By Sabine Durrant
Published: 11:00AM BST 22 Aug 2010
April Ashley, Britain’s first transsexual, is, at 75, a woman confident of her own stature. When she arrives at the restaurant where we are to have lunch, she strikes a momentary pose in the doorway, the hems of her white slacks a little damp from the sudden summer rain outside, but her blue bouffant hair, her mascara’ed eyelashes, immaculate.
Once her chair has been pulled out for her, she tips her head graciously at any fellow diners who may be staring, gives a trill of her pink-nailed fingers to each waiter (‘How lovely to see you’), and to the sommelier bids, ‘A glass of champagne, but not a normal glass of champagne. An April Ashley glass of champagne.’
She has taken the bus and has walked for miles – she is, by her own admission, somewhat on her uppers – but it turns out this is one of her old haunts. ‘I used to know the chef, such a wonderful man, and he used to say to me, “April,” he used to say, “you are welcome here any time.” Of course,’ she adds in an aside that manages to parlay parsimony into grandeur, ‘I never had to pay.’
Ashley is in many ways a 20th-century phenomenon. She is Zelig meets Jade Goody meets Joan Collins, a woman whose life has taken her from the slums of Liverpool to the shores of California, from the merchant navy to the nightspots of Paris.
Her sex change took place in 1960, 50 years ago, in a world before a transsexual could win Big Brother, or operate on the Queen Mother, long before the Gender Recognition Act of 2004, though, pre- or post-op, her life reads like the plot of a beach novel.
We try harder. Being abused as children and made to feel inferior and second class our entire lives leads to our putting out morre effort to do well in hopes of avoiding abuse for being “trannie freaks”. Even if we are super passable and deep stealth, we know and the voice in the our mind whispers, “Work harder, show them your value and then they won’t fire you, will promote you”…
The two sisters who are infamous for being the ones trashed publicly by lesbian feminists are actually people I’ve met or know on an acquaintance level. I know them both to be the dedicated heart and soul type people who were described by people in their organizations as the most dedicated and hardest working members of their respective organizations.
Their reward was to wind up being trashed.
Maybe there is an explanation beyond simple transphobia for some of this pattern.
People don’t really like unselfish colleagues
August 23, 2010
You know those goody-two-shoes who volunteer for every task and thanklessly take on the annoying details nobody else wants to deal with?
That’s right: Other people really can’t stand them.
Four separate studies led by a Washington State University social psychologist have found that unselfish workers who are the first to throw their hat in the ring are also among those that coworkers most want to, in effect, vote off the island.
“It’s not hard to find examples but we were the first to show this happens and have explanations for why,” said Craig Parks, lead author of “The Desire to Expel Unselfish Members from the Group” in the current Journal of Personality and Social Psychology< http://www.physorg.com/tags/journal+of+personality+and+social+psychology/ >.
The phenomenon has implications for business work groups, volunteer organizations, non-profit projects, military units, and environmental efforts, an interest of Parks’ coauthor and former PhD student, Asako Stone.
Parks and Stone found that unselfish colleagues come to be resented because they “raise the bar” for what is expected of everyone. As a result, workers feel the new standard will make everyone else look bad.
It doesn’t matter that the overall welfare of the group or the task at hand is better served by someone’s unselfish behavior, Parks said.
“What is objectively good, you see as subjectively bad,” he said.
The do-gooders are also seen as deviant rule breakers. It’s as if they’re giving away Monopoly money so someone can stay in the game, irking other players to no end.
The studies gave participants—introductory psychology students—pools of points that they could keep or give up for an immediate reward of meal service vouchers. Participants were also told that giving up points would improve the group’s chance of receiving a monetary reward.
In reality, the participants were playing in fake groups of five. Most of the fictitious four would make seemingly fair swaps of one point for each voucher, but one of the four would often make lopsided exchanges—greedily giving up no points and taking a lot of vouchers, or unselfishly giving up a lot of points and taking few vouchers< http://www.physorg.com/tags/vouchers/ >.
Most participants later said they would not want to work with the greedy colleague again—an expected result seen in previous studies.
But a majority of participants also said they would not want to work with the unselfish colleague again. They frequently said, “the person is making me look bad” or is breaking the rules. Occasionally, they would suspect the person had ulterior motives.
Parks said he would now like to look at how the do-gooders themselves react to being rejected. While some may indeed have ulterior motives, he said it’s more likely they actually are working for the good of an organization.
Excluded from the group, they may say, “enough already” and simply give up.
“But it’s also possible,” he said, “that they may actually try even harder.”
More information: The desire to expel unselfish members from the group; Parks, Craig D.; Stone, Asako B.; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 99(2), Aug 2010, 303-310. doi:10.1037/a0018403 < http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0018403 >
The desire to expel unselfish members from the group.
By Parks, Craig D.; Stone, Asako B.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 99(2), Aug 2010, 303-310.
An initial study investigating tolerance of group members who abuse a public good surprisingly showed that unselfish members (those who gave much toward the provision of the good but then used little of the good) were also targets for expulsion from the group. Two follow-up studies replicated this and ruled out explanations grounded in the target being seen as confused or unpredictable. A fourth study suggested that the target is seen by some as establishing an undesirable behavior standard and by others as a rule breaker. Individuals who formed either perception expressed a desire for the unselfish person to be removed from the group. Implications are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)
Provided by Washington State University
© PhysOrg.com 2003-2010
Okay… We’ve put that lame argument to bed. We want “Civil Marriage”. If tax-exempt Hate Groups don’t want to marry us in their government services subsidized tax free establishments they don’t have to.
I for one wouldn’t want that to happen. Further were I to ever relent on that one rest assured it would be for a church like the Universal Unitarians, who aren’t a bunch of bigoted hate mongers.
From San Diego Gay and Lesbian News: http://sdgln.com/news/2010/08/20/california-passes-law-strengthening-religious-freedom-clergy
SDGLN Staff | Fri, 08/20/2010 – 11:15am
SACRAMENTO — The California Assembly on Thursday passed the Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Act (SB 906) in a 46-25 vote.
The bill, introduced by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and co-sponsored by Equality California and California Council of Churches IMPACT, protects clergy from performing any civil marriage that is contrary to the tenets of his or her faith.
The bill also protects religious institutions from losing their tax-exempt status for refusing to perform any civil marriage, and deepens the distinction in state law between religious and civil marriage by defining the latter as a civil contract that requires a state-issued marriage license.
“Opponents of marriage equality have falsely claimed that allowing same-sex couples to marry will force clergy to violate the tenets of their faiths,” said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California. “This bill should alleviate any concerns that restoring marriage equality will require clergy to perform weddings inconsistent with their faith.”
“This bill simply affirms that California is a diverse state, and that we can all co-exist and make space for each others’ beliefs without compromising the tenets of any religious group or individual,” Leno said.
“With the recent federal court ruling, we know that marriage for same-sex couples in California is on the horizon. Under the Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Act, churches and clergy members who fear their religious views are threatened by marriage equality will have clear and solid protections under state law. In addition, churches that welcome same-sex couples will continue to fully recognize those families within their faith.”
SB 906 now returns to the Senate floor for a concurrence vote before heading to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk.