Discrimination

February 14, 2013

A Further Comment on Violence Against Women and Children on V-Day

I received a comment on LinkedIn this morning in response to my posting titled VAWA Passes Senate: One Step Toward Ending the Climate of Indifference Towards Violence Against Women.  My status statement said, “Feb 14 is V-Day. Rise to end indifference towards violence against women.”  A man in one of the groups I am a member of responded with a question:

So, please explain how we are being “indifferent” towards violence against women. There are laws against violent attacks on any human being – women included. Are these laws being ignored in cases where a woman is the victim?

I think not.

What we see here is another group who wishes to reap the benefits of victim status whether the facts bear them out or not. Beware of those who believe that they deserve special treatment – especially when that special treatment comes at the expense of others.

His question deserves a response.  Which I gave him within LinkedIn.  Since there are many others how might have a similar question but aren’t on LinkedIn, I’m commenting here as well.

The Violence Against Women Re-Authorization Act (VAWA S.47) does not call for special treatment of anyone. VAWA is calling on fair treatment of ALL victims of violence.

A climate of indifference is a climate where attacks against others – sexual assault, acquaintance or domestic violence, sexual harassment, and stalking– are ignored, covered up, or made light of. And in some instances, the climate of indifference is perpetuated when the alleged perpetrator is treated more lightly than someone else who may have committed the assault simply because of his status or affiliation.

That’s what has partially been happening with the Athletics program at Penn State University since 1994 and which helped lead to the situation of the child sexual assaults done by Jerry Sandusky. That’s part of what is happening in Steubenville, OH in the rape case where perpetrators made a video of themselves and others carrying a teenage girl from one house to another and raping her. That’s what led to the DC police refusing to take a police report last week from a friend of mine after a man exposed himself to her and masturbated because she didn’t stay with the man until the police came!

In addition, VAWA’s re-authorization has been delayed for over two years because some legislators – mostly Republican, including the majority of the US House of Representatives – are indifferent to the violence perpetrated on Native Americans, immigrants, and gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgendered persons. This “indifference” towards violence against specific people is based solely on the victim’s status, is disparate treatment, and IMO is discriminatory.

Yes there are laws in place. Yet, until all victims are treated fairly and in a timely fashion, I will continue to call out people and communities for creating a climate of indifference that allows this to continue. All people need to live in safe communities and homes.

Ending this climate of indifference wherever it occurs is a start towards caring for our loved ones.  PASS VAWA NOW!

January 31, 2013

This blog today by Erin Matson focuses, like my blog today, on pay equity and the Paycheck Fairness Act.  These are just some of the several issues we are both passionate about. In addition to providing another perspective on paycheck fairness, she also goes into some detail about introducing yourself to and talking to members of Congress. As this is part of my recommendations in the blog I just wrote and posted, I decided to reblog her so that you have more information to help successfully advocate for pay equity and civil rights for all.

erintothemax's avatarErin Matson

This is the first in what will be a regular series, Your Activism Guide, designed to make feminist activism more accessible and help you take the power you deserve. 

Purpose: Introduce yourself to your members of Congress.

Process: Set up meetings now to drop by local offices (even if you don’t have a specific request, even if the legislator tends to vote against your interests).

Payoff: Existing relationships can bring the most unexpected of benefits.

A few days ago, the American Association of University Women and National Women’s Law Center hosted a Tweet Chat to commemorate the fourth anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which reversed a Supreme Court decision that had effectively gutted the ability to sue for wage discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Joining the conversation to answer questions was Lilly Ledbetter herself.

This is a topic that gets me all hot…

View original post 1,246 more words

January 31, 2013

Paycheck Fairness Act and the ERA

Yesterday, a reporter from the local newspaper contacted me regarding a press conference that was held by Senator Robert Casey, Jr. (D-PA). During that press conference, Senator Casey discussed a report highlighting the fact that women in Pennsylvania earn 18.3 percent less than their male peers.

