#equal opportunity act

[alwaysbewoke]

[edda-grenade]

when your boss gets Really into the zone when painting and you have to make sure he doesn't get himself assassinated

aka arlathan au, kubide (or halani, in this verse), being the most tired-while-pining bodyguard in all of arlathan

he's pining right back ofc

(kubide belongs to @wanderingnork, and though it doesn't follow any prompt, an entry for @equalopportunitysolas week)

[wonder-worker]

"It is too easy to dismiss [Leonor of Navarre] as an overambitious schemer who would do anything to obtain a crown, shedding the blood of her own siblings and her subjects in order to attain the throne. However, a deeper investigation of her long lieutenancy and ephemeral reign shows a woman who fought tenaciously to preserve her place but also worked tirelessly to administer a realm which was crippled by internal conflict and the center of the political schemes of France, Aragon, and Castile. She tried to broker peace, fight off those who opposed her, repair the wounds caused by conflict, protect the sovereignty of the realm, and keep the wheels of governance turning. Leonor was not always successful in achieving all of these aims but given the background of conflict and the lack of cooperation she received from all of her family members, bar her loyal husband, it is a huge achievement that she survived to wear the crown at all. Many writers have argued that Leonor deserved the troubled lieutenancy, personal tragedies, an ephemeral reign, and a blackened reputation, basing their assumption that she committed a crime that cannot be [conclusively] proven. However, a more fitting description of her would be that of a resolute ruler who successfully overcame a multitude of challenges in order to survive in a difficult political landscape and gain a hard-fought throne.”

-Elena Woodacre, "Leonor of Navarre: The Price of Ambition", Queenship, Gender and Reputation in the Medieval and Early Modern West, 1060-1600 (Edited by Zita Eva Rohr and Lisa Benz)

[punch-love]

at this point I might as well share my main @zombiesun I’m tired of only my strangest anons having it

[daisiesonafield-blog]

Link to original

[cupiare]

this school really deserves its impending doom bcs management is soooo tone deaf “but why do our students choose to go to uni in their own city and out of the 2 they choose the non russell group one why aren’t we doing something to support them to aim higher 🤔” could it possibly be that this school is in one of the most deprived areas of the city/nationwide and thats a significant factor affecting academic achievement so students default to the uni w lower entry requirements theyre likely to get into? or maybe that our predominantly immigrant students and their families don’t share the culture of moving out and living independently at 18? that their immigration status and overseas qualifications affect their entry requirements ? that many of them are responsible for their families and don’t want to leave them? that its more affordable to stay home and not be in even more debt by taking out a maintenance loan to stay alive? the girls who aren’t allowed to leave home before marriage? what a truly confounding phenomenon that our students don’t go to a russell group uni it must be a very bad look that we get 90% students in higher education or formal training after college but not the ‘best’ choice. But what do i know i guess !

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A group of 14 conservative lawmakers in both chambers of Congress last week reintroduced legislation that would make the federal government an at-will employer and abolish the Merit Systems Protection Board, effectively eviscerating federal workers’ civil service protections and chilling whistleblowing.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, and Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., are the lead sponsors of the Public Service Reform Act (H.R. 3115), which would make career federal workers at-will employees and get rid of most of the avenues currently available to appeal adverse personnel decisions. It also would abolish the MSPB and send most appeals directly to federal appellate courts, although it preserves a 14-day window for whistleblowers to allege retaliation before the Office of Special Counsel.

“It is far past time to reinstate accountability to the people for the federal bureaucracy by requiring that like any private sector employee, federal workers can be removed from their positions,” Roy said in a statement. “Notwithstanding the majority of federal workers who faithfully serve, especially our law enforcement personnel, we should not allow a wall of red tape to shield those engaged in noncompliance with the law and brazen political partisanship. Federal employees should keep their jobs based on merit, just like the people they serve.”

The bill also allows for federal workers to appeal adverse personnel actions they believe were discriminatory to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, although the legislation requires EEOC to scrap its policies relating to the federal workforce and apply private sector rules to the proceedings.

And it creates a disincentive to federal workers filing appeals of their firings through a provision that says that if a court finds a complaint to be “frivolous” or otherwise “brought in bad faith,” the employee’s defined benefit annuity is automatically reduced by 25%.

