Politics 09: Fire Reid and Steele.

[Just Another Day]

"I don't want to spend all that time and money, although once done I do look better and feel better about my appearance."
vs
"I don't want to spend all that time and money, and this feels like a cage that is crushing my soul."

And this is the point where you would be looking for a new job to help improve your mental health and your lifestyle.  At that point it is above clothing and image and that means the workplace isn't fit for your presence.  Everyone is better than the workplace that makes them feel like that.

No. No no no no no. That just means they win. The correct response to workplace discrimination is not quit your job and find one that respects you. The correct response is to contact the appropriate labour relations board, or failing that, to take the motherfuckers to court and bleed them. And requiring a woman to wear makeup on the job (in any environment, corporate or retail) is balls-out sexual discrimination. Employment isn't a book-club, it's livelihood (very literally for most people; quitting sometimes just isn't an option regardless), and your rights as an employee are thus rather well protected, even in the backwards ol' USA.

Yes, many if not most victims of workplace discrimination do exactly what you suggest, but this is a flaw in the system, not a feature. The burden of correction in cases of discrimination should lie with the offender, or failing that, the state. Not the victim.

You're arguing something completely different now. No one approves of or considers denying promotions based on gender to be fair at all. A company would and could get in major trouble for denying an employee a raise/promotion because of sex/gender/whatever. Making them abide by the same guidelines that everyone else does for clothing is not specifically biased, it is applying the same standard to everyone.

Is it so far-fetched to imagine a woman in a relatively conservative office workplace who wears short hair, no make-up, slacks, a dress-shirt and the axiomatic sensible shoes being denied a promotion, regardless of her sexuality and whether she is out or not? I really don't think so. This would be discrimination on the basis of sex (since those things would not be even a little bit noteworthy on a male) by means of an unbalanced dress code. You are mistaken if you think these things are unconnected.

Nor do I think mc's question about universal discrimination is all that far-fetched. Workplaces that would tolerate a transwoman employee in the early stages of transition (which could very likely involve being required to live in her desired gender role before any hormones or surgery are permitted) showing up to work in female garb and makeup without negative consequences to the employee are far outnumbered, I imagine, by those that would not. Should such a person quit her job if she is being held to a male dress code? Depending on how hostile work becomes, possibly, for her own sake. Should she have to? Absolutely not.

Or, to approach it another way, the transgendered, as a community, are rather poor (possibly extremely poor, though nobody seems to know for sure, last I checked: http://transblog.grieve-smith.com/?p=6). Why is this? Because if they are visible, employment is extraordinarily difficult to acquire and maintain, and wages extremely low. It may not be universal discrimination, but it may be close enough to spit. Is mc's hypothetical really so unreasonable?

[superaielman]

No. No no no no no. That just means they win. The correct response to workplace discrimination is not quit your job and find one that respects you. The correct response is to contact the appropriate labour relations board, or failing that, to take the motherfuckers to court and bleed them. And requiring a woman to wear makeup on the job (in any environment, corporate or retail) is balls-out sexual discrimination. Employment isn't a book-club, it's livelihood (very literally for most people; quitting sometimes just isn't an option regardless), and your rights as an employee are thus rather well protected, even in the backwards ol' USA.

Being forced to abide by a reasonable dress code is not discrimination. Keep on twisting your points and making snotty comments though, I'm sure it'll help! The makeup thing is, again, unrelated to my point or Grefter's.

Is it so far-fetched to imagine a woman in a relatively conservative office workplace who wears short hair, no make-up, slacks, a dress-shirt and the axiomatic sensible shoes being denied a promotion, regardless of her sexuality and whether she is out or not? I really don't think so. This would be discrimination on the basis of sex (since those things would not be even a little bit noteworthy on a male) by means of an unbalanced dress code. You are mistaken if you think these things are unconnected.

Sure, that is discrimiation and it could/may/does happen. Take them to court in that case, as the woman is within the dress code/approriate behavior for the office. It's also a strawman because it's not what is being talked about or argued by anyone here, which is the right of a company to set a dress code based on what is considered socially acceptable. You can argue that said standards that society bases it off of aren't fair, but that is a different matter altogether.

Nor do I think mc's question about universal discrimination is all that far-fetched. Workplaces that would tolerate a transwoman employee in the early stages of transition (which could very likely involve being required to live in her desired gender role before any hormones or surgery are permitted) showing up to work in female garb and makeup without negative consequences to the employee are far outnumbered, I imagine, by those that would not. Should such a person quit her job if she is being held to a male dress code? Depending on how hostile work becomes, possibly, for her own sake. Should she have to? Absolutely not.

Or, to approach it another way, the transgendered, as a community, are rather poor (possibly extremely poor, though nobody seems to know for sure, last I checked: http://transblog.grieve-smith.com/?p=6). Why is this? Because if they are visible, employment is extraordinarily difficult to acquire and maintain, and wages extremely low. It may not be universal discrimination, but it may be close enough to spit. Is mc's hypothetical really so unreasonable?

Yep. You can't suddenly become thin or white or tall or whatever. You can control what you wear and everyone can fairly meet those standards; personal comfort isn't relevant to this.

[Shale]

Counterpoint: Imagine if you, with your current sensibilities and sense of gneder identity, had no choice but to wear makeup and dresses, skirts or womens'-style suits in order to get and hold a job. Not one specific job, a job in general. How would that sit with you, psychologically?

[NotMiki]

The religion comment got me thinking...having dress code allowances for religion and not for gender abnormality seems excessively odd the more I think about it....

1. First of all, what's stopping someone from founding a "church of crossdressing"?  Religious clothing laws hypothetically opens up almost anything.  Conversely trans clothing laws have a narrow well-defined effect.
2. Everyone has a gender identity (usually cisgendered).  Many people don't have a religion.
3. People can and do change religion.  People can't change their gender identity.

Not that Religion shouldn't be protected--anti religious persecution sentiment practically founded America.  Just...they're both fundamentally psychological health and lifestyle health, and one seems much narrower and better-documented by science; why is that the one not protected?

Religious accomdations for whatever is considered an established religion. The cult Bob from down the street sets up very clearly doesn't quality for this, whereas a mainstream religion does.  More specifically, religious clothing/etc has clear limiations- you can't say wear a burka and work as a waitress for example. A good example of that is muslims fasting- pilots take alternate fasting days so they are able to to their jobs.

Wearing the clothing you want is not a protected right outside of of certain religious exceptions. And as listed above, you still have to be compliant with the dress code of a company even within those guidelines. If you can't meet those (Say your religion requires you to grow a long, unkept beard and you work in a job where it has a negative impact), you need to find another job. Grefter's explained the why behind this and so I have I.

A few things on the religion point:

mc, on the point that people can change their religion: even though it's possible, it's considered an "immutable" trait because forcibly changing it would subject a person to unreasonable pain and suffering.  In the CA Supreme Court decision mandating same-sex marriage the court swept away points about the hypothetical changability of sexuality by using that same argument.

super, you may be underestimating the power of religious exemptions in the workplace.  A workplace needs a really good reason to disallow something like a religiously-mandated beard or yarmulke.  I'm not sure, but a plain old negative impact may not be good enough (for example, if you say their beard is unkept, you're essentially discriminating against the standard of their religion on behalf of your customers.  probably a no-no.)

Fundamentally, businesses will do whatever most selfishly profits them...unless they are legally barred from doing so.  Being an early adopter on LGBT acceptance would put a business at a competitive disadvantage.  If every business was forced to respect LGBT rights by the government, though, suddenly there's no competitive disadvantage.

Dress codes are any area where companies are allowed to set guidelines. Very obviously, saying 'we won't hire muslims/jews/gays/whatever' is not, and neither is dumping waste.