This earning differential is known as the Pay or Wage Gap.  The commonly used measure to determine the wage gap is the ratio of women’s to men’s median annual earnings for full-time, full-year workers.  Nationally, in 2011, women earned just 77 percent of what men earned.  That’s a national wage gap of 23 percent.  Although Pennsylvania appears to be doing better than the nation on pay equity, we are still being short-changed.

For women of color, the wage gap is even worse.  According to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Asian American women have the smallest wage gap, earning 91 percent of what the average white man earned in 2010. White women are next, earning approximately 81 percent of white men’s average income. African-American women (70 percent) and Hispanic women (60 percent) have the largest wage gaps as compared to white men.

So why did Jessica VanderKolk call me for a comment about Senator Casey’s press conference? The message she left on the phone was that she was interested in what I thought of Casey’s stance on pay inequity, partly as a follow-up to an article she did on this issue in May 2012, where I was also quoted.  She wanted to know why I thought there had been almost no change in wage gap in the last year and what I thought needed to happen in order to eliminate this problem.

My first statement to her was that pay inequity is unfair and unjust.  She quoted me in the news article this morning,

“It takes just as much to feed a woman’s family as a man’s family and put a roof over your head,” Tosti-Vasey said. “Gender should have no basis [in determining] your salary.”

We then went on to discuss the main point of Senator Casey’s press conference: his support and co-sponsorship of the Paycheck Fairness Act.  This bill was introduced again for the fourth time on January 23, 2013 (Casey signed on as a co-sponsor on January 30, 2013 right after announcing his support of S.R. 84).

The Paycheck Fairness Act updates and strengthens the Equal Pay Act of 1963. It gives women the tools they need to challenge the wage gap itself.  According to the ACLU, both S.R. 84 and H.R. 377 include the following remedies and programs to help remove pay inequity:

  • Require employers to demonstrate that wage differentials between men and women holding the same position and doing the same work stem from factors other than sex.
  • Prohibit retaliation against workers who inquire about their employers’ wage practices or disclose their own wages.
  • Permit reasonable comparisons between employees within clearly defined geographical areas to determine fair wages.
  • Strengthen penalties for equal pay violations. The bill’s measured approach levels the playing field by ensuring that women can obtain the same remedies as those subject to discrimination on the basis of race or national origin.
  • Encourage proactive enforcement of equal pay laws by re-instating the collection of wage-related data and providing for training for the workers who enforce our equal pay laws.
  • Modernize the Equal Pay Act to make it more in line with the class action procedures available under Title VII. It would not extend class action protections beyond what is available under other anti-discrimination laws.
  • provide important safeguards for businesses, including:
    • providing an exemption for small businesses;
    • instituting a six months waiting period from the time of enactment and requiring the Department of Labor to assist small businesses with compliance; and
    • Recognizing employers for excellence in their pay practices and strengthening federal outreach and assistance to all businesses to help improve equal pay practices.

Yet if people in general understand that paying someone less for doing the same job is unfair, why is this bill now in its fourth iteration? I was asked this question by Jessica Vandervolk during our phone call.  She paraphrased my comment, stating that Senator Casey and I agree on this issue:

[Tosti-Vasey] said the lack of action so far may have to do with the conservative climate, and Casey added that he hopes the 2012 election makes a difference.

The paraphrase is accurate, but somewhat incomplete.  I said that I believed that the lack of passage was mostly due to conservative legislators.  I continued by stating that this is particularly true in the US House of Representatives but also occurs among conservatives in the US Senate.  Why?  Just follow the campaign money.  These legislators listen to lobbyists and business honchos who want full control over how much they pay others. If employers can get away with paying less and discriminating against one segment of their workforce, then they will lobby and work to defeat any effort to change this scenario.  When elected officials’ campaign war-chests depend upon funds from uncaring, well-financed business owners and lobbyists, they vote no.

So I agree with Casey.  We have a slightly more caring House and Senate as a result of the November election and maybe we can get the Paycheck Fairness Act to become law during this session of Congress.  As constituents, let all of your legislators–both Senators and your US Representative—know that you want them to cosponsor (if they are not already a sponsor) and vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act as soon as possible.

