudice and can be harmful.
All these prejudical attitudes and discriminatory behaviour may hurt people.
Stereotype, prejudice, discrimination.
Do you have any of them?

My hatred for health insurance companies has grown to a new level after being rejected by Aetna. Here are excerpts from an article that further proves how insurance companies are the bain of America.

A survey on medical privacy, released in November 2005 by the California Healthcare Foundation, found that 13% of American adults say they have done something “to protect the privacy” of their medical history. Younger respondents, those under 45, were more likely to have engaged in privacy-protective behaviors. Those include:

• Paying out of pocket to avoid submitting a claim.

• Not seeking care, such as diagnostic tests, to avoid disclosure.

• Asking their doctor not to write down a health problem or to record a less-serious condition.

• Giving inaccurate or incomplete information on a medical form.

• Asking therapists not to take notes or to see a patient under an assumed name.

“People should not have to sacrifice their health in order to shield themselves from job discrimination and loss of health benefits,” said Janlori Goldman, a researcher at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons. Still, many people are “fearful that their medical information will be used against them,” she said.

Lying on your health-insurance application form is never a good idea. It’s considered insurance fraud and the insurer can cancel your policy (just when you might need it) if you are caught. As more and more data is warehoused electronically, it is easier for insurers to share information about you. What you can do:

• Answer the questions to the best of your ability and be truthful.

• Hire an experienced health-insurance broker who knows the underwriting criteria of several individual insurers.

• After an appointment with a therapist, look at the number on the claim form you receive from the therapist. Ask what your diagnosis is, so you can best know how to proceed.

• If you are denied, ask your doctor to write a letter supporting your re-application, especially if you are no longer in counseling or no longer taking a prescription drug that got you denied.

To learn more about protections for individual health insurance offered by your state, go to Georgetown University’s Health Privacy Project.

Military academies lack minority nominees
November 22, 2009 by Brian Witte (hat tip to Education Watch International)

As the nation’s military academies try to recruit more minorities, they aren’t getting much help from members of Congress from big-city districts with large numbers of blacks, Hispanics and Asians.

From New York to Chicago to Los Angeles, lawmakers from heavily minority areas rank at or near the bottom in the number of students they have nominated for appointment to West Point, the U.S. Naval Academy or the U.S. Air Force Academy, according to an Associated Press review of records from the past five years.

High school students applying to the academies must be nominated by a member of Congress or another high-ranking federal official. Congressional nominations account for about 75 percent of all students at the academies.

Academy records obtained by the AP through the Freedom of Information Act show that lawmakers in roughly half of the 435 House districts nominated more than 100 students each during the five-year period.

But Rep. Nydia M. Velazquez of New York City, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, nominated only four students, the lowest among House members who served the entire five-year period. Rep. Charles B. Rangel, whose New York City district includes Harlem, was second-lowest, with eight nominations. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose San Francisco district is 29 percent Asian, was also near the bottom, with 19.

In fact, the bottom 20 House members were all from districts where whites make up less than a majority.

“It’s beyond my imagination how someone that has the ability to nominate doesn’t do it,” Craig Duchossois said in December at his final meeting as chairman of the Naval Academy’s Board of Visitors.

He noted what an academy appointment means: a free four-year education and a guaranteed job as an officer for at least five years after graduation.

Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Rangel and Mrs. Pelosi, all Democrats, would not comment or did not return calls.

Let’s not try to make this a racist issue, it’s an elitist anti-military issue

Figures. Obama Commie Czar Wants Hannity & Rightwing Websites Censured
November 24, 2009 by Gateway Pundit

One of the communist-supporters and kooks working with Obama in the White House wants Sean Hannity and rightwing websites muzzled.
Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein wrote this in his latest book.
World Net Daily and FOX Nation reported:

Websites should be obliged to remove “false rumors” while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such “rumors,” argued Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory czar.

In his recently released book, “On Rumors,” Sunstein specifically cited as a primary example of “absurd” and “hateful” remarks, reports by “right-wing websites” alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers.

He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for “attacking” Obama regarding the president’s “alleged associations.”

Ayers became a name in last year’s presidential campaign when it was disclosed the radical worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers’ apartment.

Has anyone asked Mr. Sunstein what would have happened to Dan Rather during the scandal about Bush’s National Guard records had these proposed laws been in effect?

Democrats, bias, bigotry, censorship, discrimination, elitism, free speech, government, hate speech, hypocrisy, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, marxism, nanny state, oppression, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, propaganda, scandal, socialism

Extensive coverage of police violence during the Democratic National Convention shocked and psychologically tasered the liberal American population who believes in civil rights and the necessity for a state to promote a trustworthy, reliable, and respectful police force on which the citizens can lean in times of inorderly conduit and criminal violence. Democratic societies have been failing one after the other to prove their population they knew how to control internal security issues, make the difference between political trouble and peaceful protests, anarchy and political activism… as well as not making any difference between any citizen, whether the bias is racial, religious, or political. The irony lying within the same countries’ foreign policy being based on exporting their own so-called democratic system is not lost on the victims of police violence. If the Grant case was easy for you to stomach, let’s turn to Paris where the question of national identity, that has been plaguing the nation of Voltaire ever since the independance of Algeria, is now reaching new heights of violence.

