Strollerderby : discrimination

Black Prom, White Prom for Georgia Kids

JeanneSager — Tue, 26 May 2009 17:30:00 GMT

Hooray for progress! Er, well, maybe not.

Because 55 years after Topeka vs. Board of Education called for the desegregation of public schools, there are still kids in spots around the South who attend segregated proms. White kids have their prom one night. Black kids have theirs another.

It's a story that's getting national attention thanks to actor Morgan Freeman's decision to fund an integrated prom in Mississippi, where he grew up, for one school - helping to desegregate the schools once and for all. The story is the focus of a documentary set to air on HBO in July.

But even while Freeman's alma mater, Charleston High School, has made the jump, there are still plenty of schools left that haven't. Like the Georgia high school profiled in the New York Times late last week. In a place where white kids still throw up their hands and excuse their behavior with, "It’s just a tradition.”

To that, I say, we all know how much teenagers love bucking tradition, don't we? Seriously, hasn't one of these kids watched Footloose? Corny story of a group of teens who brought back the school dance despite the TRADITION of no dancing and no carousing put forth by the town's religious elders? It's a classic of sorts. Almost a tradition.

At least it's as much a tradition as teens bucking their elders by standing up for change. That's what they call progress. And unless kids can get on board, we're screwed.

Image: NY Times

Sixth Grader's Project on Harvey Milk Banned by School

JeanneSager — Mon, 25 May 2009 16:01:00 GMT

Natalie Jones just wanted to get a good grade on her sixth grade project. She didn't know writing about Harvey Milk, a person she said stood up for all people regardless of their backgrounds, was going to make schools officials pull out their "sex education" policies.

Maybe because she's in sixth grade, and she wasn't writing about sex?

The California sixth grader was yanked into the principal's office the day before her Power Point present was slated to be given in class, and complimented by the administrator for doing high school quality work. A backhanded compliment, apparently, because the principal then informed Natalie she was probably not going to be making the presentation the following day.

"She explained to me because he was a gay, that not maybe all the parents might agree with their kid watching that," Jones said in an interview with CNN.

OK, better to pretend the gays just don't exist then? Because, as Natalie's mother, Bonnie, pointed out - this was a project on a man's life. It wasn't about gay sex. Natalie picked the state's first openly gay politician to profile after watching the Sean Penn Academy Award-winning movie (named Milk, by the way, if you've been hiding under a rock and haven't heard about it). She said it's because "he stood for all minorities, no matter what you were." See, nothing about sex, folks.

And that's where Mt. Woodson Elementary School really got this one wrong. Because they picked on a kid talking about a homosexual person not only as though that were something bad but as if that's all he was. Yes, Harvey Milk was openly gay and did a lot for gay rights. But he was also a politician in California. A pretty famous one. And this is a California student writing about an influential figure for a report for a California school.

So they're not only teaching kids that they discriminate against homosexuals and encouraging discrimination, but they're teaching them how to pigeonhole people based upon one part of their life.

The ACLU is demanding an apology from the school district, by the way, and has threatened to file a lawsuit.

Image: Amazon

Are Working Mothers (And Fathers) Discriminated Against?

Kate Tuttle — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:30:00 GMT

We all know the myth of the Superwoman is just that, but where does that leave the normal mom who also needs (and often wants) to work for pay outside the house? In a tragic bind, according to a recent post to the New York Times Economix blog. Women who attempt to balance working with motherhood nearly always pay a significant penalty at the workplace, whether in lost promotions or stagnating pay. Women who don't have kids are often praised for their ability to give their all to work -- but face stigma and gossipy questions about their childless status. Men, you'll be glad to know, tend to be rewarded either way (though I'm guessing that they benefit at least in perceptual terms for having kids).

The blog's author admits it can be hard to guage whether negative effects spring from discriminatory attitudes toward working mothers alone, or whether job performance can indeed suffer across the board for women who have caretaker responsibilities on top of job duties. I'd imagine it's a little of both -- the perception that mothers can't commit fully to their jobs is endemic, though, and is used against even those mothers who can and do overperform at work. In a study cited in the Times piece, both men and women evaluating fake resumes tended to discount those of women with subtle hints that they were mothers (telltale maternity leave gaps, etc.).

So what's to be done, and can the playing field ever be truly even? Or is an anti-mommy (or anti-child) bias just built into our sexist society, never to be overcome? I know that better maternity -- and paternity -- leave would be one solution, if only to help mothers maintain a consistent paycheck and pay history. But even if men and women were treated more equally in this regard (and in dividing their home duties -- I know, this is a pipe dream, and also a presumption of heterosexual couple-dom that I regret but can't seem to shake when thinking about this topic), where would that leave those with children versus those without? Perhaps we need to widen the scope even further, to seek not just gender parity but also some awareness that family responsibilities don't always come in the cute little form of a child. Workers caring for aging parents, or ailing partners, also need protection and respect.

Once we start talking about workers being treated with respect by big corporations, I know I'm in the land of fantasy. Still, the reality is so difficult that at times it can be hard to face. My own salary history is so uneven, what with staying home to care for two children, that I'll probably never again make as much money as my husband (we were on par when we met). I'm not even trying to get back to full-time work yet, but I wonder what limitations I'll face, and how many of them come down to the parenting choices I have made. Do I regret staying home with my kids? Not for a second. But do I wish mothers and fathers had better options? That's a no-brainer.

