Show your love of liberty and justice -- support ENDA

[Liberty and justice for all?]

At the end of yesterday's blog post I briefly mentioned ENDA, the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, which is making it's way through the US Senate. As the title of the bill suggests, the law prohibits workplace discrimination because of factors such as gender-identity and sexual orientation.

While the bill is going to pass the Senate and the President is ready to sign it, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, released a statement through a spokesperson yesterday declaring that he "believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs." Later his office added that Boehner believes the bill is unnecessary because such workplaces protections are already protected under existing law.

The claim that federal law already guarantees such protections is not tenable, and most states don't have such explicit protections. If such legal protections already existed, then the possibility of lawsuits for unfair labor practices based on gender and sexual orientation would also exist. So the two statements eat each other.

But let's get back to the initial press release. There are two important things that are being explicitly said.

First, it is saying that LGBQT* rights aren't worth protecting. How can a lawsuit for equal protection and freedom from discrimination be frivolous unless the rights and protections themselves are viewed as unimportant? While one could argue that people could use the law to file false suits, how is that an argument against protecting people's rights? Does that mean we should repeal all workplace discrimination law to reduce frivolous lawsuits, or is it just the LGBQT* community (and maybe women and minorities) who don't count under the eyes of the law?

Second, it is saying that corporate profits are more important than the rights and legal protections of citizens. If  promoting or defending rights costs too much or is too much of an imposition to the business community, it isn't worthy doing. The fact that states with such protections haven't seen a spike in related frivolous lawsuits takes the stale air out of the "too costly" argument anyway.

So why would Boehner make such arguments against ENDA?

It is possible that Boehner and his fellow GOP House members believe these things. If so, vote for them at your peril lest your rights and legal protections be deemed too costly one day.

It is also possible, and more likely, that this is an extension of the culture war waged by the religious far right through their members and proxies elected to the House and Senate, with the redundancy and cost arguments as translucent cover for religion-based bigotry. Liberty and justice in the United States isn't supposed to be guaranteed at the whim of a particular religious sect or movement, let alone its political arm, which is why such motivations have to be given the pretense of legitimate cover.

It is also possible, of course that both of the preceding possibilities are true. Moreover, it's increasingly likely that US citizens will come to believe that one or both are true. If the Republican Party wants to change its image, it is going the wrong way here.

If you don't think that a particular religious movement or unfounded arguments about financial burdens should trump fair and equal protection under the law, then urge your representatives in Congress to support ENDA.

Be well.

Being a feminist

[Does she deserve equal opportunity and the same legal rights as men or not?]

There has been quite a stir over a recent graph that was made to dispel false notions of what feminism is. Some of the blow back I've seen really doesn't make sense. Some of it is faulting the simplicity of the graph, but some of it is the result of challenged privilege.

Privilege as it used in the social sciences and equality studies refers to the way that some groups  are more often given a pass on certain behavior, allowed extra rights and freedoms, and so on, simple because of their social identity. Maybe it is because someone is in the majority religion or ethnicity. Maybe it is because someone is a certain gender or sexual orientation (that is heteronormative male).

The converse is that there are those who are not privileged. Those folks may simply lack the same passes and extra opportunities the privileged receive, which is still a form of discrimination, or they may be mocked or openly oppressed.

Privilege is really hard to see if you have it, because either you assume that the inequality is natural and justified (so it isn't a bad thing) or because you don't face the discrimination yourself. In the latter case, privilege can easily become invisible. You assume everyone is treated fairly, and unfair treatment or practices are rare and not very serious.

This means that complaints about privilege, whether it is mild or severe, are seen as whining, weakness, or even asking for "special rights". After all, if everything is fair, if some group is asking for more recognition, liberty, etc, then they must want something extra, right? Plus, you know someone who is in a privileged group who has had it rough or who was surpassed by someone is the supposedly non-privileged group, so it all has to be an exaggeration or something that only existed in the past.

Except that privilege isn't just about individual anecdotes, it is about systemic and structural bias in cultural attitudes and social institutions. And this is what people of privilege have the hardest time seeing and acknowledging.

Trying to change the system is seen by those denying or defending privilege as reverse discrimination, which itself is a nonsensical term. Basically the idea is that other people are, again, getting "special" rights or are trying to punish those who have been benefiting from privilege. In some cases, those in favor of maintaining privilege lament the attack on what amounts to their supposed freedom to discriminate.

Moreover, there is a tendency to see a group seeking equality not only as asking for "extra" or "special" rights, but to get up or over on those who have privilege. To somehow control or dominate them. Because equality just doesn't compute. Someone's going to be over someone. Those women are man-hating femi-nazis, don'tcha know?