International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia

16 05 2009

via Feministe:

May 17th (tomorrow!) is the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (commonly referred to as IDAHO).  Click here to view the website.  This year, IDAHO is focusing on transphobia.  

You can sign the official appeal to the United Nations to reject transphobia and respect gender identity here.  To view the full appeal in pdf form, click here.

From the website for IDAHO:

Each year, the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (the “IDAHO”, as it is usually called), will see actions and initiatives take place in many countries and contexts and on many different issues.

All these activities and initiatives are a very strong signal to all, decisions makers, public opinion, civil rights movements, human rights defenders, etc. throughout the world that our fights for our Rights as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, intersex, etc… is vibrant!

The Day provides all different kind of actors with a very powerful opportunity to express their demands and to advocate for their case. Each year also, the IDAHO aims at using the extra public, political and media attention that it provides at all levels to highlight one specific aspect of the struggle for sexual rights.

Since the appeal is international, anyone can sign!

Deserving of a “lolwut”

16 05 2009

I was checking my Yahoo mail, and I saw this headline:

RNC chief: Gay marriage will burden small business.”

I laughed … so hard.

I’ll summarized this article for you all.  Michael Steele is saying that same-sex marriage puts a burden on small businesses because the businesses will have to suddenly provide healthcare coverage for more spouses of employees.  Wow.  Said Steele:

“Now all of a sudden I’ve got someone who wasn’t a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,” Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. “So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.”

So, apparently it’s okay for small businesses to cover the spouse of an employee if the couple is opposite-sex.  So as soon as we let a smaller number of OTHER people get married, then they’ll be sucking businesses DRY with their greedy “need” for healthcare.  Booo.

So, small business owners (who are obviously all straight, duh), while we encourage you to keep providing healthcare to the spouses of your hetero-employees, we think you should be totally ENRAGED because any queer employees might get married just to screw you over and suck up all your precious, precious insurance coverage.

And that, my friends, is why Michael Steele deserves a massive, enthusiastic “lolwut.”  Enjoy.

Fat Acceptance Ad Deemed Too Offensive for TV

16 05 2009

On an Australian show about advertising, The Gruen Transfer, advertising agencies were recently asked to make an anti fatism ad.  The show asked two advertising agencies to create ads to “end shape discrimination and make overweight Australians feel less humiliated by the constant public disapproval of anyone who isn’t a size 10 or under.”  But this ad, created by advertising agency The Foundry, was thought to be just too offensive to be shown on ABC television.    However, the ad was posted online along with a 15-minute panel discussion about the rationale behind the ad’s creation and why the ad may have not been successful.

The ad shows people telling startlingly offensive jokes.

“How do black women fight crime? They have abortions.”

“How do you stop a poofter from drowning? You take your foot off his head.”

“What’s the difference between Santa Claus and a Jew? Santa Claus goes down the chimney.”

“Why did God create alcohol? So fat chicks could get a root.”

The ad then flashes the following message across the screen:  

“Discrimination comes in all shapes and sizes.  FATPride.”

Although the ad was meant to be thought-provoking, not offensive, it seems to have missed the mark.  To me, the “jokes” are just so shocking and unacceptable that it is nearly impossible to appreciate the attempted point of the ad.  I’m also uncomfortable with the ad seeming to equate discriminations.  The point behind the ad is that all discriminations are unacceptable, but if the ad is interpreted to imply that all discriminations are the same, it is problematic.  I recommend you watch the discussion, though, to see the reasoning behind the ad’s creation and the points that the creators were trying to make.

Any thoughts?  Is this ad successful or too offensive to get the point across?  Should it have been aired on television?