More by this author:

Late-Term Abortion Provider on Trial in Kansas

Boomer Grandmothers: Out Of Control?

Move Over, Booties! Here Come Knitted Boobies

Think Your Baby's Car Seat Is Safe? Think Again

What If The State Kept Your Kid's Blood for "Research?"

JeanneSager — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:01:00 GMT

I never thought about what happened to the blood sample taken from my daughter in the maternity ward after she was born . . . until now.

Apparently in Texas, blood samples taken routinely from newborns are kept on hand to be used for research. Which doesn't bother me in the slightest.

But a bill making its way through the Texas Legislature will give parents who DON'T want their kids' blood used in research an out; they can ask for the blood sample to be destroyed rather than held onto by the state.

I understand there are huge privacy concerns here. Even though the state assures parents that the baby's names are not connected to the individual samples once the screenings for disease and defects are completed, we've all seen privacy breaches around the nation on supposedly "safe" credit card information, social security numbers and more. Who's to say health information is safe?

But I'm not sure I see the concern here. Is it that kids might be discriminated against if it gets out that they have a certain disease? Or that parents don't want the blood used for research? Because only three parents have actually complained about the issue so far. In one of the top states in terms of population, we're talking ridiculously low numbers of parents here.

Would you care what happens to a small vial of your child's blood?

Image: Maine.gov

Teacher Fired for Letting Kids Play Gay

JeanneSager — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:24:00 GMT

Note to all teachers with small-minded administrators - don't bother trying to teach your kids about history. At least not homosexual history.

A teacher in a rural Oklahoma town has been fired by administrators after trying to teach the story of gay college student Matthew Shepard's murder by assigning students parts in The Laramie Project, a play based on the hate crime inflicted on the young homosexual man a decade ago.

Of course, officials say it isn't the play itself that prompted the firing. Debra Taylor dared let her students voice their opinions about the school's decision to CANCEL the play that earned her a place on the chopping block.

When her principal told her the play - which he'd previously given permission to Taylor to put on - had to be stopped, she let her kids spend twenty minutes in a local park, writing their feelings on helium balloons and releasing them (not enviro-friendly, but at the very least offering some catharsis). Taylor says she never asked the kids to change their minds about homosexuality, just to be tolerant.

The park stunt is what administrators say was Taylor's undoing. What about it was wrong, they won't say. Perhaps that she let kids voice dissent? That she voiced dissent? That she did something else that might, possibly, maybe make the kids think again about tolerance and respecting others?

Because cancellation of the play to begin with was inappropriate, but it might have had a very positive affect on the kids. Suddenly, they saw it was like to be discriminated against. After several weeks of hard work put into practicing for their production, they had the rug swept out from under them by school officials - and for no reason.

And how's this for irony? The school punished Debra Taylor, but her job loss makes her a role model for kids. Kind of what we always hope our kids' teachers will be.

Image: USA Today

They Say: Legalizing Gay Marriage Will Benefit Kids

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:30:00 GMT

As the Vermont legislature is poised to vote on whether or not to move from civil unions to gay marriage, the Vermont chapters of four national mental health organizations have weighed in heavily in favor of granting gay couples all of the legal benefits of marriage.

The National Psychiatric Association, the Psychological Association, the Association of Mental Health Counselors, and the National Association of Social Workers focused heavily on children’s well-being in their statement. According to the psychologist who released the statement, “Research has shown children of same-sex couples are as likely as children of heterosexual parents to flourish…[and] same-sex parents are just as likely to provide healthy and supportive environments for children."

The sole reason that the children of same-sex couples may suffer more than their peers in social situations is because of deeply engrained societal discrimination—a problem that will only fade as governments grant same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Photo: National Film Board of Canada

Lutheran High School Can Expel Lesbians—And Does

Miriam Axel-Lute — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:00:00 GMT

A California appeals court has upheld the right of a private Lutheran high school to expel students based on sexual orientation. Creepy as that sounds, I don't think the court is actually wrong. As long as they don't take one single of penny of my taxpayer money, religious organizations have the freedom to be petty, mean, and discriminatory in their own special ways all day long.

(For clarification: This is a school run by the "Wisconsin Synod" Lutherans, not Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which is more tolerant.)

The school itself, on the other hand, which ended up in court because it did in fact expel two female students for having a relationship with each other, is wrong in so many ways.

I really can't say the main point much better than Shaun Martin over at California Appellate Report, who writes: "I know that if I taught at a private high school . . . I'd definitely spend my valuable time looking up the myspace pages of all the female students in my class to see if any of them said that they were bisexual or in love with another female student. Yes, and if I were the principal of said high school, and a teacher discovered that two female students had in fact so identified themselves, I'd definitely call them into my office and interrogate them about whether they had a consensual lesbian relationship. . ."

Not to mention the crazy power this gives mean, rumor-mongering teens.

And would the snooping stop with teenagers? If religious schools think they have license to control not only what happens in school, but the private lives of their communities, are parents of young kids in religious elementary schools going to find their kids expelled when it becomes clear that they aren't using birth control (not enough kids! need more tuition!) or don't attend church enough? I know in some dioceses unmarried Catholic school teachers have actually had problems with priestly peeping Toms trying to see whether they are having overnight guests.

According to the AP, the school's lawyer says the school's goal is to "educate based on Christian principles." I realize the world is full of examples to the contrary, but it's always been my understanding that the core Christian principles are supposed to be forgiveness and redemption. Oh well.

