"Being Blonde Is Not a Protected Group Under Title VII"
So says U.S. District Judge J. Curtis Joyner of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in an order dismissing Shramban v. Aetna Inc., a Title VII suit brought by a white, Jewish, blonde woman from Moldavia who claims she was harassed on the basis of her gender, race, religion or national origin, it says here.
Comments
The woman is a Brunette who has bleached herself and assumed the name Blonde.
The case is not about Blonde human rights because the case is not about Blondes.
It is about Bleached Brunettes and why should they be protected?
They are a product group.
They voluntarily join, in fact pay to join, a group with a self-created disgusting stereotype.
The decision should be reviewed and Blondes should be released from the forced association with Bleached Brunettes.
Blondes have every right to be a protected category.
Blondes are extremely rare at 3% of adult women in North America and we have a monstrous army of Bleached Brunettes using our name for their 'business'.
95% of adult women are Brunettes and 40% of them are using the name Blonde to the detriment of Blondes.
Pass it on. OUT them.
Posted by: carol | April 21, 2005 6:09 PM
I am a natural blonde and I completly agree with this article.Mainly because it is kind of annoying when women who bleach theirhair and automatically assume that its alright to call themselves blondes.Most of the bottled blondes are the ones that give natural ones a bad name.Most of the bottled blondes think that being blonde is about acting ditzy. Which is ridiculous. I wish they wpuld start calling themselves what they are and that is a dyed brunette.
Posted by: Constance | April 4, 2006 2:11 PM
I call them Bleached Brunettes and you can too. They need to be harmed by their false impersonation. Then they will wake up, see themselves and accept that they can be censured, and they will be censured. carolecox@blondfrombirth.org
Posted by: carol | June 8, 2006 5:53 PM