http://www.equalpaybackproject.com/
Sarah Silverman is awesome and hilarious. This is sort of NSF a lot of workplaces.
ETA: Please read the comment below - this ad has been called out for being trans-phobic and not particularly enlightened. I think this falls into the category of "Liking Problematic Things" for me.
(Full disclosure: I'm a supporter of the National Women's Law Center and this is a fundraiser for NWLC. That doesn't make it less awesome.)
Sarah Silverman is awesome and hilarious. This is sort of NSF a lot of workplaces.
ETA: Please read the comment below - this ad has been called out for being trans-phobic and not particularly enlightened. I think this falls into the category of "Liking Problematic Things" for me.
(Full disclosure: I'm a supporter of the National Women's Law Center and this is a fundraiser for NWLC. That doesn't make it less awesome.)
no subject
Date: 2014-10-10 02:30 pm (UTC)So, the video is about Issue A. It then invokes Thing B. But was B really necessary to include?
I realize analogies are suspect, but I think it's akin to saying, "Look, women are suffering from a wage gap. Should we be treating them like *insert racial epithet*s? No! Women should make the same..."
> I fail to see why someone deciding [...] disparages folk in that latter set in any way whatsoever.
I think this falls under the heading "why did you even bring that up in the first place?". Another analogy; again, let me be the first to say to say that all analogies are suspect:
Male co-worker: Hey, wow, pretty outfit!
Female co-worker: Why are you even bringing this up?
Male co-worker: Wait, why is this disparaging?
I know my sensitivity to trans issues is low, so I could very easily believe I'm getting some subtleties wrong.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-10 04:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-10 04:48 pm (UTC)I think a big sticking point is "this ad trivializes for the sake of a cute joke". I got the cute joke part and really missed the way in which it was trivializing something that is difficult and serious.
I think "phobic" might not be the right term, in the sense that I don't think anyone's afraid of trans people; I think "disrespectful" is a term I would use and goes to the notion of "punching down" that is highlighted in the linked commentaries.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-10 04:58 pm (UTC)another big one is the fact that trans folks consistently earn less than their cis counterparts, so it's another huge slap in the face -- "i'm not actually trans, but i'll change my body this way and get more money!" is painfully contrary to the lived experience of trans people in the workforce.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-10 05:11 pm (UTC)I was not aware that trans people earned less. I've read a couple of well-publicized accounts of folk who discussed how their earnings changed with their outward gendered expression (in the direction this ad describes).
I agree that the language is imprecise; I think we also agree that the specific term isn't that important - it's the underlying concept that is being highlighted.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-10 05:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-10 05:38 pm (UTC)http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf
no subject
Date: 2014-10-11 11:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-10 09:16 pm (UTC)