#does she know she can sue for disability discrimination?

[penisincorporated]

My friend who works in a deli got fired for taking bathroom breaks every 15 mins during a severe IBS and endometriosis episode. Her boss was a male and thought she was lying. It happened to her three times in three months. Welcome to work in 2023. This occurrence is brought to you by Wal*Mart 🔆

On god I wish she would've just started fucking blasting at the deli. Pants on and all.

[dongfangxunfeng]

Ok so sorry this is so long but it was literally insane. So this girl in my dorm has a rabbit right. It’s an illegal rabbit (not a registered ESA) her friends stage an intervention to be like girl you cannot be keeping a rabbit in your tiny dorm. She keeps the rabbit anyway

Midway through the semesters we start getting emails like once a week from our RA about a rabbit loose in the hallways asking whoever owns it to come collect their rabbit (very generous response from our RA considering that a. rabbits are not allowed as ESAs here b. everyone and their mom fucking knows who’s rabbit it is)

Suddenly this girl starts very publicly owning a kitten (practically neonatal) (definitely not old enough to be vaccinated). She lets the kitten loose in our communal bathroom, she brings it to the dining hall, she brings it to class, posts about it on social media (side note she’s decently tiktok famous so everyone sees her business)

Enough people start being concerned about the health of the kitten and also the fact that she’s keeping a rabbit and a tiny kitten in the same room that someone must have snitched. She gets word and starts attempting to get someone to take the rabbit*

*will come back to this later

I’m sitting at my job when I get an email from our housing authority informing me campus safety has found an abandoned domestic rabbit outside IN THE FREEZING RAIN in a cardboard box. WITH MY NAME ON IT. HUH???

Im so fucking freaked out i think I’m gonna lose my housing over someone else’s fucking illegal pet. I rush to explain its not mine, our RA Can point them to who actually owns it. They’re like chill, that backs up what we already know. I’m in the clear (never found out why she had a box with my name on it or why she used it)

Campus safety and housing goes to her room to ask her about the rabbit, my ex-roommate is in the hallway at the time and snoops. The girl dodges most of the questions about the rabbit. The questions quickly turn to the kitten, who is actively in her room SCREAMING. She claims she thought the kitten was an ESA.

Girl. Be real you’ve had the thing for like a week and it has no paperwork. Campus safety says due to her history with the rabbit they’re gonna have to take the kitten for its own safety. She throws a fit (side note she also had an illegal snake our first year that got loose at some point and was never found again so the kitten is actually her 3rd instance of irresponsible pet ownership not the second)

She goes on social media and tells her considerable following the college has taken her ESA because she is autistic and they are ableist and say her disability means she can’t take care of animals. She claims she’s “never been away from him for this long” (again. Girl you’ve had it for a week) she starts attempting to fundraise for legal fees to sue the college for discrimination. She does not mention the rabbit in her tiktoks

Fall break comes so she leaves campus and during break fucking posts a picture of her with A SECOND KITTEN asking people what she should name it. We immediately send this to the housing authority. I never learned what happened with the second kitten

*back to the trying to find a new owner for the rabbit. I later find out from a coworker that one of her friends had agreed to take the rabbit cuz she lives off campus on the condition that she couldn’t take it until after break bc she was going home and the rabbit wouldn’t have any supervision during that time. So if she had quietly held on to the rabbit for like a week longer, it would have been happily rehomed but NO she decides it’s easier to just dump a helpless starving animal in 40 degree thunderstorms.

Anyway I think she got told she has to leave campus permanently at the end of the semester and as far as I know she’s still scamming her followers for bs “legal fees” hope this entertained you

NO PLS DO NOT APOLOGIZE FOR BEING LONG LONG IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR this is so wild. oh my god. like my residence last year had rumours of some person w a cat but i think that person did register it. but that is just so insane...not 1 not 2 but 3 animals wait no 4 the snake in rez. and then to FRAME U????? WTF is going on there. holy shit . AND legal fees. 😭. 😭😭😭 the Lengths ppl will go to

[rebelwheelssoapbox]

Did New York State Give Disabled People COVID?

By Michele Kaplan Spoilers: Yes. Now, am I suggesting that the leaders of New York State got together one day in a dimly lit room, grinning deviously, as they started to brainstorm on how they could intentionally harm the disability community? No. But they also didn't go to great lengths to protect us either.

And yes, there were a number of politicians who are allies, and I am not negating their efforts, but at the end of the day, I am writing this as a disabled New Yorker who is now a longhauler. This was not inevitable, unavoidable, this was created. It could be validly and reasonably argued, that some New York State politicians absolutely knew the harm they were going to cause and proceeded regardless. Like Governor Andrew Cuomo, formerly revered, now met with calls to resign. How peculiar that people rarely include the fact that he knowingly sent 9,000 COVID patients to nursing homes in said calls. Back in May (2020), New York Times reported that 1/3 of all COVID fatalities happened in institutional settings and this number was before it came out that Cuomo attempted to downplay the number of deaths.

[image description: colorful graphic of a woman with slightly tan skin and short gray hair wearing a mask. she is dressed casually but stylishly  with a neck scarf, glasses, denim shirt and backpack. The text reads “what’s next in the covid-19 fight? now, we all need to get tested often even with no symptoms, to keep reducing the spread”] Interesting how prisons are experiencing similar problems during the pandemic, as that too is a place where you can not social distance. It also begs the question: why do nursing homes have so many things in common with prisons? All the while, Cuomo was going to great lengths to push massive cuts in medicaid and healthcare funding before and during the pandemic – including funding for hospitals, all so the ultra-rich, wouldn't have to pay their fair share of taxes. So, it's no wonder that there is a massive campaign from the people to #TaxTheRich, as the disability community was far from being the only marginalized demographic facing the devastating consequences of his actions.

original photo is via https://affecttheverb.com/ [image description: a photo of six disabled people of color smile and pose in front of a concrete wall. Five people stand in the back, with the Black woman in the center holding up a chalkboard sign reading "disabled and here." A South Asian person in a wheelchair sits in front. The text at the bottom reads "hashtag tax the rich" with an orange / yellow gradient and black shadow behind it. There is a white sign leaning against the person on the right, with text that reads "A failure to tax the rich while cutting services for marginalized communities is an act of violence."] Why do the wealthiest New Yorkers have the lowest tax burden? Why should the rest of us scramble for crumbs, in some instances, compromising our basic safety, all so that the ultra-rich can have even more? I've heard people say that austerity is an act of violence, and I believe it's true. And to be clear, as a survivor myself, I unequivocally stand in absolute solidarity with the women who came forward, sharing their stories. I just don't think sexual harassment should be the only reason he is called to resign. The moment he knowingly sent COVID patients to those nursing homes, should have been enough. All the talk about how we must protect the vulnerable. All the soundbites about how they cherished the workers, the ones they called essential, those applauded and declared as heroes of the frontline, and yet those who were not treated as such. Hurrah for empty rhetoric. Why was this (among other unethical actions rooted in austerity,) not seen as a reason to remove him from power? Do we not believe we deserve better?

How did I get COVID, courtesy of New York State? It might seem unlikely, considering I only left my apartment twice in the last 12 months, with a mask of course. Refraining from visits from friends and family, the only people who were in my home were PCAs (personal care attendants) who I rely on for assistance. However, for reasons that remain unclear, there is no mandatory COVID testing policy within these home health care agencies. This was not a fluke, this is a widespread problem.

I heard stories of home healthcare workers dying (on the job, in the office), and while all employees were encouraged to get tested, unlike with the flu shot, a person could still work regardless if they've been tested or not. If you feel sick, don't come to work, they were told, but this alone is not enough, as one can be asymptomatic and still spread the virus to others. This was common knowledge and yet?

There I was, November 2020, with a persistent 18+ day fever (among other COVID symptoms), with no idea who gave me COVID, and with an abysmal lack of access to actually get tested. In New York City, I had to wait three months just to get a blood test at home, which I later found out, was not even the right kind of COVID test if you currently have it. I had zero access to the nose or saliva tests, as I could not travel (due to the fever) even to the local testing sites or urgent care centers in my neighborhood. And while New York City had a program where they'd send you a free saliva test kit, it was only if you could prove that you came in contact with someone with COVID. But since there was no mandatory testing for PCAs, I could not. (And yes, I explained my situation to the city employee I spoke to about the program, but they would not or could not make an exception. I also wrote a local politician for help, but I never got a response.) But surely I could go to the hospital and get help there? No, that too was not an option. For in the state of New York (and sadly with several states during the pandemic), there is a state criteria (think capitalism meets eugenics), that basically says when the demand for ventilators is greater than the supply, not every COVID patient is viewed as worth saving. And surprise surprise, disabled people like me were not seen as having the same value as our able bodied peers. Fun fact: Hitler also believed that disabled lives were not worthy of living. To be clear, I am not calling anyone here a Nazi, but I am absolutely suggesting that it would behoove society to reexamine that shared belief. I remember once my fever subsided, I went to urgent care as my oxygen was dipping as low as 88%. And the urgent care doctor said “If your oxygen goes below 90%, even if in time it stabilizes (as mine does if I remain silent), you need to go to ER.” Only as a disabled person, I could not. And yes, the state criteria is not always in effect, but it can go into effect at any moment in time – and then what?

[image description: photo of Michael Hickson, a black disabled man who is grinning and looking at the camera. He is sitting in a motorized wheelchair] RELATED: Disability rights group, ADAPT of Texas Protests Hospital Killing of Michael Hickson, A Black Disabled Man RELATED: Disability Rights Activists Sue Cuomo over Ventilator Discrimination But surely someone, the city, the state thought of a backup plan, so that the people impacted by the state criteria would not be left in the lurch? No, they did not. When I explained why I could not go to the hospital to the urgent care doctor, he became flustered. “Well... but you have to, it's medically dangerous for you ... not to go” to which I replied “It's dangerous for me to go.” In that moment, it was obvious that he did not know what to do other than to say “I'm sorry.” Why was there not a backup plan? Is the city and state nonchalant when it comes to disabled people being harmed and possibly dying? Did they forget? The city and state both have designated departments about disability. So, what happened? And while I go to great lengths to rise up and feed my soul as needed, as a disabled person, I am angry, I am sad and I am tired on so many levels. Even before the pandemic, me and my community (who exists within every marginalized community), were fighting cuts to medicaid and home healthcare services in New York , so we wouldn't be forced from our homes and into the institutions and nursing homes, including the ones that Cuomo a year or so later would knowingly send COVID patients to.

[image description: tiled image of the New York State license plate, with the word ableism on each plate. the plates are normally dark blue and white but this image has a faded rainbow overlay on it]

And then... the pandemic hit, and politicians like Mayor DeBlasio said plenty about how we must protect seniors and “the vulnerable”, but didn't even mention disabled people till much later. Like austerity, disability erasure is too an act of violence. And then I got COVID, courtesy of the state and a lack of protective policies. My oxygen dips too low on a daily basis. The other day, I left a dear friend a mere 5 minute audio message and my oxygen levels dipped down to 92%. I cough my brains out every morning, as there is too much liquid in my chest. (Meanwhile both my doctors agree I am a candidate for at home oxygen support, but my insurance will only cover at home oxygen support, if my oxygen dips too low at night. I suspect they figure that if it goes too low during the day, I should just go to the hospital.) And do note, that I am not suggesting the entirety of this mess was all local government as Trump's role in this is not small. This article is not intended to be fuel for the Cuomo versus Trump, Trump versus Cuomo agenda. I don't want to hear how it's not this party or that party's fault. All sides are guilty.

[image description top: an illustration of a colorful person looking confused asking “Ableism? What’s ableism?” Below that is a graphic with a white background and black “typewriter” font text. It reads, ”Ableism is… (a form of) discrimination.The false idea that disabled people are by default, inferior. When in truth, disability is just another way for a mind and/or body to be.”] Take action. Share this article. Discuss this with your friends. Re-examine any negative or (ableist) ideas you were taught about disability, for as long as we perpetuate the false ideas of abled supremacy, that disability equals inferior, tragic and better off dead, the easier it will be for the system to justify and get away with the oppression. Ask your politicians what happened? I wish that I had the energy to organize an action, more than what I've suggested, but as a longhauler I do not, which weighs on me more than I can say. But know that often when marginalized communities are attacked, a common sentiment you hear is: this is not what this country is about. But if you look at our history, this is exactly what our country is about. This is not new, but that doesn't mean we can't change that.

[IMAGE DESCRIPTION: This graphic is mostly black and white with the exception of 3 colors. The style is minimal. Towards the top in a thick black font, reads the words “Choose.” The two O’s in the word, are larger than the rest of the word, and have a larger red (for one O) and an orange circle (for the other O) in back of them. On top of the first O, is the letter S. To the right of S is a somewhat thin black line that stretches out to the right. Underneath is a black rectangle, with a blue square and red line in it - like a really minimal deconstruction American flag. The S then goes down to include the O, followed by an L and then after the L, the rest of the letters in Solidarity are to the right. To the left is a list (in black font) that reads Racism, Xenophobia, Transphobia, Islamophobia, Sexism, Homophobia, Ableism* (*Discrimination Against Disabled People). Lastly to the right is a black rectangle with a vertical white line cutting through it. It has white text in it that reads “Solidarity is not just a word, it’s an action.” and below that in small black font is the url of this site. “whatisableism.tumblr.com”]

[greatfay]

controversial opinions?

Cold pizza actually not good. Tastes like angry bacteria.

There’s a completely separate class of gay men who are in a different, rainbow-tinted plane of reality from the rest of us and I don’t like them. They push for “acceptance” via commercialization of the Pride movement, assimilation through over-exposure, and focus on sexualizing the movement to be “provocative” and writing annoying articles that reek of class privilege instead of something actually important like lgbtqa youth homelessness, job discrimination, and mental health awareness.

Coleslaw is good. You guys just suck in the kitchen.

Generational divides ARE real: a 16-year-old and a 60-year-old right now in 2021 could agree on every hot button sociopolitical topic and yet not even realize it because they communicate in entirely different ways.

Sam Wilson is a power bottom. No I will not elaborate.

Allison’s makeover in The Breakfast Club good, not bad. She kept literally and metaphorically dumping her trash out onto the table and it’s clearly a cry for help. Having the attention and affection of a smart, pretty girl doing her makeup for her was sweet and helped her open up to new experiences. Not every loner wants to BE a loner (see: Bender, who is fine being a lone wolf).

Movie/show recommendations that start with a detailed “representation” list read like status-effecting gear in an RPG and it’s actually a turn-off for me. I have to force myself to give something a try in spite of it.

Yelling at people to just “learn a new language” because clearly everyone who isn’t you and your immediate vicinity of friends must be a lazy ignorant white American is so fucking stupid, like I get it, you’re mad someone doesn’t immediately know how to pronounce your name or what something means. But I know 2 languages and am struggling with a 3rd when I can between 2 jobs and quite frankly, I don’t have the time to just absorb the entire kanji system into my brain to learn Japanese by tomorrow night, or suddenly learn Arabic or Welsh. There are 6500 recorded languages in the world, what’s the chance that one of 3 I’ve learn(ed?) is the one you’re yelling at me about. Yes this is referring to that post yelling at people for not knowing how to pronounce obscure Irish names and words. Sometimes just explaining something instead of admonishing people for not knowing something inherently in the belief that everyone must be lazy entitled privileged people is uh... better?

Stop fucking yelling at people. I despise feeling like someone is yelling at me or scolding me, it triggers my Violence Mode, you don’t run me, you are not God, fuck off. Worst fucking way to "educate” people, it just feels good in the moment to say or write and doesn’t help. Yes I’ve done it before.

Violence is good actually.

Characters doing bad things ≠ an endorsement of bad things. Characters doing bad things that are unquestioned by the entire rest of the cast = endorsement of bad things, or at the least, a power fantasy by the creator. See: Glee, in which Sue’s awfulness is constantly called out, while Mr. Shue’s awfulness rarely is because he’s “the hero.” See also: the Lightbringer series, in which the protagonist is a violent manipulator who is praised as clever, charming, diplomatic, and genius by every supporting character (enemies included), despite the text never demonstrating such.

Euphoria is good, actually. It falls into this niche of the past decade of “dark gritty teen shows” but actually has substance behind it, but the general vibe I get from passive-aggressive tumblr posts from casual viewers is that this show is The Devil, and the criticism of its racier content screams pearl-clutching “what about the children??” to me.

Describing all diagnosed psychopaths as violent criminals is a damaging slippery slope, sure. But I won’t be mad at anyone for inherently distrusting another human who does not have the ability to feel guilt and remorse, empathy, is a pathological liar, or proves to be cunning and manipulative.

It’s actually not easy to unconditionally support and love everyone everywhere when you’ve actually experienced the World. Your perspective and values will be challenged as you encounter difficult people, experience hardship, are torn between conflicting ideas and commitments, and fail. My vow to never ever call the cops on another black person was challenged when an employee’s boyfriend marched into the kitchen OF AN ESTABLISHMENT to scream at her, in a BUSINESS I MANAGED, and threaten to BEAT the SHIT out of her. Turns out I can hate cops and hate that motherfucker equally, I am more than capable of both.

Defending makeup culture bad, actually. Enjoy it, experiment, master it, but don’t paint it as something other than upholding exactly what they want from you. Even using makeup to “defy the heteropatriarchal oppressors!” is still putting cash in their pockets, no matter how camp...

Not every villain needs to be redeemed, some of you just never outgrew projecting yourself onto monsters and killers.

Writing teams and networks queerbaiting is not the same as individuals queerbaiting. Nick Jonas performing exclusively at gay clubs to generate an audience really isn’t criminal; if they paid to go see him, that’s on them, he didn’t promise anyone anything other than music and a show. Do not paint this as similar to wealthy, bigoted executives and writing teams trying to snatch up the LGBTQA demographic with vague ass marketing and manipulative screenplays, only to cop out so as not to alienate their conservative audiences. And ESPECIALLY when the artists/actors/creators accused of queerbaiting or lezploitation then come out as queer in some form later on.

Queer is not a bad word, and I’ve no clue how that remains one of few words hurled at LGBTQA people that can’t be reclaimed. It’s so archaic and underused at this point that I don’t get the reaction to it compared to others.

People who defend grown-woman Lorelai Gilmore’s childish actions and in the same breath heavily criticize teenage religious abuse victim Lane Kim’s actions are not to be trusted. Also Lane deserved better.

Keep your realism out of my media, or at least make it tonally consistent. Tired of shows and movies and books where some gritty, dark shit comes out of nowhere when the narrative was relatively Romantic beforehand.

Actually people should be writing characters different from themselves, this new wave in the past year of “If you aren’t [X] you shouldn’t be writing [X]” is a complete leap backward from the 2010s media diversity movement. And if [X] has to do with an invisible minority status (not immediately visible disabilities, or diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, persecuted religious affiliations, mental illness) it’s actually quite fucked up to assume the creator can’t be whatever [X] is or to demand receipts or details of someone’s personal life to then grant them “permission” to create something. I know, we’re upset an actual gay actor wasn’t casted to play this gay character, so let’s give them shit about it: and not lose a wink of sleep when 2 years later, this very actor comes out and gives a detailed account of the pressure to stay closeted if they wanted success in Hollywood.

