Quickies

Skepchick Quickies 6.24

On June 24, 1374, the town of Aachen, Germany, had an outbreak of St. John’s Dance, which is a phenomenon where groups of people allegedly can’t stop dancing (until they collapse). Sometimes, groups of musicians would accompany the dancers to try to end the manic episodes, but (you may find this hard to believe) that actually made more dancers join in! Party on, Garth; party on, Wayne.

Mary

Mary Brock works as an Immunology scientist by day and takes care of a pink-loving princess child by night. She likes cloudy days, crafting, cooking, and Fall weather in New England.

Related Articles

19 Comments

  1. RE: Judge dress code:

    Without seeing what was actually written it’s really hard judge this one.

    If it was written in terms of: “Some lawyers are wearing revealing blouses / short skirts, etc which is not professional looking. ALL LAWYERS should be wearing a shirt / blouse with tie, and a blazer and have their legs reasonably covered” that covers all genders and I have no real problem with it. If said “…women should wear…” then it’s misguided at best, openly sexist at worst.

    Anyone got a link to a copy of the original?

  2. Something not mentioned in the first article is that this same judge has fined male lawyers for not wearing suits.Sure his church-based reasoning is flawed, but the guy isn’t singling women out as much as it may seem. That a female attorney references a similar feeling shows that even though this judge explains himself poorly, he may have a point.

      1. Things like barring sundresses and sweatpants is understandable, but most of the stories I just read through say the judge sent out a memo reminding women not to wear revealing clothing, that suits must fit appropriately and panty hose should be worn. It would be nice to see the wording of the actual memo, but there is a much broader spectrum of what counts as professional in clothing for women. If that’s a problem, then maybe everyone should be required to wear the same kind of suits (and the same should go for makeup as well. XD)

  3. “Deen made a pile of money off a certain idea of old-school southern culture. In return, she had an obligation to that culture–an obligation not to embody its worst, most shameful history and attitudes.”

    Bullshit. Her job leaves her with an obligation to do her job, and not a damn thing more. She has no greater obligation not to be racist than any other human being.

    1. Agreed. And on that note, am I the only one who is bugged by the fact that Southerners venerate “Plantation Culture”? In my hometown, there are still slave cabins and white people who think some slaves loved their masters.

      1. Employers have an obligation to not be racist toward their employees. She may have been working for the Food Network, but she was, at the very least, considered a figurehead with some authority while on set. After her deposition where she stated that a lineup of black, pre-Civil War era servers is ‘professional’, that jokes that marginalize others are allowable because they’re just jokes, I am not entirely sure how a work environment with Paula Deen running the show could be considered welcoming.

        1. That doesn’t apply any more to Deen than it does it any other employer, and relates to the feelings of her employees, not her fans. The notion we should be concerned with her upsetting some of her fans by making it look like they might be racist is just fucking stupid.

          1. Paula Deen has several roles — she is a representative for the network and an authority figure (not necessarily *the* boss) on set. The Food Network has a pretty big audience, and they can decide whether they want her acting as their representative based on her bigotry, especially if they consider it their obligation to not perpetuate racism by removing any platform they’ve provided to her. If she is racist while working on set, the Food Network would also be considered liable in discrimination lawsuits because they, and thus she, are obligated to provide a safe, discrimination-free work environment.

          2. Not a single one of those roles is ‘role model and representative of white Southern people’.

            I mean really, she’s throwing around the word ‘nigger’ and trying to plan plantation-themed weddings, and we’re supposed to drop everything and worry about how the poor white people might not be seen as less racist than they otherwise would have been? Big fucking deal.

      2. Well now, don’t you-all just love those fine antebellum notions of graciousness and a welcoming hospitality that have been smoked and slow cooked over the tattered and faded remnants of a pathetic and vile historical southern morality and ethic? Well, if not I suspect you’re just thinking a might bit too much.

      3. There probably were slaves who loved their masters, just like there are places that will get cooler when the CO2 content of the atmosphere increases. Maybe even dozens of the the almost 4 million slaves in the US in 1860. That doesn’t disprove the fundamentally evil and dehumanizing nature of slavery any more than a few cold spots or cold days disprove global warming.

        Has anyone made a fuss about this, like people started doing here in Massachusetts in the 1960s and 70s about the Pilgrim/Mayflower/Thanksgiving myths? After all, it only took us about 350 years to start realizing how genocidal the European colonization of America was, bit today I don’t think an historic site could get away with anything so historically inaccurate, at least without arousing controversy. I sure hope it doesn’t take another 150 years for the same to be true about slavery in South Carolina.

  4. What is the current status of girls and boys playing on the same high school football teams at public schools? Do they put the kibosh on it above a certain level, like state competitions or something?

    1. Title IX means that they have to allow women/girls equal opportunity to try out, and equal access to facilities, if the school receives any government funding:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX
      “HEW’s 1979 Policy Interpretation articulated three ways compliance with Title IX can be achieved. This became known as the “three-part test” for compliance. A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.[23]

      “All such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution’s athletic program.”
      “Male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities” regarding facilities.
      “The athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated.”[11][24]
      “Institutions must provide both the opportunity for individuals of each sex to participate in intercollegiate competition, and for athletes of each sex to have competitive team schedules which equally reflect their abilities.” Compliance can be assessed in any one of three ways:[23]

      Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are “substantially proportionate” to their respective undergraduate enrollment.
      Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).
      Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.”

      I’m assuming this school doesn’t receive any federal or state money. If it does, they are in violation.

Leave a Reply

You May Also Enjoy

Close
Close