You can be whatever you want when you're not working. But you don't have freedom of religion at work or freedom of speech, among other things. Employeers can and will discriminate legally and well within reason if you can't physically or mentally meet the standards they set. A dress code is the same thing. Sexuality, race, gender and other things you can't alter are protected legally. What you wear isn't.

Again, this underestimates non-discrimination laws a bit.  Say you have a no-hats policy that has the effect of preventing Jews who wear yarmulkes.  Because this has the effect of religious discrimination, the employer has the burden of proving it's necessary. (pretty sure about this.)

This isn't a constitutional guarantee, and you're right that 1st amendment rights don't cover your employers firing you for expressing your views on the job, but this kind of thing is covered by federal EEO laws.  So is the right to pray when you need to on the job (important for Muslims and again, subject to the employer proving h\that the demands of the job preclude it).  Expand on this to another category protected by all the same rules as religion: sex.  There are probably situations where a dress code may be construed to discriminate against one sex or the other.  The burden of proof is on the employer to convince the courts it's a necessary one.  If gender identity were protected, it wouldn't be difficult, as I've said, to apply existing non-discrimination law to dress codes, at the very least.

Not to mention...what if ALL the jobs are like that?

For example, take sexual discrimination in the workplace.  If every single workplace pays women less and gives them fewer promotions, and has employees who don't respect female management, then "change your workplace" just plain doesn't get you the respect and pay you deserve.  (Ironically enough, "change your gender" seems to work just fine based on the transmen I know >_>).

Hi, I'm Mr. Strawman. I've had a busy few days in this thread. Could you please stop dragging me here every other post? I want a break since the healthcare debate is keeping me busy.

You're arguing something completely different now. No one approves of or considers denying promotions based on gender to be fair at all. A company would and could get in major trouble for denying an employee a raise/promotion because of sex/gender/whatever. Making them abide by the same guidelines that everyone else does for clothing is not specifically biased, it is applying the same standard to everyone.

It's a different argument, but this is hardly a strawman.  What, in the year 2009, do women make compared to men doing the same jobs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States

Not much.  Plenty of reasons why, but discrimination is definitely one of them (and is the indirect cause of some others).  The argument that women may not be able to find a workplace willing to pay them as much as men in their field is strong.  I'd venture to say that in some areas it's a virtual guarantee.

[superaielman]

super, you may be underestimating the power of religious exemptions in the workplace.  A workplace needs a really good reason to disallow something like a religiously-mandated beard or yarmulke.  I'm not sure, but a plain old negative impact may not be good enough (for example, if you say their beard is unkept, you're essentially discriminating against the standard of their religion on behalf of your customers.  probably a no-no.)

Appearance, sure.  But if you're say working with food or near flammable materials or any situation where it compromises safety it is going to be trumped. That was the point I was driving at.

It's a different argument, but this is hardly a strawman.  What, in the year 2009, do women make compared to men doing the same jobs?

It's a strawman because it's a point no one is really arguing about or disagreeing with.

I'm also getting yelled at to let this one go, so okay.

[metroid composite]

Sexuality, race, gender and other things you can't alter are protected legally. What you wear isn't.

First three things that jumped to mind:

1: You can't alter gender identity.
2: You can alter gender.
3: If Michael Jackson is any indication, you can alter race.

Okay, in all seriousness, what part of gender identity being protected legally do you object to?  The fact that it's a primarily psychological-behavioral condition rather than physiological?  But then...you seem okay with sexual preference being protected legally.

Let me take the focus off of clothing for a minute.  What about, for example, behavioral.  There are gay men who naturally talk like Valley Girls.  Should an employer be legally allowed to fire them over that?  Bear in mind that it is possible to change your voice pattern, but it takes hours of daily practice, and usually also the help of a professional trainer.  (Without that level of practice, you will slip unconsciously into your default voice half the time you talk, even if you are making an effort).

Hi, I'm Mr. Strawman. I've had a busy few days in this thread. Could you please stop dragging me here every other post? I want a break since the healthcare debate is keeping me busy.

Umm...okay, if you're making an actual objection here you're going to have to clarify what it is because I can't decipher what you actually mean.