Projecting an actor’s personal romantic life and gender identity onto the characters they play is actually many levels of fucked up, and not cute or funny. See: reinterpreting every character Elliot Page has played through a sapphic lens, and insulting his ability to play straight characters while straight actors play actual caricatures of us (See also: Jared Leto. Fuck him).

I’m fucking sick of DaBaby, he sucks. “I shot somebody, she suck my peepee” that’s 90% of whatever he raps about.

“Political Correctness” is not new. It was, at one point, unacceptable to walk into a fine establishment and inform the proprietor that you love a nice firm pair of tits in your face. 60 years ago, such a statement would get you throw out and possibly arrested under suspicion of public intoxication. But then something happened and I blame Woodstock and Nixon. And now I have to explain to a man 40 years my senior that no, you can’t casually mention to the staff here, many of whom are children, how you haven’t had a good fuck in a while. And then rant about the “Chinese who gave us the virus.” Can’t be that upset with them if you then refused to wear your mask for 20 minutes.

Triggering content should not have a blanket ban; trigger warnings are enough, and those who campaign otherwise need to understand the difference between helping people and taking away their agency. 13 Reasons Why inspired this one. Absolutely shitty show, sure, but it’s a choice to watch it knowing exactly what it contains.

Sasuke’s not a fucking INTJ, he’s an ISFP whose every decision is based off in-the-moment feelings and proves incapable of detailed and logical planning to accomplish his larger goals.

MCU critique manages to be both spot-on and pointless. Amazing stories have been told with these characters over the course of decades; but most of it is toilet paper. Expecting a Marvel movie to be a deeply detailed examination of American nationalism and imperialism painted with a colorful gauze of avant-garde film technique is like expecting filet mignon from McDonalds. Scarf down your quarter pounder or gtfo.

Disparagingly comparing the popularity and (marginal) success of BLM to another movement is anti-black. It is not only possible but also easy to ask for people’s support without throwing in “you all supported BLM for black people but won’t show support for [insert group]” how about you keep our name out your mouth? Black people owe the rest of the world nothing tbh until yall root out the anti-blackness in your own communities.

It is the personal demon/tragic flaw of every cis gay/bi/pan man to externalize and exorcize Shame: I’m talking about the innate compulsion to Shame, especially in the name of Pride and Progress. Shame for socioeconomic “success,” shame for status of outness, shame for fitness and health, shame for looks, shame for style and dress, shame for how one fits into the gender binary, shame for sexual positions and intimacy preferences, shame for fucking music tastes. Put down the weapon that They used to beat you. Becoming the Beater is not growth, it’s the worst-case scenario.

Works by minorities do not have to be focused on their marginalized identities. Some ladies want to ride dragons AND other ladies. The pressure on minorities to create the Next Great Minority Character Study that will inevitably get snuffed at the Oscars/Peabody Awards is some bullshit when straight white dudes walk around shitting out mediocre screenplays and books.

Canadians can stfu about how the US is handling COVID-19 actually. Love most of yall, but the number of Canadian snowbirds on vacation (VACATION??? VA.CAT.ION.) in the supposed “hotbed” of my region that I’ve had to inform our mask policies and social distancing to is ASTOUNDING. Incroyable! I guess your country has a sizable population of entitled, privileged, inconsiderate, wealthy, and ignorant people making things difficult for everyone, just like mine :)

No trick to eliminate glasses fog while wearing my mask has worked, not a single one, it actually has affected my job and work speed and is incredibly frustrating, and I have to deal with it and pretend it’s not a problem while still encouraging others to follow the rules for everyone’s safety and the cognitive dissonance is driving me insane.

It’s really really really not anti-Japanese... to be uncomfortable with the rampant pedophilia in manga and anime, and voice this. I really can’t compare western animation’s sneakier bullshit with pantyshots of a 12-year-old girl.

Most of the people in the cottagecore aesthetic/tag have zero interest in all the hard work that comes with maintaining an isolated property in the countryside, milking cows and tending crops before sunrise, etc. And that’s okay? They just like flowers and pretty pottery and homemade pastries. Idk where discourse about this came from.

You think mint chip ice-cream tastes like toothpaste because you’re missing a receptor that can distinguish the flavors, and that sucks for you. It’s a sort of “taste-blindness” that can make gum spicy to some while others can eat a ghost pepper without crying.

Being a spectacle for the oppressive class doesn’t make them respect us, it makes them unafraid of us. This means they continue to devour us, but without fear of our retaliation.

Only like 4 people on tumblr dot com are actually prepared for the full ramifications of an actual revolution. The rest of you just really imprinted onto Katniss, or grew up in the suburbs.

Straight crushes are normal. They’re people first, sexual orientation second. Can’t always know.

The road to body positivity is not easy, especially if what you desire is what you aren’t.

You’re actually personally responsible for not voluntarily bringing yourself into an environment that you know is not fit for you unless you have the resolve to manage it. Can’t break a glass ceiling without getting a few cuts. This one’s a shoutout to my homophobic temp coworkers who decided working a venue with a drag show would be a good idea. This is also is a shoutout to people who want to make waves but are surprised when the boat tips. And also a shoutout to people who—wait that’s it’s own controversial opinion hold up.

Straight people can and should stay the fuck out of gay bars and queer spaces. “yoUrE bEInG diVisiVe” go fuck yourself.

[preserving-ferretbrain]

Tokens, Lampshades, and the Trouble With Deconstruction

by Dan H

Wednesday, 30 June 2010

Dan finds Glee “Problematic”~

There is nothing more infuriating than middle class white boys claiming that some event that mildly irritated them gives them a profound insight into the world of the disadvantaged. “I once blamed immigrants for my own failure, therefore I know what it's like to be discriminated against” that sort of thing.

With this warning, let me tell you about my recent epiphany about stereotypes.

Kyra and I bought the first series of NCIS in order to stop ourselves from having to watch the eye bleedingly awful Lie To Me (tip from the experts: if a woman says she was raped, but isn't acting scared, she's lying).

Anyway NCIS was going well, and largely avoiding the buckets of fail that saturated Lie to Me. And it had a cute goth forensics chick and a Big Machine That Does Science so yay. Then we got to episode four: The Immortals.

In this episode, a young seaman (it's a naval crime show) was found drowned in full dress uniform, with weights tied to his waist.

Amongst his personal effects they found a character charter from an online fantasy game.

The rest was a checklist of horrendous gamer stereotypes.

Gamers unable to distinguish between game and reality. Check.

Gamers made violent by video games. Check.

Gamers driven to murder and/or suicide as a result of online interactions. Check and check.

Use of phrase “taking the game to the next level” (seriously I have seen this in every TV show about video games ever) check.

I mention this because there is a small part of me which , every time I see a horrendously stereotyped character on TV, says “well that's probably quite offensive, but I suppose you have to remember that the stereotype wouldn't exist if there wasn't some truth in it.”

Watching stereotypical portrayals of groups to which I actually belong reminds me that no, actually a lot of stereotypes are just outright fucking lies.

None of this has much to do with anything, but we'll be coming back to it later.

The Magic of Knowledge

So anyway, Glee is a not-exactly-musical not-exactly-comedy about a High-School Glee Club (the clue is in the name) which goes from humble beginnings to be all that and a bag of chips.

The pilot follows the foundation-slash-resurrection of the Glee club, with the recruitment of its six initial members who are respectively:

Rachel, an overambitious girl with dreams of stardom (to the extent that every time she signs her name she puts a gold star next to it, which is a metaphor, for her being a star). We are told that Rachel is very talented.

Finn, a boy who the Dead Poets' Society-esque teacher behind the Glee club frames for drug possession and then blackmails into joining Glee, for his own good.

Kurt, a fabulous gay boy who the writers edited into the show because they were so utterly taken with the actor. He is, to be fair, adorable – although it might be worth pointing out that the character he plays was originally supposed to be Indian. It might also be worth pointing out that Glee has won awards for diversity.

Mercedes, a fat black girl. Astute readers may note that this is the point where the character descriptions get, shall we say, shorter. Mercedes declares early on that she “ain't no backup singer”. This rapidly proves to be wishful thinking.

Tina, an Asian girl. I genuinely do not know what to make of Tina. She dresses in this quirky, slightly gothy style and her audition piece is a rather nice, slightly raunchy rendition of I Kissed a Girl. But she never actually says or does anything. Ever. It's almost like the costume department put more thought into her personality than the writers.

Artie. Artie is in a wheelchair. Artie also seems to spend a good part of the first episode pulling what I can only describe as “disabled face” - leaving his mouth hanging open and twisting his head to the side like he's trying to chew his own ear. Artie is not played by a wheelchair-using actor.

As

one of the many reviews

that have said all of this before put it: “Mmmm, token-y”.

So yeah. Tokenistic.

But wait! It's okay because the show knows that it's being tokenistic! It is using these “tropes” to be satirical!

Years ago there was a comedy sketch show in Oxford which I didn't actually see, but one of the better exchanges in it, as reported to me by my younger brother was as follows:

“It's not racist, it's satirical!” “What's it a satire of?” “Black people!”

This nicely sums up the issue with the awful stereotypes in Glee. Apparently the mere fact of acknowledging them excuses them. It's not a stereotype if you know it's a stereotype, because then it's satire. You don't even have to subvert or challenge the stereotype in any way. As long as you know about it.

That's the power of knowledge.

Glee gives us a central cast consisting entirely of stereotypes, and does nothing to challenge them.

What it does challenge, however, is the idea that presenting the characters as stereotypes is in any way bad.

Apologia, Apologia, Apologia

The tokenism in Glee is irritating, but it's one of those things I can kind of let slide. It's just a fact of life: fish swim, birds fly, Peter Molyneaux writes crappy video games, and TV shows include token black characters and get given diversity awards for it.

Except.

Except, except, except.

About halfway through the first volume of the boxed set there's an episode in which Sue Sylvester (the evil cheerleading coach) decides to take a “divide and rule” approach in her private war against the Glee Club, sowing dissent amongst the ranks by spreading the completely unsubstantiated and unjustified idea that the Glee Club doesn't give equal representation to its minority members.

The whole episode (Wikipedia informs me that it was entitled Throwdown) is excruciating. Unlike some commentators, I don't have a problem with Sue Sylvester, because I think it's fairly clear we're meant to disagree with her, and that's what makes the episode so difficult. Basically they take all of the criticisms people have of the show and put them in the mouth of a raging psychopath.

So Sue Sylvester splits the glee club in two and seduces all of the minorities over to her side with honeyed words and filthy, filthy lies.

Sylvester's “false” criticisms of the Glee Club boil down to the following:

That the minority characters are margainalised. They are.

That the minority characters are made to stand at the back and act like props. They are.

Two things about this episode are particularly frustrating. The first is that real, legitimate criticisms of the show are presented as lies invented by a balls-out villain. The second is that the minority kids are kind of made to look like idiots for being taken in by the whole thing. Mercedes' unalloyed delight at being presented with Hate on Me to sing is borderline embarrassing: “all right! An R&B song!” she says, she might as well follow it up with “I like this black people music, because I am black!”

The episode ends with the black, Asian, gay and disabled students deciding that they want to go back and work with the pretty white people and that they don't want to be given “special treatment” just because they're minorities. Because apparently getting to do the things that the white kids get to do in every single episode constitutes special treatment.

This would be almost bearable except that “minorities are given special treatment” is a recurring theme in Glee. Rachel constantly uses the spectre of her “two gay dads” to threaten people with the “full force of the ACLU”, and there's an awful scene in the

by no means uncontroversial

episode Wheels where Finn gets a job in a hotel by rolling up to them in a wheelchair and saying “you have to give me a job because I'm disabled.” (I paraphrase, it's actually Rachel who does the talking and she honest-to-shit uses the word “handicapable”).

How the show can have the brass fucking bollocks to repeat the “minorities get unfair advantages” myth while at the same time devoting ninety percent of its screentime to straight, white, able-bodied characters I do not know. Still, it gives you a profound respect for the kid who plays Artie, I mean he managed to overcome the huge disadvantage of not having a physical disability to land a role in a major TV show. And think of the guts it must have taken for the producers to take such a risk – I mean by not casting a wheelchair user they were practically asking for a lawsuit. Hats off to you, Fox.

And to make matters worse, the episode ends with Mr Schuster reminding the kids that “really, they're all minorities, because they're all in Glee Club.” Because having an unpopular hobby is exactly the same as being part of a group which is subject to systematic discrimination, oh yes.

The defence that is consistently wheeled out for Glee being so ragingly tokenistic is the fact that it's doing it all knowingly to subvert the stereotypes. Ironically it's exactly this that I find so disturbing about the series. If it was just full of slightly embarrassing stereotypes I'd be more or less willing to let it slide, it'd be annoying but no more annoying than a large number of other TV shows. The problem is that Glee is aware its being offensive, but refuses to address it. Its like the producers are standing up and saying “hey, we put a black girl and a wheelchair kid in it, what more do you want?”

The Other Sort of Prejudice

The thing is, I can see where the producers are coming from. I think they're wrong, but this is very much an “I believe that you believe it” situation.

The guys behind Glee like the guys behind the Avatar movie, and the guys behind the Earthseaminiseries, really do believe that they cast every role in the series utterly fairly, without prejudice of any kind. If a black kid had been right for Finn, they would have cast a black guy. If an Asian girl had been right for Rachel, Rachel would have been Asian. It just happened not to work out that way. Funnily enough.

Except.

There's an interesting interview on the final disc of the first DVD box set in which series creator Ryan Murphy explained that he already knew Lea Michele, who plays Rachel, before casting her. He explains that the character of Rachel was very much written with Lea Michele in mind. He further explains that despite this fact she “had to audition like everybody else.”

Except no, she didn't audition like everybody else. She auditioned for a part that was specifically written for her in front of people she already knew and who I strongly suspect were all very much inclined to give her the job before she began. She might have auditioned, but she didn't audition “like everybody else”.

Just to be clear, I really like Lea Michele, I think she did really well in Glee, and the fact that the character was written with her in mind really does make her better suited to play the character. But this still gave her a specific, undeniable advantage over the other people who auditioned.

I freely confess that I don't work in casting, but I strongly suspect that if you're casting for a particular role in a show, you're going to have a decent idea of what you want a particular character to look like. And that basically means that people who don't fit your preconceptions aren't going to be as “good” in the role as other people. What seems like an entirely unbiased decision is actually one steeped in your own prejudices – even if it's something as natural and reasonable as prejudice in favour of the girl you wrote the part for in the first place.

The DVD special features were full of cute little anecdotes about the casting process. The actor who played Finn submitted a video audition in which he was drumming on cereal packets and the casting team were so blown away by his verve and passion that they ignored the fact that he didn't actually show whether or not he could sing. The actor cast as Kurt impressed the judges so much that they rewrote his character from the ground up, in order to fit him better. Again I absolutely believe that the producers believe that the extent to which they were impressed with these two actors was a pure product of their individual talent and personality, but the truth is that we react more strongly and more favourably to people we perceive as being similar to ourselves.

Put simply, while Chris Colfer (Kurt) is no doubt adorable, I really couldn't put my hand on my heart and say that he's stand-out more talented than Jenna Ushkowitz (Tina) or Amber Riley (Mercedes). What I can say is that if I was writing a TV show about a bunch of highschool kids singing showtunes, I'd have a much better idea what to do with a cute camp kid than a feisty black girl. With some of Mercedes' dialogue you can practically here the writers saying “quick, what are black people interested in? I know, R&B!”

What makes Glee difficult isn't the fact that the writers are so transparently more interested in their white, able bodied actors than the rest of the cast, it's the fact that they're so obsessed with denying it, and then patting themselves on the back about denying it. What makes it worse is that I really do believe that they believe their own apologia. Unfortunately part of what they seem to believe is that minorities are routinely given special treatment in the name of “political correctness” an that's a belief which is actually harmful (as well as being one which is flatly contradicted by their own casting decisions).

That said, I'll probably still watch the rest of the series because, y'know, showtunes.Themes:

TV & Movies

,

Minority Warrior

~

bookmark this with - facebook - delicious - digg - stumbleupon - reddit

~Comments (

go to latest

)

https://me.yahoo.com/a/EA0c88lilpj2n2eytQTnMdudrtUMV2acww--#ea8e8

at 16:21 on 2010-06-30God, Glee. Hate it. Hate, hate, hate. Have you gotten to the episode where the teacher is an abusive fuckwit and then the show focuses on his angst (not about being an abusive fuckwit) and blames his wife for making her husband act like an abusive fuckwit? Terrifying.

And yeah, the bullshit about beautiful white people "just happening" to fit the major roles . . . I don't even know what to do with that.

I wish it wasn't so rage-inducing, because I have a deep, sparkly love for Jane Lynch, and am thrilled she's in a popular sow. I just wish the show was better.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 17:09 on 2010-06-30Tragically, I've heard that later on Glee gets a lot better (or perhaps just gets a lot better on some issues). There's a really nice bit later on where Kurt's dad calls out Finn on using "faggy" as derogatory.

The show, it is problematic.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 17:29 on 2010-06-30Yeah, they spend a lot more time ealing with Kurt's issues and the discrimination he faces than the discrimination faced by Mercedes or Artie. I suspect it's because Ryan Murphy is a gay man himself, and thus is okay with

his

issues being represented, but not the issues of a black girl or a kid in a wheelchair.

Also, there are two cheerleaders (Brittany and Santana) who are hinted at being together, but Ryan Murphy says they won't be exploring that because- and I quote- "

it's not that kind of show

." That was about the point when I actually exploded with rage.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 17:34 on 2010-06-30Oh dear me.

"Oh come on, you've got the L Word! Why do you need another TV show about lesbians!"

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 18:00 on 2010-06-30"It's not like we deal with gay teenagers anyw- wait."

*sigh*

One of the more frusturating aspects for me is that I have friends who are huge Glee fans, and accuse me of criticising them when I point out the flaws in the show. Being subjected to "SHUT UP YOU DON'T NOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT YOU'RE JUST EMBARASSING YOURSELF" every time I mention the show's problems is a great form of aversion therapy.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 18:06 on 2010-06-30

"It's not like we deal with gay teenagers anyw- wait."

In all seriousness I suspect that might be part of the problem.

One gay kid = teen show.

Three gay kids = GAY SHOW

One of the more frusturating aspects for me is that I have friends who are huge Glee fans, and accuse me of criticising them when I point out the flaws in the show.

It's difficult. What I find really tough with Glee is that some people genuinely seem to find it empowering (I believe Tiger Beatdown described it as "dismantling the Kyriarchy").

On the other hand, if your friends just don't like you complaining because ZOMG SHOWTUNES then they can ... well they're your friends, so they can Sit Down And Think About What They've Done.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 18:12 on 2010-06-30

One gay kid = teen show. Three gay kids = GAY SHOW

And the gay kid just happens to be one the creator can identify with. Of course.