You can find out where your representatives stand on the Paycheck Fairness Act by going to http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php. In the search box in the middle of the page, type in “Paycheck Fairness Act” and click search.  On the next page, 2 bills will show up—SR 84 and HR 377.  If you then click on “cosponsors” for each bill, you can determine if your representatives are publicly supporting the bill or not.

Meanwhile this might never have come up as an issue to fight in Congress OVER and OVER and OVER again if the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) had been ratified by 38 states and was now part of the US Constitution.  I recently blogged about why having an ERA is important, so check that out as well.  Once you have done that, go to the White House petition site and tell President Obama that you want him to work with Congress to finally get the ERA ratified.

January 23, 2013

Trial on the Constitutionality of PA’s Voter ID Law Scheduled

In 2011, the Pennsylvania General Assembly introduced a discriminatory Voter ID law that went into effect in the spring of 2012.  At the time of the introduction of this bill, I was President of Pennsylvania NOW and blogged about this law on the Pennsylvania NOW blog website.

In 2012, the new law was challenged in Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court.  Plaintiffs in the voter ID case are represented by the Public Interest Center of Philadelphia, Advancement Project, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and the Washington, DC law firm of Arnold & Porter.

The initial hearing held the week of July 31, focused on the lack of time available to implement the law.  I one of the people who testified at this hearing of the problems obtaining a photo id that I observed at the local PennDOT driver’s license center.

Initially Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson upheld the law as timely.  It was then appealed to the PA Supreme Court and the majority of this court remanded the case back to Judge Simpson telling him that unless he could affirm that no one would be adversely impacted by the new law, he would have to enjoin (delay) implementation.

Which is exactly what happened.  So in the November 2012 election, people were asked, but not required to show a photo id.  As a matter of protest, I was one of many who refused to present my id on November 6, 2012 because of the disparate effect that this law would have on low-income people, non-drivers, the elderly, people of color, students, and people with disabilities.

After Judge Simpson enjoined (stopped) the implementation of the law, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint alleging that the law is unconstitutional due to its disparate impact on women, people with disabilities, and people of color.  The initial filing of these arguments occurred in December, 2012.  This morning, Judge Simpson announced that a full hearing on the constitutionality of the law would commence on July 15, 2013; he expects the hearing to last about one week.

Meanwhile he also announced that by March 21, 2013 he will decide whether or not to modify the injunction he wrote last fall.  If he does not modify it, the law will be in full effect for the Primary on May 21, long before the constitutionality of this law is determined.

For more information on this announcement, click here (Associated Press) and here (ACLU of PA).

January 2, 2013

The Indian Gang Rape-Murder Just Scratched the Surface

This is a great summary of the history of gender-cleansing in India in the wake of the gang rape and murder of the 23-year old female medical student in New Delhi, India.  It was written by feminist Phyllis Chesler, Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies at City University of New York. Thought I’d share her thoughts with you.

The Indian Gang Rape-Murder Just Scratched the Surface.

 

December 29, 2012

Violence against Women and Children: A Worldwide, National, and Local Epidemic

Violence against women and children is a worldwide, national, and local epidemic.

Yesterday, a 23-year-old medical student died in a Singapore hospital of injuries she sustained December 16, 2012 in a gang rape and severe beating on a bus in New Delhi, India. She was attacked by six men who took turns raping her and beating both her and her male friend, stripping both of them, and then throwing them off the bus.  This is just one of many forms of femicide that have occurred in India, which include rape, sexual assault, honor killings, killing of girls 5 years and younger by starvation and violence, and dowry-related murders, among others.

This is just part of the world-wide epidemic of violence against women.  According to One Billion Rising, one in three women will be beaten or raped during her lifetime.  According to the United Nations,

Violence against women takes a dismaying variety of forms, from domestic abuse and rape to child marriages and female circumcision. All are violations of the most fundamental human rights.