You're arguing something completely different now. No one approves of or considers denying promotions based on gender to be fair at all. A company would and could get in major trouble for denying an employee a raise/promotion because of sex/gender/whatever.

Uh, Super, you do realize that my example was structural not parallel, right?  Here, let me try another example, and then slowly walk you through what I'm trying to show:

The response being to Grefter's "if you're in that situation, you should get another job".

Another token example being that in the 90s there was a debate in Vancouver about whether or not smoking should be banned in bars.  The argument against it being that people who don't like the smoke can go to another bar.  The argument for it being...how?  All the bars allow smoking.

The purpose of this example is to say "no, you can't just argue go somewhere else if it's like that everywhere."  The purpose of this example NOT being "second hand smoke is the same as discriminating against gender identity".

(I'm sorry if the purpose of my example wasn't clear--seemed obvious to me since it was a direct response to Grefter, not you >_>)

[metroid composite]

Or, to approach it another way, the transgendered, as a community, are rather poor (possibly extremely poor, though nobody seems to know for sure, last I checked: http://transblog.grieve-smith.com/?p=6). Why is this? Because if they are visible, employment is extraordinarily difficult to acquire and maintain, and wages extremely low. It may not be universal discrimination, but it may be close enough to spit. Is mc's hypothetical really so unreasonable?

The other major factor is that basic need costs for transpeople are usually higher in general due to medical bills (in places without universal health care).

Is it so far-fetched to imagine a woman in a relatively conservative office workplace who wears short hair, no make-up, slacks, a dress-shirt and the axiomatic sensible shoes being denied a promotion, regardless of her sexuality and whether she is out or not? I really don't think so. This would be discrimination on the basis of sex (since those things would not be even a little bit noteworthy on a male) by means of an unbalanced dress code. You are mistaken if you think these things are unconnected.

Sure, that is discrimiation and it could/may/does happen. Take them to court in that case, as the woman is within the dress code/approriate behavior for the office. It's also a strawman because it's not what is being talked about or argued by anyone here, which is the right of a company to set a dress code based on what is considered socially acceptable. You can argue that said standards that society bases it off of aren't fair, but that is a different matter altogether.

I'm confused--this seems to be exactly what's being talked about and argued by everyone here.  Woman dresses in a gender-anormal manner (masculine haircut, masculine clothing).  You're suggesting take them to court.  Well guess what: she'll LOSE in court since this is a gender identity issue and thus NOT protected legally.

[Dunefar]

Let's go ahead and move along from the current debate, it's reached that magical internet zone of being a completely unproductive discussion. If you two really wanna keep arguing this, take it to another topic.

[NotMiki]

It's all that's preventing us from talking about helathcare, and that's just too depressing to contemplate <_<

[Dunefar]

It's all that's preventing us from talking about helathcare, and that's just too depressing to contemplate <_<

That really is fucking depressing.

[Grefter]

No. No no no no no. That just means they win. The correct response to workplace discrimination ...

Which is where you lost the point.  The point is that it isn't discrimination.  It is that it is an issue with a policy that you find yourself unable to work with.  Just like being unable to stand wearing a uniform or dressing up like a fucking clown.

The heart of the issue here is that the way you dress is not what defines your gender.  The way you see yourself is your gender identity, the way people interact with you is part of what reinforces that, the clothes you wear is not the defining component.  It is a superficial surface representation of gender.  Dress code is but one facet of it, you can wear pants and still be referred to as a female.  If the workplace refuses to recognise you as female after you have officially changed gender?  That is discrimination.  Asking you to dress in a specific way?  That is not.  They already DO that.  That is the motherfucking dress code.

There is a huge disparity between average male and female pays the world around.  The world does contain a massive fucking amount of discrimination I agree, we are working on it and getting better.  I don't think anyone with a brain is going to argue otherwise that it exists for a very broad range of reasons if they have looked at the statistics (huge part of it being the kinds of roles females are more likely to take as a whole).