“It’s clear that the bureaucracy of the federal government is both a waste of taxpayer dollars and inefficient,” Scott said in a statement. “Red tape and bloated federal agencies constantly slow down progress and hamper American innovation. It’s time to change Washington so it actually works for the American people. The Public Service Reform Act will boost accountability and responsiveness across the federal government by making all executive branch employees at-will.”

Roy previously introduced his bill last July, but with Democrats in control of the House, it languished. With a divided Congress, its chance of passage now remains low. But the bill has gained support, with the number of initial cosponsors growing from 5 to 14.

Between this legislation and other initiatives gaining steam within the Republican party, including a proposed revival of Schedule F, which has already been endorsed by The Heritage Foundation, former President Trump and other likely GOP presidential candidates, it is clear that efforts to upend the federal civil service have become a central plank of the party’s platform. These plans, along with early signs of a push to declare federal employee unions unconstitutional, suggest “truly epic storm clouds” are on the horizon, according to Don Kettl, professor emeritus at the University of Maryland and former dean of its School of Public Policy.

“It’s inconceivable that a major Republican candidate would stake out a position any more favorable to federal employees,” Kettl wrote. “[Conservatives] are offering two tracks for remedies: executive action, especially through a revival of Schedule F; and judicial cases, especially through challenges to the role of public employee unions and, even more fundamentally, to the role of the merit system itself.”

[inthegardenpraying]

“Listen, now. On the other hand, you have fresh, young forces that are being wasted for lack of support, and that by the thousands, and that everywhere! | A hundred, a thousand good deeds and undertakings that could be arranged and set going by the money that old woman has doomed to the monastery! | Hundreds, maybe thousands of lives put right; dozens of families saved from destitution, from decay, from ruin, from depravity, from the venereal hospitals—all on her money. | Kill her and take her money, so that afterwards with its help you can devote yourself to the service of all mankind and the common cause: what do you think, wouldn’t thousands of good deeds make up for one tiny little crime? For one life, thousands of lives saved from decay and corruption. One death for hundreds of lives—it’s simple arithmetic! | And what does the life of this stupid, consumptive, and wicked old crone mean in the general balance? | No more than the life of a louse, a cockroach, and not even that much, because the old crone is harmful. | She’s eating up someone else’s life: the other day she got so angry that she bit Lizaveta’s finger; they almost had to cut it off!” | Dostoevsky, Fyodor/Crime and Punishment: A Novel in Six Parts with Epilogue/Vintage Classics/p. 68

[saaraofthesand]

Y’all don’t actually need to put so much effort into your DNIs or whatever. Just say that your blog complies with the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. That’s basically what you’re putting in there anyway.

[cjbolan]

HOT TAKE: Conservative backlash made Disney’s 2015 Cinderella a success.

That movie coincidentally premiered during Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, which in turn spawned a rise of conservative backlash to decades worth of rising progressive values in society and especially in our media. This also spawned a growing outright hatred of feminism *cough*AntiSJWs*cough*, a return to embracing femininity (which itself isn’t a bad thing), a hatred of Action Girl characters, a desire for women to embrace traditionally “female” things (whatever that means, depending on how you look at it). If Kenneth Branagh’s Cinderella came out before or after 2015 I think it’d be much less widely acclaimed.

[fuckingfinwions]

Amrod and Amras have a game they like to play with their lovers.

The two of them go into a bar looking for someone new. Amrod will be dressed in full robes, sitting in a quiet corner. Amras goes out and flirts with anyone who looks hot, helped by his tunic that unlaces halfway to his navel, and that "mysteriously" is missing the actual laces.

If someone appealing approaches Amrod, he acts shy and sweet. When they inevitably ask him for a hook up, he says he really doesn't like to be alone with strangers. But his twin brother is just across the room, and maybe he could come with? Amrod is sure that Amras would find such a handsome man appealing as well, and it would make Amrod much less nervous around such an intimidatingly strong handsome fellow.

