![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drwexhttp://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.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-10-09 08:50 pm (UTC)i agree with their cause, but will be supporting someone else who's fighting for it.
http://hellogiggles.com/sarah-silverman-wage-equality/3
http://twitchy.com/2014/10/08/way-to-punch-down-sarah-silvermans-sex-change-video-ticks-off-trans-tweeters/
no subject
Date: 2014-10-09 08:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-09 10:21 pm (UTC)One article simply has a lot of people calling it out for being transphobic without saying anything about why. The other talks about how they
they don't like society's equating of "gender" with genitals. Fair enough, but completely orthogonal. Most people pretty much sort out Man/Woman
by outward appearance. Even trans folk [or why else would they want surgery?] Personally, I dont believe in "Gender" any more than I believe in "Race",
and believe that the movement of people to arbitrarily create all these other fluid gender categories only makes the problem stick around longer by reinforcing
the ridiculous idea of "gender" as something that exists at all, but that's another kettle of fish.
I fail to see why someone deciding they want to change their bodily appearance from "Set A" to "Set B" for reasons *other* than
"I feel I was born into the wrong body" disparages folk in that latter set in any way whatsoever. That's just like folk who claim that those gay people getting married
somehow cheapens hetero people getting married.
Clue me in, someone.
In line for clue
Date: 2014-10-09 10:40 pm (UTC)I was flailing miserably, and quite frankly afraid to speak up, so thank you for stepping up.
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 05:04 pm (UTC)this is more like "watching straight people treat marriage with no respect (getting married for trivial reasons, getting divorced after 36 hours, etc.) and joke about it can be very painful to people who desperately want to marry their same-gender partner and can't". it trivializes a painful, difficult, impossible-to-acheive-for-many, traumatizing experience and uses it purely as the funny punchline for publicity-raising for another cause."
as i said below, "phobic" is a bad term since the root here isn't fear, but it seems to be accepted term of use for things-hurtful-to-trans-people-aimed-from-a-place-of-societal-advantage. "genderist" or "transist" might be more appropriate (parallel to racist, but specific to trans issues instead of women's issues) but i don't see that used anywhere.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-10 05:05 pm (UTC)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 05:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-10 05:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-10 05:36 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: 2014-10-10 09:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-11 11:54 am (UTC)