March, 2002, HOLLYWOOD - I love Hollywood. It's a part of my hometown, Los Angeles, that I've been stuck on all my life. My life history is literally embedded here.
When I was a kid, it was the exciting part of town that my parents took me to for special occasions - a movie, a dinner, and a drive admiring the glamour of the neon signs and art-deco architecture. As a movie-struck teen-ager, Hollywood Boulevard was where I hung out. It was where I got the only jay walking ticket in my life, dashing across Hollywood Boulevard right in front of the legendary Grauman's Chinese Theater. I spent hours exploring in bookstores on the boulevard, like Larry Edmund's and Pickwick Books, and chancing across stars like John Derek and Gig Young also browsing among the stacks. Music City, on the corner of Sunset Boulevard and Vine Street, was where I went to listen to the latest hit records in the glass booths facing the street. In the evenings, we went to movies at celebrated theaters like the Pantages, the Egyptian, and, of course, Grauman's Chinese Theater.
But over the years, Hollywood started to decline. The big department store closed down, followed by other fine clothing stores. Seedy operations began opening up. The smaller movie houses shifted their booking to X-rated films. Fine restaurants closed and reopened as greasy spoons. The people on the street changed. We stopped going there at night. When the Pantages and Egyptian theaters went dark, I was shaken. Those were landmarks of our city. It was unthinkable. It was like a death of a loved one. It hurt - and I also felt guilty. I hadn't supported those great movie palaces in years. It was heartbreaking to watch a beloved, once legendary street going derelict.
A few hardy institutions were toughing it out against the tide of nastiness and squalor. Musso & Frank's Restaurant, the gathering place of stars since the days of silent movies, had been on the boulevard since 1919. I still went there on occasion for their steaks, chicken pot pies, and, especially, their great martinis. It was wonderful bumping into Ricardo Montalban there shortly after we worked together on "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn."
And tour buses still congregated at old Grauman's Chinese Theater with its autographed and hand printed forecourt. Through thick and thin, the Chinese was a perennial.
"Star Trek" did its galactic best to buttress up the renown and traditions of Hollywood. When Gene Roddenberry was honored with his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, we all gathered - with the exception of Bill Shatner - to rejoice with our boss, the Great Bird. With each new star on the Walk of Fame for a fellow member of our Star Trek family, we got together to celebrate the happy occasion. And hundreds of fans joined us from far and near.
The year 1986 was my turn and I will never forget the joy of that day. My name embedded in a rose terrazzo star on the sidewalk that I had been walking over all my life! Before feet from all over the world could tread over my good name, my mother, who gave me life and taught me to walk, had to be the very first one to step on my star. She reveled being in the spotlight. After the ceremony, we partied at the historic Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel. Mayor Tom Bradley proclaimed October 30, 1986, George Takei Day in Los Angeles. The heady memory of that day will forever be my personal treasure.
Incredibly, that day was topped by a shared day of jubilation. In the 25th anniversary year of "Star Trek," just before the premiere of "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country," the entire cast was honored with Hollywood's version of consecration - a place in the forecourt of the hallowed Grauman's Chinese Theater. Cheering fans lined both sides of Hollywood Boulevard as we paraded down in convertibles. The USC Marching Band blared away in front of us. We arrived at the Chinese to be greeted by the ever-ebullient Johnny Grant, the Honorary Mayor of Hollywood, with a cortege of young fans dressed as Starfleet officers, Klingon warriors and an Andorian Ambassador or two. This ceremony was going to be unique from any other in the Chinese Theater's long and colorful history. Ours had visitors from throughout the galaxy. A large square of fresh cement moistly awaited our autographs. The studio publicists had instructed us that, due to the limited space, we were to write our autographs only - nothing else. Bill Shatner and Leonard Nimoy led off obediently as instructed with only their signatures on the wet cement. I surmised then, that I was obviously the only one who knew the whole tradition. A handprint must accompany the autograph in the cement. It was tradition. As the only native Angeleno, the responsibility for continuing that tradition lay solely with me. When my turn came, I wrote my name clearly and then, despite the instructions from the studio, I pressed my palm firmly into the wet cement. The shocked exclamation that followed came from Bill Shatner. "George put his hand in!" Then after a pause, "I want to put MY hand in too!" Splat! He slapped his handprint into the moist cement right beside his signature. Pandemonium broke out as everyone else ran to add their handprints to their autographs. Leonard - always thinking in character - placed his handprint in the form of his Vulcan greeting. The continuity of the hallowed rite of the handprint was not broken. I took quiet satisfaction in knowing that I was the one responsible for maintaining that tradition.