Forms of violence vary by country, from sex-selection abortions in countries that value men over women, to female genital mutilation that leaves women maimed and traumatized, to forced marriages, to sexual harassment and intimidation at work, to trafficking and prostitution, to rape, incest, domestic violence, murder, and rape as a weapon of war. Some of this violence occurs within the family home.  Some of this violence occurs within the community.  And some of this violence is perpetrated by the state.  It can be physical, sexual, and/or psychological.  All forms are traumatic and in some instances, deadly.

UniFem’s data on violence against women is even starker than that presented by One Billion Rising.  They report that up to 70 percent of women and girls experience sexual or physical violence during their lifetime. Among women ages 15-44, the incidence of this form of violence – mostly perpetrated by husbands, intimate partners, or people the women know – accounts for more disability and deaths than occur from cancer, malaria, traffic accidents, and war combined.

In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control reports a pervasive problem of “intimate partner violence (IPV).”  This is defined as rape, physical violence, and stalking by a current or former intimate partner, either gay or straight of either sex or gender identity.  On average, 24 people experience some form of IPV every minute in the US.  This is over 12 million women (mostly) and some men each year, including 1 million women who are raped each year.

This violence occurs against both children and adults.  The majority of victims are women and girls, but they also include some men and young boys, such as the young boys here in Centre County, PA who were victimized by former PSU football coach Jerry Sandusky.  As a women’s rights activist, I have been speaking out against all forms of violence against women and children since at least 1994.  You can see a history of the local issues on the National NOW website here, and here as well as in The Nation.

There is a question that this info raises in my mind. What is the status of protections to reduce violence against women locally, in the US, and around the world? The picture/answer to this question is not great.

Locally, two cases of violence have made national news.  The most well-known case is that of former PSU football coach Jerry Sandusky; he was found guilty on 45 of 48 charges related to child sexual assault and is now essentially serving a life sentence in the state penitentiary.  Penn State University received a 60 million dollar sanction from the NCAA for failure to properly handle intimate partner violence, particularly child sexual abuse  within the Athletic department, and Judge Louis Freeh issued a scathing indictment against PSU’s upper administration, the Athletics’ department, and the Board of Trustees for covering up, failing to protect potential and actual victims of sexual violence, and failing to provide appropriate board oversight. And the University could face severe fines for failure to report IPV incidences to the US Department of Education under the Clery Act.  Despite these sanctions, violence on campus still continues.  The other case is the murder here in Centre County of PSU alumna Amy Homan McGee in 2001 by her husband, Vincent.  What happened in this domestic violence case was made into a 2010 PBS documentary titled “Telling Amy’s Story.”

These cases are just two examples among many that occur here at the local level. According to the State College, PA police department, there were 76 reported cases of domestic violence and 29 cases of sexual assault in the borough alone in 2011-2012.  Yet the incidence appears to be much higher.  According to the Centre County Women’s Resource Center, over 1,000 people in the county were known to be affected by domestic violence and another 200 reported being sexually assaulted throughout the entire county during the same time period.

To assist victims of stalking, domestic violence, and sexual assault, our local community created a county-wide task force of service providers and advocates to assist, education, and advocate for the reduction and elimination of all forms of IPV.  This task force has been in existence for 20+ years.  This task force is doing a decent job of working on IPV issues and providing services and education to the community, but is now facing ever increasing funding issues.

Funding for programs at the local level come largely from state and national governments.  Both levels of funding are in jeopardy.  Here in PA, for example, Governor Corbett eliminated General Assistance funding for everyone on August 1, 2012; a larger plurality of the recipients of this very limited funding were women fleeing domestic violence who used the minimal monies available to find housing for themselves and their children.