My friends actually like it because they can identify with the characters that do get screentime (one's a gay guy) so they insist that criticism of the show is criticism of them, even after I repeatedly denied it, and accused disability/women's advocates of "looking for things to be offended by." I give up.

permalink

-

go to top

Andy G

at 18:20 on 2010-06-30Actually, the Tiger Beatdown quote was:

"I wish I could have titled this piece “How Glee is Dissolving the Kyriarchy Through Song” or “Let’s All Go Out for Equality Slushies, Our Work Here is Done!” But I can’t. Because lately, Glee has been making me squirm. Somewhere along the way, Glee became problematic. It stopped merely depicting systemic prejudice and discrimination, and started contributing to it. And I can remember exactly when it happened."

http://tigerbeatdown.com/2010/06/10/wont-stop-believin-a-gleek-turns-against-the-thing-he-loves/

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 18:23 on 2010-06-30Ah, shows what I know.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 18:29 on 2010-06-30

What I find really tough with Glee is that some people genuinely seem to find it empowering (I believe Tiger Beatdown described it as "dismantling the Kyriarchy").

Er... are you thinking of

this article

, which says:

I wish I could have titled this piece “How Glee is Dissolving the Kyriarchy Through Song” or “Let’s All Go Out for Equality Slushies, Our Work Here is Done!” But I can’t. Because lately, Glee has been making me squirm. Somewhere along the way, Glee became problematic. It stopped merely depicting systemic prejudice and discrimination, and started contributing to it.

(Admittedly the author identifies different problems from the ones you mention and seems to say that they only set in considerably later in the series.)

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 18:29 on 2010-06-30D'oh! Andy types faster than I.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 18:35 on 2010-06-30

My friends actually like it because they can identify with the characters that do get screentime (one's a gay guy) so they insist that criticism of the show is criticism of them, even after I repeatedly denied it, and accused disability/women's advocates of "looking for things to be offended by." I give up.

You know, over here at Straight White Able-Bodied Guy HQ we call that "divide and rule".

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 18:37 on 2010-06-30

D'oh! Andy types faster than I.

I shall consider myself well and truly down-smuck.

Generally though there is still positive reception of Glee out there and it does seem to polarise people. I think the issue is that it gets so much right on the one hand and so much wrong on the other.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 19:25 on 2010-06-30I was really surprised to hear that Kurt wasn't there from the beginning because I always assumed he was sort of the author's stand in. He's gay, he obviously has a feeling for that kind of discrimination, so that's the main discrimination that gets played with.

Though I would say regarding the scene where Kurt's dad tells Finn off, the speech in itself is great (it could perhaps be considered a fantasy speech of things you wish your dad would say in that situation) but even that ep prefers to lean more in the direction of gay being a way you present yourself instead of a sexuality. Which is a fine place to start, but I am still waiting to see if they go into the other aspects of it instead of again claiming that "we're all freaks--because we're in Glee Club!" Um, no. When the bullies call Kurt a freak they mean he's gay. They pick on him because he's gay. They threaten Finn by suggesting he is gay etc.

I remember one ep where they made a joke where people in Glee were voting on something and someone voted for "other Asian"--a background character. That's a perfect example of the show's strange attitude, occasionally lampshading the problems without just not creating the problem.

Especially in eps like Wheels where not only does Finn happily reap the alleged advantages of being a minority, but Artie winds up not even solving the problem that started the ep (that he couldn't ride with the rest of the group on the bus) by sacrificing *his* immediate desires to any disabled people who might come along later. So basically the able-bodied kids complained a lot, but raised some money, and then happily went back to their original attitude of not caring at all if Artie rode the bus with them. The guy in the wheelchair. The only guy who did anything for or cared anything about access for the disabled was the guy in the wheelchair.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 22:00 on 2010-06-30Sorry, Dan, I think I must be having a stupid day because I've been turning it over in the back of my head for a couple of hours and I'm still not completely sure how the

NCIS

anecdote relates. Which means I've probably missed something important in the article as a whole. Can I impose on you (or anyone else who is having a intellect-functioning-properly day) for a 'for dummies' version?

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 22:09 on 2010-06-30Partially it doesn't.

Partially it was a holdover from an earlier version of the article that was going to focus more on the "lampshading" element of Glee.

Basically Glee gets a lot of mileage out of people saying "No, don't you see, all these stereotypes are *subversive* because *everybody knows they aren't true*". The thing about the NCIS episode is that for me it highlighted in a very simple, very minor way, the fact that "everybody knows it isn't true" doesn't stop a stereotype being offensive because in fact PEOPLE DON'T KNOW IT ISN'T TRUE.

Then the whole thing morphed and the anecdote was left stuck there like a shark in a roof.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 22:12 on 2010-06-30

You know, over here at Straight White Able-Bodied Guy HQ we call that "divide and rule".

So it IS a conspiracy!

permalink

-

go to top

http://furare.livejournal.com/

at 02:10 on 2010-07-01

Because having an unpopular hobby is exactly the same as being part of a group which is subject to systematic discrimination, oh yes.

This is probably related to the phenomenon whereby (some) geek guys think that they Understand Women, because, after all, they are discriminated against and therefore can't possibly be part of The Problem. You even get a few guys who claim that, because some things have been difficult for them, there is no systematic sexism in society. After all, they're men! And they got made to suffer for not fitting in! Women are just paranoid for seeing it as a conspiracy against them!

Getting unpopularity caused by a choice you made confused with systematic discrimination is shown quite clearly in Glee as well, when the pregnant girl tells Mercedes that now she's obviously pregnant she Understands what it's like to be black. What?

Because apparently getting to do the things that the white kids get to do in every single episode constitutes special treatment.

That's always the case, though, isn't it? If you're not seen as having the right to be treated like the pretty able-bodied white people, then being treated the same as them is presumptuous. It's special treatment in that you want to be treated *better* than Other People Like You. (Heavy sarcasm filter, needless to say.)

...accused disability/women's advocates of "looking for things to be offended by."

Oh, I hate that one. Horrible, horrible silencing tactic. But seriously, why does anyone need to *look* for things to be offended by? There's so much that is so goddamn offensive that there's no need to look further than the bookshelf in the corner. When someone says that, they're basically saying "I know better than you do what ought to offend you. I don't think this should offend you (because it doesn't offend me) and therefore you are overreacting."

As for "stereotypes aren't true", I think that the mindless spouting of stereotypes - and then defending them by saying there's probably some truth in them - is one of the most prevalent forms of discrimination in our allegedly colourblind/genderblind society. Well, at least, among the nice, "non-discriminatory" people, anyway. I think that's what Dan was saying, so maybe I should've shorted this paragraph to "what he said". But you know us women, we never shut up, right?

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 03:28 on 2010-07-01

If you're not seen as having the right to be treated like the pretty able-bodied white people, then being treated the same as them is presumptuous. It's special treatment in that you want to be treated *better* than Other People Like You. (Heavy sarcasm filter, needless to say.)

Also I think it comes down to the illusion that what the white people get to do in every ep has nothing to do with their being white. Iow, it's not that Mercedes is a backup singer because she's black, it's that Rachel has X,Y and Z about her that gives them a reason to have her on screen a lot and for us to see her story from her pov.

permalink

-

go to top

Frank

at 05:47 on 2010-07-01

Getting unpopularity caused by a choice you made confused with systematic discrimination is shown quite clearly in Glee as well, when the pregnant girl tells Mercedes that now she's obviously pregnant she Understands what it's like to be black. What?

Exactly. W. T. F.

(it could perhaps be considered a fantasy speech of things you wish your dad would say in that situation)

I also think the writer's using this opportunity to speak to those in the audience who are identifying with Finn (who has the absolute right to be pissed at Kurt and call him out on his bullshit though not in such a hateful manner) and who thus may be suffering from gaymanphobia.

The season (network?) suffers from gaymanphobia. For all the talk of Rachel's two gay dads, we never see them. Gay sexuality isn't seen. And the lesbian sexuality that is suggested, is obviously for the het male audience as Santana and Brittany use it to their advantage to seduce/trick Finn.

To be fair, there's not much if any healthy het sexuality either but it is treated as normal. Finn successfully though suggestively loses his virginity to Santana (another fail, this time with racial representation because, you know, Latina's are sexual beings, so exotic.) Will the audience ever see Kurt suggestively lose his virginity (which many will assume to be giving up his butt to a dick instead of giving his dick to a butt)? No, because gayman sex is icky.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 11:49 on 2010-07-01

This is probably related to the phenomenon whereby (some) geek guys think that they Understand Women, because, after all, they are discriminated against and therefore can't possibly be part of The Problem.

*nods*

Although for what it's worth, it's not just a geek male thing. Bad Things Happen To Men Too is depressingly common male reaction to the notion of privilege. Just look at the lovely "men's abortion rights" guys.

That's always the case, though, isn't it? If you're not seen as having the right to be treated like the pretty able-bodied white people, then being treated the same as them is presumptuous. It's special treatment in that you want to be treated *better* than Other People Like You. (Heavy sarcasm filter, needless to say.)

Sad, but I suspect largely true.

It's like when people complain that student unions have a women's officer but not a men's officer, or complain that everybody talks about violence against women, but nobody talks about violence against men (they do, they just tend to call it "crime" and there are entire branches of government devoted to dealing with it).

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 12:02 on 2010-07-01Oh, wanted to reply to this point too but somehow lost it:

Getting unpopularity caused by a choice you made confused with systematic discrimination is shown quite clearly in Glee as well, when the pregnant girl tells Mercedes that now she's obviously pregnant she Understands what it's like to be black. What?

I'm not sure that's a great example actually. Obviously playing the "I knwo what it's like to be black" card is stupid and offensive, but I think it's a bit iffy to describe Quinn's situation as being entirely down to "a choice she made". Even if we leave out the fact that she was apparently sufficiently drunk when she had sex with Puck that it raises some iffy consent issues, the way she's treated afterwards actually *is* evidence of systematic discrimination because it is, in essence, a form of slut-shaming.

Basically I'm very conscious that "well you shouldn't have got pregnant then" is something that people really do say to women, in one way or another in all sorts of situations (it's a common line taken by pro-lifers for example). There's a certain perspective from which Quinn's arc could be seen as "gets kicked out of her house for being date raped" - I don't think it's entirely fair to describe her as just having made unpopular decisions.

Of course none of that gives her the right to say she "knows what it's like to be black" - on a side note, isn't it interesting that we spend so much time in Glee hearing what it's like to be a minority (what it's like to be in a wheelchair, what it's like to be black, what it's like to be gay) but always from a third party. Mr Shu tells the kids what it's like for Artie to be in a wheelchair, Quinn tells Mercedes what it's like to be black. Kurt's dad gets a pass because he's not actually telling Finn what it's like to be gay, he's telling him what it's like to be a homophobe.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 12:14 on 2010-07-01It's like that party game where you have the name of a mystery person stuck to your forehead and the person to your left has to describe them to you.

permalink

-

go to top

http://furare.livejournal.com/

at 15:27 on 2010-07-01Fair enough, Dan. That's the only episode of the show I've ever watched, so all I saw was "pregnant white girl tells black girl that teenage pregnancy is Just Like Being Black". I didn't know anything about the extenuating circumstances, just saw the racefail and reacted badly to it. Obviously, the way Quinn is treated is Not Okay either, but pretending that it's in any way equivalent is fail on the same scale as Guy With Unpopular Hobby pretending that this is the same as being a woman.

In my defence, that was the comparison I was making - there is nothing wrong with having sex or getting pregnant, anymore than there is anything wrong with having an unpopular hobby. But Quinn had (at least when I was unaware of possible consent issues) a lot more choice over getting pregnant than Mercedes ever did about being black. That doesn't make it *right* that she's treated the way she is, it just means that it's a different sort of unfair. Which kind of undermines her claim to Understand.

Of course, in the show, this exchange is presented as character development and a heartwarming moment between the two girls.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 15:40 on 2010-07-01

Fair enough, Dan. That's the only episode of the show I've ever watched, so all I saw was "pregnant white girl tells black girl that teenage pregnancy is Just Like Being Black".

Yeah, I can see how it would be *even more failey* out of context.

In my defence, that was the comparison I was making - there is nothing wrong with having sex or getting pregnant, anymore than there is anything wrong with having an unpopular hobby.

Oh I don't think you've got anything to defend in particular (sorry if I went off on one - I'm afraid I get a bit language police sometimes) I think it's just that I've been spending my off-hours arguing with misogynist assholes on other sites and so was a bit oversensitive. There's a depressing number of people who really do believe that if a bad thing happens to a woman because she "chooses" to have sex then it's ALL HER FAULT. Again, not saying that's you, just being a bit oversensitive.

Also doesn't change the fact that "now I know what it's like to be black" is a failburger with failsauce and a side order of fail.

Of course, in the show, this exchange is presented as character development and a heartwarming moment between the two girls.

Hey, nothing says friendship like appropriation!

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 15:42 on 2010-07-01

That's the only episode of the show I've ever watched, so all I saw was "pregnant white girl tells black girl that teenage pregnancy is Just Like Being Black". I didn't know anything about the extenuating circumstances, just saw the racefail and reacted badly to it. Obviously, the way Quinn is treated is Not Okay either, but pretending that it's in any way equivalent is fail on the same scale as Guy With Unpopular Hobby pretending that this is the same as being a woman.

Yeah, one of the biggest differences it that, of course, Quinn's condition is temporary. Sure people will probably continue to judge her for getting pregnant, but it was still another example of a line the show is very fond of, the one where the person who is in the position of social power has something happen to them or does something that suddenly makes them feel shamed. And now they "know how it feels" to be somebody who's discriminated against all the time. It's not that we can't sympathize with them as people being picked on, and there are some ways that the two situations are related, but it's not the same thing and the show really does seem to link the two a lot.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 15:46 on 2010-07-01

It's not that we can't sympathize with them as people being picked on, and there are some ways that the two situations are related, but it's not the same thing and the show really does seem to link the two a lot.

*nod*

The one redeeming quality I can think of in this particular example is that at least it's Quinn's *own* experience which acts as the catalyst for her Important Learning Experience, instead of somebody else's. Unlike say in /Wheels/, where Artie gets screwed so that the other kids can learn an Important Lessson About Disability.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 17:33 on 2010-07-01

The one redeeming quality I can think of in this particular example is that at least it's Quinn's *own* experience which acts as the catalyst for her Important Learning Experience, instead of somebody else's. Unlike say in /Wheels/, where Artie gets screwed so that the other kids can learn an Important Lessson About Disability.

Also it's probably better that Quinn, being the cheerleader, does usually own all the privileges she has, and yet truly has had things taken away from her. Being pregnant is something other people can see and react to on sight. It's a bit deeper than suddenly being one of the kids who might get a slushy thrown at them rather than being the slushie thrower. Her dad throwing her out because she's now a slut is not only more serious but goes to the aspect of Quinn that always was a minority. In the past she just denied that.

In a way, I felt like the awkward connection of the whole thing to the experience of a black person was more something the show is always trying to do rather than something Quinn herself, based on her character, would say. She'd probably never have noticed that Mercedes was judged on her looks, much less think that she now knows how Mercedes feels.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 17:50 on 2010-07-01Thinking about it, if they really wanted to have an episode in which Quinn's pregnancy experience what it's like to be Mercedes, they'd have to have an episode in which she stood in the background, didn't sing very much, and sometimes said things like "well you can count my pregnant ass in, mm-hmm" while wagging her finger sassily.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 18:04 on 2010-07-01

Thinking about it, if they really wanted to have an episode in which Quinn's pregnancy experience what it's like to be Mercedes, they'd have to have an episode in which she stood in the background, didn't sing very much, and sometimes said things like "well you can count my pregnant ass in, mm-hmm" while wagging her finger sassily.

Very true. She would spend a lot of time being confused at the way her interactions with people never went anywhere and all her conversations with others were about other people whose feelings she was more interested in than her own.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 18:24 on 2010-07-01

She'd probably never have noticed that Mercedes was judged on her looks, much less think that she now knows how Mercedes feels.

Sorry to keep dwelling on this but:

Also, is it framed as "being judged on her looks?" because if so ... umm ... again that's a rather nasty oversimplification of a hugely complex set of issues. I mean presumably when Quinn's father kicks her out it's not because he's worried she'll get *fat*, it's because she's a filthy dirty slutty mcslutslut. And presumably the creators realize that Mercedes' identity as a black woman has rather more to it than "is female and has dark coloured skin."

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 18:51 on 2010-07-01

Also, is it framed as "being judged on her looks?" because if so ... umm ... again that's a rather nasty oversimplification of a hugely complex set of issues. I mean presumably when Quinn's father kicks her out it's not because he's worried she'll get *fat*, it's because she's a filthy dirty slutty mcslutslut.

Sorry, no it's not. I just worded that badly because I meant she is judged on an aspect of herself that is visible to strangers. A stranger, for instane, can look at Mercedes and identify her as black and so make judgements based on just seeing her, and so can Quinn with her pregnancy showing. The way I put it it sounded like I meant "her looks" as in whether or not she was conventionally attractive--that's not what she meant.

permalink

-

go to top

Lexa

at 20:19 on 2010-07-01Oh, there are so many things I hate about this show!

First off, it really, really bugs me that they have taken the idiotic step of confusing sexuality and gender in Kurt. Yes, Kurt is gay. But the writers seem to have taken 'gay' to mean 'camp and gender-confused'. It's the easiest thing in the world to do, and frankly it disappoints me. Wouldn't it be more interesting if one of the football players was discovering he was gay? You could do amazing things with that, and explore really interesting themes - such as the fact that a lot of gay men don't conform to that stereotype. It's only making more and more people think that the stereotypical 'camp gay guy' is universal to the population.

Then there's the wheelchair thing. If you ever tried to stage 'Children Of A Lesser God' professionally with a hearing lead actress instead of a deaf one, there would be uproar. Partly, I suspect, because Equity (the actors' union) would never let them get away with it. I don't know how these things are handled in the States, but it upsets me that nobody had enough clout to solve this problem. Yes, he's good for the character, but if you can re-write for one actor, what's a few tweaks for another going to hurt?

(Oh yes, and of course having a stutter is comparable to being wheelchair-bound. It cuts you off from society in exactly the same way, didn't you know?)

Casting is a thorny issue, but I wouldn't say that colourblind casting works in every case. For instance, the writers must have had character briefs when they began auditioning.

Take the character of Quinn, for example. How different would things be if she were black? She may not have the upper-class background of the current character, she may not have been head of the chastity club (which seemed to be universally white), and there may not have been the family stigma attached to her being pregnant. All of these factors were, arguably, (and within the context of the show, with its' wonderfully divisive society) directly related to the fact that the character was white and upper-class. Even if she's still upper-class, everything changes. Suddenly the focal issues of the character change, and you have to write in the additional new environment of a mixed-race relationship between her and Finn/Mohawk Dude.

No matter how good a black actress may have been for that role, I really don't think that she would ever have been considered, because it would change a lot of things that the writers wanted for the character. And actually, maybe that's fair enough, because some characters are just that specific to their surroundings.

On the other hand, Rachel could have been black and it would have changed NOTHING. Ditto Mr Schuester.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 20:41 on 2010-07-01

On the other hand, Rachel could have been black and it would have changed NOTHING. Ditto Mr Schuester.