The day after that memorable ceremony, I drove down Hollywood Boulevard. Tourists with cameras were still ambling around the Chinese Theater. But the rest of the street had returned to its shabby dereliction. The crowd was gone and the grungy, the delinquent and the deranged had shambled back. "Star Trek" had brought only a brief day of excitement to a growingly forlorn street.
Over the years, there were many initiatives to revitalize Hollywood. Every disappointment was followed by redoubled efforts to reclaim a valued part of the city. Everybody knows Hollywood. From Bombay to Helsinki, from Morocco to Outer Mongolia, Hollywood is a place known throughout the world. In some parts of the world, Hollywood may be better known than Los Angeles itself, of which it is actually a part. Los Angeles could not allow the decline to continue. Hollywood was too valuable and too well known.
With much effort, a revitalization plan was crafted with tax incentives, historic restoration credits, improved security programs and, most importantly, leadership commitment. When the film appreciation society, American Cinematheque, working closely with the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, restored and reopened the historic Egyptian Theater as its new home, the re-ascendance of Hollywood began. It was quickly followed by the welcome return of the Pantages Theater. The great movie palace was magnificently restored and premiered just over a year ago with Disney's stage production of "The Lion King." It is a smash hit still playing today. And, last month, Hollywood saw the spectacular opening of the Kodak Theater and the Babylon Court of Hollywood and Highland. This is the biggest and most fantastically over-the-top complex of theaters, shops, and restaurants in Los Angeles. Just last week, the Japanese American National Museum held its annual dinner in the glamorous new Grand Ballroom on the rooftop of the complex. In two weeks, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will present the Oscars for the highest achievements in motion pictures for the year 2001 in the dazzling new Kodak Theater, designated as its permanent home.
Hollywood Boulevard is where Oscar belongs. It was born 75 years ago at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel, just across the street from the Kodak Theater. Since then, Oscar roamed all over Los Angeles and Santa Monica, finally to find a permanent home back on Hollywood Boulevard. Hooray for Hollywood!
The people are coming back. The excitement is coming back. Now that the money is coming back, so are the politics.
There are people politicking to have Hollywood secede from the City of Los Angeles. After Los Angeles had struggled through the tough years of Hollywood, after all the effort and investment to revitalize the area, after the Metro Rail subway system was built to bind Hollywood with the rest of the city, there are activists trying to break away. They are advocating to place a measure on the November ballot declaring Hollywood an independent city. The irony is that, if they did succeed, they will still have to contract with Los Angeles for all their services.
I don't live within the specific boundaries of Hollywood. But, I consider it an intrinsic part of my hometown. I have childhood memories there. I went to summer school at Hollywood High. As a Los Angeles High School cross-country runner, I competed in races against runners from Hollywood High. I work in an industry that is synonymous with Hollywood. I go to movies, eat, play, and spend my money in Hollywood. I don't want a room in my civic home taken away from me.
One more thing - that world famous sign on the hillside of Griffith Park that announces "Hollywood" in great big bold white letters is in Los Angeles. And, we won't give that up. What is Hollywood without the Hollywood sign? It would be like Paris without the Eiffel Tower or New York without the Empire State Building. I say to the activists trying to break away, "give it up." Your effort is misguided. And we ain't giving up our Hollywood sign!
Feminists Slam Man Telling Them They Can't Have Both Chivalry And Equality
A man on Twitter informed feminists they had to choose between chivalry and equality.
He was promptly raked over the coals for even assuming an antiquated concept would be considered as a viable option.
Twitter user @Rich_Cooper stated:
"Dear feminists. You either get equality or chivalry. You can't have both."
Dear feminists. You either get equality or chivalry. You can't have both.— Richard Cooper (@Richard Cooper) 1536083523.0
One user responded:
"I'll take equality. I don't need special treatment."
@Rich_Cooper #BenevolentSexism is still #sexism. I'll take equality. I don't need special treatment.— ☮️ Minkajane ☮️ (@☮️ Minkajane ☮️) 1537276790.0
Cooper's rhetorical question did not go over so well. Both women and men expressed their disdain for his message.
One male user observed that chivalry was irrelevant and treating everyone with kindness and respect was compulsory.