Last Wednesday – November 18th – Algeria wins over Egypt in a football match many French citizens of Algerian descent wish to commemorate. Anyss Arbib, a twenty-two year old student at the well-connected, internationally renowned National Institute of Political Science, decides to join the party on the Champs-Elysees in the capital, from his suburb in which most of the population is of northern african origin. North Paris, and specifically the 93rd regional district – Seine Saint Denis – has only gained a reputation through repeated violence, riots, and organized crime. Luckily for Arbib, who is himself entering the preparation for the National School of Governance, France is a soccer country, in which it is widely accepted to honk, scream, yell, and wave flags at whichever country has managed to shoot a ball inside a net.

Anyss Arbib has two major flaws going against him: he is coming from the aforementioned district, and is of Arab descent. Regardless of his qualities as a student, his deep and humble knowledge of the law, his ambition to become part of a government someday, and his writing abilities, Anyss Arbib, born a French citizen on French territory, is suddenly forced to question his own identity. Once the Champs-Elysees are invaded by a group of violent rioters, Arbib and his friends decide to leave and come back home, not willing to be assimilated to people whose behaviour they have always disapproved of. Back on the freeway, they suddenly encounter the police forces, stopping cars at random, dragging their drivers out on the road and beating them severely in front of terrified families and young people. Insults flow from members of the police: “get the fuck out, you dirty Arab”; “what the fuck are you looking at”, to a witness screaming that someone is going to die, before being teargassed by the same polician. Anyss Arbib tries to keep his composure.

Anyss Arbib here on the left with Richard Descoings, director of the National Institute of Political Science

“I have been nothing but polite”, he tells the policeman pushing him against his car. “There is no reason to behave so aggressively.” “Shut the fuck up”, replies the policeman. “I know my rights, I am a political science student”, Arbib calmly replies. “Well fuck political science!” is the reply he gets before being teargassed at close range, and losing consciousness. He comes to still on the freeway to watch a father of several children being dragged out of his seat and beaten up by batons. His friend has also been teargassed and is partially blind. “Go away, you Arab” says a policeman. “I’m French”, Arnyss replies. Was it at that precise moment he realised he wasn’t? A friend later told him, “Ivy League or not, you’ll always be an Arab, even with a French ID.”

When Nicolas Sarkozy introduced his best friend Brice Hortefeux at the head of a new yet controversial Ministry Of National Identity and Immigration, he knew he was just throwing more fuel into a already burning pan. Immigrants – often from the Maghreb, issued from France’s former colonies – are confined into suburbs and withdraw into a dangerous tendancy to communautarism and religious defiance to France’s secular system. With a crumbling education system and a government exacerbating violent opposition through cheap provocation, the 2006 riots so heavily documented worldwide were just one detail of a much bigger picture. France, unable to deal with its colonial past and fully integrate the sons and daughters of those who rebuilt the country after World War II, is now facing religious integrism clashing with other communities of faith, a growing illiteracy rate, decaying women’s rights in the face of integrism, and civil unstability. President Sarkozy was elected on agenda based on tough control and “zero tolerance”. In return, the difference between the upper middle class and the lower working class has grown to a deep, incrossable manhole, and national identity is nothing short of tacky patriotism sprinkled with daydreams of a glorious past that looks nothing like the contemporary bleak, dull reality.

Anyss Arbib is lucky; educated, smart, righteous, and well-guided, his story reached the frontpage of a national newspaper (Libération, November 24); complaints reach the inspection of the police forces, the IJSS; his outcry, firstly published on his Facebook page, touched national consciousness. But for the hundreds of thousands with no access to a network of media consultants or the knowledge of the complex administrative legal process, the mass of those left behind, no recourse is possible and ghettoism is the only answer.

In a word, Arbib is not just seeking accountability. He’s also searching for himself, tied between two worlds – one he barely knows, but is forced to reach out to for support; and one he thought he was a legitimate part of, but rejecting him on the basis of difference. France has never been a homogenuous melting pot of faiths and ethnicities. Under the pretext of assimilation, France just pushed every identity under the rug of the shining Republic. The Commission overseeing and evaluating police forces (CNDS)  will be dismantled by the end of the year despite increasing number of registered complaints  -19 in 2001, 152 in 2008 and 158 for the first three months of 2009). Now what’s a Republican to do?

Palin Derangement Syndrome Hits Hard
November 23, 2009 by Michael Goodwin (hat tip to The Western Center for Journalism)

Let us have a moment of silence in honor of the late journalism standards of The Washington Post company. They died last week, a victim of Palin Derangement Syndrome.

First came Newsweek’s cover of Palin in running shorts, over a headline of “How do you solve a problem like Sarah?” and a snide kicker that “she’s bad news for the GOP–and everybody else too.”