With Rachel it's even more ironic because part of the joke with her dads was that they don't know which one actually fathered her biologically. She says this, then they show us a picture of her with her two dads, one of whom is black and one of whom is white. So they've already got the set up for her to be biracial, but she's not.

I personally don't have a problem with Kurt being campy just because I think it's dealing with a certain type of personality. Rather than being a person in hiding who's struggling with his sexuality he's out and proud. He himself has accepted he's gay, which can be nice. But it does give them a chance to sometimes act as if gay really is about loving show tunes and fashion and being considered girly, which fits into the whole "we're a bunch of misfits" thing they like to have for a lot of the Glee characters. The club's kind of split between the popular kids and the outcasts according to cliche high school hierarchy. Quinn, the other Cheerios, Finn and Puck are all cool people getting their first taste of doing something officially not cool. Rachel, Mercedes, Artie, non-stutter girl whose name I've just forgotten and Kurt are the nerdy-kids they wouldn't have spoken to before but now are getting to know.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 23:04 on 2010-07-01Thanks for the clarification, Dan! Yes, I see how that works.

[Ducks out before being mistaken for someone who knows something about this programme.]

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 23:30 on 2010-07-01

Take the character of Quinn, for example. How different would things be if she were black? She may not have the upper-class background of the current character

I'm pretty sure you *do* get upper-class black people (if the Fresh Prince taught me nothing else, he taught me that). (Reading ahead, I notice that you mention later that she could still have been upper class, so I don't think you're implying otherwise - I'm just a bit twitchy today).

Quinn's an interesting example in fact for exactly this reason. Making her black would have changed nothing - you *absolutely* get rich, privileged kids from black backgrounds, and making their perfect alpha-teen black would have *genuinely* challenged stereotypes. But they didn't and I suspect that, as you say, the reason they didn't is because they felt that being white was part of who she was, even though I am damned sure that there are black girls who are *exactly* like Finn.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 23:32 on 2010-07-01

Thanks for the clarification, Dan! Yes, I see how that works.

As an example, there's a running joke throughout the series that the other Asian student in Glee Club is referred to (by staff and students alike) as "other Asian".

You SEE. It's FUNNY because it's SUBVERSIVE because we KNOW IT'S RACIST and NOBODY REALLY ACTS LIKE THAT IN REAL LIFE and certainly it's in no way HARMFUL or OFFENSIVE! Because it's GLEE!

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 01:39 on 2010-07-02

If you ever tried to stage 'Children Of A Lesser God' professionally with a hearing lead actress instead of a deaf one, there would be uproar.

I wouldn't be so sure. There's a production of

The Miracle Worker

running in Broadway right now with Abigail Breslin playing Helen Keller.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 04:30 on 2010-07-02

I wouldn't be so sure. There's a production of The Miracle Worker running in Broadway right now with Abigail Breslin playing Helen Keller

Has there ever been a production of The Miracle Worker, or at least one of note, that didn't have Helen played by a hearing, sighted actress? It seems like Children of a Lesser God is traditionally cast with a deaf actress.

permalink

-

go to top

Lexa

at 10:02 on 2010-07-02But 'The Miracle Worker' closed early in its' run, and when the casting was announced there were huge complaints from the deaf and blind communities. (Also, I believe that it first opened in the 50s, when attitudes were very different to now) It's a huge betrayal to actors who are genuinely deaf, blind and wheelchair-bound when an actor who is none of these things gets a role like that.

And yep, Sarah in 'Children Of A Lesser God' is always played by a deaf actress - and with good reason. They even found a deaf actress for the movie, which is quite impressive when you think about it.

It genuinely upsets me that the actor playing Artie can walk. It's like they're saying "You know what, nobody in a wheelchair can act." Your agent can't find a wheelchair-bound actor? Find one. Hold open auditions, cast a complete newcomer. It's much easier to do that on television than in theatre.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 10:17 on 2010-07-02Sorry to be the language police again but if we're going to take a stand against ableism can we avoid using the term "wheelchair-bound" because it

genuinely upsets people

.

I probably wouldn't have noticed if I hadn't been reading that very blog yesterday evening.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 10:58 on 2010-07-02Wow, this is a minefield. I'm scared of opening my mouth....

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 15:05 on 2010-07-02

But 'The Miracle Worker' closed early in its' run, and when the casting was announced there were huge complaints from the deaf and blind communities. (Also, I believe that it first opened in the 50s, when attitudes were very different to now)

Thanks for that info--I had no idea and I was genuinely wondering about it. Because yes, the original was in the 50s where the idea of hiring a deaf or blind young actress (much less a deaf and blind young actress) would never even have been considered. I remember when Patty Duke, the original Helen, later made a TV movie version where she played Annie Sullivan to Melissa Gilbert's Helen!

So I didn't know if there was some reason that play was not looked at the way CoaLG was, where you assume the part will be played by a deaf actress.

Now I'd really like to see MW with a deaf and blind actress. It would be a totally different performance, I'd imagine. Helen would probably relate to the world far more realistically because the actress would naturally navigate the world with the same senses. Ironically, I'll bet to a lot of people she would appear more able-bodied because of it. She'd be played less as a seeing/hearing person who's been deprived of those senses and more like an individual who uses senses other than seeing and hearing.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 15:42 on 2010-07-02

Hold open auditions, cast a complete newcomer.

That's actually the argument I keep hearing- that they

did

hold open auditions, and Kevin McHale just happened to be the best actor for the role. Don't know if I believe it, though.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 23:23 on 2010-07-02

That's actually the argument I keep hearing- that they did hold open auditions, and Kevin McHale just happened to be the best actor for the role. Don't know if I believe it, though.

I believe it, it's just that I believe their criteria for "best actor" were intrinsically, well, faily.

There's a lot of talk in the DVD special features about how you're looking for the "triple threat" - somebody who can act, sing and dance. Given that later on in the series there's a sequence in which Artie does, in fact, dance in a dream sequence - revealing that Kevin McHale is, in fact, a pretty damned good dancer, it seems depressingly plausible that his ability do dance was part of what landed him the role.

This role, of course, being the role of a wheelchair user whose lifetime dream of being a dancer cannot be fulfilled *because he is a wheelchair user*.

It seems nobody thought that maybe the ability to dance *in a wheelchair* might be a better quality to look for in an actor than the ability to dance *when not in a wheelchair*.

permalink

-

go to top

Viorica

at 00:06 on 2010-07-03Yeah, that's what my friend tried to convince me of- that if they hadn't cast Kevin McHale, they couldn't have done the Safety Dance scene, so clearly he was a better choice than an actor who was actually in a wheelchair. The problem with this is twofold: one, it is entirely possible to dance while in a wheelchair, and two, having your disabled character constantly fantasize about not being disabled is juuuuust a bit problematic. It'd be like having Kurt fantasize about being straight. "Oh, if only I wasn't a minority!"

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 00:54 on 2010-07-03

I believe it, it's just that I believe their criteria for "best actor" were intrinsically, well, faily.

And how many people in wheelchairs would bother showing up at an open call, really? I mean, it seems like asking a bit much to expect differently abled actors to assume they're being considered at an open call.

Yeah, that's what my friend tried to convince me of- that if they hadn't cast Kevin McHale, they couldn't have done the Safety Dance scene, so clearly he was a better choice than an actor who was actually in a wheelchair.

It does underline that we're talking about a disabled person as defined by an able-bodied person, doesn't it? If they think it's important that the actor be able to convincingly dance like a person with the use of his legs, if only for dream sequences but not important that he be able to convincingly use a wheelchair like a person who doesn't regularly use his legs. He can't dance in a wheelchair the way the character should be able to do, probably doesn't even use a wheelchair as well as a regular user would.

But they either don't see those problems or assume people will suspend disbelief for them. However when it comes to a fantasy dance sequence they need it to be the actor dancing? Even though the whole fantasy sequence frame would give you plenty of freedom to be as stylized as possible. You could probably even be more creative with it. It's not like Hollywood hasn't done this in many ways over the years when they cast a non-dancer in a dancing role.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 12:00 on 2010-07-03

And how many people in wheelchairs would bother showing up at an open call, really? I mean, it seems like asking a bit much to expect differently abled actors to assume they're being considered at an open call.

But that's *their* fault for being *prejudiced* and assuming that *all able bodied people are ablists*. And we shouldn't support *prejudice*.

It does underline that we're talking about a disabled person as defined by an able-bodied person, doesn't it?

It really does. I can't believe that people *actually* cite the (arguably quite offensive) dream sequence in which Artie imagines what it would be like to be a dancer as a *good and valid* reason that he "had" to be played by an able-bodied actor.

"Hey people with disabilities: we can actually represent what it is like to BE YOU better than YOU CAN"

permalink

-

go to top

Lexa

at 15:17 on 2010-07-03There are hundreds of acting calls out there where they say something like: "Actor wanted. Must be male, mid-late 30s, minority ethnic background." Or words to that effect. If you need someone black for a role, that's what you do. If they had put out one stating that they needed a wheelchair user, then it would have been no different. Sometimes you need an actor to look a certain way, and there's no problem with specifying that - asking for someone in a wheelchair is just the same.

And I say again: if they can re-write one role for one actor and change it completely (Kurt), would it have been so difficult for them to change one character slightly so that a real wheelchair-user could have done it? They can't say 'he wasn't right for the role' for one guy, and then do a shedload of re-writing for another.

permalink

-

go to top

Shim

at 08:46 on 2010-07-04

"Actor wanted. Must be male, mid-late 30s, minority ethnic background."

That must be awkward if everyone who turns up is the wrong minority ethnic background.

"I'm sorry, Mr... Spock, was it? We just don't see you as Othello."

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 11:17 on 2010-07-04"But that is illogical:

Captain Picard

has played the part, and we are of similar appearance. Is it becos I iz from TOS?"

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 12:47 on 2010-07-04

And I say again: if they can re-write one role for one actor and change it completely (Kurt), would it have been so difficult for them to change one character slightly so that a real wheelchair-user could have done it?

I don't think you'll get any disagreement here. We're not saying "this is why they did it, and it's legitimate" we're (or at least I'm) saying "this is probably why they did it, and it's fucking offensive".

People get so defensive about it because what we're dealing with here (like the guy in that infuriating Times article Rami just linked to) is *internalized* prejudice. The producers cast Kevin McHale because he was "best" for the role according to their preconceptions about what a "good" actor in musical theatre should be like. Funnily enough, this wound up being somebody white, male, and able-bodied.

permalink

-

go to top

https://me.yahoo.com/a/weG8lOsgwf6qv3.5HfEtaiu7gZr1mw--#9e4da

at 00:48 on 2010-07-06As a person with disabilities who has

written rather extensively about Glee

(I wrote the post at Bitch discussed in Daniel's original post), I'd like to specifically rebut the claims made about the dream sequence (although this whole conversation has been very interesting).

I see the argument that Artie had to be played by a nondisabled actor to make that sequence possible all the time, by people who are apparently not aware that what wheelchair users can dance. Had they used an actual wheelchair user in that role, the dance sequence could have involved Artie going to dance camp and learning wheelchair dance, and they could have choreographed a superb dance sequence. Instead, they cast themselves into a corner by using a nondisabled actor.

Glee for some reason seems to be under the impression that people can't dance in wheelchairs. They claimed to have invented wheelchair choreography with 'Wheels' despite ample evidence to the contrary; seriously, search YouTube for 'wheelchair dancing,' and I note that they had to use a stuntman for most of Artie's moves in that episode, suggesting some awareness of the fact that there are actually wheelchair athletes that can do things that nondisabled people who are unfamiliar with a chair cannot do.

Pretty much all of the statements made about McHale's casting smell like rotten fish to me. They 'needed an actor who can sing and dance'? Well, Kevin McHale may be able to sing, but he certainly can't dance in a wheelchair, and there are plenty of wheelchair users who are accomplished singers and dancers who would have been a better fit for that role.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 11:28 on 2010-07-06Hiya, welcome to Ferretbrain.

The whole dream sequence thing is just wrong on every level really isn't it?

It seems like the producers genuinely did believe the fact that Kevin McHale *isn't* a wheelchair user somehow made him uniquely qualified to play one.

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 19:54 on 2010-07-06Wow, I know we've had actual known writers commenting on Ferretbrain once or twice before but this is the first time it's someone I've read. Er, hello! [Star-struck.]

I'm amazed to hear they had the gumption to claim to have invented wheelchair choreography. That claim certainly wouldn't have convinced anyone in the UK, where

this wheelchair dance

was all over our televisions many times a day from 2002 to 2006 as a BBC 'ident'.*

* (I don't know whether 'ident' is a term anyone but the BBC uses. It's the little clips a TV channel shows in between programmes or during ad breaks to remind you what channel you're watching.)

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 01:10 on 2010-07-07I would just like to mention that someone I went to college with (who became paralyzed during his sophomore year due to a spinal injury) was recently on Glee. And he wrote a really interesting

blogpost/article

about his experience with the show. Just thought you all would be interested.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 10:28 on 2010-07-07Obviously it's great that your friend's landed a part in the series, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with his complaining about people criticizing the show. He's entitled to his opinion of course, but so are other people.

I have absolutely no doubt that the cast, crew and writers of /Glee/ are not *consciously* ableist. I have no doubt that they will be very nice to your friend, but it *is* legitimate to criticize them for casting an able-bodied actor as Artie, just as it would be legitimate to criticize them for having a white girl black up to play Mercedes.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 17:51 on 2010-07-07@Dan

Coming from a background where I've been on both sides of the casting table (I'm an actor and I've helped cast things as well), I can't really agree completely with how heated everyone is about Artie's casting. Yes, it would have been great if they found an actor in a wheelchair to play Artie, but for me, as long as equal consideration was given to both abled and disabled actors, I really can't get too angry about it.

Of course, I realize that my opinion comes with privilege and that, of course, as an able-bodied person, I don't have much right to say anything either way. The reason I linked Zach's article was because I thought there was more meaning to hearing his opinion than mine. But I'm certainly not going to say that anyone is wrong for being upset. It's just not something I personally agree with. And to me, the fact that Zach got a part on the show (even though he was competing against able-bodied actors during the casting session) must count for something?

As far as the dream sequence goes, I highly doubt the show had any idea they would even do that until about two weeks before the episode was shot, and from what I know of TV, it's likely that they just said, "Oh, hey, since Kevin can walk in real life, why don't we do a dream sequence where we see him dance?" Had he actually been a wheelchair-using actor, they obviously wouldn't have done the scene or would have done it a different way. But I might be misunderstanding why exactly people are angry about it.

To be honest though, I have a feeling this is an agree to disagree type of situation.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 00:47 on 2010-07-08

But I might be misunderstanding why exactly people are angry about it.

I'm not really qualified to speak on behalf of People With Disabilities, but if I had to explain why I *think* people are so upset about it, it would be something like this (this may get long).

One way to view disability is that people with disabilities are just people who can't do some things that other people can do. If you follow this definition then casting able-bodied actors in disabled roles is sort of like casting bilingual people in non-bilingual roles: a complete non-issue.

The other way to view disability (as I understand it) is like race or gender: a part of somebody's identity which has physical manifestations. If you follow this definition casting an able-bodied actor in a disabled role is exactly as bad as having black roles played by white actors in blackface.

By the first definition, discrimination against people with disabilities is effectively a non-issue. Disabled people are by definition less able than nondisabled people, and if your disability prevents you from doing something well ... that's why they call it a disability. Many people (including, I suspect, many people with disabilities) are completely okay with the first definition and that is not something I feel in a position to judge. By this definition providing wheelchair access to a public building is effectively a courtesy you provide to the less fortunate.

For many people, however, it is important to recognize that people with disabilities are a social group that can be excluded by social mechanisms. While people with disabilities may do things differently to able-bodied people, they do actually do all of the same things. To these people *failing* to provide wheelchair access to a building is discrimination just as much as it would be to put a sign in the window saying "no blacks no Irish".

The reason people are so upset by the whole "wheelchair users can't dance" theme which runs through Glee is that it reinforces the notion that exclusion is a natural part of what it means to have a disability. To people who subscribe to the second model of disability "wheelchair users can't dance" is exactly as offensive a statement as "gay people can't have children" or "women can't do science".

As you say, it's an agree to disagree situation, I just thought I'd try (as best I can) to explain what I think people are disagreeing about.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 05:34 on 2010-07-08

To people who subscribe to the second model of disability "wheelchair users can't dance" is exactly as offensive a statement as "gay people can't have children" or "women can't do science".

Okay, I see. That clears it up. And yes, wheelchair users *can* dance and it would be nice to see them let Artie do that and achieve his dream.

If you follow this definition casting an able-bodied actor in a disabled role is exactly as bad as having black roles played by white actors in blackface.

This is where it gets tricky for me. And I'm not sure I can explain this without sounding horribly insensitive, but I'll give it a go.

For me, saying that only a wheelchair using actor should play a wheelchair using character is an idea that can be taken to rather dangerous place. If you start saying that people can only play roles that they actually are, you're saying that only straight actors can play straight roles or only Jewish actors can play Jewish characters. Anyone with the right look and skills should be considered for any role. The whole point of acting is to become something or someone that you're not. And to take that to another level, I work with a disabled actor in my workshop classes, and I know for a fact that he wants to be considered for parts that are *not* written to be disabled. If we want casting directors to consider him for non-disabled parts, I feel like we need to extend that to "consider everyone who could play this character for the part". And from there, I trust that the casting people will actually pick the person who is most right for the role. And having met many casting directors, trust me, they're really very good at it.

Again, I know people will disagree with me, and they have every right to. I just wanted to add something from an acting viewpoint as well. (Please don't bite my head off....)

permalink

-

go to top

Shim

at 11:37 on 2010-07-08(warning, long post)

For me, saying that only a wheelchair using actor should play a wheelchair using character is an idea that can be taken to rather dangerous place. If you start saying that people can only play roles that they actually are, you're saying that only straight actors can play straight roles or only Jewish actors can play Jewish characters. Anyone with the right look and skills should be considered for any role. The whole point of acting is to become something or someone that you're not.

I can see where you're coming from and agree to some extent, but I think there's a couple of issues involved here.

For one thing, there are several types of characteristic that might affect casting.

- There are characteristics that almost inevitably affect the character: age, gender, ethnic group, height, body type, certain physical disabilities. The actor's traits carry across to the character unless massive effort goes into disguising them.

- There are characteristics that genuinely limit what the actor can do, including some physical and mental disabilities, but also ability (singing, multilinguism, etc.). This means that actor can't do specific things, but doesn't mean the character has to be

portrayed

in that way: you can avoid showing those activities, or use stunt doubles and voice doubles.

- There are "hidden" traits that don't necessarily affect the actor's range of ability or come across to the character. These include sexuality, regional origin, social class, and some mental conditions.

The first category tend to restrict what roles people can do because many roles are designated for specific types of person. This is especially the case with historical figures, but also applies to stories in particular settings and particular types of character, or to combinations of characters. Dame Judy Dench cannot credibly play Harry Potter. Arnold Schwarzenegger makes an unconvincing Gandhi. Children are often expected to be the same ethnic group as their parents. A cast of white kids just don't fit in a Chinese epic set in the Qing Dynasty. A very short cast is not a realistic basketball team, and a very fat cast is not a realistic national football team. Theatre tends to be far more generous with this sort of casting than film and TV. Taking the semi-realism of film & TV as the standard, then yes, I'd argue that Jewish actors (or at least, actors who look Jewish*) should play the characters.