"What people care about is caring, empathic [sic], considerate, thoughtful people, NOT whether THEIR door is held for them or THEIR meal is paid for them."
"Are there gender stereotypes in het[erosexual] dating? Sure. But that's separate from being a warm, giving, caring, grounded person."
@Rich_Cooper What people care about is caring, empathic, considerate, thoughtful people, NOT whether THEIR door is… https://t.co/wlGHWRzKLi— Mark W. Wilson, MD (@Mark W. Wilson, MD) 1537276816.0
Some women got right down to the point.
@Rich_Cooper Translation: I will only be nice to you if you agree to be subservient to me— Elizabeth Noll (@Elizabeth Noll) 1537292709.0
@Rich_Cooper Gotta love when a man tells women what they can and can't have. Thanks for the heads up buddy 😉 https://t.co/gDMJscuTac— Hannah ✊ (@Hannah ✊) 1537285112.0
@Rich_Cooper Translation: I couldn’t possibly be expected to treat women as equals, show them respect, and still feel like a man.— Dom (@Dom) 1537293169.0
@Rich_Cooper We are sooooo bored with "chivalry" which stems from the courtly love period in the middle ages when w… https://t.co/wRho1a9DTz— Jeanthejust (@Jeanthejust) 1537280103.0
@Rich_Cooper Dear man. As a feminist, I open doors for men all the time. I also offer my seat to men in need on t… https://t.co/uxdwfh1kEM— My ovaries dream of puppers (@My ovaries dream of puppers) 1537502301.0
The notion of chivalry and equality are mutually exclusive and not a lot of people thought it was a major priority for feminists.
Common courtesy is not chivalry.
@Rich_Cooper Nah. That's some real childlike, oversimplified thinking. There are obviously more than these two op… https://t.co/lUqnEJhIAp— TheQuietRanger (@TheQuietRanger) 1537342901.0
@Rich_Cooper Wow, I had no idea that feminists were campaigning for chivalry, thanks for the Valuable Insight lol… https://t.co/iK62FTM9WY— Tracy Campbell the DM (Dungeon Mom) (@Tracy Campbell the DM (Dungeon Mom)) 1537294172.0
@Rich_Cooper I hold the door open for a guy walking into Starbucks behind me. Tomorrow, he might do the same for me… https://t.co/xWQEu6QHrM— Emma Scott (@Emma Scott) 1537294526.0
This user pointed out the fact that chivalry stems from a history of men outdoing other men. The concept had very little to do with women.
"Chivalry is a medieval concept of men dressing to impress other men. It has little to do with equality."
"Some men were on top, other men were beneath them. Historically, women were rarely invited into the process."
@Rich_Cooper @kent_imig Chivalry is a medieval concept of men dressing to impress other men. It has little to do wi… https://t.co/m8YPUkaUzm— Mark Findlay (@Mark Findlay) 1537257080.0
Neil Bradley described the outdated concept of chivalry as one that implies men being superior to women in a September 8, 2017, article for Medium publications.
"Examples: opening the door for a woman, paying for a woman's meal, gesturing for a woman to go first. The justification is either that women are not physically as strong (to open the door), able to provide (pay for their own meal), or are more deserving of compassion than men (allowing women to go first)."
Bradley also added that he wants to treat others the way he wants to be treated and asked if that approach should be motivated by chivalry or equality.
"If the genders are to be considered equal and treated equally, how a man treats a woman will essentially be the same as how a man treats a man."
"The obligation to open the door, pay for the meal, and let women go first vanishes. Men do not do this to other men, therefore why do it for women?"
His final take was that the two concepts can't co-exist. Either one is chivalrous or treats everyone as equals.
At the end of the day, people were happy to show chivalry the door.
@seanrmccauley @DoverCook @ShappiKhorsandi @Rich_Cooper @MarkFindlay26 @kent_imig Nobody needs chivalry. Equality a… https://t.co/isq5Fo84iU— John Dougherty (@John Dougherty) 1537357843.0
H/T - GettyImages, Twitter, Indy100, Medium
Katy Perry, P!nk, Paul McCartney And More Sign Letter Threatening To Boycott SiriusXM Radio
Hundreds of artists have signed a letter threatening a boycott if SiriusXM's parent company, Liberty Media, doesn't back down from opposing the Music Modernization Act.
