The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force wants to know: "Given the chance, what would you say to the president? What would you ask? What story would you want told to let the president know how you feel?"
Iran is not a "lipstick revolution."
The White House appoints an adviser on violence against women.
"The highest court in France determined that executives at Garnier, L"Oreal's beauty products division, intentionally created an all-White sales teams to promote their shampoos throughout the country."
A heartbreaking first-hand story behind the staggering South Africa rape statistics: "A friend and my cousin pressured me to prove that I was man enough, by taking part in the rape of a teenage girl in the village."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What We Missed.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14616
I posted about www.tranny-alert.com on my journal. From their site:
Our site cannot survive without your submissions!
Spot a tranny or suspected tranny around town? See a hot tranny mess? Observe a guidette in New Jersey with tranny style? Notice trannies on TV/Radio/Billboards? Find yourself at a Lady Gaga concert? WE WANT TO KNOW!
Remember, if you spot a tranny: snap your fingers, snap a pic, and e-mail those photos to: mayday@tranny-alert.com!
This is beyond transphobic, transmisogynist, and sexist (nice policing of what women are supposed to look like), it directly threatens the privacy and safety of trans women. Please spread the word, and let the owners of this hate site know this is not OK. So far their response has been that "people need to get a sense of humour."
(The line about taking photos should have been italicized as well, they are their words, not mine.)
And they're bashing Jersey too. How ... lazy.
Bravo is forever on my shit list for "Real Housewives of New Jersey", which has encouraged and perpetuated stereotypes of my home state and its residents.
OMFG I can't believe playboy is talking about Iranian women. can you please make them shut the hell up? how many ways should we get screwed over?
on a happier note:
I wanted to share this beautiful Joan Baez song for Iran: http://www.youtube.com/user/diamondsandrustpro
I don't know if you watch Rachel Maddow, but one of her frequent guests is an Air America host and a contributor to Playboy Magazine. Anna Marie Cox for the win!
I have a question regarding the L'Oreal article. Suppose that their shampoo sales team was "diversified" to include women, or men and women of different ethnicities.
How many of each ethnicity should be present on their sales team? Perhaps we don't want to be so strict as to specify a set number of each black person, white person, asian person, etc., so we say that we just want "equal representation" of the various types of people selling L'Oreal products. How do we achieve this?
What is the proper ratio of each "type" of person? Do we need one person representative of each possible ethnicity combination? I.e. We can have one black, one white, one chinese, one indian, and one latina selling our shampoo.
Would this be equal? Where does the equality lie? What is the proper distribution of ethnicities for a shampoo-selling team?
The point is not in policing what percentage of the staff are what race. The company admitted to hiring on race lines because white clients were more likely to buy from white sales representatives. So is that equal? Should we allow companies to openly discriminate against the skin color of their employees because of the supposed racism of their customers?
No one is asking for them to employee a certain number of non-white people, and to present the case as such is disingenuous and met to incite outrage where there is none.
Let me ask you then: What would you do as a feminist to correct this situation? Do you think it needs correcting?
In order to sell a product, you must be able to have your customers identify with that product and the people associated with it. Let's say that an all-black sales team is selling tanning lotion to an intended demographic of presumably mostly white people, or an all-white sales team is selling "African Pride" Hair Oil to a presumably all-black audience. Do you think this makes sense? I say no.
First of all, a black person will not take a white person selling African Pride seriously it seems to me. What experience do they have with the product? - None! Same with the other case.
It may not be equal, but people support it. Therefore it works. Why punish the company for catering to its customers?
The profits justify the means?
Indeed, as we all know, POCs don't use L'Oreal shampoo, so there's no point in having POC on the sales team. (I'm very confused about all the womanist blogs talking about boycotting L'Oreal. Maybe they got confused in the store and bought whites-only shampoo?)
And the answer to your math question is seven. An alternative answer is to stop trying to wacky racist math and stop discriminating in employment. It makes things so much easier.
Okay, okay, I'll throw you a bone. Now, in the reports I've read, approximately 40% of applicants for the contested positions were people of color, so you'd expect that roughly 40%, give or take, of the hirees would be POC.
In this case, 4% of those hired were POC. Now, you can claim that somehow only white women were qualified to do this job, which must have involved reflecting light off of their bare bottoms or something, or the company was discriminating based on race.
btw, I'm addressing both of your comments in this one.