The second category makes it difficult for actors to play particular roles. Stephen Hawking doesn't match up to Arnie as Conan and the work required to allow him to play the part would be astronomical (how appropriate). Similarly, if someone has an unshakeable heavy Russian accent, they just may not be suitable as Queen Elizabeth. Deafblind actors may struggle in a Jackie Chan film. However, as I said, you might be able to adapt the part or avoid or double certain activities to make them a viable choice, and of course the severity of these restrictions varies. In some circumstances, though, it seems like a reasonable decision to say a person is unsuitable.

The third category really shouldn't enter into the casting process. They might affect an actor's ability to get into character, but for a good actor, shouldn't define whether or not they can do the part. There's no reason why a straight part has to be played by a straight actor.

However: there is also the issue of equal opportunities, or more specifically fair opportunities.

While many roles could be played by anyone, they are often effectively restricted. Minority actor X might be a great fit for the grandfather role, but if the rest of the family has been cast as a different ethnic group, the directors simply can't see a way to fit X in. Or it would require a significant rewrite, whereas actor Y can slot straight in there. If the plot requires the heroine to have life-changing experiences while running marathons, an actress who can't walk or run is a big obstacle. If it's a full-blown kung fu film, a complete ignorance of kung fu is a problem.

Other roles require specific actor traits, so your Aboriginal family need to look more or less Aboriginal, Henry VIII needs to be a Caucasian bloke, and your basketball players need to be tall.

A third type of role needs someone who can portray a particular type of character, without necessarily needing that trait themselves. This ties in with the third category: traits like personality, nationality, class, education, magical powers, emotions, illness and some disabilities can be portrayed by actors without those traits.

The thing is that while the second type of roles exclude majority actors who don't fit the bill, both the first and second types tend to exclude minorities. This means a far smaller range of opportunities is open to them, which in itself reinforces the problem because it's harder to build up a reputation, experience and contacts. That being the case, I'd say it's even more important to consider them carefully for minority-specific roles, and to be

less

open to rewrites and other adaptive measures for the sake of casting non-minority actors.

Wheelchair users are actually a slightly unusual case, because you don't need to be a wheelchair user to act the part. This puts them at an even greater disadvantage than many other disabilities, because not only are they excluded from many roles not written for wheelchair users; they are also competing with able-bodied actors (who have had more opportunity to get experience and recognition) for roles as wheelchair-using characters. Thus, open casting for wheelchair users reinforces the discrimination. Hence the blackface comparison.

Obviously that doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered for non-chair-using roles, any more than all-women MP shortlists mean women shouldn't apply for other constituencies. It's not really about making casting completely open; it's about preventing passive disadvantage to minorities from the passive advantage and sheer numbers of the majority.

*I appreciate this is getting into the situation where people are concerned by ethnic minority A actors taking roles as ethnic minority B characters. I don't want to discuss that right now, I was just referring to getting a convincing cast.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 12:12 on 2010-07-08

Anyone with the right look and skills should be considered for any role.

I think this is the crux of the issue (and again this might get a bit long).

For many years, to a white audience, a man in blackface had the right "look" to play a black man on stage or on film. Even after people came to realize that this was not acceptable, the film and television industry carried on doing the

exact same thing

with Asian characters because, to a white audience as long as somebody has their eyes taped back they look convincingly Asian (scanning down the wikipedia article, people still do this today). Of course to a lot of Asian people this is fantastically offensive.

To a lot of disabled people, Kevin McHale absolutely does *not* have the "right look and skills" to be considered for the role of Artie. For a start he can't dance in a wheelchair which for somebody in a show which is all about singing and dancing is a bit of a flaw. Not only that, but (I am given to understand) many people find the way McHale handles a wheelchair awkward, uncomfortable, and unconvincing. To people who actually use wheelchairs, McHale does not do a convincing job of portraying somebody who spends a large proportion of every day in one.

None of these things are immediately obvious to an able-bodied audience (or, I suspect, to able-bodied casting directors) because we define disability by inability, and think that being a wheelchair-user means "not being able to walk" instead of "being able to use a wheelchair". The reason many people find "crip drag" offensive is because they feel it should not be up to able-bodied people to decide what disabled people are supposed to look like.

I absolutely believe that Kevin McHale was chosen because he had the right look and skills to play Artie, but I also believe that what people considered to be the "right look and skills" to play Artie was based on quite a lot of harmful misconceptions about disability.

Put it this way. Look at the following picture

of the cast

. Perhaps I'm just being guided by hindsight but just looking at those pictures (which are all head-and-shoulder shots) you know *instantly* which of those characters is "wheelchair kid" - it's the pale gawky looking one because that's what able-bodied people think disabled people look like. It's even more apparent in the

DVD Cover

where he is actually pulling the "biting your own ear" face I describe in the article.

If I was a casting director, Kevin McHale is exactly the person I would cast as wheelchair kid. He looks exactly how I expect disabled people to look (pale, unhealthy, and uncomfortable) and his awkwardness in a wheelchair wouldn't even register with me, because I *expect* disabled people to move awkwardly because, well, they're disabled.

And to take that to another level, I work with a disabled actor in my workshop classes, and I know for a fact that he wants to be considered for parts that are *not* written to be disabled. If we want casting directors to consider him for non-disabled parts, I feel like we need to extend that to "consider everyone who could play this character for the part".

I think you're in danger of falling into the "reverse prejudice" trap here.

There is a big difference between disabled actors wanting to be considered for roles that are not specifically written as disabled, and non-disabled actors wanting to be considered for roles that are. Not least of those differences is the fact that while disabled actors are routinely *not* considered for roles that aren't specifically written for them, they have to be especially protective of those that are.

To come back to the race example, it's the difference between a black actor wanting to be considered for the role of Dr Who and a white actor wanting to be considered for the role of Martin Luther King Jr. One involves taking a character who habitually (and for no especially good reason) is cast as white and asking for the opportunity for equal treatment. The other involves asking people to accept that one of the most famous and significant figures in the civil rights movement can be adequately represented by a white guy.

There is a big, big difference between actors with disabilities, or actors of colour, or female actors, asking to be considered for parts in which race, disability, and gender play no significant role, and white, able-bodied male actors asking to take roles which *are* specifically written as disabled, non-white, or female. (I should add that gender isn't a great example here, because regendering roles is slightly different to merely whitewashing them).

What's offensive about blackface, and about yellowface, and about crip drag, is the notion that "white and able-bodied" is some kind of master template from which everything else can be derived. A black man is not just a white man with dirty skin. An Asian person is not just a white person with their eyes pulled back. A disabled person is not just an able-bodied person sitting down.

Should every actor who *can* play a role be considered for that role? Absolutely. But for many people an able bodied actor *can not* play the role of a wheelchair user. For many people Kevin McHale *is not* convincing as Artie, because Artie is supposed to be a wheelchair user and Kevin McHale *obviously* isn't.

And having met many casting directors, trust me, they're really very good at it.

I'm sure they are, but that does not mean they are without prejudice, or do not have privilege.

Kevin McHale was an excellent choice for Artie in the sense that he looks exactly the way the average, able-bodied audience member expects a wheelchair user to look. He was also an excellent choice for a character whose entire arc seems to be about how having a disability means having a less complete life. Insofar as Artie's function as a character is to be tragic and sympathetic, he is well cast.

The problem a lot of people seem to have with Kevin McHale is not that he did not fit the character per se, but that the character itself is a harmful jumble of stereotypes.

I hope this doesn't come across as biting your head off, just still trying to explain why I think the criticisms of McHale are legitimate.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 15:52 on 2010-07-08

I absolutely believe that Kevin McHale was chosen because he had the right look and skills to play Artie, but I also believe that what people considered to be the "right look and skills" to play Artie was based on quite a lot of harmful misconceptions about disability.

Just wanted to say I thought this whole post summed up the issues really well, at least the way I see them at play. If we lived in a world where the majority of people used wheelchairs, McHale's awkwardness at handling one would probably be a no-brainer. That kind of unconscious thinking happens a lot with the white able-bodied template. Like as I often said w/regard to the Avatar casting, nobody ever considered making the LOTR cast there were no discussions about Middle Earth not really being Europe and therefore the entire Fellowship should be Asian--on the contrary both there and Harry Potter it was agreed right away that convincingly white and British was the starting point for everyone.

Basically, I think we're trying to work towards a comfortable balance between blind casting where the audience is expected to accept an actor whose race isn't supposed to be taken literally and specific casting where race is an issue.

I do remember once someone on lj making a horribly misguided (imo) post where she seemed to literally be arguing that whatever specific background an actor had, that was what the character had. She was arguing that it was stupid for people to talk about the Jimmy Smits character on The West Wing being the first Latino US president when Bartlett was a Latino president--because Martin Sheen is. Even though Bartlett's ethnicity was a stated part of his character. *That* I think was definitely a case of the slippery slope where things are getting silly.

Also, we shouldn't forget that the show does have an actual disabled cast member in a recurring role--the Cheerio who has Down Syndrome. Perhaps Life Goes On changed things when it came to that particular condition, or maybe it's that it's got such a distinctive physical look (distinctive enough that it's almost like a wheelchair only it's not a prop or a costume), or again maybe it's that people with Down Syndrome have proven themselves enough as a group as actors, but I would have been surprised if they'd cast that role with a person who didn't have Down Syndrome.

permalink

-

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 15:58 on 2010-07-08Also while I'm blabbing on, let me go off on a tangent. But I wonder if another unconcious prejudice that can come into play is a discomfort with the disabled. Of course I can't say this was at all a factor in the Glee casting. But I think there are situations where able-bodied people are just made a little less comfortable or a little more nervous when dealing with someone who has different limitations. So that could probably also weigh in favor of preferring the able-bodied actor. Obviously not all the time, as the actor who wrote the blog is disabled and got a part--though even there if this kind of thing was an unconscious factor people would probably feel a lot more confident hiring someone for one episode than as a series regular.

Again, I don't want to make it seem like I'm accusing the Glee cast of doing this, especially not consciously. But it seems like from things I've read disabled people say, this is something they deal with.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 17:24 on 2010-07-08I can't really argue with anything anyone is saying. And it makes more sense to me to call the character of Artie offensive or insulting than to harp on about the casting choice, in my opinion, but that's getting into semantics.

I still can't completely agree with it, but that may be because I Just Don't Get It, which I'm willing to accept and admit that maybe my opinion is a little less significant given my privilege.

But I do want to say that I appreciate everyone responding to me in a calm, non-defensive manner so we could have an actual conversation about what I think is a complicated issue. But I'm not sure I particularly have anything more insightful to say about it at this point. (Also, watch Zach's episode; he did a good job!! ^_^)

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 19:09 on 2010-07-08Yeah, it's been a really interesting discussion. And I think we'd probably all agree that casting is only part of the problem, and not the biggest part. (It's certainly only one of many complaints in Dan's original article.) Even if casting were never affected by prejudice in any way (which I don't think anyone here suggests), we'd still be left with far too many series that are written to either ignore the diversity of people and experiences in the world or deal with that diversity using token characters and cheap stereotypes.

And we'd also probably all agree that the workings of prejudice are much more easily seen over the broad sweep than when looking at any single creative decision. Casting Kevin McHale as a wheelchair-using character would be much less problematic than it is (however much that may be) if the show had lots of actors with disabilities, or if it didn't but there were plenty of other TV series that did, or even if there weren't that many actors with disabilities on our screens but there were enough suitable parts being written to encourage more young people with disabilities to become actors.

permalink

-

go to top

Shim

at 08:42 on 2010-07-09It's always difficult when you're talking about generalities but focusing on a specific example. Quoting Dan in a vaguely web-incestuous way:

"I don't think you can look at any single work of fiction and say "that character, right there, should have been black".

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 12:41 on 2010-08-17The casting issue, in

Glee

and more generally, on

This ain't livin'

from a few days ago.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 12:42 on 2010-08-17A little happy news: I just started watching

Breaking Bad

, which includes a character with cerebral palsy played by an actor who actually has cerebral palsy. At last.

permalink

-

go to top

http://someobsessive.livejournal.com/

at 10:06 on 2010-08-20I just wanted to let you know that I have included several quotes from your articles on my new tumblr:

http://wholesomeobsessive.tumblr.com/

if you would like to check it out.

Sister Magpie quotes are also there.

Thank you for your articles, and for directing me over to deathtocapslock. I am being very well entertained this summer.

:-)

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 15:00 on 2010-12-21Still not seen

Glee

, and still probably never will, but do have a few thoughts. One of them being that Noah Antwiler of The Spoony Experiment

also took exception to The Immortals

. In detail.

And while I haven't see the show, ptolemaeus watched the first season with our cousin last year, and she had the same problems with

Throwdown

(the Sue-Sylvester-tries-divide-and-conquer-tactics episode) you bring up. Color me unsurprised.

Also, did I dream up the part where somebody (and I could've sworn it was Dan), said something about Sue Sylvester later being depicted as more sympathetic, and that this actually makes the show's problems *worse* because—if I remember the argument correctly—now it's a likable person saying and thinking all those nasty things? That struck me as a bit odd, because while I can sort of see the logic behind it, I've always viewed treating nasty characters sympathetically and not just saying “ehn, they're just evil,” as a good thing. I didn't dream all that up, did I?

Dan: Partially it was a holdover from an earlier version of the article that was going to focus more on the "lampshading" element of Glee.

Was that version also going to go more into what exactly the “Trouble With Deconstruction” is? From all I've heard, it sounds more like the trouble is that the show lampshades it's own stereotypes without really questioning or subverting (deconstructing) them.

permalink

-

go to top

https://profiles.google.com/117083096049946525193

at 02:46 on 2013-07-07Oh, this has only gotten far worse as the show has hit it's fourth season.

First, Brittany and Santana did become a couple and broke up. Brittany, being bisexual, decided to date Sam (a season 2 character), but was hesitant because the lesbian blogging community was going to hurt him. I wish I was making this up. AfterEllen had a riot on that. Sorry we're upset that our representation isn't on screen anymore. And as a lesbian myself, I do have to say, it was really frustrating how for the rest of the series, except maybe two times, they completely forgot those two dated.

The biggest fail though is the transgender (mtf) black woman named Unique. First of all, it took me a while to figure out whether she was supposed to be transgender or a drag queen (because she talks in the third person regularly, and talks about Unique like a persona, not as herself). Second, SO MANY TIMES in the show, people are calling Unique Unique/Wade (the male name). Now, I know a million idiots across America are going to think this is acceptable behavior. And finally, they made her a catfish. The transgender as deceptive/predatory is a pretty common trope, and I think a damaging one, for everyone involved.

And the final Glee minority fail. Unique is also a big girl, and is basically the replacement for Mercedes. Brittany literally calls Unique Mercedes, SEVERAL TIMES. Uuuuugh. . .

permalink

-

go to top

Fishing in the Mud

at 23:41 on 2013-07-07Ryan Murphy can totally make fun of lesbians and transgender people because he's gay. Isn't it great?

Yeah, no. What a fucking worthless hack.

[miasswier]

miasswier’s ultimate glee ranking: no 38

38: Wheels

Written by: Ryan Murphy Directed by: Paris Barclay

Overall Thoughts: How in the world did I forget how incredible this episode is?!?!?!! I remember all the awesome things that happen in this episode, but somehow forgot that they all happen in this episode – for some reason I thought Defying Gravity was in “Ballad”? I don’t even know. Anyway, this episode is absolutely fantastic, but I’m going to head straight into what I like about it because I don’t want to repeat myself too much!

What I Like:

This is the first episode of Glee that actually feels like we’re watching an ensemble show. Artie and Kurt get their own subplot, and Tina gets a little bit of the spotlight too. Also, Puck and Quinn get to interact for a solid two or three minutes throughout this episode without either Finn or Rachel getting involved. And Will isn’t as central to the plot! It’s honestly fantastic

The introduction of Becky Jackson, who would become one o f the most hilarious characters in all of Glee. It’s really interesting seeing her here, and how different she is from how she ends up. You can definitely see Sue’s influence on her, and while in some areas it’s a bad thing, overall I think it was really good for her. She ends the series with so much confidence that it’s absolutely blinding, and I think the way Sue treats her really helps her.

Sue calling Will out for being ableist in the guise of being open-minded. Becky very clearly has no problems with Sue telling her she needs to improve, and she also responds to her in a way that no other Cheerio ever does – she straight up tells Sue that she’s trying, but it’s difficult. No other Cheerio ever says anything like that to Sue. Even though we watch Becky grow in her confidence and independence, you can already see the seeds of that here. Seriously, I just absolutely adore Becky Jackson and her relationship with Sue, and I’m totally willing to fight people who don’t.

The scene with Puck and Quinn “baking”. This is honestly the scene that made me fall in love with these two as a couple. It’s adorable, it’s hilarious, and it’s really, really sweet. I think it’s the first time in the whole show that we actually see Quinn genuinely happy. It’s refreshing.

Puck calling Finn out on his shit, how he’s always complaining about how hard this is on him but never seems to realize that it’s a thousand times harder for Quinn. The fact that it took five whole episodes of Quinn being pregnant before somebody asked “what about how she’s feeling” is really sad, though.

Burt sticking up for Kurt and not taking any of Will’s bullshit.

Burt being faced with the reality that Kurt is being bullied, and probably will be bullied for the rest of his life. It’s an emotional scene, and while it’s nice to see Burt tell Kurt that “nobody pushes the Hummel’s around”, you can also see how it’s just hitting him that Kurt doesn’t have it easy, and will never have it easy, all because other people are narrow minded and stupid. He never once blames Kurt or asks him to stop being himself – in fact, he encourages Kurt to continue being himself, and seems legitimately angry when Kurt admits he flubbed the note. It’s really refreshing, coming from the guy who “isn’t in love with the idea” of his son being gay and isn’t ready to have a conversation about Kurt and guys yet.

Kurt being willing to sacrifice a solo because he doesn’t want his father to be hurt by the bullying he faces. I feel like this really defines a huge part of Kurt’s character, and it’s nice to see him becoming fleshed out.

Will drawing attention to the fact that McKinley High isn’t accessible, and Artie wanting to use the Glee bake sale money to build a ramp in the auditorium. I’m really glad that they touched on the issue of accessibility without getting too “life is hard enough for Artie as it is can’t we make it just a little easier for him?”, which I find a lot of shows, movies, and books tend to do. They focus wasn’t on how hard Artie’s life is because he’s in a wheelchair, it was on the fact that the lack of accessibility in the school is what makes his life harder. He isn’t the problem the – the school is.

Brittany openly and honestly being friends with Becky – not because she feels pity for her, but because she actually likes her. I have no idea how this Brittany eventually turned into the awful, mean-spirited Brittany that we were subjected to throughout most of seasons 3 and 4. I feel like people always want to focus on Quinn’s character assassination but honestly, this show did Brittany so dirty.