Beyond the obvious partisanship, many women, Palin included, found the cover sexist and an attempt to demean her with the bimbo treatment.

There might also be legal fallout. Newsweek, owned by The Post, had no right to use the photo, according to Runner’s World magazine, which commissioned it.

The company’s flagship paper also embarrassed itself. It published dueling reviews of Palin’s book “Going Rogue,” with snarky blogger Ana Marie Cox making an astounding confession in her review:

“I cannot claim to have completely read ‘Going Rogue’ — I had to skim the last 150 pages (or more than one-third). I only got the thing into my hands late Monday afternoon with a deadline of early evening. It’s terrible, I know, but if I didn’t read it all, neither can Sarah Palin claim to have completely written it.”

My inquiry about how this could possibly be acceptable was answered by Rachel Shea, editor of the paper’s Book World. She said in a breezy e-mail: “We thought our reviewers each provided unique perspectives on the book, and Ana Marie Cox was up front about her examination of it.”
There you have it. The Post no longer requires reviewers to actually read the books they are reviewing, as long as they are “up front” about it.

It’s Sarah Palin’s fault.

bias, bigotry, discrimination, elitism, hypocrisy, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, news media, opinion, pandering, propaganda, scandal, sexism

Don’t speak
don’t type
don’t write
rhythm,
poetic drivel
or rhyme.
Don’t quietly
sit there and whine
about the losses
and the fine
examples of failure
held over
our heads
like we were
already dead!

Don’t whimper
don’t simmer
don’t wait
in patient
supplication
gratification of
state to state
motivated by
the need to
seek peacefully
the things
we should already
have!

No

Take it
demand it
stop trying
to request it.

Because it’s not
a failure
to communicate
we’re not at a table
to negotiate.

Freedom is not a maze
to navigate
or a truce to appropriate.
Freedom is
demanded
commanded
and undeniably
branded on souls!
And from the first bullet fired
to the lantern lifted
setting the world on fire
to the shots on campus
ringing throughout memphis
to radicals walking
in masses
and women at the gate
facing threats
staring down hate
change was never
motivated, moved
or manipulated
by the bendable.
but by the immovable
irreversible
permanent
foot planted
and well cemented
resolve of voices
raised up
shouting
and undeniably heard

so what are we waiting for?

Sex work is not an invitation to rape.

[Trigger warning -- news story contains description]
There is a range of feminist opinion on what role sex work ought to have. But there can’t be a range of opinion on sex workers: they are people. No means no. Stop means stop. Whatever services they sell — cam shows, penetration, BDSM or whatever — do not and cannot be seen to invalidate their humanity. And ignoring a person’s right to say, “stop penetrating my body” is the most basic denial of humanity.

The problem with a jury system is the same as the problem with judges (recall this awful shit): they reflect first and foremost the biases of the society they operate in. Here, there wasn’t a real question about what happened:

A New South Wales District Court jury cleared Petty Officer Timothy Davis, 25, of a charge of sexual intercourse without consent, with the aggravating factor of causing the woman actual bodily harm. … The woman told the court she had protected, consensual sex with Davis at the brothel where she worked, but said he became aggressive when she told him his time was up and forced her to have unprotected sex. The jury was shown police photographs of scratches on the woman.
Davis denied forcing the woman to have sex, but admitted in court that he used a “lock down maneuver” to pin her to the bed when she said she wanted to stop. He told the court he backed off when she kicked him, though he said he muffled her mouth with his hand when she began to scream after he demanded his money back.

Laws regarding prostitution vary between states in Australia. Brothels are legal in New South Wales.

This is not a legal problem. This is not a problem statutory reform can solve. Her work was legal where she was doing it. She was a service provider engaged in a lawful business enterprise, not meaningfully legally different from a masseuse or a personal trainer or a manicurist, for these purposes. Her work puts her in close contact with customers to whom she provides services. Nothing about that implies that she waives her basic human rights to do her job.

And this is not an enforcement problem. The police made an arrest and the prosecutors brought the case. The judge didn’t throw it out. The case went all the way to a jury.

This is a cultural problem. He admitted he pinned her down, he admitted he covered her mouth, he admitted that he put his penis inside her with no condom … and a jury of ordinary citizens acquitted him anyway. I can’t see any way that happens unless they simply decided that they are so biased against sex workers that they think sex workers deserve to be raped when doing their job.

Shouldn’t it be so obvious as to be unnecessary to say this? Sex workers do not deserve to be raped — while doing their jobs, or at any other time, ever. It’s a basic syllogism, really. Major premise: No human deserves to be raped. Minor premise: Sex workers are human. Conclusion: No sex worker deserves to be raped. The operation of the syllogism is Logic 101. The truth of the premises is Humanity 101. Disagree with one of those premises? Fail the course, repeat Humanity 101.