If someone appealing makes a move on Amras, or replies to his advances, he responds with enthusiasm. Amras is definitely down to fuck, just let him settle his bill. And maybe tell his brother - Amras has been trying to get Amrod to come out of his shell, and took him to the bar tonight in hopes he'd meet someone. Actually Amras feels a bit bad about leaving him, and making off with the hottest guy in the bar since he and Amrod have the same taste in lovers...

Most people pick up on the "hints" for a twin threesome, and when you're choosing a lover on physical attractiveness, why not go along with it? If someone doesn't want that, Amras or Amrod make excuses and turn them down.

When they get to the hotel room, it starts exactly as Amras and Amrod presented things. Amrod acts like everything is new to him, shyly letting the stranger touch him while his brother holds his hand and kisses his cheek in reassurance. He'll top or bottom as their hookup wants, and Amras will apply his "greatly experienced" mouth however the hookup wants. Their hookup will come, and so will Amrod, and so will Amras with most positions. They all lie together on the bed in the afterglow.

Then Amrod will deep throat the guy's cock, to see how fast he can get hard again. Round one was the stranger's way, but Amras and Amrod both have their own ideas for the night.

Those ideas involve Amras riding the guy hard and fast while he sucks Amrod's nipples. Or Amras inside Amrod, while Amrod fucks their new lover. Or the two of them sitting in his lap and rutting their cocks together while he fingers them, if his cock is too spent for another round. Or one taking his ass and the other his mouth.

They do change it up based on what their lover likes. If he's adamantly opposed to bottoming, he can always eat Amras's ass. Or if he dislikes being blown, their are plenty of other ways to get his cock back up enough to play with.

But whoever's cock is in who, Amras and Amrod are the ones in control.

Generally they stop after they've each come four times. They leave him alone in the hotel room (paid through the night, they have the money and there's no need to make enemies).

[anders-hawke]

me having to explain that you have to account for seniority in school theatre productions bc the people who are the best are also the ones whose parents could afford to put them in nice acting classes so yes they should get the leads but if you don’t give the seniors and juniors who’re really only able to do their school’s drama club a bit of preference over the freshman and sophomores (who aren’t extremely talented) they’re not really progressing in their acting skills, which is important bc it’s a school club, and you’re meant to be learning things at school clubs.

[contemplatingoutlander]

I had no idea that that was one of the reasons women wanted jewelry.

But remember, women's economic rights have only been more secure for about 50 years. According to Forbes, "it wasn’t until the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) was passed in 1974 that women were able to get their own credit cards in their own name." [emphasis added]

Women's rights are very new, and very fragile. Don't take them for granted. Many on the far-right in this country still want to go back to the days when women were primarily homemakers and mothers. Don't let them get a grip on power.

[1minnim]

the way we treat women hasn't really changed in 50 years. the only difference is that women can have their own credit card

[liberty1776]

Many people argue in this way: The 1964 Civil Rights Act was fine. No one should be discriminated against because of his race or sex. Because blacks and women have suffered such discrimination in the past, it may be that programs like affirmative action are justified, at least temporarily. However, the purpose of these programs should be to promote equality of opportunity. Everybody deserves an equal chance to live a good life or, at any rate, a fair chance. The problem that has arisen since the passage of the 1964 act, it is further alleged, is that “equality of outcomes … Continue reading →

[liberaljane]

Women's Not So Distant History

This #WomensHistoryMonth, let's not forget how many of our rights were only won in recent decades, and weren’t acquired by asking nicely and waiting. We need to fight for our rights. Here's are a few examples:

📍 Before 1974's Fair Credit Opportunity Act made it illegal for financial institutions to discriminate against applicants' gender, banks could refuse women a credit card. Women won the right to open a bank account in the 1960s, but many banks still refused without a husband’s signature. This allowed men to continue to have control over women’s bank accounts. Unmarried women were often refused service by financial institutions entirely.

📍 Before 1977, sexual harassment was not considered a legal offense. That changed when a woman brought her boss to court after she refused his sexual advances and was fired. The court stated that her termination violated the 1974 Civil Rights Act, which made employment discrimination illegal.⚖️

📍 In 1969, California became the first state to pass legislation to allow no-fault divorce. Before then, divorce could only be obtained if a woman could prove that her husband had committed serious faults such as adultery. 💍By 1977, nine states had adopted no-fault divorce laws, and by late 1983, every state had but two. The last, New York, adopted a law in 2010.