I have a bit of a love-hate relationship with the scene between Tina and Artie at the end. I do think they’re super cute and super sweet, and the scene definitely has that tone. Tina revealing that she doesn’t have a stutter and doesn’t feel like she has to keep faking because now she’s in Glee and doesn’t want to push people away is sweet, but I also really appreciate that Artie calls her out when she says that they’re the same, because he’s right, when it comes to this, they’re not. He can’t fake the fact that he’s in a wheelchair, and it was unfair of her to act like they have something in common because of a speech impediment that she’s been faking for years. That being said…

Things I Don’t Like:

… it’s not like Tina gets to fake being Asian. Artie acts like because Tina doesn’t have a stutter she suddenly isn’t a minority and doesn’t know what it’s like to be discriminated against. To be fair to Artie, though, Glee never really addressed race issues on a large scale, and was honestly full of microaggressions and just… overall had a very bad, very ugly relationship with race. So it’s not like Artie is specifically being ignorant (and I mean, for fucks sake, he’s a fourteen-year-old, I don’t expect him to be completely knowledgeable on intersectionality and oppression), it’s just how Glee rolls. It still rubs me the wrong way, though.

Small addition to that, who the fuck has their first date in their high school after hours? Why?

The fact that we finally get to see some of the everyday struggles that Artie faces because the school simply isn’t accessible, but it’s shown through a montage of Finn and Rachel struggling with these things.

Finn and Rachel using a fake disability in order to get Finn a job. That is honestly so disgusting and gross, I can’t even begin to explain how awful it is. Ugh.

Quinn making no effort to get a job herself, but insisting that Finn do so. Look, I’m usually on Quinn’s side in this whole story, but in this episode she is honestly being quite unreasonable. Especially considering Finn isn’t actually the father of her baby, and she knows that full well.

Rachel acting like she deserves the solo that was literally handed to her. If you don’t work for something you can’t get mad when it’s taken away. Also, that line where she’s like “maybe one day you’ll find a way to create teaching moments without ruining my life” makes me roll my eyes SO HARD. How is Will supposed to ever teach anybody anything if you demand all of his attention and every single song ever sung? For fucks sake…

Everybody acting like Brittany shouldn’t be hanging out with Becky, and seeming surprised that the two are friends. Fuck off, you assholes.

Songs

Dancing with Myself: Artie’s first real solo. I can’t believe it took nine episodes for us to get this. Artie’s voice is amazing, and this slowed-down version of the song really works. I especially like how the instruments fade away at the end and we see that it’s really just Artie singing alone in the auditorium. It really works to showcase how lonely and isolated he feels. My only issue is that we are forced to watch Will awkwardly creeping. I wish they could have let Artie just have his moment, instead of making it about Will deciding to be Noble.

Defying Gravity: I’m a huge Wicked fan, so this cut version has always sort of irked me, mostly because they cut my favourite part of the song. I also am not really a fan of the Rachel sections of this song (and I’ve never bothered listening to the full Rachel solo version) because I feel like she sounds too much like Idina Menzel and what’s the point of doing a cover if you just sound exactly like the original singer? The format of it for the diva-off is cool, though, and Kurt sounds awesome. It really does suck that they forced him to mess up the note when Chris Colfer specifically wanted to sing this song.

Proud Mary: I love this song! The energy is awesome, and I feel like it’s the first real group number that we get. The choreography is awesome, and the outfits are adorable. Really a fantastic way to end a fantastic episode.

[preemploymenttest]

Adverse Impact

What does adverse impact mean? And how can I minimize the negative impacts of my decisions? The term 'adverse impact' refers to the unintended consequences of a decision or action. Learn more: https://blog.hirenest.com/what-is-adverse-impact-how-to-minimize-adverse-impact-2022/

For example, if you hire someone who has a criminal record, then they might steal from you. Or if you fire someone without giving them notice, they might sue you. These types of situations are called adverse impact because they have a negative effect on the organization. Adverse impact happens when you take actions that negatively affect other employees, customers, suppliers, partners, or even society at large. 

If you want to reduce the likelihood of these negative outcomes, you should consider the following three steps: (1) identify potential problems before taking action, (2) evaluate the risks associated with each option, and (3) choose the least risky course of action.

How can you reduce adverse impact?

The first step is to understand what makes people tick. This means understanding personality traits like conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience, extraversion, and emotional stability. These traits influence everything from how we interact socially to our ability to focus at work. You can find out more in our article: https://blog.hirenest.com/what-is-adverse-impact-how-to-minimize-adverse-impact-2022/

Once you know this information, it's important to consider how each trait affects job performance. For example, if someone has high levels of conscientiousness, they're likely to be detail oriented and organized. They may also be reliable, punctual, and hardworking. But they might not be able to handle pressure well, so they could struggle in sales roles where deadlines are tight. On the other hand, someone who scores highly on agreeableness will tend to be friendly, empathetic, and easygoing. That person would do well in customer service positions but might find working under pressure challenging.

In addition to knowing yourself, you should also take into consideration the company culture and its values. If you don't fit in, it's unlikely you'll succeed. It's also important to remember that the best employees aren't necessarily the most talented ones; instead, they're those who are willing to adapt to new situations and embrace change.

What is an adverse impact example?

Adverse impact examples include things like discrimination, harassment, bullying, and physical violence. These experiences may happen at work, school, home, online, or anywhere else where people interact. They can affect anyone regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or any other characteristic.

The term “adverse impact” is used by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to describe situations where someone has experienced something negative because of his or her protected characteristics. For example, if a person is fired from a job because he or she is black, this would be considered an adverse impact.

Calculate Adverse Impact Ratios

The most common adverse impact ratio is the “pay gap.” This refers to the pay differential between men and women doing similar work. It’s calculated by dividing the average salary of male employees by the average salary of female employees. For example, if the average salary of all male employees is $100,000 per year and the average salary of all female employees is $80,000 per year, then the pay gap would be 20%. A more sophisticated approach to calculating the pay gap is called the “adverse impact ratio.” This method takes into account factors such as education level, occupation, industry, experience, job tenure, and location. Using this approach, the pay gap drops to 7%.

Pay Gap vs. Adverse Impact Ratio. The pay gap between men and women has narrowed significantly since the 1970s, but it still exists today. Women earn less than men in every occupation except one — teachers. In fact, they earn only 77 cents for each dollar earned by men. This gender wage gap is not new; it has existed throughout history. It was first documented in 1543 by German mathematician Christine de Pizan in her book “The Book of the Body Politic.” She wrote that women were paid half what men were paid for doing the same work.

Conclusion 

When we talk about adverse impact, we mean any negative effect your business may experience as a result of implementing a new technology. This includes anything from lost revenue to increased costs. It also includes any legal issues that might arise. Adverse impact is something every company should consider when making decisions about adopting new technologies. If you don't think about it now, you'll regret it later. The first step in minimizing adverse impact is understanding what it means. A lot of people assume that if they implement a new technology, then they will suffer some sort of financial penalty. That's not necessarily true. For example, many companies already offer free Wi-Fi at work. They just charge employees for using it. So, by offering free Wi-Fi, they're actually saving money. But this doesn't mean that they won't lose customers because of it. In fact, most businesses find that providing free Wi-Fi makes them more attractive to potential clients.

The second step in minimizing adverse impact involves asking yourself whether the technology really needs to be implemented right away. There are times when waiting a few months before rolling out a new technology could save you a lot of headaches down the road. For example, if you know that you want to roll out a new product but aren't sure which one yet, you can wait to see how well it does before deciding to invest in manufacturing it. Or, if you've decided to launch a new service, you can hold off on signing up customers until you're confident that you can handle all of the demand.

Finally, you need to ask yourself whether the technology you're considering has any downsides. Some technologies come with risks attached. For example, if your organization uses social media sites like Facebook or Twitter, you need to understand who else is using those platforms so that you can avoid posting sensitive information. And, if you decide to start accepting credit cards online, you need to ensure that your website isn't vulnerable to hackers. If you want to know more about What Is Adverse Impact? How to Minimize Adverse Impact 2022, read this article: https://blog.hirenest.com/what-is-adverse-impact-how-to-minimize-adverse-impact-2022/

[flipfundingstuff]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Taught Us How to Be Brave

Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Friday night at the age of 87. In the subsequent days, headlines have been dominated by the news of her passing. They celebrate her legacy and remember her greatest one-liners (and the iconic Kate McKinnon impressions she inspired). They ruminate on what comes next. The Supreme Court justice’s death, a mere 46 days before the election, is sure to have massive implications. Will the Republicans follow the precedent they set in 2016, or will they attempt to appoint a new justice before the election? 

All of this is important, and it deserves space in our cultural consciousness. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, often referred to by the moniker RBG, was a giant in modern American history. Her work and her legacy deserve to be reckoned in a way that matches the scale of her impact. But there’s something else that’s worth coverage, too. And that’s what RBG meant to many of us on a personal level. 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg sat on the Supreme Court for all but 4 years of my life. When I say I do not know the world without her influence, I mean that quite literally. In 1996, Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion in “United States v. Virginia,” which challenged a policy that barred women from attending the Virginia Military Institute. Because of that decision, I could not be prohibited from the college or university of my choosing based on gender alone. Three years later, in 1999, Americans with disabilities solidified their protections under “Olmstead v. L.C.” In 2015, she supported marriage equality for LGBT Americans in what became a landmark decision. 

Throughout her career, she tirelessly championed the rights of all Americans. She famously stated, “I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” The world I grew up in, where I formed my opinions of what was possible, was shaped by glimpses into the world RBG was trying to create. What could happen when our brethren took their feet off our necks? More Americans possessed the agency to take their destinies into their own hands, and the American Dream opened up to those who’d never dared to dream before. 

As Lady Gaga said approximately one thousand times leading up to the 2019 Oscars, “There can be a hundred people in the room, and 99 don’t believe in you, but one does.” For many of us, RBG was that person. Even when we didn’t realize it because she wasn’t a direct influence, she helped craft the system that allowed more Americans to dream big. And she removed the institutional barriers that had prevented us from succeeding. 

It wasn’t until the 2010s that she achieved pop culture icon status as “The Notorious RBG.” Despite the many ways she contributed to the fabric of our lives in majority opinions, she is perhaps best known for her role as the great dissenter. 

In 2007, the Supreme Court made it harder for women to sue their employers over allegations of wage discrimination. The decision was so upsetting to Ginsburg that she made the unusual move (at the time) to read her dissent from the bench. She said, “In our view, the court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.”

In 2013, she penned the fiery dissent that earned her the Notorious RBG nickname. In the Shelby County case, the majority opinion invalidated a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that protected citizens by requiring federal oversight if certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination wanted to make changes to their voting procedures. 

“The sad irony in [the court’s] utter failure to grasp why the [law] has proven effective,” she wrote. “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you’re not getting wet.”

What made her dissents so popular? She sure had a penchant for zingers. As a writer, I can certainly respect that. But I think there was something greater at the heart of it. People gravitated toward RBG because of her determination to continue to speak truth to power. She showed us that no matter how powerful you are (and as a Supreme Court Justice, she was the definition of “a pretty big deal”), there are times where you may feel powerless. She didn’t let those losses shake her from the path of doing what she thought was right.

I was in my early 20s when Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the Notorious RBG. I was beginning to experience firsthand what it was like to have my ideas dismissed because of my gender, ideas that were sometimes immediately repeated by male colleagues who were praised for their forward-thinking imaginations. Those experiences made me want to be quiet. RBG modeled the power of continuing to speak up and speak out anyway. 

Throughout her career, she advocated not just for her rights as a white woman but for the rights of all marginalized and historically underserved groups. She forged a path on integrity and justice for all. She showed us that we can’t expect to win every battle but that we have to show up and keep doing the work.

These lessons have an obvious political application, but her reach was even greater than that. I’ve been inspired by her work to speak up when necessary—though I’m nowhere near the level of her Gins-burns yet. Countless women have been inspired to demand that a brethren’s foot be removed from their necks, to stick it out, and to follow their dreams. 

As we look around at the America that exists now and is yet to come, it is filled with people who have been inspired by RBG and her legacy. I write a lot about small businesses for this blog, so many of my thoughts have circled there. How many women have started their own businesses because of the trail she blazed for us? How many have continued to stick it out when their opinions were outnumbered because of the example she set? How many little girls will grow up trusting their own judgment?

RBG spent her life fighting to advance equality and empower the disempowered. In addition to that, she taught us how to be brave. She taught us how to persevere. She shaped me and many others, and her legacy will continue to live on every time someone chooses bravery in service of justice. It will continue when women, People of Color, LGBT Americans, and people with disabilities follow their dreams because she taught us that the American Dream isn’t for some of us; it is for all of us.

The post Ruth Bader Ginsburg Taught Us How to Be Brave appeared first on Lendio.

from Blog – Lendio https://ift.tt/3mIdikm via IFTTT

[revisitingglee]

S1 E9 - Wheels

an excellent episode that actually covers disability, accessibility, ableism and other forms of discrimination in a great way. this is definitely the best episode so far. 

THE GOOD

- the cheerios opening number with the jump ropes is cool as hell

- the baking scene with Quinn and Puck is cute

i do really like them together

- GO OFF, BURT

Burt has his first moment of being the best character in this show. this man knows how to advocate for his kid and be an ally. we stan

- “i want to be clear. i still have the use of my penis.”

the delivery of this line is incredible

- The scene where Burt talks to Kurt about the person calling him a slur on the phone

he handles this conversation so well. for most dad’s like Burt, you know, the kind that are super masculine and seem conservative, this would majorly set them back in their acceptance of their child. but my man Burt is like no you be yourself, just don’t let anyone push you around or hurt you like this. teaching your kid to stand up for themselves without hiding who they are takes a lot of emotional maturity and wisdom. also Burt and Kurt’s relationship is an amazing and unique father-son relationship. it’s very complex and real. it’s one of the best aspects of the show. 

- Finn replying “you should work on that” when Rachel says people don’t like her

he’s right and she needs someone to say that to her. telling her that people do like her is detrimental to her. she needs to have someone she trusts tell her, even causally that she needs to get it together and be nicer to the people around her.

- DIVA OFF

- JEAN!!!!

- Tina’s big reveal

this adds such an interesting layer to the rest of the episode. the whole episode is about the kids learning what’s it’s like to be disabled, but it is presumed that Tina already understands that lesson somewhat because of her own disability of sorts. her revealing that she is faking highlights the permanence of Artie’s disability. it also shows how faking something like that can hurt people that actually go through the thing. I feel like this scene has a lot to unpack. It’s definitely a complicated scene, but I find it really interesting.  

THE BAD

- stop being such a bitch about money Quinn

he’s not even the father of the baby 

- Artie’s shoelace thing

this is a small detail, but Artie is like struggling to tie his shoelaces, but it looks like he can clearly reach them and he should know how to tie shoes. not to read too much into it, but it does feel like their infantilizing him a little bit when Will ties them for him. 

- god, Rachel sucks so bad sometimes

like we fucking get it. you’re a star, but guess what honey, that means nothing if you’re a bitch. let your TEAMMATES have a moment in the spotlight or at least a chance to audition for one.

- these kids are straight up ableist

them watching Brittney talk to Becky is pretty jarring. why do they care so much that she hangs out with someone with down syndrome. it’s just very unnecessary. also they frame it as Brittney making them less cool by hanging out with some unpopular freak and it goes very unexamined in the show. this scene does not hold up at all.

- Will needs to get off his high horse

Will you are not nearly the champion of diversity you think you are and Sue has a way better grasp on ableism and how to treat disabled people than you do. 

- Burt and Kurt’s last scene

i feel like Kurt throwing the competition to protect Burt is stupid. i understand how seeing your father hurt is tough, but he should have given him a chance to show that he is stronger than that. i feel like Kurt doesn’t understand Burt completely right now and that’s not a bad thing. a kid not understanding their parent is a very real thing. he just really did not have to throw the competition or protect Burt like that. they are both stronger than that and it kinda erases some of the progress made in the last scene. 

THE MUSICAL

- Dancing With Myself (9/10)

I love Artie*, ngl. Kevin McHale has a very unique voice and it’s perfect for this song. I also love how fun and simple their version of the song is. this is an excellent number.

- Defying Gravity (7/10)

this song is a musical theater classic and rocks, but they really don’t do anything that interesting with it. also Rachel was better than Kurt. I’m all for breaking down unnecessary gendered barriers, but she did sing it better. i also just really don’t like Chris Colfer’s voice that much and this song was too high for him.

- Proud Mary (6/10)

ah yes, the infamous Proud Mary in wheelchairs. this was very woke and clever in 2009. it feels strange and a little dated now. I don’t know it has a weird vibe. Mercedes and Artie do sing the heck out of it though and their voices work really well together.

OTHER

- not being able to get a handicap bus is really sad and fucked up, but also feels very realistic

(although it might be illegal because of like antidiscrimination laws or something but i’m not totally sure)

*I do wish he was played by an actual disabled person, but it was 2009 what can you do

[sinrau]

Roger Severino, who directs the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health and Human Services, has long argued that “sex discrimination” protections in the Affordable Care Act aren’t meant to encompass protections for transgender people.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

The Trump administration Friday finalized a rule that would remove nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people when it comes to health care and health insurance.

“HHS respects the dignity of every human being, and as we have shown in our response to the pandemic, we vigorously protect and enforce the civil rights of all to the fullest extent permitted by our laws as passed by Congress,” said Roger Severino, who directs the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health and Human Services, in written statement announcing that the HHS rule had become final. The rule is set to go into effect by mid-August.

This is one of many rules and regulations put forward by the Trump administration that defines “sex discrimination” as only applying when someone faces discrimination for being male or female, and does not protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Supporters of the rule say this is a necessary reversal of Obama-era executive overreach, and will reduce confusion about the legal meaning of “sex discrimination.” Critics argue the rule could further harm an already vulnerable group — transgender people — in the midst of a pandemic and historic unrest spurred by the killing of George Floyd at the hands of police in Minneapolis.

“I can’t help but wonder if the timing [of this rule] is by design so that this is something that people won’t pay attention to,” says Tia Sherèe Gaynor, a political science professor at the University of Cincinnati.

What the final rule does

The rule focuses on nondiscrimination protections laid out in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. That federal law established that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of “race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in certain health programs and activities.” In 2016, an Obama-era rule explained that protections regarding “sex” encompass those based on gender identity, which it defined as “male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female.”

In June 2019, under Trump, the HHS Office for Civil Rights proposed a rule (the one finalized this week) that reverses the one from the Obama administration. Severino explained at the time, “We’re going back to the plain meaning of those terms, which is based on biological sex.” He also said the rule could save hospitals and insurers and others $2.9 billion over five years, since they will be relieved of the requirement to print notices of non-discrimination in several languages and include them with any “significant” mailings.

Under the new rule, a transgender person could, for example, be refused care for a checkup at a doctor’s office, explains Lindsey Dawson associate director of HIV Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. Other possible scenarios include a transgender man being denied treatment for ovarian cancer, or a hysterectomy not being covered by an insurer — or costing more when the procedure is related to someone’s gender transition.