So much of policy around sex work is driven by a phobic and hateful reaction. There are basic things about sex work that everyone who identifies as sex positive or feminist or both ought to find common ground on: e.g. that sex workers ought to be protected from rape, including while working; that providing sexual services, even if illegal, ought not to be punished more harshly or more frequently than being a customer of the same services; that underage sex workers ought not to be prosecuted at all because someone who lacks the agency to have zir consent to noncommercial sex recognized ought not to bear criminal responsibility for the same acts if money changes hands. Shouldn’t those simple propositions get universal agreement from everyone?

And let’s not forget the person who caused this shitshow of basic human rights violation. Congratulations PO Tim Davis. You’re a piece of shit. You abused a sex worker, and you got away with it because the jury hates sex workers. You fail Humanity 101. Repeat the course. You know what? Don’t. I want you off my fucking planet, now. Eat your service sidearm. Your next victims will thank you. Because we both know it’s highly likely you’ve done this before, and I’m goddamned sure you’ll do it again.

As the economy’s downturn continues to loom over America and employment remains to be a daily issue, the problem is almost magnified for the young males in the Black community.

34.5% of young Black men are unemployed.

Reported in October, unemployment for African-American men between the ages of 16 and 24 has skyrocketed.  The percent is more than three times the unemployment rate for the entire U.S. population.

This month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that unemployment for Blacks in D.C had risen from 11.4% to 11.9%, although employment was stable for other races located in Maryland and Virginia.

As the country deals with a recession, Black America is slowly crumbling into an economic depression with jobs becoming scarcer, especially for the Black community.  The hole is becoming deeper and deeper and the light for opportunity only flickers.

Issues trying to find stability in the work force for a Black man spans farther back in history than most can remember.  Some have been placed in situations where they feel they are in dead end jobs and are the last to be hired, but the first to be fired.

In regards to the present, the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that African-Americans had a higher rate of job loss in the fourth quarter of 2008 when compared to whites, Hispanics or any other ethnic group in America.

Back in March 2009, the unemployment rate for Black men was reported at 15.4% and was almost double to jobless white men.

A study was conducted by Princeton University of 1,500 employers within New York City and the results found that Black applicants that did not have criminal backgrounds did not have more of a chance at getting a job than white applicants that were fresh out of the prison system.

Discrimination has clearly played out to be the dominant factor in the downturn when compared to things such as age, income and education.  The Center of Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University reported that lower-income white teens are more likely to obtain employment than upper-income Black teens.

As the road remains tumultuous, the true nature of the country begins to rear its ugly head.  Even with so much time passed and so much accomplished within its history, America is still unable to unlock its grasp on race.

Keep in mind that with drastic times comes drastic measures, so as a person is unable to alleviate their back from being against the wall, he/she is prone to explore other means in order to get what they want when the legal, civilized way isn’t working.

Pa. university students upset about fitness class
November 21, 2009 by KATHY MATHESON

PHILADELPHIA — A Pennsylvania university’s requirement that overweight undergraduates take a fitness course to receive their degrees has raised the hackles of students and the eyebrows of health and legal experts.

Officials at historically black Lincoln University said Friday that the school is simply concerned about high rates of obesity and diabetes, especially in the African-American community.

“We know we’re in the midst of an obesity epidemic,” said James L. DeBoy, chairman of Lincoln’s department of health, physical education and recreation. “We have an obligation to address this head on, knowing full well there’s going to be some fallout.”

The fallout began this week on Lincoln’s campus about 45 miles southwest of Philadelphia, where seniors — the first class affected by the mandate — began realizing their last chance to take the class would be this spring.

Tiana Lawson, a 21-year-old senior, wrote in this week’s edition of The Lincolnian, the student newspaper, that she “didn’t come to Lincoln to be told that my weight is not in an acceptable range. I came here to get an education.”

In an interview Friday, Lawson said she has no problem with getting healthy or losing weight. But she does have a problem with larger students being singled out.

“If Lincoln truly is concerned about everyone being healthy, then everyone should have to take this gym class, not just people who happen to be bigger,” she said.

bias, culture, discrimination, diversity, education, elitism, government, health, health care, ideology, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, scandal

A Vietnamese former employee at Williams Mullen, a large law firm based in Richmond, Virginia, has filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against the firm, accusing it of discrimination and sexual harassment.

The lawsuit states that Robert Eicher, a partner at Williams Mullen, “repeatedly engaged in inappropriate sexual behaviors and made ethnic slurs.  Shortly after (Hanh Nguyen) Allgood’s hire, Eicher approached Allgood in her cubicle, introduced himself and asked if she was from Viet Nam. When Allgood responded in the affirmative, he then gestured toward her genital area and asked whether her vagina was horizontal or vertical.”

Robert Eicher

In what the lawsuit refers to as the “cucumber incident,” Eicher allegedly put a cucumber in his pants pocket and then hugged and pressed the cucumber up against Allgood’s thigh desipte her attempts to pull away from him.  Allgood complained to management and other employees, several of whom told her that they were also victims of the cucumber incident.

The complaint states that Eicher “often walked around the firm dressed as a doctor showing his gloves and asking female staff if they wanted to be ‘examined.’  Eicher also had several sexual relationships with employees and publicly described his sexual encounters with them.”