I guess the girls who were expelled will have a good chance to practice forgiveness, but I'm guessing there are more and more parents out there who are going to just opt out of schools like this in the first place.

Photo by Made Underground.

More by this author:

Are Facebook Breastfeeding Advocates Being Too Prudish?

Miriam Axel-Lute — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:35:00 GMT

I participated in the whole "Hey Facebook, Breastfeeding Is Not Obscene" event. And I'll admit that even though I tend to think it's a good sign when people who disagree on other things can unite around some common ground, I was still deeply creeped out by the supporters who posted things like "I mean, I wouldn't want my kids to see those icky Facebook ads where two girls kiss, but breastfeeding is natural and God-approved so that should be OK."

Marty Klein takes that a step further, arguing that the Facebook campaign organizers are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to position breastfeeding pictures as "good nudity" as opposed to those pictures that really are obscene, rather than taking a more broad anti-censorship stance. He writes: "Your right to watch South Park ultimately depends on someone else’s right to go to a strip club. Your right to breast-feed in public ultimately depends on someone else’s right to buy a vibrator. MILC [Mothers International Lactation Campaign] may be willing to sacrifice 'real' obscenity like CSI or swing clubs to keep its own photos acceptable, but this short-sighted strategy has never worked."

I have a mixed reaction to this. In a general way, I understand and support Klein's philosophy. I believe freedom of speech for those I disagree with so we all have it and all that. I don't find nudity to be dangerous and while there's plenty of stuff out there I have no interest in seeing or having my kids see, I don't like anyone else drawing the line about what is "obscene" for me. Far too much of that goes on. And unless you're going to limit your cause to fully-latched-on photos (which they weren't), it does start to be a little silly to say "That same breast would be obscene if there weren't an infant somewhere in the shot."

On the other hand, I think there is a value in fighting against the ideas that breastfeeding is somehow sexual and that it ought to be kept private, and I think that's not entirely the same discussion as who should get to draw lines about the publicness of things that many/most find to be sexual.

And, as even Klein notes, Facebook is a private company that can do what it wants to do. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a group of consumers to call it on its hypocritical set of standards about what it considers acceptable in its pictures, without deciding to engage in a larger free-speech fight.

I also note that on the group's official petition, while they do refer to there being photos on Facebook that are "really obscene," they don't explicitly call on Facebook to step up policing them instead, as Klein implies (even if plenty of the commenters do).

What do you think? Should breastfeeding advocates set themselves up as "special case" nudity or fight for our right to bare our chests?

Photo from the Journal de Montréal.

Facebook Mothers Fight Breastfeeding Ban

More by this author:

School Has Autistic Child Arrested

JeanneSager — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:08:00 GMT

Charges of battery against an eight-year-old with Asperger's syndrome have been dropped, and her parents are now pursuing legal action against the Idaho school district that called law enforcement.

What's wrong with this picture?

Evelyn Towry was told she couldn't wear her special jacket in class last week, prompting the little girl (whose diagnosis of Asperger's falls on the autism spectrum) to become resistent and act out in the classroom. But instead of telling the child she could just wear her jacket, school officials said they called the cops, alleging she assaulted school staff during the incident.

She's eight. And autistic.

Shouldn't school officials, of all people, understand that?

While Asperger's syndrome falls on the milder end of the autism spectrum, its symptoms are akin to what many people identify with autism - a need for structure, difficulty identifying and expressing feelings. It's also classified as a disability, allowing children who have been diagnosed to qualify for special services from their local school district, including special consideration for their special needs.

So why should a jacket on a child with Asperger's syndrome become an issue? Even if this child were to have become violent, the details of the case would indicate that school officials set this child - who they knew had a difficulty expressing feelings - off. They caused the problem. That would seem a direct violation of civil rights section 504, which protects kids in schools from discrimination for their developmental disabilities.

Should autistic child bear some responsibility for their actions? By calling the cops and pressing battery charges, that's what the school district was suggesting - that Evelyn Towry was responsible for battery. But who's to blame? Should a school district be held liable for the action that caused the equal and opposite reaction?

Image: salem news

Vatican to Women: The Pill Pollutes Environment, His Testes

FDA Asked to Approve Gardasil for Boys

AAP: Delayed Vaccines Too Risky for Kids

They Say: Meningitis Vaccine Actually Works

New Study Says Autism is Environmental

Parent Training An Alternative to Meds for ADHD

Breastfeeding Moms Fighting Facebook Ban

JeanneSager — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:23:00 GMT

You can see it on Main Street, but breastfeeding moms are not allowed on Facebook. The social networking company has been deleting photos of women with their babies at their breast because it says it violates the decency standards set up for posting pictures on the site.

But moms are fighting back - with a Facebook group and plans for a "nurse in" at the Facebook headquarters in Palo Alto, Calif.

Already the group, "Hey, Facebook, breast-feeding is not obscene!," has attracted almost fifty-four thousand members, and a Facebook "event" page has been built for the Mothers International Lactation Campaign (MILC), a virtual protest to coincide with the nurse in. Members are being asked to change their profile picture to that of a nursing mother for the entirety of Dec. 27, the day women will protest in person in Palo Alto at 11 a.m. The picture need not be that of a human mother, the event creators say, but simply that of a mammal and her young in the act of feeding.