The Trump rule makes changes to gender-based discrimination protections beyond Section 1557 of the ACA; it affects regulations pertaining to access to health insurance, for example, including cost-sharing, health plan marketing, and benefits. Under the new rule, an insurance company could “charge higher premiums or other fees for those who are LGBTQ [or] cancel or deny coverage,” Dawson says. The rule could also mean that those seeking an abortion could be denied care if performing the procedure violates the provider’s moral or religious beliefs.

Even with the rule now finalized, an LGBTQ person who is discriminated against or denied health care can still sue, and courts may rule that their civil rights were violated in such a case. But that’s not an easy avenue, says Dawson.

“Because of limited access to litigation, I think that it’s fair to state that the ramifications [of this rule] could be pretty significant,” she says. Protections will also vary based on where someone lives, she adds, so the rule “creates a patchwork of civil rights, compared to standardized protections.”

For Severino, this move has been a long time coming. He joined the Trump administration from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, where he wrote a paper on gender protections in Section 1557. He’s also a devout Catholic and, as director of the Office for Civil Rights, has made protections of religious freedom a key focus, including the right of doctors to refuse to provide care that contradicts their religious or moral beliefs.

The rule the HHS proposed on gender and discrimination in health care garnered 155,966 public comments.

Ryan Anderson, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation and former colleague of Severino’s, submitted a comment in support of the rule. Anderson says it simply reverses what he sees as the Obama administration’s executive overreach. “Just for the lawmaking process, it’s important that the Trump administration clarify that that’s not what Congress had in mind when they used the word ‘sex,’ ” he says.

Critics worry about access to health care, especially in a pandemic

Mari Brighe, a freelance writer and transgender woman who lives outside Detroit, calls the rule “terrifying.”

“I can relate a decade of stories about getting terrible health care because I’m trans,” Brighe says. “We walk into any given health care situation not knowing whether doctors are going to treat us well, whether we’re going to get high quality care, whether any given, random health care person is going to be terrible to us.”

Once, when seriously ill with the flu and having trouble breathing, Brighe recalls, she was sent home from a hospital in rural New York, and ended up driving 90 minutes and crossing a lake by ferry to get treatment at a hospital in Vermont.

She worries now that the rule could make transgender people — who are already reluctant to seek medical care — all the more likely to avoid coronavirus treatment and testing.

“The way that [rule] reads to me is that people could refuse to collect your COVID specimen because they don’t want to touch a trans person,” she says. “That’s a recipe for spreading a really terrible pandemic among a really, really vulnerable population.”

“I can’t help but think about how this impacts black trans people,” says Gaynor, the political science professor, who notes that African American transgender people are “arguably the most marginalized group in our country.”

African Americans who get COVID-19 are much more likely to die from that infection than are white Americans, statistics show. A recent report from the Williams Institute at UCLA estimates that hundreds of thousands of transgender adults may be especially vulnerable to COVID-19 because they have an underlying condition, are over 65, lack health insurance or live in poverty.

For black transgender people, Gaynor says, “it’s layers of oppression — it’s transphobia on top of racism on top of economic oppression.” All of that could impact their ability to get health care during the pandemic, she says, which in turn, could have public health implications for all.

Katie Keith, a health law professor at Georgetown University, notes that the new rule could have another chilling effect. “Even if no one actually does discriminate more because of the rule, you’ve created a fear,” Keith says.

She points to research documenting how the “public charge” rule — which penalizes people who are seeking to become citizens if they use public safety net programs like nutrition and housing assistance — affected people and programs outside the scope of the rule itself.

“When they target these vulnerable populations, you see less enrollment in health insurance,” she says. “You see folks scared to go to the doctor.”

Although Anderson, at the Heritage Foundation, supports the rule, he says the prospect that it could have a chilling effect is “a very reasonable concern.”

“I don’t think any reasonable person wants to see transgender people not enrolling in health care plans and not having access to health care,” Anderson says. What’s needed, he says, is a “finer grain” approach to this issue — such as, perhaps, a new law in Congress that protects LGTBQ people from health care discrimination generally, but carves out protection for providers to refuse to provide care related to sex reassignment.

What’s Next: A word from the high court and, perhaps, Congress

Now that it’s marked “final,” this rule — which was issued by an agency of the Executive Branch — may now encounter hurdles via the two other branches of the federal government.

This month, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to weigh in on two major cases on the meaning of the word “sex” in employment discrimination. The two cases involve issues closely related to the legal questions at play in Severino’s HHS rule, and the high court’s decision might have major implications for the rule’s legal footing.

“It’s wild that they’re finalizing this rule before we have the Supreme Court decision,” Keith says.

Meanwhile, in Congress, House Democrats have already asserted that they strongly disagree with the HHS rule. In early May, Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement that read, in part: “The Administration must immediately abandon this outrageous, un-American plan and give LGBTQ individuals the reassurance that they will never be denied the health care they or their families need.”

Now that the final rule is out, Congress does have a way of invalidating it, using the Congressional Review Act. That would only happen in this case if — within 60 days that Congress is in session — Trump were no longer president, and simple majorities in both chambers of Congress voted to block the rule. Even if Democrats win big in November, it’s not clear if that’s a possibility given the tricky timeline — Congress is typically in recess in August, and the COVID-19 pandemic may complicate matters further

The date at which the final rule would be able to avoid this congressional threat is a moving target, Keith says. “Folks are watching the calendar now [wondering], ‘When is that 60-day legislative deadline?’ “

What’s much more certain, she says, is that there will be lawsuits to try to overturn the rule or block it from going into effect. LGBTQ rights organizations, Democratic attorneys general, and individuals who claim they’ve been harmed by the rule are all likely to sue the Trump administration and try to get the courts to strike the rule down.

Unless someone does sue and a judge puts the rule on hold, it is set to go into effect in 60 days from the date the rule is published in the federal register.

Transgender Health Protections Reversed By Trump Administration #web #website #copied #to read# #highlight #link #news #read

[shirlleycoyle]

Here Is Best Buy’s Leaked Anti-Union Presentation

In a presentation available to employees that was hosted on an internal company web portal, retail giant Best Buy positioned itself as starkly anti-union, saying that unions led to changes that made organizations "less than fully competitive and less able to respond to customer needs," according to multiple copies of the presentation obtained by Motherboard.

After being approached for comment by Motherboard, Best Buy removed the presentation from its internal messaging system, and said that the presentation does not represent the company's values.

The news comes at a time when tech, retail, and gig workers continue to take collective action to strike or in some cases unionize.

"During the last few years the media has been filled with reports of attempts by unions to modify our country's basic labor laws to make it easier for unions to be successful in organizing employees. As a result, a variety of questions have been asked about Best Buy and its views about unions," the presentation starts. It then says that although Best Buy recognizes unions may have been necessary in the early parts of the industrial revolution, it believes unions have implemented work rules that have made companies less competitive. The presentation points to unionization in the automotive industry in particular.

Do you have internal emails showing how another company is dealing unionization? We’d love to hear from you. Using a non-work phone or computer, you can contact Joseph Cox securely on Signal on +44 20 8133 5190, Wickr on josephcox, OTR chat on jfcox@jabber.ccc.de, or email joseph.cox@vice.com.

The presentation frames its information as impartial, telling readers that "Our goal is to ensure that you make an educated and informed decision. It is your decision, but when any of us are exposed to a new topic or situation, we all make better decisions when we are educated on the subjects." But the presentation disproportionately focuses on perceived negative aspects of unions, saying that joining one can lead to employees being harassed, that bargaining for wages can take much longer, and that, inaccurately, having a union authorization card "is like giving a signed, blank check to a stranger."

The presentation also claims that unions may run community events in order to gather personal information to use in recruiting drives, that union leaders may act with their own interests rather than those of workers, and that individual workers may not get credit for their own good ideas of how to improve the business.

A section of the Best Buy anti-union presentation. Image: Motherboard

When asked for comment on both presentations, Best Buy spokesperson Carly Charlson pointed to the company's Human Rights corporate statement.

"As is clearly outlined in this statement, we support a number of internationally recognized human rights principles, including the freedom of association and collective bargaining," she wrote. "If the above isn’t clear enough, of course we support employees' right to unionize."

Charlson added that the material was created more than 10 years ago for employees at the time who had questions about unions.

"We acknowledge that although the video was designed to be informative, it does not fully align with our company values and those in our Human Rights corporate statement. It has been removed," she added.

A section of the Best Buy anti-union presentation. Image: Motherboard

Although some Best Buy employees Motherboard spoke to didn't know what a union was or didn't see the need for one, multiple other workers did feel forming a union would be beneficial to them and their colleagues.

"1,000 percent we should unionize. Part time employees filled up most of the staff in the stores. Where are we now?! Furloughed and replaced by salary managers. I haven’t met a single person at my store that is happy with how they are being treated," one current Best Buy employee told Motherboard. Motherboard granted multiple current and former Best Buy employees anonymity to speak more candidly about internal company practices and protect them from retaliation.

"I definitely think Best Buy should have a union. Some of the things that go on with the company is ridiculous and needs to stop. But without us having a union to protect us as we voice our concerns and getting backlash, we will get snubbed out like a camp fire every single time," a second employee said.

A section of the Best Buy anti-union presentation. Image: Motherboard

"I believe unions are a great thing for us because Best Buy has a habit of taking advantage of us as employees, I could say that they go as far as to pit us against each other. I feel that if we unionize it would give us a sense of looking out for one another instead of forcing us to work against each other," a third employee said. A fourth current employee also said they think Best Buy employees should unionize.

Some of the employees described what they see as an anti-union culture, too.

"Best Buy will never have a union. It is known if you have worked for the company for a while not to speak or bring up the thought of unions," the second current employee said.

"Best Buy as a company would try their possible best to crush any unions or any idea of it," the third employee added.

Motherboard also obtained a copy of Best Buy's arbitration policy, which means employees cannot sue Best Buy for wrongdoing in court, and instead have to settle any disagreements in a closed-off dialogue with Best Buy itself. These agreements are not uncommon but have faced renewed scrutiny recently; in 2018, Google changed its policy to not hold sexual harassment or assault claims in arbitration after an uproar from employees. Google then expanded this to all employee disputes.

A section of Best Buy's arbitration policy. Image: Motherboard

Best Buy's arbitration policy lists some of the laws that employees are required to only discuss any issues with privately with the company, including The Equal Pay Act, The Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act, The Americans with Disabilities Act, and The Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

When shown the Best Buy presentation, Hugh Baran, staff attorney at the National Employment Law Project, told Motherboard in a phone call that the arbitration policy as written applies not only to Best Buy employees, but also those simply applying for jobs.

"Best Buy and other non-union employers impose forced arbitration requirements and class/collective action waivers largely as they see fit; employees have no say. If Best Buy employees were to unionize, Best Buy couldn’t do that—they would be terms and conditions of employment subject to negotiation as part of a collective bargaining agreement," Baran added in an email.

The presentation is embedded below.

Here Is Best Buy’s Leaked Anti-Union Presentation syndicated from https://triviaqaweb.wordpress.com/feed/

[coldwind-shiningstars]

@myricagales said: hi! I'm not sure where you live, but in many countries employers are legally required to provide accommodation and to not hire someone based on disability is illegal. In my experience they put these things in job descriptions based on legal requirements, but if you contact them and talk about reasonable adjustments there are often ways around things! Sorry if this is overstepping, but just didn't want you to feel limited by wording in job descriptions!

Hey! So I'm pretty sure you meant well and I'm interpreting this in a positive light, but this comes across as kind of condescending and I figured I might as well explain why? And also the Situation I'm/disabled people here are in. idk if you're disabled yourself but it does look like we're in different countries, so. Like... you are overstepping but I'm not angry, I know you didn't mean anything bad, I just figured I'd explain.

first off, yes I know the laws! I have been disabled for many years. Unfortunately with the ADA here we are allowed to request accommodations and sue when they're not granted, but so many places are inaccessible and so many people are ableist. I don't have the time, energy, or money to do even one court case, much less every inaccessible job posting I get.

I've been fighting the disability services office at my university for FIVE YEARS to give me the accommodations I need, and they still don't reply to my emails, make super specific documentation requests that make things take much longer ("no, we need documentation from February, this is from January 25th," as though a six day gap is going to make any difference to my chronic lifelong genetic condition), and tell me that various things are "not their domain" and "talk to someone else." They put "accessible bathroom" signs on very inaccessible bathrooms. They're a department entirely dedicated to providing accommodations and it's STILL a huge sucking energy drain, and I don't get what I need, and I don't have the time, energy, or money to do anything about it beyond send more emails.

As for actually getting hired... yes technically they can't discriminate! But they won't SAY that's why they don't hire disabled people. I read an article recently about disabled health care workers (x) and one of the nurses was rejected from jobs seventy six times. I'm sure none of her rejections said it was because she was in a wheelchair! I'm sure it was always that there was someone more qualified, or that she didn't fit with the company culture, or any other list of reasons. But when it happens that often, you have to wonder.

Also, it's kind of the principle of the thing! While I am worried for my own ability to get a job, things like this discourage disabled people from even trying, especially if it's all they see. So like... technically, while there are ways around it, it's still a barrier? There are a few posts I've seen talking about how weight lifting requirements and "valid driver's license" requirements are ableist even if, when you talk to the company, you can get around them.

So... yes! I can probably get a job. I can probably get accommodations in that job. But that doesn't make the problems I originally complained about... not problems, and not harmful? If that makes sense.

trying to look at Possible Jobs for after I graduate (hopefully) this spring and so many of them say they require lifting ability? For a MEDICAL SCRIBE? Or a medical assistant?

I know doctors in wheelchairs exist etc etc but so much of even the basic information given on jobs etc seems designed to push people out :(

[yuanyuanxu-me]

What is Critical Race Theory (CRT)?

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a framework for analyzing (as well as changing) the realities of race and racism in society. A way of critically looking at race relations today.

Like Critical Pedagogy, CRT is not a thing in and of itself. CRT continues to inspire and inform Critical Pedagogy and critical educational discourse.

CRT is set of lenses (tenets) we can use as critical educators to check ourselves and look at the policies, stories, curricula, and other narratives around us and our students.

Colorblindness

Inspired by MLK ‘I have a dream speech’ - but altered meaning to focus on not seeing difference, rather than original intention/reference towards equality.

Allows you to avoid talking about race, a form of denial (‘ostrich in the sand’), but in the meanwhile Whites face reverse racism.

Connected to differences between Equity and Equality - equal resources do not help equal the systems in place that disadvantage unequally

Does not address inequity directly

Children are aware of racial difference, adults must address but often avoid

Teachers talk of ‘Fear of…’ reinforcing stereotypes, mis-stating, pity, etc.

Seeming neutrality

“The normalization of whiteness produces the coloblind ideology.” (Dipti Desai)

See: CRT Chapter, p. 26; Gloria Ladson Billings, p. 29; Racial Awareness, p. 2-4

Whiteness as property

bell hooks addresses intersection of race and gender, rape as assertion of dominance/dominion “racism and sexism are interlocking systems of domination which uphold and sustain one another” hooks, Race and Sex, p. 59

US was conceived and built on notion of property - connected to citizenship (who could vote, and who could not)

Whiteness connected to privileges - financial benefits and invisible/unearned privileges

Reproduced within structures of capitalism: based on originary system of chattel slavery and violent colonial disposession of indigenous land (bc they did not believe in notion of property/ownership of land), continues through more recent systems of disenfranchisement: Black codes, Redlining, legal definitions of whiteness (Dred Scot, Plessy v. Ferguson)

“Whites know they possess a property that people of color do not and that to possess it confers aspects of citizenship not available to others. Harris’s (1993) argument that the ‘property functions of whiteness’ (p. 1731) - rights of disposition, rights to use and enjoyment, reputation and status property, and the absolute right to exclude - make the American dream of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ a more likely and attainable reality for Whites as citizens.” -- Ladson Billings, p. 26

Explains the expanding wealth gap.

See: Gloria Ladson Billings p. 25-26; Cameron Rowland, 91020000;

Meritocracy (Yuanyuan)

Similar to colorblindness, meritocracy is known as a political effort admitting individual efforts, talents and achievements towards equality regardless of one’s social class and race, aiming to deconstruct oppressive racial structures and reconstruct equitable and socially just relations of power in schools.

Meritocracy creates socioeconomic disparity, which directly affects the distribution of resources and quality of education.

It is closely correlated with high-standard entrance exams/placements, which is dominant by most financially rich and socially powerful elites and aggravates social and financial segregation. -Segregation Has Been the Story of New York City’s Schools for 50 Years, New York Times

Embedded with individual equality, the practice highlights the efforts of individuals, but fails to recognize the function of social, historical, or institutional process. (Ladson-Billings)

Meritocracy doesn’t practically resolve social/political/racial inequality with the existence of “bipartisan support for the privatization of school through charters and vouchers, and high suspension and expulsion rates for Black and Latina/o students at schools”.- Seneca Falls, Selma, Stonewall, Moving beyond Equality. P31-p32

Meritocracy remains dominated by the power structures, as Angela Davis states, “policies of enlightenment by themselves do not necessarily lead to radical transformation of power structures.”

Intersectionality (Alexis)

Recognizing the interconnectedness of social justice movements. It is also a way to recognize people and their identities as complex. Intersectionality does not hold one social justice cause above another, but rather recognizes the link of oppression under systemic constructs. For example, in 1972 the Gay Sunshine: A Newspaper of Gay Liberation published an article called We Are All Fugitives that, “Visually connected queer struggles with anti-prison, anti-colonial, feminist, Black Power and other liberation movements” (Quinn and Meiners P. 30). bell hooks says, “Black liberation struggle must be re-visioned so that it is no longer equated with maleness. We need a revolutionary vision of black liberation, one that emerges from a feminist standpoint and addresses the collective plight of black people.” She’s saying that with out a feminist framework applied to black liberation, the efforts will disproportionatley aid black men and not women. It is the intersection of black liberation and feminism that is necessary for progress.

“There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not lead single-issue lives.” Audre Lorde

Interest Convergence (Sarah W)

Some CRT scholars suggest “interest convergence” in response to contention that civil rights laws serve the interests of whites

Defined as “the place where the interests of whites and people of color intersect“ (Ladson-Billings).

Example of Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday commemoration in Arizona:

State of Arizona originally deemed MLK Jr Day too costly and wouldn’t recognize the holiday for state workers and agencies. African American groups and supporters began boycotting. When the NBA and NFL suggested high profile games not be played in Arizona, the decision was reversed. When the position on the holiday could have negative effects on tourism and sport entertainment venues, state interests converged with the interests of African-American community

“Converging interests, not support of civil rights, led to the reversal of the state’s position” (Ladson-Billings).

Deficit Model (Sarah S)

Focuses on students’ weaknesses

“Critical Race Theory suggests that current instructional strategies presume that African American students are deficient. As a consequence, classroom teachers are engaged in a never-ending quest for “the right strategy or technique” to deal with “at-risk” students.” African American students thus are addressed in a language and manner denoting failure and are often involved in some sort of remediation. When using a set of teaching techniques, the students instead of the techniques are found to be lacking. (Ladson-Billings)

Children are aware of racial differences as well as racism and begin picking apart societal negatives (or weaknesses) which apply to themselves at a young age (Derman-Sparks et al.)