Douglas Nabhan, another Williams Mullen partner, often made racially derogatory comments about Allgood’s meals insinuating that she prepared her food with dog and cat meat.  Nabhan also referred to Allgood’s ex-husband as “the wet back” because he is Hispanic.

Douglas Nabhan

Allgood claims that no action was taken by the firm to address her complaints of sexual harassment.  As a result, the sexually hostile work environment allegedly became worse for Allgood.  Moreover, the firm allegedly carried out a campaign of retaliation against Allgood as a result of her complaints, and she was ultimately fired in March 2007.

This is not the first workplace bullying lawsuit that was filed by employees against Williams Mullen.  Last year, seven former and current employees filed discrimination complaints with the EEOC claiming a hostile work environment.

—————————–

Got a tip about a bad boss that eBossWatch should feature?  Do you want to expose your toxic boss?  Let us know!  Send us a confidential email at tips@ebosswatch.com 

Connect with eBossWatch on Facebook and Twitter and support our struggle against workplace bullying!

This cartoon comes at a time when no less than 10 migrant domestic workers have died (mostly by suicide) in Lebanon in recent weeks because of oppressive work conditions or isolation. If you wish to complain to the Gulf Times write to editor@gulf-times.com. You can also contact the cartoonist at mo7md@raya.com
Thanks to Migrant Rights for pointing this out.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Jess, Bend, Oregon, 2009

Photography by:  Jeff Sheng, Los Angeles

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Jess, Bend, Oregon, 2009 is a photograph by the award-winning Los Angeles photographer Jeff Sheng.  Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is his new photography project, which consists of a series of photographs of closeted men and women in the United States military. The photographs represent Sheng’s interest in the intersections between public and private spaces, and the government’s ever-intrusive policing of our most private spaces.

Please Share This:

Associated Press photos

Openly gay artist Adam Lambert plants a kiss on an androgynous (but presumably XY-chromosome-possessing) keyboard player during his performance at last night’s American Music Awards. I love Lambert and I loved his same-sex kiss, except that in the video of it the kiss seems to be a bit rough, even perhaps with at least a tinge of violence to it, and I prefer it to be warm and tender. (And parents probably do have a legitimate complaint that during his performance he shoved a male dancer’s face in his crotch…)

I love Adam Lambert. Not just his music, but his balls.

No, he hasn’t taken the path of Levi Johnston; I mean, I love his chutzpah.

Of any complaints that he was sexually demonstrative with other males during his performance at the American Music Awards last night, he said:

“I do feel like there’s a bit of a double standard in the entertainment community, on television, on radio. I feel like women performers have been pushing the envelope, especially, for the past 20 years. And all of the sudden a male does it and everybody goes ‘Oh, we can’t show that on TV.’ For me, that’s a form of discrimination and a double standard. And that’s too bad.” 

Yup. Ditto.

And it’s because in a patriarchal, misognynist society, female-on-female sexuality (in which the women really are heterosexual or are at least bisexual, of course) is considered to be hot (or at least tolerable) by many (if not by most), but male-on-male sexuality, even just a kiss, is considered by many (if not by most) to be repulsive and/or even obscene. (Must protect the children!)

(Male-on-male violence, of course, is perfectly OK, even for the kiddies.)

So many Americans have a problem seeing two men kissing because it’s so rare that they ever actually see two men kissing. What you rarely see can seem strange and foreign and even unsettling when and if you ever actually should see it.

The solution to this problem?

And I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Gay and other same-sex-loving men who wish to show affection in public — holding hands, kissing, hugging, etc. — should do so if they are reasonably physically safe in doing so. (Kissing before some skinheads with baseball bats might not be such a good idea, for example.)

Of course, I can’t say that I am big on public displays of male-on-male affection that are not heartfelt but are just for political purposes. (Lambert’s on-stage same-sex sexual antics appear as though they might have been at least somewhat for the latter.) However, there might be times and places for even political same-sex public displays of affection.

Nor am I calling for public man-on-man sex or even for prolonged open-mouthed man-on-man kissing in public; if you must have prolonged open-mouthed kissing or fondling of the genitalia or the like, please get a room if you are in public (regardless of your XX or XY chromosomal status and your sexual orientation).

But again: If you are a male and you wish to demonstrate, with another male, affection in public that any heterosexual couple would be able to demonstrate without drawing condemnation (or maybe even a law enforcement officer…), then do so, unless you have good reason to believe that you could get physically harmed by doing so.

(Of course, if ending up in the ICU — or becoming the next Matthew Shepard – is your idea of a great political statement, then who am I to try to stop you?)

You might have heard the name Kurt Fearnley. He’s an Australian Paralympic athlete (marathon) who recently took on the Kokoda Track. He usually uses a wheelchair. The Kokoda Track is hardly wheelchair accessible. Fearnley walked on his arms.

Fearnley took a Jetstar flight on his way home, and staff insisted that he check in his wheelchair and use an airline-supplied one. Fearnley refused to accept the alternative wheelchair, and instead, used his arms to move himself around the airport.