The company told a Daily News reporter that it has not actually banned breastfeeding on the site - photos that do not show an entire breast are allowed. That's technically true - the profile picture for the Hey, Facebook group is that of a breast almost entirely covered by a mother's blue t-shirt, the nipple encased in her baby's mouth. Approximately an inch of skin can be seen between the baby's cheek and the mom's shirt.

I've got to tell you, I've seen plenty of freaky photos on Facebook - from the teenager I babysat when he was 3 looking so blitzed he might well have had alcohol poisoning (not indecent, I suppose, but definitely making me feel old) to the old tea bagging trick (why do guys do this to one another?). I could see removing this kind of thing - you know, underage drinking is against the law guys.

But a mom breastfeeding? Give me a break. I'm one of those people who prefers to give a mom her privacy, and I look away - I probably would avoid commenting on a friend's photo if it was of her breastfeeding. But, in the end, it's a mother and her child. It's not a Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction. Women can walk down the street wearing nothing on her boobs but a pasty and be violating nothing more than the laws of taste (and fashion). Meanwhile, she's showing more of her breast than a breastfeeding mom, and with no real reason for it.

Image: Facebook

Are Facebook Breastfeeding Advocates Being Too Prudish?

Coming to Facebook: Fetal Baby Kick Report

One in Five Teens Having Tech Sex

Baby Born With a Mouth Full of Teeth

Can a Mom Pumping Breastmilk Really be Sexy?

Five Easiest - and Cheesiest - Christmas Gifts to Make With the Kids

Hey Obama, Give This Kid an Interview!

Post-Election, Women Hate Sexism Almost as Much as Feminism

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:34:00 GMT

A recent survey on post-election attitudes to sexism reveals that a majority of Americans live in La La Land. For starters: While most men don’t believe there is gender bias in the media or at home, almost half (4 in 10) “freely admit to having sexist attitudes towards a female president.”

Espousing similarly mind-boggling contradictions, the vast majority of women believe that Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton were treated unfairly by the media—but would be mortified to call themselves “feminists.” Only 20 percent of women identify as feminist, and even fewer (17 percent) would be supportive of their daughters’ using the label.

Merriam Webster defines feminism as “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” In other words, most women are embarrassed to label themselves as people who believe in gender equality, but are outraged over the media’s coverage of Palin’s hair. Only 48 percent of women believe that the media treated Clinton fairly, and far fewer female respondents (29 percent) believe that Palin got fair treatment. (Perhaps Palin seemed to get harsher gender-based media coverage because Clinton wasn’t, say, buying $150,000 worth of clothes on the GOP’s dime?)

Sure, some high-profile activists may have given the term “feminist” a more extremist connotation than many women would like it to have, but that doesn’t necessitate rejecting the whole theory. I don’t agree with many of PETA’s over-the-top tactics, but that doesn’t mean I stop calling myself a vegetarian.

Ready for more oblivious sexism? 39 percent of men feel that the role of president is more “naturally suited” to a man than to a woman. I guess that explains why so many more men than women (two-thirds to less than half) believe there is gender equality in the home—the wife just does all the housework because she is more “naturally suited” to it.

On the upside, the poll was relatively small, with 1,000 respondents.

Photo: Jezebel

Dudes for Palin: Vote for the Hot Chick!

Australia Rejects Doc's Immigration Application Because of Down Syndrome Kid

Amy S.F. Lutz — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 16:04:00 GMT

Australia is facing a critical shortage of doctors, particularly in rural areas, necessitating the hiring of many foreign doctors and nurses. So, you'd think government officials would be thrilled when one of those doctors, Germany's Bernhard Moeller, applied for permanent residence after working for the past two years at Wimmera Base Hospital.

But no. Because one of Dr. Moeller's three kids has Down Syndrome, his application was rejected. Thirteen-year-old Lukas was considered "likely to be a permanent drain on taxpayer funding," according to news reports, although Lukas goes to a typical school and plays cricket and football.

Let's see . . . health care for one boy with Down Syndrome, versus the 54,000 people in the community for which Dr. Moeller is in charge of providing intensive care services. Which party is really getting the better end of this deal? No wonder Dr. Moeller's rejection has aroused the ire of thousands of Australians, including Health Minister Nicola Roxon and Victoria state government Premier John Brumby. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this decision were reversed.

AP photo

Have a Uterus? McCain Wants You to Pay More for Health Insurance

JeanneSager — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:31:00 GMT

Turns out the biggest difference between men and women in America might not be their "down there parts," but what health insurance companies think those there parts will cost them. A study in yesterday's New York Times states women ages 19 to 55 who are paying for individual health insurance plans are being charged significantly more than male counterparts for the same plans.

The reason? Women are using more insurance, the companies say. But thanks go to the sharp-witted writers at Jezebel, who were quick to point out that research has shown seeking care earlier (they often call it preventative care?) saves people down the line. Saves their lives, and saves them money. Because preventive care, well, it prevents major illness.

Jezebel's report also pointed out something American voters need to keep in mind come Tuesday. Senator John McCain's chief healthcare plans call for "tax credits" that we as Americans would then use to pay for our own health insurance plans - the ones that cost women more. He's against the (currently relatively widespread) practice of employer-based health insurance plans, or group plans, whereby insurance plans are bought in bulk by an employer to wrangle a lower cost for each individual plan. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (you see the little EEO or EOE acronyms in a lot of newspaper classifieds) watches over employer-based health plans and prohibits gender-based discrimination. In other words - our civil rights in the workplace guarantee we can't be charged more for our employer-based health plan than the guy at the next desk. Walk out of the workplace, however, and the game changes.