At the national level, Congress has failed to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which provides funding to the Office of Violence against Women (OVW), to law enforcement, and to the judicial system to deal with all forms of IPV.  VAWA was originally created in 1995.  The bill must be reauthorized every 5 years. This means that the last reauthorization should have occurred in 2010!  The holdback?  Rather than improving the bill, many members of Congress, particularly Republicans in the US House of Representatives are calling for both cutbacks in funding and who will be covered.  We are now at a standstill since, appropriately, the US Senate is standing firm on ensuring that all victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking – including college students, immigrants, Native Americans, and LGBTQ people – are covered.  The new session of Congress will convene in January 2013 and an entirely new bill will have to be crafted.  Meanwhile victims and survivors of IPV are surviving on a temporary funding basis through March 2013 to cover anti-violence programs to save and improve their lives.  Additionally, the looming “fiscal cliff,” sequestration will result in nearly 200,000 fewer victims receiving lifesaving and cost-effective services.

And returning to the international level, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) has a clear statement that all countries that have signed the treaty take “appropriate” steps to eliminate violence against women and girls.  The US signed the treaty in 1980 but never ratified it.  India ratified CEDAW in 1993, but as can be seen from recent events there, doesn’t enforce this obligation.

So where does this leave us?

Action is needed.  We need to get out on the streets and call for full funding of programs designed to reduce and eliminate violence.  Eve Ensler is organizing One Billion Rising on February 14, 2013.  Her call states,

We are calling on ONE BILLION women and those who love them to WALK OUT, DANCE, RISE UP, and DEMAND an end to this violence.

It is a one-day strike and an “invitation to dance” that calls for the end of all forms of violence against women and children. If you are interested in joining women and those who love them from around the world, you can download the One Billion Rising toolkit to plan your event here.

You can also take action by telling leaders here in India as well as here in the US and in your state that enough is enough.

  1. Tell the Indian Prime Minister to meet the three demands of the women of India – 1) talk directly to the women of India about how you will deal with this violence, 2) begin expediting cases against Indian politicians who have records of alleged rape and other charges of violence against women, and 3) immediately reinstate Police Woman Damayanti Sen who was fired after she protected a gang-rape victim;
  2. Contact your US Representative and US Senators. Tell them to immediately introduce a new bill similar to the 2011-2012 Senate bill (S.1925) that covers ALL victims of violence.  This needs to be passed before March 2013 when the temporary funding extension that passed in November ends.  The new bill needs to be comprehensive and include all current victims of violence as well as battered immigrant women, Native American Women, LGBTQ persons, and violence survivors on college campuses.  You can find out more information about this issue on the National NOW website, including several links to action alerts on VAWA.  Also, tell your US Senators to finally vote for and ratify CEDAW without any reservations.
  3. Learn more about what your state’s laws and funding for programs on violence against women provide.  A good source of information for each state can be found on the OVW website; there is a page on that website that links you to resources in each state.  Once you get to your state’s links, you should be able to find action alerts and information to help improve funding and programs within your state.
December 21, 2012

The NRA, Schools, and More Shootings and Threats of Shootings

I live in central Pennsylvania where there are a large number of hunters, many of whom are members of the National Rifle Association (NRA). It is also a place where this week, one man was immediately arrested after allegedly making terroristic threats that he would go on a “shooting spree” and where this morning in Blair County (the county immediately southwest of where I live), four people were killed and three others wounded after another man went on a shooting spree.

In both of these cases, there was no school targeted. In the first case, a man from Breezewood told a bank teller that he would go on a shooting spree “like at the school the other day ” by killing everyone at the local Weis Market (a grocery store) where he works and would then return to the bank and kill everyone there. The bank teller immediately notified police and he was arrested within hours for making terroristic threats, which is a felony.

In the second case, a woman was shot and killed at a church in Gesseytown—a small rural town 70 miles west of Harrisburg near Altoona, PA. Three others—including the shooter—were also killed in the area after he left the church. Two police officers were wounded by the shooter and a third officer was injured in a head-on collision during the shooting rampage. According to the Blair County District Attorney, these shootings occurred over a large area of the county but were apparently perpetrated by, once again, a lone gunman.