The act, which was expected to pass through Congress, streamlines royalty payments in the new age of digital technology, but it seems SiriusXM is objecting to a small section that would have the satellite radio company paying royalties on recordings dating before 1972.
That's a whole lot of songs and a whole lot of money the company is hoping to skip out on paying, but not if stars like Paul McCartney, P!nk, Stevie Nicks, Sia, Carly Simon, Gloria Estefan, Mick Fleetwood, Don Henley, Max Martin, and Katy Perry can help it.
The letter read, in part:
I'm writing you with grave concern about SiriusXM's opposition to the Music Modernization Act (Classics Act included).
We are all aware of your company's objections and trepidation but let me say that this is an opportunity for SiriusXM to take a leadership position. As you are aware, 415 Representatives and 76 Senators have already cosponsored the MMA along with industry consensus. It's SiriusXM vs all of us. We can either fight to the bitter end or celebrate this victory together. Rather than watch bad press and ill will pile up against SiriusXM, why not come out supporting the most consequential music legislation in 109 years? We do not want to fight and boycott your company but we will as we have other opponents. Stand with us! Be brave and take credit for being the heroes who helped the MMA become historic law! Momentum is building against SiriusXM and you still have an opportunity to come out on the right side of history. We look forward to your endorsement but the fire is burning and only you can put this out.
SiriusXM resoponded with a letter of their own:
Over the past several weeks, we have been the subject of some stinging attacks from the music community and artists regarding our views on the Music Modernization Act. Contrary to new reports and letters, this is really not about a SiriusXM victory, but implementing some simple, reasonable and straightforward amendments to MMA. There is nothing in our "asks" that gut the MMA or kills the Act. So let's talk about the substance of the amendments we propose, because we truly do not understand the objections or why these concepts have incited such a holy war.ontrary to the accusations, SiriusXM has proposed three simple amendments to the MMA.
First, SiriusXM has asked that the CLASSICS Act recognize that it has already licensed all of the pre-1972 works it uses. This amendment would ensure that artists – the people who are supposed to be at the heart of the MMA – receive 50% of the monies under those existing licenses. Is that unfair? Just today, Neil Diamond wrote in the LA Times that: "I receive a small amount of songwriting royalties, but no royalties as the recording artist." How can that happen? To date, SiriusXM has paid nearly $250 million dollars in pre-'72 royalties to the record labels. We want to make sure that a fair share of the monies we have paid, and will pay, under these licenses gets to performers. Without this provision, artists may never see any of the money SiriusXM paid, and will pay, for the use of pre-1972 works. Artists not getting paid hurts our business!
Second, Sirius XM thinks that the fair standard to use in rate setting proceedings is the standard that Congress chose in 1995 and confirmed again in 1998 – which is called the 801(b) standard. However, we are willing to move the "willing buyer/willing seller" standard contained in the MMA. In exchange, we have asked for the same concession that the MMA grants to other digital music services, but we were left out of — simply that the rates that were set last year for five years now apply for ten years. We thought this was a fair compromise when we read the "new" MMA that was released this weekend by the Senate, and are willing to live by that compromise.
Third, SiriusXM is asking the simple question: "Why are we changing the rate court evidence standard for musical compositions in this legislation so that it gives another advantage to broadcasters over satellite radio and streaming services?" There is no policy rationale for this change to tilt the playing field further in their favor, and frankly no one has been able to explain it to us. It is only fair that we debate why the change to Section 114(i) is in the MMA.
Did you all catch that? It sounds like lawyer speak for "we don't really want to say where we stand."
It seems all the letters were for naught. The Music Modernization Act passed in the U.S. Senate.
The #MusicModernizationAct has been passed by the U.S. Senate! 🎶 Along with our members across the country, we're e… https://t.co/52yNhtV4zk— Recording Academy / GRAMMYs (@Recording Academy / GRAMMYs) 1537318533.0
@kayhanley @SIRIUSXM Hi @kayhanley, I absolutely support the #MusicModernizationAct. I signed on as a cosponsor ear… https://t.co/j4JHXpLBxI— Elizabeth Warren (@Elizabeth Warren) 1537225190.0
People said this was impossible. Some even worked hard to make it impossible, even telling outright lies about wh… https://t.co/iMTlwJLWVw— Future of Music Coalition (@Future of Music Coalition) 1537309844.0
We're thrilled to share that the Senate has unanimously voted to pass the #MusicModernizationAct, an historic miles… https://t.co/Uuy2Yp8zCw— ASCAP (@ASCAP) 1537311517.0
It was time to celebrate and dance in the streets.