The Times report even quotes a Humana representative who claims, "Bearing children increases other health risks later in life, such as urinary incontinence, which may require treatment with medication or surgery.” Say what?

A woman who popped out a baby, but has a yearly check-up at the general practitioner plus her annual "foot-in-the-stirrups, let's get this over with doc, I hope you have warm hands this time" visit is apparently going to wet herself down the road. And that's going to cost them. But the guy who hasn't been to a doctor in a decade and sits on his ass eating Cheetos and screaming, red-faced at SportsCenter all day, every day is going to cost them less down the line?

I can invest in Depends, but he's a walking heart attack.

And, apparently, Senator McCain thinks he shouldn't have to pay as much for cardiac catheterization, an eventual quadruple bypass, a lifetime of blood pressure monitoring and heart medications, a twice-yearly stress test . . . should I go on? . . . as long as he doesn't have a uterus.

Image: CrunchGear

Anti-Palin Ad Targets Parents With Teenage Rape Victim's Plea

Hey Sarah Palin, Make Your Kids Go to School

Salvation Army Says: We'll Take Palin's Clothes!

They say: no one with a uterus should vote for McCain

Palin's Kids Traveling on the State's Dime, She's Trying to Claim "State Business"

GOP Shows Obama With Fried Chicken and Watermelon

They say: McCain not thrilled with Palin and she wants to run in 2012

They (Should) Say: 6 is the New 60

Stay out of my room or I'll pee on your tree

Brett Singer — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:00:00 GMT

I've tried to write a summary of this story but I haven't been able to come up with a better intro than this one (from the New York Times):

When the men of the Phoenix Country Club saw their feeding ways in peril, they did not tarry. Some sent nasty e-mail messages, hectored players on the fairway and, for good measure, urinated on a fellow club member’s pecan tree.

As you can probably guess, it was that last one – the whole "urinating on a tree" thing – that grabbed my attention. What caused otherwise civilized men to make pee-pee on the pecan tree? Why, it was the women! They want to eat in the same dining room as the men! Well, if some chick wants to do that, I'm going to take a leak on her tree! That'll show those nosy broads.

The specifics are as follows: the Phoenix Country Club in Arizona does not allow women to eat in the men's grill room. According to the New York Times, this grill room is where high-level business deals are conducted, not to mention more pedestrian activities such as lunch. Well can't these persnickety hens go somewhere else? Actually, no. The "ladies' grill" has "a hot plate, some card tables and no bar." That's right. A hot plate.

Now, Arizona, Arizona… who's from Arizona? Oh! John McCain! Well, he's not a member. His son Andrew is, and so is Alice Cooper. (Kids, Alice Cooper is this rock star-type guy who used to really upset people because his act featured images of death and stuff. Yeah, we were pretty silly back then. Check out his Muppet Show episode, it's a lot of fun. And for those of you who remember Alice Cooper, yes. He's now a member of a country club that doesn't let women eat with men.)

This issue came to a head when Barbara Van Sittert and her husband Logan "appealed to the board of the club" to change the rules so they could have breakfast together. When they were told to stuff it, they went to the Attorney General's office, which recently issued an "advisory legal opinion that the club needed to comply with the state's antidiscrimination laws." That doesn't mean anything yet; the club has 30 days to try and settle the matter before the AG gets all legal on them.

So remember guys. If women want to do something you don't want them to do, whip it out and pee on their lawn. That'll show 'em.

image: progressivemajoritywisconsin.org

Dick Cheney whispering hush: Goodnight Bush

Political Nanny: White Talk, Blackface ... Barf

McCain Finds Humor in Domestic Violence

What Exactly Is the "Disney Look"?

Kelly Mills — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:01:00 GMT

A guy in South Florida is suing Disney World for employment discrimination. The trumpet performance junior at the University of South Florida decided to take Mr. Mouse and Co. to court after he applied for a trumpet player position and was told by a supervisor that while he was totally qualified for the job, he did not have the "Disney look" and wouldn't be hired. Which has to make you wonder--what exactly is the Disney look?

Well, I can tell you what it isn't, according to the hiring guy: You can't look like a Sikh. And that's exactly what the prospective horn player is, and he has the turban and beard required by his religion. His lawyers add they have a witness who heard the supervisor tell the applicant he didn't fit the Disney image, and that it was clear the reference was to the beard and turban. One of the lawyers said, "If Disney is regarded as an iconic American company, what is an American supposed to look like?" I guess something more along the lines of Snow White.

More Outrageous Than Miley?

Dads Get Screwed For Staying At Home

Trans Community Worries About “Pregnant Man” Bad Press

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 06 May 2008 03:02:00 GMT

When Oprah gets involved, people get famous. And in the case of transgender man Thomas Beattie, the results of this fame are, so far, neither fortune nor glory. Since Beattie first wrote about his unorthodox decision to stop taking testosterone and become pregnant because his wife is unable to carry a child, the media has (unsurprisingly) had a field day with what quickly became dubbed the “pregnant man” story. The Oprah Winfrey Show, the BBC, Good Morning America, and People are only a few of the mainstream outlets to cover Beattie's pregnancy.

According to an update from The Advocate—the LGBT magazine that broke Beattie’s story—not everyone in the transgender community is pleased with Beattie’s decision to go public. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to Beattie, who said that he contacted several transgender organizations before writing a first-person account of his decision to carry a child in The Advocate. Half of the organizations never responded, and most of the others urged him to stay out of the limelight, worrying that publicity would only harm the Beattie family and the transgender community at large.