In all of these cases—in Newtown, Breezewood, and Gesseytown—there was a lone shooter or person threatening to go on a rampage. In each case, these men expressed their frustration, anger, and or manifestation of a mental illness by threatening or carrying out a shooting spree.

And what did the NRA have to say? Just two suggestions to further arm the country and stigmatize a vulnerable part of the population – both of which, I believe could make matters even worse.

Put armed security guards in every single school in the country.

Create a mental health registry and mandate that anyone who has ever seen a psychologist or psychiatrist or a social worker be placed into this registry.

Let’s look at both of these suggestions. First, the NRA recommended that armed security guards be placed in every single school in the country. This suggestion turns our schools from a place of learning to a fortification or day-prison for children. As Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) said right after the NRA press conference,

“You don’t want to make this an armed camp for kids. I don’t think that’s a positive example for children. We should be able to figure out other ways to enhance safety.”

This recommendation seems to be based on the idea that if every entry into the school were protected, then a shooter could not get into the school. How many schools only have one entry? Even one-room schools usually have at least two doors. The high school I went to had at least 8 doorways. The high school my son goes to has at least 8 entrances in addition to the doorways to the auditorium and gymnasium. The elementary school he attended has 10 entryways throughout the school.

What I hear the NRA saying is that had there been an armed guard at the door to the Sandy Hook Elementary School, there would not have been a mass shooting. This might only be true if there was a guard at every single entrance into the building since any potential shooter could just go around the building and shoot or enter through an entrance where there is no guard. So is the NRA suggesting that every school district in the country hire as many full-time, armed security guards as there are doors into their school buildings? I doubt it.

Second, the NRA suggested creating a mental health registry so that anyone who has any form of mental health issue would, like convicted sex-offenders, be listed in a registry. This is an overly broad and discriminatory suggestion. According to the National Association of Mental Illness, approximately one in four people in the United States experience a mental health issue in any year. This includes, for example, people experiencing depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress (think of soldiers or crime victims or survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault), and people with brain injuries or illnesses that result in some form of mental health issue. Yet only a small minority of people who have ever experienced a mental disorder become violent, according to a study issued by the Surgeon General over a decade ago.

Currently, less than one-third of those needing mental health care receive that care. There are many reasons for this, including, but not limited to:

  1. The lack of health care coverage for mental health issues. Depending on the regulations implemented under the Affordable Care Act, this will likely improve, but only if the regulations make it clear that this new law clearly mandates mental health parity coverage.
  2. A lack of screening for mental health issues across the life span. Currently many health insurance policies do not pay for screening for mental health problems and thus screenings are not done. Routine mental health screening should become part of standard practice so mental health conditions are identified early when they can most effectively be treated.
  3. A lack of training of professionals and the public on how to recognize potential mental health issues. School professionals, law enforcement, community service providers, families and the general public need to be educated and trained on identifying potential problems and sources of help. Public education should also be provided to help reduce the stigmatizing of people needing and seeking out mental health services.
  4. Under IDEA – the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act – students with emotional disorders are supposed to receive services in school so that they can remain in school and succeed in life. However due to the high cost of these services, school budgetary cuts, and the lack of knowledge by parents that these programs are mandated, but not fully implemented, many young people drop out or do not receive the services they need.

Stigmatizing mental illness by placing people on a registry if they have ever sought services will result in more people not seeking the services they need or referring their family members for treatment. And doctors and other professionals may not do screenings for mental  health issues either because they are afraid their clients’ records will be confiscated without cause (which is a violation of HIPPA – the Health Information Patient Privacy Act) or that their clients will disappear and not receive needed treatment. In addition, once a mental health registry is created, people on that list (and their family members) could and will be discriminated against in work, housing, and other forms of public accommodations whenever their name is found on such a registry.