Nepenthe,
Thanks for the reply. I am still confused about what makes for an equitable hiring process. If 25% of the applicants were bound to wheelchairs, 55% were black transexuals, 2% were little people with cleft lips, and 18% were average-looking residents of Poughkeepsie, NY; would you say that there needs to be hired a percentage representative of each type of person who applied for a job? How does the aesthetic factor of the hiree come into play? At what point can we call it racism when a person is not hired?
I'm being genuine here. I don't believe this is racist math at all. At what point can we say that the workplace is as equitable as possible?
There are bound to be discrepancies between groups of people who are hired for a job. It seems to me that the only solution to the problem is to hire people based on the needs of the company and the merits of the individuals who are applying, as evaluated by their ability to help the organization as a whole.
If you force companies to hire people that are not particularly suited for the company or job, you are hurting the company. The company is then less able to serve the needs of its consumers, and the consumers will be less interested in what is being offered.
You say that we need to stop discriminating in employment, but how is that possible? How can a person hire another person without being prejudiced in even some minute way? I believe it is impossible; it's a pipe dream.
I see where you're coming through, and I've often felt this way too.
My hometown was starkly white. White white white. 94% are white, 2% black, 2% native american, and then everyone else fills up the last 2. I've heard people there complain that things are racist because we "only" have one black teacher at the high school. But shit, black people make up only 6% of the STATE'S population. In the venn diagram of "people with teaching license's for state X" and "people who identify as black" I could guarantee you there is not a whole lot of overlap.
So yeah, what is a fair amount? Should 6% of the teachers be black? 2%? If 100 people apply and 94 are white and the remaining six are represented by POC, should they automatically hire the POC regardless of qualifications (or should the bar be set lower?) These are serious questions, especially if you want to accuse someone of racism.
Yes, it's bad if you shut people out based on race, but unrealistic quotas are bad too. And I think some would prefer things to be 50/50 and that's just ... not possible.
Your questions are really statements.
Your questions are really statements.
In this case there was a specific memo out instructing recruiters to hire white applicants preferentially. That's not the implicit discrimination made unconsciously by an interviewer, which I think you've decided I'm trying to police.
And let me say that I find your construction of a theoretical undesirable pools of applicants pretty darn offensive. Am I supposed to feel pity for the company that has an applicant pool of 55% "black transexuals"? That sure puts them in a bind, since they clearly can't hire any of those icky people and then crazy people like Nepenthe will accuse them of being racist or perhaps just plain assholes. And I like how you contrast wheelchair-bound people with average looking people. I mean, disabled people are never average looking. And neither are black trans people. What's average looking? White, able-bodied, with normative gender presentation?
I will put my point my succinctly since you have not really addressed my major concern...
What is equality to a feminist???? Can you give me an example of an equal workplace or some general principles by which I might evaluate a workplace to tell if it is equitable?
Are all the people in that workplace being treated like human beings rather than someone's idea of them as members of a group? Great.
That's what your "equal" means. It's not as hard as rocket science and I would know.
You seem to be trying to game the system, asking in effect what's the minimum you can do to get by without having people accuse you of discriminating. Like, man, you know that no company could ever get by hiring "black transsexuals" or people with disabilities. And "little people with cleft lips" may actually be the cause of the current economic crisis.
I'm not asking anyone to fall on their sword for equality or something. No one is. We're asking the world at large not to be assholes. If company policy involves being assholes to certain groups of people just because of who they are, then that's wrong, even if it makes them money.
Which, incidentally, it probably doesn't.
Alright... Thanks for the response Nepenthe. I appreciate your patience. I'm really just looking for some in-depth info on the feminist notion of equality, so I'll go sniff around in the library.
Good luck with all that.
-SquaredCircle
Thanks for the reply. I am still confused about what makes for an equitable hiring process. If 25% of the applicants were bound to wheelchairs, 55% were black transexuals, 2% were little people with cleft lips, and 18% were average-looking residents of Poughkeepsie, NY; would you say that there needs to be hired a percentage representative of each type of person who applied for a job?
Which group, pray tell, do you think doesn't deserve the same chances as a job as anyone else? The black trans ones - because clearly their race, gender identity and presentation disqualifies them? The various disabled groups - on the basis of what? That it would be horrible to expose nondisabled people to people with visible disabilities?
Can you honestly not see how incredibly ableist, racist and transphobic your question is?
You're not getting the point. Each of these groups is a very select group of people who are undoubtedly miorities. Does a representative percentage of each group need to be hired from every minority group - including little people with cleft palates?? You are reading some pretty hostile intentions into my comment.
But back to the point! What is equality for a feminist? I have asked this multiple times and received only one halfway thought-out answer from Nepenthe. Tell me, what is your perspective on the right way to hire for a department equally?