Specifically, many trans activists worry that Beattie’s unusual story will cause an already less than tolerant public to label all transgender people “freaks” and “disgusting,” two terms that flooded the blogosphere in the wake of Beattie’s story. (The comments on my first article about Beattie’s pregnancy are a case in point.) Even more concerning are fears that this media frenzy could be used to fuel legislation curbing transgender rights, just as many states passed anti-gay marriage legislation after the Massachusetts supreme court upheld gays’ right to marry.

On the other hand, some LGBT activists applaud Beattie’s decision to stretch the limits of the public’s tolerance. As Beattie wrote in the Advocate—and Oprah quoted to a supportive studio audience—“[O]ur situation ultimately will ask everyone to embrace the gamut of human possibility and to define for themselves what is normal.”

While I am supportive of Beattie’s optimism that his story will open the public’s eyes to the many forms a healthy, loving family can take, I fear that this shift in perspective is unlikely to happen fast enough to shield his child from discrimination throughout his or her youth. With many bloggers expressing not only disgust but violent hatred for Beattie and his unborn child, I’m afraid we’ve got a long way to go.

Photo: ABC News

Gay-Friendly in Name Only?

Amy Kuras — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:45:00 GMT

Would you care if your kid was gay?

I'd be willing to bet that for most people who read Strollerderby, the answer would be "Of course not." You're for the most part urban, educated, bright –generally a forward-thinking bunch.

But this post on the Details blog by David Hochan suggests that typical liberal gay-positive parent may be saying all the right things about having a gay offspring, but in their heart of hearts they are thinking much differently.

The fathers quoted in the article, all of whom were given anonymity in exchange for honesty, protest a little too much about how totally awesome and gay-friendly they are ("If I''m on a set and there are no gay people, I actually get worried," one who works in the TV industry hand-wrings). When asked how they'd feel about their own sons being gay, though, they to a man were not thrilled with the idea. Most said they didn't want their kids to contend with the discrimination and sometimes worse that being gay could bring upon their kids.

But at least one expert quoted disparaged that attitude, pointing out that being gay hardly sentences a child to a miserable life.

Damn straight. This may be my Pollyanna side talking, but I do think that by the time my kids, who are 3 years and 7weeks old repsectively, reach adulthood sexual orientation will be a nonissue. After all, when I was in high school in the 1980s there was no such thing as a Gay-Straight Alliance; now they are common. Our kids' generation seems a lot more open to any kind of difference. And that will be all to the good, for everybody.

Pregnancy Discrimination Complaints On the Rise

Kelly Mills — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:31:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal reports that pregnancy-bias job complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission were up by 14 percent this year, and up by 40 percent from a decade ago. Employers aren't allowed to discriminate against the with child in hiring, firing, and lay-offs--which doesn't mean they can't do all those things to you, it just means they can't treat you worse than men. So essentially you have to prove that the actions were motivated by the fact that you were pregnant, which isn't always easy.

While many women also assume they get maternity leave, the truth is that only a couple states guarantee the leave must be paid. And though some ladies do pursue claims against employers, many opt to drop claims because of the time and hassle entailed. With a pregnancy or newborn, I'm sure you have all kinds of free time to work with attorneys and amass evidence and so on. But ultimately some women are successful, like the HR manager who was laid off as part of a reduction-in-force, only to discover the reduction encompassed only her. And if we can do anything to encourage women to pursue action, we'd damn well better do it, or employers will be able to continue to shut out those that are in a family way.

Tall Kids Can't Eat As Kids, But I Have Your Revenge Strategy Right Here

Kelly Mills — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:14:00 GMT

We all know the all-you-can-eat buffet is essentially a no-holds-barred contest between restaurant owners and patrons. As a customer, it is your job to try and get more than your money's worth from the buffet by eating so much that you have to be wheeled out on a guerney, weakly pumping your fist in the air in honor of your victory. Restaurants often try and counter this by slowly refilling the platters in the hopes that you will get full, or giving you wee little plates to pile with food, or serving nasty-ass stuff, or just giving you dirty looks as you make your fifth round with your napkin tucked into your shirt and slightly askew. I know I've hit an all-you-can-eat sushi place so gladiator that I believe they tried to charge me the polar bear entry fee the next time I went.

One restaurant went below the belt in their mission. They posted a "you must be no taller than this sign" thingie as a means of qualifying kids for the child price. So basically, if you are taller than 4' 6", you are not a child at Sushi Park. Such was the case for eleven-year-old Nikki Kaplan, whose family left when they learned she would have to pay like an adult.

Nikki's mom is trying to get the laws changed (it's legal to charge by height) but I have a much better idea. I suggest gathering a very large group of smaller-statured folks of varying ages and convening on Sushi Park. Hell, you can borrow a couple of my grown cousins. Then have each person claim child status, and obligingly demonstrate by standing next to the sign. Then go to town on the spicy tuna rolls until the restaurant cries "Uncle!" and agrees to change the policy. Problem solved.

An Open Letter To The Boy Scouts Of America

makeitadouble — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:59:00 GMT

Dear Robert Mazzuca,

Congratulations on your new appointment as Chief Scout Executive of the Boy Scouts of America. I read on the BSA website that as you look at the future of scouting in the next millennium you believe that to be successful you cannot simply rest on the rich heritage and history of the Boy Scouts; which is why I propose you update the Boy Scout motto.