We live in the most violent country in the world. We also have the greatest access to guns. Some of these guns are rapid fire, semi-automatic guns. According to Tom Diaz, a policy analyst for the Violence Policy Center, these weapons were designed by the military to spray bullets into crowds by soldiers who were not sharpshooters. These guns were never intended for hunting, but for shooting people. According to many sports hunters, shooting game with semi-automatic assault weapons results in little, if any, animal trophies or game food. These are the types of assault weapons that were banned in 1994; the ban lasted for ten years, but failed to be continued in 2004. Since then, these forms of weapons have proliferated.

Let’s work for a safer America. A better America. Let’s not give in to the fear mongers. There is a better route than fortifying all public places (which is where this NRA suggestion leads us) and forcing people with mental health issues underground.

There IS a better route. Ban all assault weapons – any weapon that allows high-capacity magazines (e.g., 20, 40, 60, 100, 110 + rounds of ammunition). Teach tolerance and peace-oriented forms of conflict resolution rather than arming and fortifying our schools. And make sure that mental health services and training for professionals to recognize potential mental health problems are provided through the ACA and professional training programs so that those with mental health problems can both seek out services and be helped.

December 17, 2012

Gendered Racism or the Treatment of Black Women who Speak Out

This afternoon I read an article about what I would call Gendered Racism in an online magazine called The Root.  The article is titled “What Really Makes Black Women Angry at Work.”  It is about a black meteorologist (Rhonda Lee) who was fired for speaking out on for an attack on her looks and about Susan Rice’s anger over her treatment by Republicans.

Ms. Lee was a TV meteorologist at KTBS-TV in Shreveport, LA who respectfully responded on the TV station’s Facebook page to attacks on her looks and how she wears her hair.  Her statement appeared after the station refused to respond to these attacks. This refusal was a very different response than that taken by another ABC affiliate in LaCross, WI that allowed Morning Anchor Jennifer Livingston—a white woman—to defend herself on-air when she was attacked in a similar manner.

Ms. Rice, the current US Ambassador to the United Nations, told President Obama and the nation last week that she would not accept a nomination to be the next US Secretary of State once it “became clear that [her] potential nomination would spark an enduring partisan battle.”

Here’s a snippet from the article in The Root:

The reception and treatment of black women can be vastly different, as evidenced by Lee’s case and the railroading of Rice. Race can complicate an already complicated situation and perhaps add another layer of stress to the workplace. Why should Lee have to endure criticism about her appearance that is directly related to her racial and cultural heritage as opposed to being evaluated on her performance?… Rice had to bow out of the running for the secretary of state position in order to avoid the difficult prospect of defending herself — and perhaps being perceived as coming off as belligerent — against a campaign aimed to block her from the job.

That Rice can be discouraged from pursuing the position — a job for which she perhaps has prepared for some of her adult life — is troubling. In a similar way, there’s Lee’s reality — a black woman who got fired from a job because, God forbid, she stood up for herself. Even though Lee used a friendly tone and took the road less traveled by many Americans — a respectful response — she has been
punished and portrayed as an angry black woman. When it came to Rice, she faced harsh assessments about her competency and ultimately had to stand down.

Gendered racism is the intersection of two forms of discrimination—that of sexism and racism.  It is the discrimination of a subset of people within each of these groups of color and gender. It can also be called double discrimination.

The actions by the GOP on Ms. Rice’s work and by KTBS-TV on Ms. Lee for standing up for herself are both acts that are, as The Root article states, attempts to silence black women in the workplace.

Acts like these are hurtful to women of color.  They send the wrong message that bullying is ok; that prejudice is ok; and that when women, particularly women of color, stand up for what’s right, it’s ok to silence them in any manner you can think of.  This, in my opinion, is discrimination pure and simple.

As part of The Root article, there is a link to a change.org petition to the KTBS-TV calling for them to rescind that decision.  I signed that petition.

I also went searching for a petition that condemns the GOP attacks on Susan Rice.  Although the petition was created before Ms. Rice said she would not seek the Secretary of State position, I still think the petition is apropos. So here’s the link for that one in case you want to sign it as well.  http://www.thepetitionsite.com/743/502/475/stand-with-susan-rice-against-gop-attacks/.