At the end of the day, yes it may be difficult for both the employee and the employer but there is room for a happy medium to be found, M to F trans can still wear generally socially accepted Masculine clothes in a Feminine cut.  They can be referred to in Female pronouns and get by.  This all comes back to my main fucking point, if this is an issue in the workplace you should not be working there for your own good.  M to F is honestly probably even easier, if someone is struggling with gender identity issues prior to the whole thing, good chance their taste in clothes already gravitated towards relatively masculine clothing anyway.

In the "ROMG BUT NOT EVERYONE CAN QUIT TEH JOBES" well yeah not everyone can afford to change their entire wardrobe or be looking at getting their junk fixed at a doctor so their outside matches their inside.  And? So? What?  If you are having that much trouble getting by, basic application of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is going to putting the person solidly in establishing a healthy safe living environment before they go fucking around with shit like "Being comfortable within myself".

Ultimately it all comes down to everyone assuming that we are dealing with a massively bipolar unhealthy workplace that is so fanfuckingtastic that the person can wants to and should totally stay there no matter what massive changes they have in their life but is going to fire you over inanely minor shit.

Do I think we should be having this stuff covered by the law?  Yes.  Do I think it matters for shit about dress code?  Hell fucking no.

Edit - No offense Dune, I typed this all up while you posted that and really don't want to waste that much time typing.  Also easier to click post than backspace.

[Dunefar]

Okay. Moving along.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/22/clunkers.rush/index.html

There's been a lot of discussion the past month over the Clunkers for Cash program. What do you guys think about it? As you can see here, it's winding down after proving to be a bigger success than anticipated.

[Xeroma]

Mom actually mentioned something about that today, saying very few dealerships are getting paid back from the government on it/applying for it is basically impossible right now due to backups in the system and whatnot. Kinda :/ overall really.

[Dunefar]

Mom actually mentioned something about that today, saying very few dealerships are getting paid back from the government on it/applying for it is basically impossible right now due to backups in the system and whatnot. Kinda :/ overall really.

Yeah, I've heard that too. I think it's a shame since it feels like a brilliant policy initiative for Obama. It hits a lot of his goals at once: Stimulating the economy and the auto industry, removing smog heavy older cars from the road and effectively building up good will with the voters.

[Just Another Day]

Despite my rather firm anti-car opinions, I'm a fan of cash for clunkers. Does anybody know if the program is expected to pay for itself in the long run? In GDP growth and saved environmental costs and whatnot, that is. 'cause I know there was talk about allocating more money to it, but dunno if that's still on the table.

[metroid composite]

Yeah, I've heard that too. I think it's a shame since it feels like a brilliant policy initiative for Obama. It hits a lot of his goals at once: Stimulating the economy and the auto industry, removing smog heavy older cars from the road and effectively building up good will with the voters.

In fairness, it sounds like it's still achieving all of that, just that the middleman (car salesmen) might get screwed.

[Cmdr_King]

I'd like to see some statistics, but the funny thing about this is that a lot of what's getting traded in is relatively new (say, made within the past 5 years) large vehicles (ones which, on the whole, are merely sub-par for milage issues).  Mind, apparently the number one purchased car is the Toyota... Camery is it?  I forget which model, but basically their super-efficent mid-sized.

Not that where the company is based has actual bearing on where cars are made these days.

Anecdotal evidence I've heard suggests that a lot of dealers have sold upwards of 100 cars via Cash for Clunkers and have thusfar recieved single-digit numbers of vouchers.  That said, given the processing involved and how quick sales racked up, I wouldn't take this as a sign that they won't ever get the money.

All that said, I know a lot of companies offered to match the government vouchers.  I'm curious whether this was just creative advertising and it was that much in cash back (ie just taking out a larger loan) or other such misdirection, and if not how close to the break even point the companies were riding here.
Though, what this really does is give them income over time (due to how car loans work) so it remains to be seen how it all plays out.