His reasoning? From the ABC piece linked above:

“An able-bodied equivalent, a normal person’s equivalent would be having your legs tied together, your pants pulled down and be carried or pushed through an airport.”

I am entirely prepared to accept his assessment that using the airline-supplied wheelchair would be a humiliating experience which would have robbed him of his mobility and independence. I have two reasons why I’m prepared to accept it. First, and most importantly, it’s Fearnley’s own account of his experience. To deny it would be to deny that he felt that way, and I’m simply not in a position to do that. Can’t imagine anyone is, quite frankly. Secondly, and much LESS importantly, it actually makes a hell of a lot of sense from an objective perspective that, yes, having someone remove your mobility aid would be humiliating and would rob you of your mobility and independence.

Fortunately, the general atmosphere is one of accepting Fearnley’s experience, and Jetstar has apparently apologised. The ABC article quotes Bill Shorten, and an SMH article quotes Joe Hockey as well as Shorten, and both seem outraged that Jetstar treated Fearnley in this matter. It’s great that there’s bipartisan recognition that treating people who use wheelchairs like shit is a Bad Thing.

It also allows us to focus on the details of how that acknowledgement is made, in some of which there is Fail.

First, there’s Jetstar’s fauxpology. From the ABC article:

“Jetstar apologises to Fearnley for any embarrassment and hurt that may have been caused as it was not intended,”

From the SMH article:

Jetstar says it accommodates up to 450 wheelchair-bound passengers each week without incident.

Interpreted: Jetstar is sorry that Fearnley’s fee-fees are hurt, it didn’t meeeeeeeeaaaaan to, and look at all its other friends who are wheelchair-bound!

Oh, oops! Another bit of fail, this time by the SMH! (And maybe Jetstar as well, if the SMH is simply reflecting language in Jetstar’s press release.) As Anna at FWD/Forward so clearly points out, the term “wheelchair bound” is ableist and offensive.

Next, from Bill Shorten, who is the Federal Parliamentary Secretary for Disability Services (quoted in the ABC article):

“It isn’t acceptable that they put an elite athlete in a chair which is not appropriate …”

Let me fix that for you, Bill, old boy:

“It isn’t acceptable that they put an elite athlete a person in a chair which is not appropriate …”

I’m just a little concerned that the Parliamentary Secretary for Disability Services appears to be implying that it is worse to treat an elite athlete like shit than it is to treat anyone else like shit.

Finally, the comments on the SMH article. I wouldn’t recommend them. Just take it from me that they’re a mixture of “this guy needs to be taken down a peg or two, he should just do whatever the airline says” and “yeah, good on him!” The second sort are generally ok, it’s the first that disturb me. From the “well, I flew with my mother, she was in an airline wheelchair and it was fine!” type comments, to the “what he describes is not like having your pants pulled down, how can it be?”, to the “we all have to comply with security procedures / check in stuff we don’t want to check in”, to the “they’re just treating everyone the same”, to the “he’s just being a spoiled brat” … ok, you get the idea, I’m sure you see the problems, and I refuse to read any more of those comments.

Basically: uniform security policies and procedures are all well and good, but they are basically uniform so that people on the ground don’t have to make too many decisions (either because they’re not trusted to do so by their superiors, or because it makes the job easier for them – and the process quicker – if they can just say to someone “them’s the rules” and move the line on). They are administrative as much as anything else. When it comes to something as essential and basic as a decision that could so enormously impact upon mobility and independence, the policies and procedures should be adjusted in order to allow a person who uses a wheelchair and/or other mobility aid(s) to continue using it/them for as long as possible. If this means that the person has to spend longer getting their wheelchair/mobility aid(s) checked, I’m sure they’ll be able to cope with that. I’m sure they’ll be understanding, even.

But a policy which simply treats everyone the same does not constitute equal treatment, as Fearnley’s experience with Jetstar so clearly demonstrates.

Queer Equality Revolution is a personal blog created by John Bisceglia;

Click on the LOGO above for access.

**seeing as this is my VERY first ever blog post, i should probably start it out with a warning. what you are about to read may be considered offensive to you, your mother, your cousin, your dog, your boyfriend/ girlfriend, your religion, culture, or many other people/ things. it is NOT my intention to offend. if you are offended, i apologize in advance seeing as i, myself, have been offended by things other people have said in poor taste, but then again – i don’t really hold the standards i have for other people up-against myself. I KID! everything i say is NOT really how i feel. but you are more than welcome to send me hate email, if you’d like. also, i encourage you to not read from here-on-out. but it is your choice. i am, afterall, pro-choice**

i started working when i was 15. for some god awful reason i convinced myself that a job was a really great thing to have & i needed one. mostly, i think i believed that having a job made me more grown up than the mere 15 years old i was at the time.