I understand your hesitation to modify the very motto that has been with the BSA since it was founded in 1910, but “Be Prepared” no longer reflects the character and reputation your organization passively condones. Therefore I submit you immediately adopt the following motto as your primary guiding ideal, “Be Prepared to Defend Yourself Against the Sexually Predatory Advances of Your Scoutmaster”.

Your initial reaction to this suggestion may be to give me a modified Scout Salute minus the index and ring fingers, but as you have probably been swamped in paperwork since taking office in September grant me the opportunity to help get you up to speed with some information about your organization that may change your mind.

Last week, for starters, yet another one of your Scoutmasters was arrested on felony charges of molesting and sexually abusing young males in the troops they led. This particular Scout Leader was in your affiliate Sea Scout Program and once actually sued the city of Berkley for successfully challenging your organization’s ban on homosexuals, atheists, and agnostics. I was not aware that the Boy Scouts or any of its affiliate programs offered an Irony Badge.

Moreover, were you aware Mr. Mazzuca that since 1991 a scout leader has been thrown out of the BSA for charges or accussations of child molestation at an alarming rate of one every two days? Before you tell me that your child abuse prevention program is the best in the country or that the entire first chapter of the Boy Scout handbook is dedicated to child abuse prevention I would like to remind you that in 2005 the man entrusted to run the child abuse protection program was sentenced to eight years in federal prison for trafficking in child pornography on the Internet.

Speaking of the internet, I’d like to go back to something attributed to you on the BSA website. You said, “We will continue to reach out to our millions of alumni and to rapidly growing and dynamic segments of our population. I believe that the BSA can guide today's diverse youth into adulthood through mentoring and individual attention. Scouting teaches values, leadership, and character that help shape a better future for every young person in our country.”

This statement must mean that you have decided to finally do away with some of the Boy Scout’s long-standing discriminatory policies like the one that requires a religious test for new members and the one that prohibits atheists, agnostics, girls and homosexuals from membership in your Scouting program. If that is what you meant, then I say it’s about time. On the other hand, if that is not what you meant then I also propose you add homogeneous to your Scout Law along with trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.

Don’t worry, it doesn’t mean what you think it does.

You espoused in your keynote speech that the BSA needs to “…take back the agenda and begin to define ourselves rather than let others define us.” I strongly urge you to adopt the motto I submitted as it will be the first step in accurately defining your organization.

Good luck in your new position as Chief Scout Executive Mr. Mazzuca

Best Regards,

A Former Boy Scout

Blogging's Dirty Little Secret

Karen Murphy — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:22:00 GMT

Bloggers are a goldmine to advertisers. Think about it: if you, as an advertiser, could get someone to advertise your product for you, and for practically FREE, wouldn't you? All you'd have to do is maybe send out a sample. That's it! And then you're golden, because you've got all these influential people talking up your product to their buds on the blogosphere! Perfect!

Of course, the PR people for the advertisers are smart. Hey, they have to be! So they try to target bloggers that 1. have readership and therefore influence, and 2. blog about things that sort of relate to the product (or not; I've had some wacky pitches).

Oh, and I should mention #3: that AREN'T people of color.

What??!

Yes. True. Our own CityMama Stefania wrote a revealing and scathing piece about this very practice. Frankly, after reading it I felt sick. Stefania receives pitches from PR people daily for her personal blog CityMama, but her group blog Kimchi Mamas, a Korean identity and culture parenting blog, receives nothing. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

Why? "Because we don't pitch to people of color," says the PR guy Stefania questioned.

It's because Asian people are invisible in the media. Discrimination by invisibility. Which is the worst kind of bigotry because everybody pretends it isn't happening. But think about it: other than as a stereotype, when was the last time you saw Asian people on TV, say, just doing what people do? I was struck during my recent visit to Vancouver, a very multi-cultural city, because it was clear that people of all sorts weren't regarded as being part of one group or another. They were just ... people.

Why isn't it like that in the media? And what can we do about it?

Obese Man Unfit Parent?

Kelly Mills — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:32:00 GMT

When Gary Stocklaufer went forward with the legal process to adopt a baby from a cousin who couldn't care for the child, he didn't really expect any problems. After all, he's a state-certified foster parent, and he has another adopted son. Baby Max's biological mother had already signed over parental rights to Stocklaufer and his wife, and they had been raising the li'l one for three months. But a family court judge ruled the couple aren't fit parents, and Max was taken away from them. Stocklaufer says he was discriminated against because he is obese--he weighs 500 pounds.

Check it: "'It's out-and-out discrimination,' Stocklaufer said. 'We don't have a checkered past. We don't have a rap sheet, like a lot of people do. We don't have any cases of abuse.'" Oh, and the judge happened to be the same judge who granted them adoption with their first son, Bobby.

Before anyone leaps in with "Oh, how can an obese parent do all the stuff necessary to raise a child, like run after a toddler, blah blah blah" I'll tell you that many parents with physical disabilities do just fine, so there. And I get real sick of fat discrimination, it's this messed up puritanical body-worship crap in our society. A few docs have offered free gastric bypass surgery to Stocklaufer. But why should he have to go through all that just to adopt a baby he already loves?

Pregcellent: Does Being Pregnant Hurt Your Chances of Getting Hired?

