#discrimination

werewolf-cuddles:

m-soothsayer:

bizarrolord:

nerdylilpeebee:

maybe-someday-eventually:

sleepallsummer:

hidrellez:

hidrellez:

sbahdjafndidjajfdjdj

meanwhile the athlete who finished third in the same race

they’re obviously sandbagging for this purpose and it’s working

People really shouldn’t need much more evidence than this that people who complain about trans athletes only care about them when they’re winning, and ignore them when they’re losing (which is the majority of the time).

Basically “this sport isn’t making me a #girlboss, gotta blame someone else for coming in dead last”.

Thing is the idea that the fairness of sports hingest on keeping it pure and away from transfolk… like there are cis women who have as much or more T than a transwoman. There are men who have biological mutations that give them a great advantage over other men. We don’t talk about dosing them up to bring them back line with the ‘normal’ people or kicking them out of sports.

In sports the only fairness is if people are following the rules and being held accountable or not. Biologically? Genetically? It’s a wild west and there have always been and always will be people whos biology puts them at a distinct advantage.

So unless someone is frothing at the mouth wanting to kick Phelps out for his super joints and less than normal lactic acid production I have to assume it has nothing to do with wanting things to be 'fair’ its just a convenient excuse to hate on somebody they would already hate otherwise.

This. Exactly this.

These days, if you even say you’re English, the equality wind blows you straight into a jail cell…

bigtransmoods:

- Being misgendered purposely
- Bullying
- Physical fights
- Verbal abuse and threats
- Sexual harassment
- Leaving home
- No support
- Friends as well as family disowning me
- Being called a tr*nny. 
- Not being able to breathe or move because of dysphoria and binding.
- Depression and anxiety. 
 AND A FUCK TONNE MORE.

So please can all trenders stop saying “being trans is so great, I love it.” It isn’t fun at all, fuck off.

beast-with-the-least:

If a cis person, a straight person, a gamer, a white person, or a member of another non-oppressed group asks, “Where’s MY pride parade? Where’s MY special flag? Where’s MY exclusive club?” Then they must also ask…

“Where’s my fabric patch that my people were forced to wear on their clothing during the Holocaust?”

“Where are the laws that deny me being able to adopt children, marry my partner, or freely use the public bathroom that makes me feel safest?”

“Where are the politicians and religious figures that openly murder and imprison my people?”

If none of these questions make any sense in regard to their group, then perhaps they should next ask, “Why am I trivializing the traumatic history of oppressed people trying to survive in a world that violently tries to make them disappear?”

mental–healthawareness:

Invisible disabilities are just as real and valid as visible ones.

serenata-your-neighborhood-lefty:

Bycahier d'art

jumpingjacktrash:

undastra:

hashtagdion:

My emotions are valid*

*valid does not mean healthy, or good, or to be privileged above common sense and kindness

A distinction for anyone who is young and hasn’t figured this out yet:

Youareallowed to have whatever emotionsyou want. No one can control your emotions. Emotions are healthy responses to things.

You are notallowed to have behaviorsthat are harmful just because you have certain emotions. Your behaviors are what you can control, and they are far easier to control than your emotions.

You can be jealous about someone or their talents until you turn green, but it is harmful to yourself and to that person if you try to sabotage them because of it. You can be so angry you can literally feel your temperature rise, but this does not give you permission to rage at others.

Your emotions are valid. They are always valid. You are a person of value. However, you behaviors are not always justified just because of those emotions. You may not be able to control you emotions, but you can certainly control your behaviors.

and this one, i beg you to learn before you become right-wing fundamentalists: just because something gives you revulsion feelings does not mean it’s morally wrong.

you may be sex-repulsed; that doesn’t mean sex is dirty and bad. maybe you were bullied by teenage girls; that doesn’t mean teenage girls are a force of evil. perhaps a villain in a work of fiction reminds you of someone who abused you; that doesn’t mean people who enjoy that character or that fiction are abusive. your feelings about those things are absolutely valid, and it’s not right for people to tell you you shouldn’t feel that way. but it’s also not right for you to act out against others based on those feelings.

that instinct to generalize served our species well when we were hunter-gatherers living in small bands in a hostile wilderness. you nibble a delicious-looking berry, you throw up, you know that berry is BAD and you make the yuck face whenever you see it so the other hominids know it’s a bad one. but in the modern world, in the information age, there are so many complex things you might encounter, you’re going to have badfeels about a lot of things that aren’t actually across-the-board bad.

you need to not be ruled by your hominid yuckberry instinct. that’s where bigotry comes from.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/awky8y/in_the_1920s_to_the_1930s_some_people_thought/

Yeah, it was absolutely true. Many colleges, Ivy League and not, had quotas for Jewish attendance. This mostly became an issue in the interwar period.* While Jews had been emigrating to the US for several hundred years, since the first settlement of what is now New York, a massive wave of Eastern European Jewish emigration began in 1881 and continued in full force until (and to an extent through) World War I. In the 1920s, this ended due to racist, eugenicist influences on Congress- draconian immigration laws were enacted in 1924 to drastically limit immigration particularly of poor and “less white” people, like Jews, Italians, and Greeks, by basing the permitted immigration on numbers from 1890, when relatively few had emigrated. However, by the 1920s, colleges felt like they were facing a different problem- second-generation advancement. Jews who had arrived since 1881 had come with little to no English and relatively little education in general, but especially given the emphasis on assimilation and the “melting pot” which their children received in schools and settlement houses, the children of immigrants were far more Americanized, and their parents pushed them toward academic success. By 1915, for example, about 40% of students at Columbia were Jewish (either immigrants or first generation Americans)- ironically due to the fact that Columbia had made it easier for them to get in as public school students by basing admissions on standardized tests.

College administrators were not happy about this, so they decided to do something about it.

Examples:

• In 1922, Harvard implemented a 10% quota for Jews in order to prevent a “Jewish problem,” in the words of its president, A. Lawrence Lowell. He rationalized this by saying that he wanted to decrease potential antisemitism on campus.

• Harvard also changed its admission system from an entrance exam (which favored studious Jews from the well-performing NYC public school system, who generally succeeded) to a system in which they accepted students from the top seventh of their class regardless of their score on the exam. This favored students in other parts of the country who had received lower quality education, and had the additional “benefit” of reducing the number of Jewish accepted students.

• In the 1920s, Columbia basically invented the modern college application form. Why? So that they could weed out Jewish (and potentially other undesirable) applicants. Knowing that many Jews changed their names to hide their Jewishness, these forms required that past names be listed and also asked for country of origin, mother’s maiden name, and social organizations. And you know those questions about extracurriculars? Those were also invented for this purpose, as a measure of “character”- with character meaning “not Jewish.” Jews were known for being studious and “greasy,” not participating in all of the typically WASPy social concerns, and so by making “character” a requirement they were able to eliminate Jews from the pool. Nicholas Murray Butler, when discussing the more limited admission of Jews, stated that there had been no conscious effort to eliminate Jews- after evaluating the application forms, Jews were simply among “the lowest grade of applicant,” this despite the fact that so many had previously been accepted on the basis of grades.Harvard soon followed suit in using an application form, and many other colleges adopted it in the coming years.

• While universities like Princeton had been interested in making a quota, it took Harvard and Columbia making the first move for them to implement one, along with colleges like Barnard, Yale, Duke, Rutgers, Adelphi, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, Penn State, Ohio State, Washington and Lee, the Universities of Cincinnati, Illinois, Kansas, Texas, Minnesota, Virginia, and Washington, and the Bronx campus of NYU.

• Colgate University kept six Jews enrolled specifically in order to counter charges of antisemitic admissions.

• Syracuse University housed Jews separately from other students and had a KKK branch on campus.

• Sarah Lawrence College had a question on its application about whether applicants had been raised with “strict Sunday observance.”

-Even as late as 1945, Dartmouth retained a quota for its Jews, citing its status as a Christian college for Christian men.

• If a Jew WAS accepted to an elite university, he (they were generally not coeducational yet) could expect not to be accepted into university culture. The social clubs and fraternities which made these colleges one big boys’ club did not let Jews among their number. They were often considered to lack college spirit, be physically repulsive, not drink enough, be brown-nosers, and not participate in sports enough, as well as to raise the academic standard too high. They were also considered to be below the appropriate level of social class and standing.

-At Brown University, Jewish students were barred from fraternities, but also barred from creating their own fraternity, purportedly to prevent antisemitism.

• At the US Naval Academy at Annapolis, the page with the number two ranking cadet, who happened to be Jewish, was perforated so that those who desired could remove it without defacing the volume.

• Even at universities which accepted small numbers of Jews, almost no Jews would be accepted as college professors. Fewer than 100 Jews were hired as faculty throughout the country, and nearly all under protest or some kind of special circumstance, with the caveat that they didn’t usually hire Jews.

• Graduate programs admitted few Jews, using as the pretext the fact that they would never be hired as university faculty.

Despite all this, Jews continued in their quests for education, becoming 9% of college students despite being 4% of the general population. They were also nearly half of the total number of college students in New York City. They generally matriculated at City College of New York (called by some the “cheder [religious school] on the hill”) or NYU’s downtown campus (nicknamed “New York Jew”). In 1920, CCNY and Hunter College (the women’s college) had 80-90% Jewish student bodies. CCNY had been the first college to create a Jewish fraternity, ZBT, which stood for Zion Bemishpat Tipadeh, or Zion Shall Be Redeemed With Judgement. Even there, there were few Jewish faculty members- for example, there were only four at CCNY. By the 1930s, there were still only 5, and CCNY was faced with charges of antisemitism in their hiring.

There were absolutely protests of this practice. There was an outcry, for example, when Columbia implemented its application form. However, for the most part, Jews preferred not to attend colleges where they would be social outcasts and often (especially those who already lived in NY) actively chose schools like CCNY/Hunter College and NYU (and initially Columbia) as they were close to home and would provide a more Jewish-friendly environment. In general, especially in the 1930s and 40s, the US was a pretty antisemitic place (I touch on this here). For example, in a poll in the 1940s, 45% of college students said they would not want to be roommates with a Jew. The end of the practice of Jewish quotas wasn’t so much due to outcry as due to an internal examination of antisemitism in the US and the decline of the phenomenon in the postwar years. (The Civil Rights Act didn’t exist til 1964, so the practice wasn’t illegal.)

*That’s not to say there was no discrimination against Jews in colleges before this- many prominent Jews of the early 20th century, such as Oscar Straus and Bernard Baruch, later noted the difficulties they faced as Jews in university.

The fence #fyp

I love this video. It’s clever. It’s well-done. It’s an apt metaphor and the parallels are incredibly clear.

Watch it then share it with everyone you know. (Please.)

Parents with disabilities shouldn’t be discriminated against, but all too often, they are.

According to talkpoverty.org, disabled parents are more likely to lose custody of their children during a divorce than non-disabled parents. In 37 states, parents can have their custodial rights revoked solely because they’re disabled. Child welfare services remove children of disabled parents at higher than average rates, and disabled people also face discrimination when adopting and fostering children. 

The vast majority of parents with disabilities are capable of providing a safe, loving home for their children. Families shouldn’t be separated because of these discriminatory practices that are based on outdated, ableist definitions of parental fitness. 

(Source: https://talkpoverty.org/2015/07/31/parents-with-disabilities/)