[although, i have always sincerely believed i am a 47 year old woman, with no soul, mind you]

in my, almost, 9 years of gainful employment i have experience sexual harassment, gender discrimination, ageism & a host of other annoyances, issues, indiscretions, under payment, crying-fests, etc. etc. but i have never wanted to choke a bitch the way i do in the current position i … endure.

because i am a professional woman who would never name names [although not-so-professional that i wouldn't refrain from admitting that i want to choke a bitch] i shall keep “the bitch” anonymous. let’s just say it’s someone i see M-F between the hours of 8AM & 4:30PM.

now, i know what you are thinking… you totally checked out my lameass “about” page & learned that i call myself a feminist. this is true. but i am an equal opportunist feminist & this feminist believes & KNOWS that women can be bitches. i am not so self-righteous to think that it is degrading to call a woman a bitch. i mean, sometimes, it is just a fact. & you really can’t dispute facts, now can you? plus, i know i am a bitch, which is probably why i can justify calling someone else a bitch. i am a firm believer that if i am going to have what society believes is a negative connotation characteristic applied to myself than hot-damn i am bringing some other bitches down with me! besides, i don’t apply the bitch label to only women [that would be discrimination]

[here comes the equal opportunity part]

i have known many men that have been just as much bitches as women so.. there you go. i don’t discriminate.

before i go ahead any further, i should tell everyone who has chosen to read this [all one of you out there...] that i am long-winded. it’s a hereditary thing,  most definitely. my mother is long-winded & her mother [my grandmother] is long-winded, &, well, i don’t know anything about anyone beyond that point being long-winded, but i imagine they are, too. with the knowledge of my long-winded-ness, i am going to spare you the long story

[in hopes that you will come back & read again, or not... what the fuck do i really care? i'm still gonna rant cause that's what i do & more than likely, said rant will be long-winded. just deal.]

so, in honor of my first blog post, here is the condensed version of my story.

the bitch says to me today “why are you typing so much?” ::: in an irritated & condescending tone, with implications that i am engaging in illegal activities [which i am not] :::

[mind you, i work in administrative & document control services. my job requires me to sit in front of a computer & type ALL-FUCKING-DAY-LONG & be glued to a seat that is more uncomfortable than an airport seat & if you know me at all you, you know i have a MAJOR complex about all things airplane-related ]

anyway, so she asks this retarded fucking question to which i choose not to respond for the mere fact that, if i do, i am pretty sure i am gonna push this woman down on the ground, pull her underwear up over her head, choke the bitch, & then kick her in the shins – for good measure, of course.

after having conversated this to a friend of mine, he informs me his friend is, quite frankly, an expert at choking a bitch. Her suggestion is as follows:

“If it’s your 1st time choking a bitch I suggest using ceramic supplies.

There’s wire tools that are very useful.”

i mean, if this admin gig thing doesn’t work out [which i already know it won't since i'm putting in my 2 week notice next month, SUCKERS] i could always consider employment as a bitch choker.

it’s always nice to have a backup plan, my parents have taught me this.

*i bet i could get wayne brady to be my future employer*

Feminism gets a bad rap. Ask a man or woman if s/he considers her/himself a feminist and it’s pretty likely s/he’ll make a face. S/he supports women’s rights, of course, but feminists “just take it too far.” I don’t know where people got the idea that misandry and feminism are interchangeable terms. Hating men and supporting women are completely different, just like supporting black rights and hating whites are different. There has to be a difference between feminists, who seek equal rights and for men and women to be treated equally, and “feminazis,” who want special rights for women and the death to all with a Y-Chromosome.

People believe that woman like Valerie Jean Solanas, writer of SCUM Manifesto which calls for murder of all men and an all-female society, murderer of Andy Warhol, and all-around asshole, is the god of the feminist. Solanas was nothing more than a psychopath and giving her the credential of a “true feminist” is an insult to women like Elizabeth Blackwell, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Florence Nightengale, and many other women who stood up for their rights. People accuse feminists of being bra-burning nuts looking for special rights, neglecting to realize bra-burning is a total myth and that what a true feminist wants is equal rights for women across the world.

And I think women and men don’t call themselves feminists because they’re afraid of appearing undesirable. We get caught up in being wanted but don’t care who it is by or for what reason. Both men and women think they have to follow a certain stereotype–women are supposed to be beautiful and vapid, men are supposed to be tough and unemotional. Why? Why do we force ourselves to align with this vision and seek approval? What’s wrong with not being beautiful or not being hugely muscular? Just because some actor or model or singer looks or acts this way doesn’t mean it’s the only way. Why do we try so hard to become something we aren’t supposed to be? People will claim they are just being themselves, but we all know there’s a big difference in who we are and what we present ourselves as.

Besides, most of what we try to be isn’t considered attractive. Women are put off by others who try to be over-the-top sexy and men don’t like testosterone-fueled jerks. People who think are, ultimately, what most people look for in anyone they want to spend time with.

People who say women already have special rights are just idiots. In the Western world women are a part of normal society, but we are still constantly insulted by pundits, politicians, celebrities, television, books, etc. And it’s pretty obvious that women in other parts of the world have absolutely no rights. And still we remain apathetic when we hear about a man being legally punished for breaking the law by having his sister gang-raped, when we hear about women being stoned for speaking to another man, when we hear reporters refer to female politicians as harpies who should put on a skirt.