Microaggressions (Zack)

Microaggression is a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group, particularly culturally marginalized groups. (Sue, Capodilupo, Torino, Bucceri, Holder & Nadal, 2007).

The term racial microaggressions was first proposed by psychiatrist Chester M. Pierce, MD, in the 1970s, but psychologists have significantly amplified the concept in recent years.

From Buzzfeed, here are 15 Microaggressions heard by employees:

1.   What are you?

2.   So what do you guys speak in Japan? Asian?

3.   You don’t act like a normal black person, ‘ya know?

4.   Courtney, I never see you as a black girl.

5.   So, like, what are you?

6.   You don’t speak Spanish?

7.   No, you’re white.

8.       So, what does your hair look like today?

9.       So, you’re Chinese, right?

10.   You’re not really Asian.

11.   Why is your daughter so white?

12.   You’re really pretty for a dark skin girl

13.   Can you read this? (A Japanese character)

14.   Why do you sound white?

15.   Can you see as much as white people? You know, because of your eyes?

Anti-essentialism (Victoria)

Has a lot of connection with intersectionality

“No person has a single, easily stated, unitary identity. A white feminist may also be Jewish or working class or a single mother… An Asian may be a recently arrived Hmong of rural background and unfamiliar with mercantile life or a fourth-generation Chinese with a father who is a university professor and a mother who operates a business. Everyone has potentially conflicting, overlapping identities, loyalties, and allegiances.” (Delgado, Stefancic, 2001) Not all people of the same race have the same experiences. There’s a wide variety of experiences within one race, and oftentimes we’ll have multiple identities that will overlap or conflict with each other.

Hegemony (Ari)

-Hegemony is the internalization of dominant structures in society

-internal agreeance & submissiveness of power structures, sometimes because of not wanting to face furthur discrimination (example: refraining from using a non-english language in public)

-attempts to deconstruct hegemony is known as “counter-hegemony”

-power structure examples: white person & POC, male & female, thin person or large person, elder (wise) & younger (inexperienced), able bodied person & disabled person

-being hyper-aware of these and allowing them to continue, joining this system of oppression

[reesebird]

New Post has been published on https://reesebird.com/2019/02/09/are-we-unintentionally-raising-generations-of-disadvantaged-people/

Are We Unintentionally Raising Generations of Disadvantaged People?

Are We Unintentionally Raising Generations of Disadvantaged People?

Over the weekend, I spent a few hours with the older gentleman I know. His wisdom is exceptional. And I'm always prepared to hear what is on his mind. As usual, he engaged me in a thought provoking conversation that may cross the boundaries of political correctness. At the same time, it is a valuable conversation I would like to share.

He started with the following: It is a parent's job to prepare their children for life. When they are negligent in that job, the child could grow up to be a neglected adult. And the child may not have the means and wherewithal to make up the difference. In the future, will children be able to sue their parents for this negligence? Sound farfetched. Consider the following.

The average weight for a newborn is 7.5 pounds. The average weight for a 5'9 "adult male is around 170 pounds. If a boy and girl of average height reach the weight of 170 and 115 pounds respectively by age 10 year, who is responsible for their overweight bodies? What are the repercussions?

If you were to say the children are responsible for eating too much, that would let the parents off the hook. When you have a child, you assume fiduciary responsibility for that child's physical and emotional well-being. Furthermore, as a parent, you are responsible for preparing your children for life as an adult. While ensuring that they receive a formal education is one aspect, physical health can be detrimental to an individual's future.

While the US enforces political correctness, in that we are not supposed to condemn others for disabilities, race, gender or physical appearance, discrimination is broadly practiced by the majority of people. For example, the above-mentioned overweight girl could easily become a 5'4 "adult at 200 pounds. At that weight and height, she could easily become the victim of diabetes, high blood pressure, heart failure, depression, etc. Some people may discriminate against her in job interviews. Her dreams of being a professional athlete would have died on the vine. And her choice of a spouse would most likely be limited.

If a parent has the fiduciary responsibility of preparing a child for a successful future, it would seem the parents failed. The girl above would incur many health care expenses and opportunity costs for job and spouse prospects. Are parents liable for those extraneous expenses and losses? If so, does that mean children will one day be able to sue their parents for parental malpractice – negligence?

Hopefully the world does not come to that. At the same time, there should be a wake up call for people considering having children. No parent has the right to bring a child into the world if they are not prepared to give the child normal advantages, like great health, emotional stability, knowledge through education and experience, etc. While it can be advantageous to have a child explore the world at a young age, it is not necessary. It is important for a child to have working knowledge of self, communication and physical health. What advantages will you give your children?

[cyberpoetryballoon]

Can Restaurants Get Sued for Requiring Face Masks?

As the COVID-19 pandemic has progressed this year, restaurants have faced countless challenges in staying afloat, from losing staff to switching their service to takeout-only to trying to adjust to shifting mandates regarding reopening procedures. And on top of all that, restaurant staff at all levels have had to deal with angry, belittling customers who aren't keen on the new rules. Navigating a widespread health crisis seems particularly difficult in a culture where ‘the customer is always right.’

A few days ago, restaurant owner Katharine Nye Pellerito typed an honest and personal Facebook post about a recent incident in particular that left her reeling. "Last night was tough," she wrote. "We go through each day just trying our best. What are the new rules? What is right? What does the law expect? Who is going to yell at us for trying to do the right thing today? How do we apply guidelines without overstepping the law? [...] Every day we try like our livelihoods depend on it—because they do." 

Pellerito, who runs Vito's Italian Kitchen and Corgans’ Publick House in Harrisonburg, Virginia, said that one of the reasons for her rough night was the behavior of Amanda Chase, a Virginia state senator and Republican gubernatorial candidate. Chase walked into Vito's and promptly turned her dinner run into a political situation: While she waited for her food, Chase allegedly threatened to sue the couple for asking her to wear a mask inside their restaurant—despite the fact that face coverings are required under a current state mandate.

In late May, Virginia governor Ralph Northam issued an order requiring everyone over the age of 10 to wear masks or face coverings indoors, although there are exceptions for those who have breathing problems; for those who cannot remove a mask without assistance from another person; for anyone who needs their mouth to be visible so they can communicate with the hearing impaired; and for those whose health conditions prohibit them from covering their faces. Many restaurants, including Vito's Italian Kitchen, do allow diners to remove their masks when they're seated, and when they're not interacting with any member of the staff. 

Chase allegedly presented a doctor's note, claimed that she had a medical condition that prevented her from wearing a face covering, and called her attorney while she stood unmasked in the Italian restaurant. Pellerito said that Vito's has been fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and offers "reasonable accommodation" (in this case, curbside pickup) to those with protected medical conditions who cannot wear a mask. "Whether our policy is the right or wrong approach, the treatment we received and the behavior [Chase] demonstrated, making sure we knew who she was, was nothing short of appalling," Pellerito wrote. 

In a wordy response that she posted to her official 'Chase for Governor' Facebook page, Chase wrote that she was threatening a small business with a lawsuit because she was thinking of "those with disabilities."

"I could have just allowed them to deny me service and walk away but then I thought of all of those with underlying health conditions and those with disabilities who would not challenge the denial for service and be forced to walk away denied and humiliated," she typed, adding that no one should "feel demoralized, demonized, or forced to explain their medical condition to justify why they are not wearing a mask." (Whatever Chase's medical condition is, it didn't prevent her from wearing a mask when she got a haircut a few weeks ago.) 

Business owners may be left wondering how legitimate a threat like Chase's could be. Can a restaurant owner or, say, a supermarket manager actually get sued for requiring their customers to wear masks? As it turns out, the short answer is yes—but as anybody who has watched 15 minutes of syndicated afternoon television knows, Americans can (and often will) sue each other over literally anything, at any time. 

"Whether that person will win [their lawsuit] is a different question altogether. That’s because the law does not stop a business from having a mandatory mask policy," Eric Meyer, a management-side employment law partner at FisherBroyles, told VICE. "Indeed, a private business can set rules for patron attire as long as those rules do not discriminate based on race, religion, national origin, disability, or any other 'protected class' characteristic. The classic example is 'no shirt, no shoes, no service,' but you can't have a 'no yarmulkes' rule or ban Muslims from shopping." 

At least as of this writing, Chase's threat appears to have just been an unsolicited appetizer, but there have already been several face mask-related lawsuits, and we'll undoubtedly see more of them. 

In Pennsylvania, 35 people have sued the Pittsburgh-based Giant Eagle supermarket chain, arguing that its mask requirement is discriminatory to those with disabilities. Several plaintiffs have alleged that Giant Eagle staffers yelled at them or physically escorted them out of the store for refusing to wear a mask. (However, lead plaintiff Josiah Kostek was arrested for his belligerent behavior at the supermarket's Oil City location, and has been warned against trespassing at the store again.)  

“An overwhelming majority of customers and team members applaud Giant Eagle’s efforts to keep its stores as safe as possible during the covid-19 pandemic,” the supermarket wrote in its response to the lawsuit. “But a small minority object, and some have acted violently toward or sought to intimidate Giant Eagle’s team members who are merely doing their jobs.”

Giant Eagle also provides curbside pickup, grocery delivery, or personal shopping services for customers who cannot wear masks, which are all listed by the ADA as acceptable "alternative methods of service" in this scenario. "Bottom line is the person who is unable to wear a mask must not be denied the opportunity to obtain the goods and services of a business," the ADA writes. 

But, as Meyer explains, there are cases when even those "reasonable accommodations" don't have to be offered—and we're right in the middle of it. "There is an exception, and that's when an individual with a disability poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others," he says. "Science shows that someone who does not wear a face covering is far more likely to spread COVID-19. Thus, someone without a face covering would presumably pose a direct threat to others."

The potential health risk means that even Chase's doctor's note might not matter, legally speaking. "Documentation of a disability is therefore irrelevant. Even if someone has it, they still need to wear a face covering," he explains. "Title III of the ADA allows a business that is open to the public to impose legitimate safety rules. Presumably, a face-covering rule is one of them. But let's assume that a patron can't wear a mask: Can that person wear another face-covering instead, like a shield or bandana? If so, that seems a fair compromise." 

It's also important to note that any questionable "documentation" from suspect organizations like the Freedom to Breathe Agency is worthless. Both the ADA and the Department of Justice have issued warnings about the laminated cards or flyers that claim that the bearer doesn't have to wear a face mask. "Inaccurate flyers or other postings have been circulating on the web and via social media channels regarding the use of face masks and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) due to the COVID-19 pandemic," the DOJ wrote. "[T]he Department did not issue and does not endorse them in any way. The public should not rely on the information contained in these postings."

The DOJ also explained that the ADA "does not provide a blanket exemption to people with disabilities," which is another argument frequently made by the mask-averse. "An individual whose disability does not interfere with wearing a face mask can be expected to wear one," a spokesperson for the Southeast ADA Center told VICE in an email. (For example, the woman who refused to wear a mask inside a California Starbucks said that her 'medical exemptions' included a uterine fibroid and an ovarian cyst—conditions which may impact her reproductive organs, but do not have any logical impact on her breathing.) 

All that said, the Northwest ADA Center does recommend that businesses need to have a "clear policy" of turning away any customer who doesn't comply with their face mask requirements, and they also need to be ready to explain why that person appeared to be a "direct threat" to the health of employees and other customers. (Like, did they present themselves as a sentient version of a COVID-19 symptom chart). 

So yes, you can totally sue that mom-and-pop restaurant or your local grocery store if they ask you to cover your face. Just know that it could be a long and expensive legal battle that will require you to prove that your ADA-recognized disability wasn't accommodated, and that they didn't provide you with an alternate method of ordering dinner or buying a bag of dog food.  

If that sounds like your personal experience, then it sounds like you might have a case. Otherwise, it’s probably much easier (and safer) for everyone to just wear a mask. 

via VICE US - Munchies VICE US - Munchies via Mom's Kitchen Recipe Network Mom's Kitchen Recipe Network

[carolrhackett85282]

Can Restaurants Get Sued for Requiring Face Masks?

As the COVID-19 pandemic has progressed this year, restaurants have faced countless challenges in staying afloat, from losing staff to switching their service to takeout-only to trying to adjust to shifting mandates regarding reopening procedures. And on top of all that, restaurant staff at all levels have had to deal with angry, belittling customers who aren't keen on the new rules. Navigating a widespread health crisis seems particularly difficult in a culture where ‘the customer is always right.’

A few days ago, restaurant owner Katharine Nye Pellerito typed an honest and personal Facebook post about a recent incident in particular that left her reeling. "Last night was tough," she wrote. "We go through each day just trying our best. What are the new rules? What is right? What does the law expect? Who is going to yell at us for trying to do the right thing today? How do we apply guidelines without overstepping the law? [...] Every day we try like our livelihoods depend on it—because they do." 

Pellerito, who runs Vito's Italian Kitchen and Corgans’ Publick House in Harrisonburg, Virginia, said that one of the reasons for her rough night was the behavior of Amanda Chase, a Virginia state senator and Republican gubernatorial candidate. Chase walked into Vito's and promptly turned her dinner run into a political situation: While she waited for her food, Chase allegedly threatened to sue the couple for asking her to wear a mask inside their restaurant—despite the fact that face coverings are required under a current state mandate.

In late May, Virginia governor Ralph Northam issued an order requiring everyone over the age of 10 to wear masks or face coverings indoors, although there are exceptions for those who have breathing problems; for those who cannot remove a mask without assistance from another person; for anyone who needs their mouth to be visible so they can communicate with the hearing impaired; and for those whose health conditions prohibit them from covering their faces. Many restaurants, including Vito's Italian Kitchen, do allow diners to remove their masks when they're seated, and when they're not interacting with any member of the staff. 

Chase allegedly presented a doctor's note, claimed that she had a medical condition that prevented her from wearing a face covering, and called her attorney while she stood unmasked in the Italian restaurant. Pellerito said that Vito's has been fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and offers "reasonable accommodation" (in this case, curbside pickup) to those with protected medical conditions who cannot wear a mask. "Whether our policy is the right or wrong approach, the treatment we received and the behavior [Chase] demonstrated, making sure we knew who she was, was nothing short of appalling," Pellerito wrote. 

In a wordy response that she posted to her official 'Chase for Governor' Facebook page, Chase wrote that she was threatening a small business with a lawsuit because she was thinking of "those with disabilities."

"I could have just allowed them to deny me service and walk away but then I thought of all of those with underlying health conditions and those with disabilities who would not challenge the denial for service and be forced to walk away denied and humiliated," she typed, adding that no one should "feel demoralized, demonized, or forced to explain their medical condition to justify why they are not wearing a mask." (Whatever Chase's medical condition is, it didn't prevent her from wearing a mask when she got a haircut a few weeks ago.) 

Business owners may be left wondering how legitimate a threat like Chase's could be. Can a restaurant owner or, say, a supermarket manager actually get sued for requiring their customers to wear masks? As it turns out, the short answer is yes—but as anybody who has watched 15 minutes of syndicated afternoon television knows, Americans can (and often will) sue each other over literally anything, at any time. 

"Whether that person will win [their lawsuit] is a different question altogether. That’s because the law does not stop a business from having a mandatory mask policy," Eric Meyer, a management-side employment law partner at FisherBroyles, told VICE. "Indeed, a private business can set rules for patron attire as long as those rules do not discriminate based on race, religion, national origin, disability, or any other 'protected class' characteristic. The classic example is 'no shirt, no shoes, no service,' but you can't have a 'no yarmulkes' rule or ban Muslims from shopping." 

At least as of this writing, Chase's threat appears to have just been an unsolicited appetizer, but there have already been several face mask-related lawsuits, and we'll undoubtedly see more of them. 

In Pennsylvania, 35 people have sued the Pittsburgh-based Giant Eagle supermarket chain, arguing that its mask requirement is discriminatory to those with disabilities. Several plaintiffs have alleged that Giant Eagle staffers yelled at them or physically escorted them out of the store for refusing to wear a mask. (However, lead plaintiff Josiah Kostek was arrested for his belligerent behavior at the supermarket's Oil City location, and has been warned against trespassing at the store again.)  

“An overwhelming majority of customers and team members applaud Giant Eagle’s efforts to keep its stores as safe as possible during the covid-19 pandemic,” the supermarket wrote in its response to the lawsuit. “But a small minority object, and some have acted violently toward or sought to intimidate Giant Eagle’s team members who are merely doing their jobs.”

Giant Eagle also provides curbside pickup, grocery delivery, or personal shopping services for customers who cannot wear masks, which are all listed by the ADA as acceptable "alternative methods of service" in this scenario. "Bottom line is the person who is unable to wear a mask must not be denied the opportunity to obtain the goods and services of a business," the ADA writes. 

But, as Meyer explains, there are cases when even those "reasonable accommodations" don't have to be offered—and we're right in the middle of it. "There is an exception, and that's when an individual with a disability poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others," he says. "Science shows that someone who does not wear a face covering is far more likely to spread COVID-19. Thus, someone without a face covering would presumably pose a direct threat to others."

The potential health risk means that even Chase's doctor's note might not matter, legally speaking. "Documentation of a disability is therefore irrelevant. Even if someone has it, they still need to wear a face covering," he explains. "Title III of the ADA allows a business that is open to the public to impose legitimate safety rules. Presumably, a face-covering rule is one of them. But let's assume that a patron can't wear a mask: Can that person wear another face-covering instead, like a shield or bandana? If so, that seems a fair compromise." 

It's also important to note that any questionable "documentation" from suspect organizations like the Freedom to Breathe Agency is worthless. Both the ADA and the Department of Justice have issued warnings about the laminated cards or flyers that claim that the bearer doesn't have to wear a face mask. "Inaccurate flyers or other postings have been circulating on the web and via social media channels regarding the use of face masks and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) due to the COVID-19 pandemic," the DOJ wrote. "[T]he Department did not issue and does not endorse them in any way. The public should not rely on the information contained in these postings."

The DOJ also explained that the ADA "does not provide a blanket exemption to people with disabilities," which is another argument frequently made by the mask-averse. "An individual whose disability does not interfere with wearing a face mask can be expected to wear one," a spokesperson for the Southeast ADA Center told VICE in an email. (For example, the woman who refused to wear a mask inside a California Starbucks said that her 'medical exemptions' included a uterine fibroid and an ovarian cyst—conditions which may impact her reproductive organs, but do not have any logical impact on her breathing.) 

All that said, the Northwest ADA Center does recommend that businesses need to have a "clear policy" of turning away any customer who doesn't comply with their face mask requirements, and they also need to be ready to explain why that person appeared to be a "direct threat" to the health of employees and other customers. (Like, did they present themselves as a sentient version of a COVID-19 symptom chart). 

So yes, you can totally sue that mom-and-pop restaurant or your local grocery store if they ask you to cover your face. Just know that it could be a long and expensive legal battle that will require you to prove that your ADA-recognized disability wasn't accommodated, and that they didn't provide you with an alternate method of ordering dinner or buying a bag of dog food.  

If that sounds like your personal experience, then it sounds like you might have a case. Otherwise, it’s probably much easier (and safer) for everyone to just wear a mask. 

via VICE US - Munchies VICE US - Munchies via Mom's Kitchen Recipe Network Mom's Kitchen Recipe Network