[Hunter Sopko]

One of the lists I read around the tiume they were lobbying for more money listed the Ford F-150 as one of the top 5 being purchased with the program as well. It seems like both people replacing their old work trucks and just opportunists who wanted a new truck were behind the buys on that one.

[Just Another Day]

Yeah, I'd heard that the mileage standards got pretty diluted over time as well. Not that even small improvements (particularly in say a work truck that'll get lots of road time) don't really add up over time. And the economy stimulating side of the program doesn't really care, of course, so long as people are buying new cars.

(as I've been led to understand it, Ford/GM/Chrysler vehicles are mostly made in Michigan and the rust-belt, whereas many of the big foreign auto makers, notably Toyota and Honda, have shops in the south. So I believe all these Toyota Corolla being traded for are actually made in the states.)

[Dunefar]

Ted Kennedy is dead.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/26/obit.ted.kennedy/index.html

[Idun]

Man. So many icons are perishing. It's making me weary about perceived icons in my generation as I don't quite like them {loosely for their achievements, etc}. I don't quite remember much significance about Ted Kennedy except his contemporary role in the Pro-Choice issues in and (then) the Civil Rights Act. Both of those which are extremely close to me. I don't know what else to say.

[NotMiki]

To me, losing Ted Kennedy is like losing part of my voice.  He stood for the things I stand for, and he never compromised those principles.  He was a guy who passionately cared about people, both individually and by the million.  He never let the things that create distance between people, politics, race, wealth, what have you, blur his vision.  I don't know what else to say, really.  I dearly hope he can serve as an inspiration and a source of strength for liberals going forward.

[Dunefar]

To me, losing Ted Kennedy is like losing part of my voice.  He stood for the things I stand for, and he never compromised those principles.  He was a guy who passionately cared about people, both individually and by the million.  He never let the things that create distance between people, politics, race, wealth, what have you, blur his vision.  I don't know what else to say, really.  I dearly hope he can serve as an inspiration and a source of strength for liberals going forward.

To contrast? I disagreed with Ted Kennedy on almost everything. One day I heard him say that water was wet and I immediately said bullshit! Still, it doesn't matter. He was an elder statesman and a human being. He had his mistakes, as I'm sure his detractors will bring up. He did well for his voters and worked hard for his goals. I can respect that. RIP.

---

I really hate when political deaths turn into chances to trash the name of the deceased. I've seen it on both sides and it's really low class.

[Just Another Day]

It seems to me that Kennedy was exceptional in large part by volume; he was a senator for an extremely long time, and stayed really active right up until his health prevented it. If you were to map out some sort of progressive:influential index, he'd be right at the top, too, which is definitely something. I've seen him referred to here and there as the greatest Kennedy, and upon reflection I think that's probably fair. His list of legislative accomplishments is pretty staggering.

re: Idun, as far as liking him or not goes, and particularly when comparing him to our generation's would-be icons, I think it's really significant to note that he was not at all respected early in his career; he was seen as an intellectual lightweight coasting on his brothers' prestige. As I read it, it was only in the 80s that he really began to be respected on his own merits, as Chappaquiddick started to fade from immediate memory and it became clear that he wasn't going to be President. So who knows who, if anyone, will carry the liberal flag for the next 40 years? My guess for conservatives would be John Huntsman, but I dunno if there's anyone among the 30-45 crop of liberals who really stands out much; Gillibrand and Obama are the only two that spring to mind, and, well, we'll see. The point, I suppose, is that y'never really know.

(I thought this collection of quotes, from the last 40-50 years, was particularly interesting: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/26/kennedy_reactions/ )

[NotMiki]

I really hate when political deaths turn into chances to trash the name of the deceased. I've seen it on both sides and it's really low class.

I think so too, but it's difficult to hold your tongue depending on the person.  When people die, we reflect back on their lives, and sometimes those reflections are pretty odious.  I didn't hold my tongue when Jesse Helms died.  I don't regret that.  I probably should.

EDIT: liberal standard-bearers for the future?  Russ Feingold, Henry Waxman, Barney Frank.