Sure, men are degraded too. Sitcoms have the father as a crude numbskull and the wife the clever force behind the throne, who ultimately stays at home cooking and cleaning and doesn’t do anything. She gets to wink at the camera and we all laugh because it’s obvious she runs the family. The husband puts the fork in the outlet to see if the electricity is there and the woman shakes her head and releases a snappy one-liner after taking the dinner out of the oven. Headdesk, headdesk, headdesk. These shows are insulting to both men and women, but we refuse to see it.

Society holds women to a higher standard. Women aren’t safe in the way that a man is. Don’t believe me? A woman is raped. She was drunk, does that make her more or less responsible? What if the man was drunk? We blame the woman because she must constantly be on guard. We blame women for their abuse–it’s Rihanna’s fault for annoying Brown, it wasn’t rape-rape. Why don’t we ostracize those who say these kinds of things the same way we would ostracize someone for making racist comments? Why are women who seek to close this gap dismissed as oversensitive bitches or nagging harpies? Why is having “the balls” to do something interchangeable with having “the guts” to do it? Ask yourself that before you criticize feminism.

I don’t strictly blame men for society’s objectification of women. I’m sickened that many of us just allow ourselves to be degraded. Even female celebrities who we consider strong and independent dress and act provocatively. Female singers slut it up on stage. Many women just don’t respect themselves and they perpetuate this idea that women must be gorgeous. I don’t have a problem with burlesque or pornographic performers because they market themselves to adults as part of a fantasy. Celebrities who behave this way shouldn’t be marketed towards children as a realistic way of life.

I don’t have a problem with women who chose to raise their children or women who like to wear make-up or a low-cut dress. That doesn’t make them antifeminist-in fact their choice to do so is probably more of a “feminist” choice then they believe. I do have a problem with Twilight, which glamorizes and glorifies abusive relationships and directs it towards children, and with people who think Polanski should be released, and people who don’t see a problem with female teachers sleeping with their much younger students. To put it simply, men and women should be held to the same standards. As a feminist, that is what I most strongly believe.

Feminists are not any different from those who support the rights of blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Canadians, whatever. Being a feminist doesn’t mean that you renounce everything slightly “feminine.” It doesn’t mean that you have to be a certain political leaning or a certain religion or a certain sexuality. It doesn’t mean that you can’t be a housewife or that you can’t be good at or enjoy cooking or cleaning. It means we will choose whether we want to be a high-powered lawyer or stay at home. It means we will stand up against what is misogynistic and not be afraid of appearing “undesirable.” It means that we will campaign for equality all over the world. It means that we will value intellect over beauty.

I’m not saying go out and march. I’m saying don’t let misogyny stand because you want to appear tough. I’m saying don’t allow yourself to be sidelined because you have a vagina.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – NOVEMBER 23, 2009

Missouri Commission on Human Rights Issues Finding of Probable Cause that New Prime, Inc. d/b/a Prime, Inc. Discriminated Against Female Truck Driver Applicant

Minneapolis, MN – On July 9, 2009, the Truckers Justice Center on behalf of it’s client Deanna Roberts, filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Missouri Commission of Human Rights alleging that New Prime, Inc. d/b/a Prime Inc. engaged in unlawful employment practices contrary to Chapter 213, RSMO 2000. The specific allegation contained in the Complaint states that on January 12, 2009 Ms. Roberts telephoned Prime’s recruitment office in Springfield, MO in order to ascertain the status of her employment application she submitted in late December, 2008. She was connected to and spoke to someone who informed her that her application was accepted however they would be unable to actually hire Complainant due to the fact that she is female. The reasoning provided to Ms. Roberts by Prime was that because she is female she cannot be trained by any available trainer but only by a female trainer and no trainers of this gender are available now or in the near future.

The Missouri Commission on Human Rights subsequently investigated Ms. Roberts complaint and on November 17, 2009 issued a Finding of Probable Cause that states in part “Probable Cause exists to credit the following: “(a) Respondent hired complainant but she was not allowed to start work because a female training was not available and all females have to be trained by another female. Therefore the Executive Director shall immediately endeavor to eliminate the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of by conference, conciliation and persuasion.”.

About the Author: The Truckers Justice Center at the Law Office of Taylor & Associates and whistleblower attorney Paul Taylor has been helping truck drivers with their employment-related problems for more than 20 years. Mr. Taylor aggressively seeks justice for workers who have suffered at the hands of unethical companies. He has brought successful claims against some of the largest trucking companies in the United States. Please visit the Truckers Justice Center website (http://www.truckersjusticecenter.com) for more information about the firm.

Inside Higher Ed  reports that the American Philosophical Association (APA) has decided to flag job listings posted by institutions that discriminate against applicants on the basis of sexual orientation. In taking this step, the APA decided not to bar such listings all together.

The article analyzes the  new policy and its background, discusses its possible ramifications and interpretation, and offers critical comment from Paul R. Corts, president of the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities.