Are We Represented?

So Many White Male Faces

America has the benefit of being a very diverse nation. That’s right Conservatives, I said benefit. But, when I think about the U.S. Congress, all that comes to mind are white men who fight hard to keep the status quo. That is a problem because they do not properly represent the diversity America has. When I researched minorities in congress and did some number crunching, this is what I found.

Congress	House	Senate	Delegates
Women
Democrat	49	12	3
Republican	24	5	0
African American
Democrat	39	0	2
Republican	2	0	0
Hispanic *
Democrat	17	1	0
Republican	7	1	0
Asian American
Democrat	7	2	2
Republican	1	0	0
Openly LGBT
Democrat	2	0	0
Republican	0	0	0

* Puerto Rico also has one Independent Hispanic delegate

So let’s compare. The U.S. Congress has 541 members: 100 Senators, 435 Representatives, and 6 non-voting Delegates in the House.

Comparison	U.S.	Congress	Difference
Women	51%	17%	-34%
African American	13%	8%	-5%
Hispanic	16%	5%	-11%
Asian American	5%	2%	-3%
Openly LGBT **	8%	0.30%	-8%

** This is a conservative estimate since there are no reliable figures.

When looking at the numbers, the disparities are all too clear.

1)    Women are greatly under-represented. Even within other minorities, women tend to be less than half the count. Men dominate whether white or not.

2)    No wonder the war on women has been so easily won time after time. Men are 83% of congress. Can you believe that?

3)    When looking at the percentages in congress and percentages of US population, you see that the percentages are divided by at least half or more.

4)    There are fewer Republican minorities than Democrats. A lot fewer.

I looked into this because I was curious to see the numbers. Looking at them, it is clear that things need to change.

So many are comfortable with the status quo and will do anything to keep it that way. Many people – like Mitt Romney – see diversity as bad, so they spread fear about it while at the same time denying that they are racist. This country is getting less white and less straight as the years go by, and some of us are ready for it and others are not. This year at the ballot box please vote for your best interests. Let’s give those white guys who have plagued Congress for years some colleagues who can challenge their outdated and anti-diversity views.

Submitted by TSM Contributor, James Queale

Bigot of the Week Award: May 18, Safeway General Counsel Robert Gordon

Bigot of the Week

In a shocking display of misogyny, Robert A. Gordon, Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Safeway Inc. easily earned this week’s BWA. At the shareholders meeting on May 15, Gordon opened his remarks with a “joke” in which President Obama lugs pigs to the White House to give to Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. The hypothetical punch line has a Secret Service agent indicating that the pigs are more valuable than the women. Ha ha ha.

Setting aside the not-so-subtle racism inherent in the setup, the culmination of this story and the expectation that it would make his audience laugh, says volumes about Gordon. That he felt comfortable sharing this tale in front of a corporate audience demonstrates how undervalued women are in that environment. Comparing two of the most powerful women in America to farm animals is nothing short of loathsome.

But of course he felt safe. Only 3.6% of Fortune 500 companies are run by women, who make less than 70% of what their male counterparts do. Ten percent of these companies still have all-male boards of directors (Safeway has an amazing one woman on their board.)

I wonder how the (few) women in the audience felt. Certainly none have come forward to complain, even though Safeway has a code of ethics which Gordon’s hateful speech violated. No comment yet from the company, either. Please let Safeway know how you feel about this kind of behavior.

Transgender Workplace Rights Upheld in Landmark Ruling

Equal just got a bit more equal

A recent decision by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has significantly increased workplace protections for transgender employees. In a landmark ruling on April 20, the EEOC declared that discrimination against someone because they are transgender violates Title VII protections against sex discrimination. It stems from a discrimination charge filed by Mia Macy, a transgender woman.

Macy applied for a position with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) while she was still presenting as a man. She was informed that she would be hired pending a background investigation. In the interest of transparency, she told the investigators that she was in the process of transitioning from male to female, and asked them to inform the ATF of the change. Shortly thereafter, she was informed that due to federal budget reductions, the position was no longer available. She later learned that someone else had been hired for that exact position.

Ms. Macy submitted a discrimination charge with the EEOC, selecting “sex” and “female” as the categories of discrimination. She typed in “gender identity” and “sex stereotyping” as the basis for her complaint, which resulted in an initial rejection as the EEOC stated those added categories were outside its jurisdiction. Ms. Macy’s attorney appealed that determination, resulting in a unanimous ruling that when an employer discriminates against someone because the person is transgender, the employer has engaged in disparate treatment “related to the sex of the victim.”