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP Grateful. That says it all. Grateful past language for the sweet souls who worked so hard to mak… https://t.co/JSeUNCwFSd— Paul Williams (@Paul Williams) 1537319434.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams YES!!!! Songwriters are dancing everywhere!— James Grey (@James Grey) 1537315642.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Thank you for helping us all organize to get this done #MusicModernizationAct— Tangent Recording (@Tangent Recording) 1537311639.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Greatness Is What Greatness Does....And This Is Great.— Eddie C Person Jr (@Eddie C Person Jr) 1537365270.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams #Love it!— CKGTHEDON (@CKGTHEDON) 1537315443.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Fantastic News! Thank You U.S. Senate ~> Pass it House Of Representatives ~> Sig… https://t.co/tukiZ8Ryug— MarkAlexanderCarroll (@MarkAlexanderCarroll) 1537321589.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Simply amazing hard work pays off.— PedroBarr (@PedroBarr) 1537320953.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Thank all of you for your tireless efforts and work.Protecting what is important… https://t.co/goFps7yu2V— Roney Hooks (@Roney Hooks) 1537317136.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams I am so thankful for this wonderful change. We songwriters deserve it!— J.R. FOWLER (@J.R. FOWLER) 1537322119.0
As the saying goes, honest pay for honest work.
Some Residents Of Uranus, Missouri Are Not Happy About The Name Of Their New Local Newspaper 😆
There's nothing like a good pun about human anatomy. Really gets the juices flowing!
The Uranus Examiner is coming to this Missouri town. Yes, really. https://t.co/RKy7kDcCFT— The Kansas City Star (@The Kansas City Star) 1536865442.0
Owners of the new Uranus Examiner must have been snickering as they announced the paper's name. Apparently, it's caused quite the controversy in the small town of Uranus, Missouri, over the last few days.
Residents are divided over whether the pun is an embarrassment or perfectly snarky:
“It’s a serious newspaper!” declares the managing editor of the Uranus Examiner. @nypost https://t.co/uig5eYxT2t— Bryan A. Garner (@Bryan A. Garner) 1537038088.0
Folks on the internet responded with maturity and composure after learning about the Uranus Examiner.
Oh, wait. No they didn't.
@qikipedia Uranus Examiner... it's got a nice ring to it 😀.— Roy Elliott (@Roy Elliott) 1537364058.0
I pitched “The Regina Monologues” as the name for my column at the Regina Leader-Post and was unceremoniously turn… https://t.co/aejjXcooWK— Jana G. Pruden (@Jana G. Pruden) 1536938407.0
If we ever colonize Uranus, the hardest part will be picked a newspaper name. "The Uranus Examiner"? Gonna be rough.— Scott Johnson (@Scott Johnson) 1537192690.0
@qikipedia How is it I've lived in Missouri my whole life and never gone through Uranus— Joshua Ryman, Sigma Grindcore Consultant (@Joshua Ryman, Sigma Grindcore Consultant) 1537366074.0
The newspaper name is a source of controversy — “Butt I like it,” the Uranus mayor said. https://t.co/xZWn4qthd1— Kaitlyn Alanis (@Kaitlyn Alanis) 1536865208.0
If you think about it... there might actually be a method to the madness here. The brand new paper's name has received widespread media coverage over this past week. Simply put... everyone's talking about Uranus.
In terms of publicizing their new venture, the owners of the Uranus Examiner have actually done a pretty sweet job!
In the video above, a woman suggests the paper should have been called "The Pulaski County Examiner."
If you ask me, that's TOTALLY BORING, and wouldn't have generated as much interest and publicity for the paper. So while the name might be cringeworthy to some, you can bet Uranus that it'll stick around. Who knows, Uranus might even grow as a result!
H/T: Indy100, The Kansas City Star
Woman Was Fired For Refusing To Wear A Bra At Work—And Now She's Suing
Christina Schell, from Alberta, Canada, stopped wearing bras three years ago citing health reasons.
While Schell did not specify the health reasons, she did state she finds them to be "horrible."
But after her refusal to sign or adhere to a new enforced dress code policy to wear a bra or tank top under her work shirt at a golf course grill where she worked, Schell was promptly fired.