First, the idea that we need the salespeople or employees of a company to match the target demographic is a myth. Take computer support, for example - they predominantly hire men, despite their customers being fairly evenly mixed gender-wise. Or Hollywood "chick flick" movies - often made by rich white older males, but targeted almost exclusively to middle-class young white females. The fact is that your staff don't need to match your consumers. Saying, "We work with white customers, so we won't hire a black person" is a pretty pitiful cop-out. There are very, very few jobs that actually require you to relate to your customer's race.
Secondly, yes, the general idea with affirmative action is that after a certain period of time (say, ten years) a company will boost its diversity to address that of its applicants. Duh? The goal, I should note, is not an exact scale replica of the applicant pool, since the applicant pool itself is always changing, and also, precise quotas would be ridiculous. (Most real companies have diversity scores or percentages they are working towards -- and most have set the bar low.) The goal is to develop enough diversity in your organization that you won't need things like affirmative action to correct for overwhelmingly picket-fence-white HR dudes. (It's also worth noting that affirmative action must work in conjunction with other social programs - if people of colour get a crap education, they won't be able to apply for those jobs to begin with, for example.)
I'm sure you or some other commenter will want to interject here with "what? even regardless of their qualifications?" to which I'll eventually reply, no - we're not doing away with qualifications, we're doing away with the myth that qualifications were ever our sole criteria in hiring. Yes, in an affirmative action workplace, sometimes an employer may choose a slightly less qualified candidate of colour. And that employer should really be cool with that, since their company is likely to have a long and illustrious history of choosing less qualified white candidates over people of colour. It balances out!
What's more, white employers are likely to incorrectly perceive white candidates as more qualified or suitable (qualifications are not as objective as one might think), so jilted white guys everywhere can be reassured that affirmative action also helps to mitigate the effects of white people's unfortunate tendency to think other white people are better qualified at everything (although the assumption itself seems to proliferate unabated). In other words, an employer who thinks they have begrudgingly chosen a less-qualified candidate of colour might very well have chosen an equally or more qualified candidate of colour without realizing it.
Ultimately, that's the idea behind AA. Affirmative action is already built into us - it's called racism. Most white people, without even being aware of it, will tack invisible bonus points onto white applicants, giving them an unfair racially-based advantage. In other words, they practice affirmative action that's favourable of white people. It's practically impossible to stop them from doing it, so the solution is to impose affirmative action that's favourable of POC. We can't stop race from mattering to employers, but we can try to make race matter equally.
If we're right, and people of colour aren't innately inferior by virtue of their race, race-based affirmative action will eventually be obsolete because people of colour will be fairly represented in all levels of companies, thus breaking up the white people circle-jerk that necessitated affirmative action to begin with.
I'm ignoring your comment about cleft palates or whatever because affirmative action applies to the systematically oppressed, not to people who merely fall into a statistical minority.
Lastly, why are you asking for "the feminist opinion"? You're a feminist, right? So why don't you operate from your own? Are you honestly so naive as to think there's a universal feminist take on equality? Or are you vaguely aware no feminist will answer a loaded question like that, and you're looking forward to walking away chuckling at how the stupid feminists couldn't answer your tough, tough question?
Nepenthe,
Thanks for the reply. I am still confused about what makes for an equitable hiring process. If 25% of the applicants were bound to wheelchairs, 55% were black transexuals, 2% were little people with cleft lips, and 18% were average-looking residents of Poughkeepsie, NY; would you say that there needs to be hired a percentage representative of each type of person who applied for a job? How does the aesthetic factor of the hiree come into play? At what point can we call it racism when a person is not hired?
I'm being genuine here. I don't believe this is racist math at all. At what point can we say that the workplace is as equitable as possible?
There are bound to be discrepancies between groups of people who are hired for a job. It seems to me that the only solution to the problem is to hire people based on the needs of the company and the merits of the individuals who are applying, as evaluated by their ability to help the organization as a whole.
If you force companies to hire people that are not particularly suited for the company or job, you are hurting the company. The company is then less able to serve the needs of its consumers, and the consumers will be less interested in what is being offered.
You say that we need to stop discriminating in employment, but how is that possible? How can a person hire another person without being prejudiced in even some minute way? I believe it is impossible; it's a pipe dream.
'Iranian women fight for freedom - and femininity - once again'
No, playboy, I don't think Iranian women's goal is about 'making sexy political', or being 'feminine' so that you can bask in their 'loveliness'. Bloody misogynists.