📍In 1967, Kathrine Switzer, entered the Boston Marathon under the name "K.V. Switzer." At the time, the Amateur Athletics Union didn't allow women. Once discovered, staff tried to remove Switzer from the race, but she finished. AAU did not formally accept women until fall 1971.

📍 In 1972, Lillian Garland, a receptionist at a California bank, went on unpaid leave to have a baby and when she returned, her position was filled. Her lawsuit led to 1978's Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which found that discriminating against pregnant people is unlawful

📍 It wasn’t until 2016 that gay marriage was legal in all 50 states. Previously, laws varied by state, and while many states allowed for civil unions for same-sex couples, it created a separate but equal standard. In 2008, California was the first state to achieve marriage equality, only to reverse that right following a ballot initiative later that year. 

📍In 2018, Utah and Idaho were the last two states that lacked clear legislation protecting chest or breast feeding parents from obscenity laws. At the time, an Idaho congressman complained women would, "whip it out and do it anywhere,"

📍 In 1973, the Supreme Court affirmed the right to safe legal abortion in Roe v. Wade. At the time of the decision, nearly all states outlawed abortion with few exceptions. In 1965, illegal abortions made up one-sixth of all pregnancy- and childbirth-related deaths. Unfortunately after years of abortion restrictions and bans, the Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022. Since then, 14 states have fully banned care, and another 7 severely restrict it – leaving most of the south and midwest without access. 

📍 Before 1973, women were not able to serve on a jury in all 50 states. However, this varied by state: Utah was the first state to allow women to serve jury duty in 1898. Though, by 1927, only 19 states allowed women to serve jury duty. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 gave women the right to serve on federal juries, though it wasn't until 1973 that all 50 states passed similar legislation

📍 Before 1988, women were unable to get a business loan on their own. The Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988 allowed women to get loans without a male co-signer and removed other barriers to women in business. The number of women-owned businesses increased by 31 times in the last four decades. 

Free download

📍 Before 1965, married women had no right to birth control. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that banning the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy.

📍 Before 1967, interracial couples didn’t have the right to marry. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court found that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. In 2000, Alabama was the last State to remove its anti-miscegenation laws from the books.

📍 Before 1972, unmarried women didn’t have the right to birth control. While married couples gained the right in 1967, it wasn’t until Eisenstadt v. Baird seven years later, that the Supreme Court affirmed the right to contraception for unmarried people.

📍 In 1974, the last “Ugly Laws” were repealed in Chicago. “Ugly Laws” allowed the police to arrest and jail people with visible disabilities for being seen in public. People charged with ugly laws were either charged a fine or held in jail. ‘Ugly Laws’ were a part of the late 19th century Victorian Era poor laws. 

📍 In 1976, Hawaii was the last state to lift requirements that a woman take her husband’s last name.  If a woman didn’t take her husband’s last name, employers could refuse to issue her payroll and she could be barred from voting. 

📍 It wasn’t until 1993 that marital assault became a crime in all 50 states. Historically, intercourse within marriage was regarded as a “right” of spouses. Before 1974, in all fifty U.S. states, men had legal immunity for assaults their wives. Oklahoma and North Carolina were the last to change the law in 1993.

📍  In 1990, the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) – most comprehensive disability rights legislation in U.S. history – was passed. The ADA protected disabled people from employment discrimination. Previously, an employer could refuse to hire someone just because of their disability.

📍 Before 1993, women weren’t allowed to wear pants on the Senate floor. That changed when Sen. Moseley Braun (D-IL), & Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) wore trousers - shocking the male-dominated Senate. Their fashion statement ultimately led to the dress code being clarified to allow women to wear pants. 

📍 Emergency contraception (Plan B) wasn't approved by the FDA until 1998. While many can get emergency contraception at their local drugstore, back then it required a prescription. In 2013, the FDA removed age limits & allowed retailers to stock it directly on the shelf (although many don’t).

📍  In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court ruled that anti-cohabitation laws were unconstitutional. Sometimes referred to as the ‘'Living in Sin' statute, anti-cohabitation laws criminalize living with a partner if the couple is unmarried. Today, Mississippi still has laws on its books against cohabitation.