Now, the 25-year-old has filed a human rights violation against the Osoyoos Golf Club, Osoyoos, in British Columbia, Canada.
Schell said:
"I don't think any other human being should be able to dictate another person's undergarments."
When she asked the general manager, Doug Robb, why she had to comply, the manager told her the mandate was for her protection.
Robb allegedly said:
"I know what happens in golf clubs when alcohol's involved."
After losing her job, she brought the case to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and told them the club's dress code was discriminatory because the rule didn't apply towards male employees.
Schell told CBC:
"It's gender-based and that's why it's a human rights issue. I have nipples and so do the men."
David Brown, an employment lawyer in Kelowna, BC, said gender-specific dress codes could be viewed as discriminatory under the BC Human Rights Code.
He stated:
"It's an interesting question as to whether or not an employer can dictate the underwear that women can wear, but they don't say anything about the underwear that men can wear, and does that create an adverse impact on the individual?"
Brown added:
"If this policy is found to be discrimination, the next question is does the employer have a bonafide occupational requirement to essentially impose this on the individual?"
"I'm kind of scratching my head as to what that occupational requirement would be."
@GlobalBC The policy is sexist the peopl supporting it are sexist. Hope she wins her complaint— Lori bell (@Lori bell) 1529692660.0
@Shelby_Thom @WoodfordCHNL @GlobalOkanagan @GlobalBC Then men should have to wear either a tank top or undershirt— caffene fiend (@caffene fiend) 1529624161.0
@SoldByBrock @Shelby_Thom @GlobalOkanagan @GlobalBC What does common courtesy have to do with wearing a bra? Breast… https://t.co/ZVI2xDdpgf— M Shumway (@M Shumway) 1529843759.0
As for the tank top option, due to working under oftentimes extreme heat serving tables outsides, Schell did not want to wear another layer of clothes just because of her gender.
Schell said:
"It was absurd. Why do you get to dictate what's underneath my clothes?"
Employment lawyer Nadia Zaman told CBC that the club can enforce a gender-specific policy as they deem necessary as long as the establishment can prove it is for the occupational safety of its workers.
But the attorney questioned if forcing female employees to wear a bra was applicable in this case.
Zaman stated:
"If they simply require that female employees wear a bra but then they don't have a similar requirement for males, and they can't really justify that … then there is a risk that their policy's going to be deemed to be discriminatory."
Under British Columbia's discrimination law, it is illegal for employers:
'to discriminate against any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin'.
@GlobalBC @globalnews Logistically bras or the absence of does not impact health or work performance. That is my v… https://t.co/65cLHBMowf— Louisette Lanteigne (@Louisette Lanteigne) 1529769211.0
McDonald's employee Kate Gosek, 19, agrees with Schell in that the dress code is "unnecessary." She too was harassed by her employers at a McDonald's in Selkirk, Manitoba, over refusing to wear a bra.
"She just told me that I should put on a bra because, McDonald's—we are a polite restaurant and no one needs to see that."
Schell's case sparked plenty of debates on Twitter.
@DunnMan77 @GlobalBC It's just discriminatory, woman shouldn't have to wear bras if they don't want to. As well as… https://t.co/RXhRVWUuNy— Mary Johnson (@Mary Johnson) 1529685276.0
@DunnMan77 @GlobalBC Men do not have to wear underpants if they don't want to. As of right now there are no laws to… https://t.co/l8FuPVybWo— Mary Johnson (@Mary Johnson) 1529686418.0
@GlobalBC Women have the right not to be forced to wear a bra Shaving & makeup also is a choice. If you want to do… https://t.co/Ybkj6PLDnD— Lozan (@Lozan) 1529686156.0
@Lozan72 @GlobalBC I would completely understand her and your argument if we were talking about a potential law to… https://t.co/trRyNAubn4— Chris George (@Chris George) 1529690293.0
@GlobalBC This story frustrates me. There's no dress code equivalent for men? Well if I saw the outline of a male s… https://t.co/5YbAvXKRcO— Molly Max (@Molly Max) 1529705327.0
Schell is not alone in her disdain for bras.
@GlobalBC I personally HATE wearing a #bra absolutely hate it with passion and unashamed to admit it. I HATE BEING… https://t.co/GEi3LtxIDa— Lozan (@Lozan) 1529686305.0
Schell is still waiting to hear from the Human Rights Commission about her claim.
H/T - GettyImages, Twitter, Indy100, CBC