Jessica Ashley (Sassafrass) — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:03:00 GMT

Ummm, yeah. It's shouldn't, legally or ethically, but I really do think that for most mamas-to-be, it might. At least that's my feeling and was my feeling from the early days of my pregnancy on. I was freelancing for a large fundraising corporation when I found out I was barely pregnant. I was well into the symptoms but weeks away from telling my parents when I met with my supervisor about an opening she had for a full-time employee on her staff. I wasn't sold on working for her permanently but the decision made itself when she leaned across the desk and aggressively, flippantly said, "I'd love to hire you if you can promise me you won't get pregnant any time soon or anything like that..I'd need at least a year commitment on that."

This was a woman with two kids who fought her way into the executive offices after years as a stay at home mom and yet, there she was putting my fertility at the top of my resume. I didn't want this woman choosing my take-out lunch order for me let alone when I'd grow a human in my body and welcome a child into our family. The job opportunity (obviously) didn't go anywhere and two weeks later, I quit the whole freelancing gig altogether. I never told her I was already pregnant but I also fretted about working before the birth of my child and seriously doubted I could get a job at Starbucks once my belly started poking out.

I know my experience is total bullshit and also not extraordinary and this saddens and infuriates me. I know this because I've heard many women debating the right timing to share their pregnancy news with a supervisor, a new boss or even the person interviewing them for a fabulous new job. I don't just hate that people don't think women who are or might be pregnant should cast aside the classifieds with caffeine and lunch meat, but I hate that women doubt whether they should even apply for a job if they're even thinking about conceiving.

Some people (apparently those who haven't seen a copy of Ms. magazine ever) really believe that it is unfair for women to expect or pursue anything professionally once their wombs are occupied. And while other folks can site stats and crunch numbers about maternity leave and absenteeism, I think the bigger question is, "Do we socially and professionally value women who are choosing motherhood and careers at all?" Sure, it is a question for the ages, but one we need to continue to ask, to talk with among other job candidates, demand responses to from business owners and hiring squads and managers, and ask ourselves as we belly up to the reality.

There's a hot-button conversation going on over at Confessions of a Community College Dean about pregnancy and breaking into academia (so hot that it has been noted by the Chronicle of Higher Education). The dean himself has a fabulous response to a question about how much pregnancy factors into hiring decisions and the comments that follow are quite heated and interesting as well.

Whether you are an academic or an artist or an inventory stocker at Gap, have you ever been worried about being hired or promoted because you were pregnant or even just considering conception?

Woman Sues San Francisco Over "Pregnancy Brain" - And Wins

Alisyn — Tue, 01 May 2007 23:16:00 GMT

The city of San Francisco agreed to pay Amy Lee, the former head of San Francisco’s Building Inspection Department, over $156,000, so she wouldn’t sue the city for sexual and pregnancy discrimination.

At her 2004 public confirmation hearing, in front of the Building Inspection Commission, Amy’s critics from the Residential Building Association crowded the hearing and openly bashed her. One man asked the confirmation panel, “"Are you going to replace (exiting director James Hutchinson) with pregnancy brain?"

In her 2005 claim against the city, Lee said the “hurtful and humiliating” comments should have been stopped by the building commissioners or the deputy city attorney, present at the hearing. Her claim went nowhere January 2007, when Lee threatened to sue the city for the comments, and the subsequent pressure she says she felt to stay on the job after she gave birth (she took no maternity leave). The S.F. Board of Supervisors (with only one dissenting voter) agreed to settle.

Dissenting voter, Supervisor Tom Ammiano, agreed that the "pregnancy brain" comment was inappropriate, but didn't think it necessitated paying Lee damages, since it was made at a public meeting, where "you can't control public comment."

Sup. Ammiano has a point - you can't control what the public says, or thinks. Obviously, at a public hearing, there is little to no official regulation of comments - but there should be self regulation, at the very least. Accusing a woman of incompetence due to pregnancy is ignorant, misogynistic and just plain false. The city of San Francisco made the mistake of playing televised coverage of the hearing repeatedly, thus fueling Lee's public humiliation claim, and backing itself into a corner. They chose to pay Lee for damages, attorney's fees, plus maternity leave never taken and vacation time owed. I think they chose wisely, because if this went to court, they would have lost big time.

California is one of the only states with sexual harassment laws that extend to pregnant women, and this is an excellent example of why every state needs them. Pregnancy discrimination is one of the least talked about forms of prejudice that are alive and well in this country, and it's time to rectify that. My guess is that Amy Lee's victory will inspire many more women to come forward with their stories of pregnancy discrimination. When enough American companies are held accountable for discriminating against their female employees - whether they are pregnant, want to become pregnant, or want to hold on to their jobs after giving birth - maybe this kind of discrimination will end.

Judge Lowers Damages in Pregnancy Discrimination Case

Patti — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 20:38:00 GMT

A federal judge has lowered the damages to be awarded to former Oakland, CA police officer Janeith Glenn-Davis from a total of $2 million to $550,000, the latest development in Glenn-Davis's suit against the Oakland police department which alleges that she was passed over for promotion because of her gender and her pregnancy status. A federal jury had found in Glenn-Davis's favor last year, but the original award was found to be excessive.

Glenn-Davis, now the chief of police at California State University's East Bay campus, was the highest-ranking woman on the Oakland force and had expectations of becoming a captain, but claims that when she became pregnant they chose to leave the vacancy unfilled. Oakland officials insist that there was a temporary hiring freeze which coincidentally was lifted while Glenn-Davis was on maternity leave.