I'd echo the words of my good friend, who wrote the President recently:
"Dear Mr. Obama,
Today you supported the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act and now I find myself in a difficult situation. (ed: link!!)
My husband and I got married in Marin County, CA last year on August 25th. We've been together for close to seven years now. I like to think that we're good citizens, we've never used welfare and we've been made to pay higher taxes because our marriage is not recognized. We've struggled through tough times and enjoyed good times. Unfortunately another tough time is upon us and I'm afraid that the continued lack of support and recognition that I now have to weigh the option of leaving everyone and everything I know to move to a country that recognizes, honors and supports my relationship.
Fortunately, most straight people will never know the pain of wondering if you'll still be married tomorrow, or next week, or next year. There is no feeling so disheartening to know that the love of your life may not be yours any longer. Every marriage has it's ups and downs, but when two people love each other and want to stay with each other through the end of their days they should be allowed, even encouraged!
There is no way to put someone into my shoes, the anxiety gets so bad that it makes me shake. (ed: emphasis mine)
I'm not asking for anything more than a straight couple. I just want to have the same support as the "real" married couples.
Your inaction is distancing yourself from those who count on you most. The position of President makes you the "most powerful man in the world", use that power to enhance civil rights.
I hope you make the changes you need to before I have to move to a country where I am recognized as a person. I can't stand the anxiety any more.
Thank you for your time,
[info]zurry (lj username substituted for his real name, go show him your support, y'all!)
P.S. 10% of the states now have laws in place allowing same-sex marriage. How many more do we need to get the ball rolling on federal recognition?"
Just wanted to point out that not only did Garnier/L'oreal promote an all white sales team, they also required that clients be a certain size and very narrow range of ages (18-22). I think in this case the racism is tied in with the belief that black women (and other minorities) are not as attractive as white women, that older women are not as attractive as very young women and that women of only certain sizes are attractive.
I'm surprised no one has commented on the rape article. Can a rape really be forgiven? Maybe some people can forgive him, but I can't and won't.
I was also very surprised that nobody commented. I have to say -- I think rape can, in theory, be forgiven, but I think that in a rather philosophical way. I don't know how I feel about this guy. Merely apologizing to the woman he violated is a minuscule little gesture that came way too late (though the only thing that would not have been too late would have been avoiding the rape in the first place) and can't possibly match up against what he is trying to make up for.
I think it's extremely presumptuous to suppose that YOUR forgiveness is remotely part of the equation.
Certainly it would have been the victim's prerogative to withhold forgiveness and press charges; one could hardly think less of her for it. An awful thing was done to her and it can't be undone.
But from where you're sitting, you think you can say she's WRONG? Who died and made you the arbiter of HER experience?
You weren't asked to forgive him. You don't have to make that decision. Don't pretend you know better than the woman who did.
(I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by not assuming that you're a white westerner and responding to all of the cultural arrogance THAT would entail in addition to just the personal conceit)
Um I want to be totally clear though - I don't think anyone is obliged to forgive their rapist. I kind of can't imagine forgiving one's rapist, and far be it from me to presume to know whether it would be the right or wrong thing for an individual person to do, in terms of their healing and forward motion.
Far, far be it.
Where did I ever say that she was "wrong"? I was simply stating that I could personally never forgive any rapist. I still respect this woman's decision to forgive him.
A friendly addition:
I asked for readers' opinions about sexual health problems on college campuses in preparation for an article aimed at incoming students at the College of William and Mary, and I just posted the article. I'm not one for self-promotion, but I really appreciated the thoughtful comments people left, and I encourage other college students to get the word out about resources on and around your campuses. A lot of people just don't know.
Yes it is great on the part of a women to forgive a person who has done such a bad kinda act with her, a act which no one can ever think of forgiving. But the women should be saluted that she forgave him.
tenant screening
This only goes to prove how barbaric societies which do not recognise women for what they are can be. With rape so prevalent due to the inherent nature of men, I can't help but feel ashamed to be a man myself.
I don't think it is "inherent" really, but something that is taught or influenced by culture. The rapist believes the same thing, that the role of men and women in his culture and gendered beliefs in how they should be contributed to the rape. To me, (and I could be wrong) "inherent" implies that there is something in the nature of men that they are born with that causes them to rape and I don't believe that. I'm not sure that that is what you meant when you said "inherent to the nature of men", but I hope not. There is no reason to be ashamed to "be a man". There is reason to be ashamed for making the decision to rape.
I'm pretty sure the phrase "lipstick revolution" is a reference to Azadeh Moaveni's book "Lipstick Jihad."