Why yes, since you asked...
Oh, wait, you didn't really.
An organization to which I belong emailed a link to a survey it was asking all its members to complete, presumably to get a comprehensive picture of the way LGBT members were treated.
It certainly wasn't to find out if there were employers who discriminated against members on the basis of sexuality or gender generally, since it was entirely multiple choice, no option for "other" or space for commentary.
The only answers it wanted to get were if one had experienced or one had witnessed discrimination against LGBT members.
Straight women? we don't care.
Straight guys? we don't care.
As it happens, discrimination against ... well, what the heteronormative thinks of as "men," and some of my former employers referred to as "breeders," (sometimes friendly ribbing, sometimes contemptuously,) was rampant in many, (and even at one time, most,)x of the places in which I worked.
As a "heifer," and therefore a spectator, I think I had a pretty clear view of the playing field. (I never did determine if "heifer" was ever meant as friendly ribbing...)
Surveys, I find, are often like advocacy journalists, they've already determined the answers they seek, and find them they will.
Universalis, your very own breviary in pixels...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Nothing new under the sun. First time I ever encountered "breeders" usage was at a NPM National, 79 Chicago. The "clique" of organist/presbyters was extremely evident then, and I found it and assessed it as odious. I grew up with many gay friends of my widowed mother, and nary a one of them would have used that term, even if out of our presence. But leave it to "celibate" organists and priests to give us the pig nose. I give 'em the stink eye too.
Post a Comment