This decision is a major step forward in recognizing the rights of transgender Americans. The right to work is fundamental, and this federal ruling creates a much stronger protection for this oft-neglected minority. More work must be done, however. As Lisa Mottet, Transgender Civil Rights Project Director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, noted:

Although the ruling should be given at least some deference by federal courts, it is not the final say, and it cannot be guaranteed that this interpretation will ultimately be adopted by the Supreme Court… If Congress would pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, it would cause employers throughout the country to update their non-discrimination policies with ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity,’ conduct training for hiring officers and supervisors, and would mean that ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ would be listed with the other protected characteristics on the ‘Know Your Rights’ posters in the break room. Yes, legal recourse and being able to go to the EEOC are important, but when 78 percent of transgender people are experiencing mistreatment, harassment, or discrimination in the workplace, we need change on a much higher order — the kind of change that will only come with passage of a federal law.

Still, we should celebrate progress as it comes and use this great moment to raise awareness of the stronger change still needed. The Transgender Law Center has a good overview of the impact of the ruling and the full text of it is available here.

Republicans in Your Vagina…

Raise Your Voice!

Thank you to my friend Nancy (a strident advocate for social justice) for inspiring me to write this article. Republicans continue to dictate who we can fall in love with and marry, signing pledges to discriminate against the LGBT community (thank you, Mitt (I hate the homos) Romney). The war they are waging against women increased exponentially with Jan Brewer’s move on Friday.  Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood’s access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services–way to go Arizona.  Is there anyone safe in that state that is not white, male, christian, and heterosexual?  Again we see an attack specifically on women without economic means.  Planned Parenthood addresses women’s health, specifically women that are disenfranchised.

I saw this video last night and have to share it, for it perfectly captures the Republican War Against Women.  Click here to see the full video. As you will see from the video, government should not be in banks, or classrooms, but it should be in all vaginas.

Checks and Balances In Action: Two Reassuring Court Decisions

Oh, right, THAT'S how it works!

One of the pillars of the United States model of government is that of checks and balances. Each of the three branches of government has discrete, clear powers that complement and control the powers of the other branches. (Well…ideally, anyway.) Given the many attacks on individual rights pursued by far-right legislatures citizen groups — especially directed at women and other minorities — the role of the courts to restrict that over-reach is critical to a functioning democracy.

This week we have good news in two different cases, both related to the War on Women. Courts in Oklahoma and Texas — the bright red Southwest — have blocked two right-wing actions that were clearly unconstitutional or in violation of Federal law.

In Oklahoma, the issue was the so-called “personhood” movement that would give every fertilized egg all the rights of a person under state law. Even though this effort has so far failed everywhere it’s been tried (even in Mississippi), anti-choice forces still pursue it as a favorite tactic to restrict women’s choices. These misogynists were attempting to put a personhood amendment to the Oklahoma constitution before voters. On Monday, the Oklahoma Supreme Court unanimously shot down initiative, declaring the effort to be a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution. Referring to a twenty-year-old Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the justices rejected this absurd effort in very clear language:

The mandate of Casey is as binding on this Court today as it was twenty years ago. Initiative Petition No. 395 conflicts with Casey and is void on its face and it is hereby ordered stricken.

Also on Monday, a Federal judge in Texas blocked implementation of a recently signed rule that targeted funding for Planned Parenthood. The Texas Health and Human Services Commissioner implemented the rule which said that the Texas Women’s Health Program (which uses Federal Medicaid money), would not fund services at Planned Parenthood or any other “affiliates of abortion providers.” So, even though the services being funded are NOT abortions and are critical health services for low-income women (over 130,000 in Texas!), the Texas government wants to block service to punish one provider. Lovely. U.S. District Court Judge Lee Yeakel was just as clear and succinct as his colleagues in Oklahoma:

Medicaid law is very clear; a state may not restrict patients’ choice of providers of services like mammograms and other cancer screenings, if those providers are qualified to deliver care covered by Medicaid.

Getting typically whiny, Texas officials are now threatening to cancel the entire health program rather than follow Federal law and support the health of the citizens they were elected to serve.

It should just be a few days before the Insupportable Rage Machine (TM) on the right starts screaming “activist judges!” The Oklahoma justices may even face an orchestrated attack like the one mounted against the Iowa Supreme Court for simply doing their jobs. We should thank all these officers of the court for doing what they were elected and appointed to do: uphold the law. Now let’s hope the Fecal Five can avoid making the wrong decision about the Affordable Care Act…

Happy Birthday, Cloris Leachman!

86 and still going strong!

Today an award-winning actress and activist turns 86 years young. Still going strong and looking great, let’s celebrate Cloris Leachman. Born in Des Moines, IA, she majored in drama at Illinois State University and Northwestern (where she was classmates with Paul Lynde). She launched into early success in pageants, winning Miss Chicago and competing in Miss America 1946. From there she moved into her acting career.

Leachman attended Elia Kazan’s Actors Studio, where she met life-long friend Marlon Brando. She began a Broadway career, including being asked by Katharine Hepburn to co-star in As You Like It. She also started what would become a highly celebrated television career at this time with many cameos and guest appearances on 1950s series. Her film career began with a bit part, but she soon took on starring roles, working opposite Paul Newman in her third movie, Kiss Me Deadly. In 1971 she won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her stunning performance in The Last Picture Show. A very different role than the comedic performances for which she is best known, it is one of the finest supporting actress performances of all time and shows the true depth of her talent and quite honestly her performance left me in awe. Just to prove her versatility, perhaps her other best-known movie role is as the scene-stealing Frau Blücher in Mel Brooks’ finest comedy, Young Frankenstein. (“He vas my…BOYFRIEND!”)

Cloris Leachman became best known for her role in the Mary Tyler Moore Show in the early 70s. Appearing in several episodes in the first five seasons as Phyllis Lindstrom, Mary’s nosy and opinionated neighbor and landlady, she was nominated three times for best supporting actress (winning once) and rewarded with her own spin-off series, Phyllis. My very favorite episode features the introduction of Betty White as Sue Ann Nivens, who has an affair with Phyllis’ invisible husband, Lars. (Enjoy this clip of the Lars Affair, featuring my favorite Phyllis speech about The Life of the Bee at 4:15.) In the forty years since, Leachman has had numerous guest and starring roles on TV, including a fantastic run as Ellen’s mother on the short-lived but delightful The Ellen Show. She has amassed a record-setting eight prime-time Emmy awards and one daytime Emmy.

Not content to have a successful career, she is also an outspoken activist. She is best known for her work for animal rights, working closely with PETA and mounting campaigns to retire elderly animals from their public careers (in circuses and the like). She is an outspoken vegetarian, appearing in this all-lettuce dress. An honest woman who is proud of her body and her age, she also advocates for respect for the elderly and fights ageism by proving you can look great and be happy and still look your age. She interviewed with InTouch magazine in 2009 about living healthy and naturally, including admitting to one brief, unhappy flirtation with Botox. Asked if she’d ever do it again, she replied

No! It was ridiculous. You can’t just have part of your face not moving and the rest moving everywhere. That doesn’t work.

Leachman’s honesty, energy, and wit make her an effective champion for many causes. She advocates for women’s rights and LGBT equality as well, including serving as Grand Marshall of the 2010 San Diego Pride Parade. Here’s to Cloris Leachman! Who can guess what the next decade will bring?

Violence Against Women Act: The 31 Voices For Violence

As the war against women continues, there was a spot of light last week in the Senate.  Sixty-eight Senators voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, defeating the 31 Republican men who voted to take away women’s voices after they have been attacked.  One might ask, do these 31 Republican men have no mothers, no sisters, no daughters?  What is it with Republicans and women lately?  We can only presume they don’t care about women’s health and well being–this includes all of the Republican women who so often suffer from internalized oppression, Sarah Palin et al.

This legislation is slated to go to the House next.  Sadly, the House GOP is planning on introducing a bill with the same name, but their version of the Violence Against Women Act attempts to strip out the very provisions protecting Native Americans, undocumented immigrants, and LGBT Americans we just fought for.  I guess the GOP really has no clue about marginalized populations and the intersections of oppression–to think about such issues one would have to be a civil servant!

So let’s call out bad behavior and let’s attach the names to these 31 Republicans that we need to be afraid of:

Barrasso (R-WY)	Grassley (R-IA)	Moran (R-KS)
Blunt (R-MO)	Hatch (R-UT)	Paul (R-KY)
Boozman (R-AR)	Inhofe (R-OK)	Risch (R-ID)
Burr (R-NC)	Isakson (R-GA)	Roberts (R-KS)
Chambliss (R-GA)	Johanns (R-NE)	Rubio (R-FL)
Coburn (R-OK)	Johnson (R-WI)	Sessions (R-AL)
Cochran (R-MS)	Kyl (R-AZ)	Shelby (R-AL)
Cornyn (R-TX)	Lee (R-UT)	Thune (R-SD)
DeMint (R-SC)	Lugar (R-IN)	Toomey (R-PA)
Enzi (R-WY)	McConnell (R-KY)	Wicker (R-MS)
Graham (R-SC)

Note that in nine states (AL, GA, KS, KY, MS, OK, SC, UT, WY) vulnerable populations received no Senate support whatsoever.  On the plus side, thanks to the six Republican men in the Senate – Alexander (TN), Coats (IN), Corker (TN), Crapo (ID), McCain (AZ), Portman (OH) – who bucked the trend and did the right thing with this vote.

Bigot of the Week Award: April 27, Ann Romney

Bigot of the Week

Proving that one hypocritical, out-of-touch, flip-flopper of a spouse deserves another, professional candidate wife Ann Romney joins her twice-BWA husband in the seat of dishonor. Ever since Mittmatic punted anything having to do with woman stuff to his wife as “the expert on that” she’s been flirting with supreme bigothood. This week she easily tipped the scales.

Appearing at the Prescott Bush Awards Dinner in Connecticut, Stepford Romney went on at length about how she’s a housewife just like so many other women and how much she can relate to that hard work. Proving that class warfare disconnects are part of the marital bond, she then said

I love the fact that there are women out there who don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids. Thank goodness that we value those people too. And sometimes life isn’t easy for any of us.

Really?!? She loves the fact that there are people who have no choices in their lives? Even though staying at home and eking out a meager living on her millionaire husband’s stock portfolio was her single most important decision? Given the second half of the quote and its context in her larger speech, it might be tempting to give her credit for a simple gaffe. Her recent history of hypocrisy and attack language, however, makes it clear that the statement was far more Freudian than slip.

Two weeks ago, Romney had a dustup with journalist Hilary Rosen, who questioned her right to discuss the challenges faced by women who work outside the home because she “never worked a day in her life.” Cue the outrage. Ann Romney, who has frequently referred to her decision “not to work,” suddenly was a furious stay-at-home mom, reminding us that such a high calling is also hard work and deserves respect. Even though she has also supported her husband’s position that women with children must work outside the home to have the “dignity of work” and avoid raising “indolent” children. Fetch my smelling salts! All this spinning is making me dizzy.

Talk about profound white heterosexual privilege!  Romney’s money certainly has allowed her not to even think about disparities for women, women of color, sexual orientation, gender identity and all the other intersections of oppression that take away many of the lovely choices she has exercised.  It’s really pretty clear what oppressed, hard-working mom Ann Romney is saying: if you’re wealthy enough to really have choices, you should be congratulated for making them. But if you’re part of that pesky 99%, you should just play the hand you’re dealt and quit whining. And she knows, too, because she’s channelling Chaka Khan: she’s every woman.

Happy Administrative Professionals’ Week: What’s your tax bracket?

This is Administrative Professionals’ Week. Founded in 1952 as Secretaries’ Day by Mary Barrett, president of the National Secretaries Association (NSA) and C. King Woodbridge, president of Dictaphone, it was initially celebrated in June. Over the past 60 years it has undergone a number of changes in name and timing, but the principle is the same: Honor the workers without whose efforts the bosses and employers work would be impossible.

The celebration, now sponsored by the International Association of Administrative Professionals which grew out of the NSA, is particularly timely as the nation focuses on tax fairness. As billionaire investor and philanthropist Warren Buffett has observed, thanks to our bizarre tax codes those making the most money typically pay the lowest tax rates. His example (echoed recently by President Obama), was that his secretary paid a higher rate than he did, something Buffett, Obama and a significant number of wealthy Americans find unacceptable.

The inequity is compounded by the fact that women and minorities typically make lower relative wages, even for the same work. Paying a higher tax on that lower wage creates a greater income inequity and results in a vicious cycle of oppression. Of course Republicans in Congress, supported by Presidential Candidate and serial hypocrite Mitt Romney, see nothing wrong with this. Want to see what it looks like for you? Slate has created this handy calculator to show how long it would take Romney to earn your annual income; try it, then use this tool to compare your relative tax rate. If you aren’t outraged, you aren’t paying attention.

Gay Men Unite Against the War On Women

The Many forms of Misogyny

Another brilliant article by James Queale, TSM Contributor

Knowing about women and women’s rights should be at the top of everyone’s
list. That is why it is saddening to me to see women who have internalized
oppression stemming from a very misogynistic world.With the recent war on women by the Republican party, misogyny is
continually leading in the headlines. Whether it is Jan Brewer’s new “life
begins at the beginning of your period” bill or just recently when Michele
Bachmann spoke with no sense of irony saying:

What we want is women to be able to make their own choices…We want womento make their own choices in healthcare. You see that’s the lie that happens under Obamacare. The President of the United States effectively becomes a health care dictator. Women don’t need anyone to tell them what to do on health care. We want women to have their own choices, their own money, that way they can make their own choices for the future of their own bodies.

Seeing the word “choice” would suggest that Michele Bachmann is now
pro-choice. But, that is not the case. This is a woman that in matters of
rape or incest would still have abortion banned. Where is a woman’s right
to choose? This is a clever way to seem pro-choice while at the same time
taking away freedoms. Don’t you get it? We are more free with less freedom.
Makes perfect sense.There is a never ending lineup of Republican women who are falling on the
misogynistic sword. We need to combat the lies and misinformation and
educate. The attack on women has been ceaseless and we can’t let them win.