Sometimes I hear people say that racism/sexism/etc in culture isn’t important or worth criticizing. ”Oh it’s just a book,” they say. ”It’s just a crappy TV show.” ”It’s just a commercial.”
This argument always baffles me. It’s like if you put poison into a fish-tank and then say “Oh well I didn’t poison the fish, I just poisoned the water.” The fish lives in the water, dumbass; it’s completely submerged in and surrounded by the water. I’m pretty sure that poisoned water is going to affect the fish.
Similarly, we all live constantly immersed in this miasma of information that we call “culture.” People are not born prejudiced. We don’t emerge from the womb knowing that all black men are scary thugs, that all Latinas are spicy sexpots, that all Indians are violent savages, that all women are weepy and frail, that all gay men are depraved pedophiles, and that all people in wheelchairs are objects of pity. We learn these things, usually starting at a very young age, and we often learn them from our culture — the books we read, the movies we watch, and the constant barrage of advertising that we don’t really pay attention to but which still manages to seep into our brains, and which shapes the way we think about the world, for better or for worse.
If you want to save the fish, you need to purify the water.
I did tell them to take her cuffs off, and once they were in my ambulance I made the guard take them off. The jail policy is whenever an inmate is being transported they get cuffs.
They left her in her cell miscarrying for like 8 hours before they called 911. The original lawsuit was aimed at the jails and Arpaio, then that scumfuck Arpaio dragged us into it by denying fault and claiming it was our care that caused the baby to die. Oh and they also made us wait 35-45 minutes after we got into the jail to see her because they were moving inmates between cells. We got locked in a 2 way security room that could only be opened by a guy in another part of the complex. This was part of their claim that we “delayed care that caused the negligent death of the child”. Had to defend my fucking license against revocation because of this bullshit.
Other fun calls I’ve gotten from the jail:
Non-english speaking citizen who was forced to sign voluntary deportation papers and refused until they broke her arm trying to force her to sign something she couldn’t understand.
Man who had a blood pressure of 210~/150 who kept losing consciousness that the jail medical staff had refused to give his BP meds to because “he’s faking it and he just wants the drugs to sell to other inmates.”
Gang member that wouldn’t speak to anyone in the jail or us until I got him alone at the hospital and he broke down crying and hugging me thanking me for treating him like a human being.
Refusing to give a blanket to an inmate at 3~ am in the Arizona winter, which not as cold as most places is still 35~ degrees with high winds. I got into a screaming argument with the guards and put a blanket on him anyway because he’s my patient now and not their inmate.
Demanding we be searched before entering the jail which I only tolerated because we had a patient inside in status epilepticus that the guards said was faking it for attention.
As well as numerous accounts of racial slurs, randomly beating the christ out of inmates, making them strip and walk naked down hallways cuffed together, withholding meds nonstop that are necessary for normal functioning and not dying from diseases.
This is just from my single unit while I’m on it, everyone has stories like this from going to the jails.
I honestly wish a meteor would crush Arpaio while he was driving home.
On the upside I got to meet DMX at the jail complex, he’s a really nice guy. Until they withheld his anti-psych meds and he attacked a guard with a lunch tray.
Tales from a medical professional in Phoenix, Arizona. Just so you know the human rights abuses in our own country. (via designislaw)
Holy shit. Does anyone know the source of this? This is fucking insane.
“[W]e use the term ‘Indian peoples’ or ‘American Indian’ peoples rather than ‘Native Americans.’ The reasons for this choice are simple yet profoundly important. The term ‘Native American’ was used during the nativist (anti-immigration, antiforeigner) movement (1860-1925) and the antiblack, anti-Catholic, and anti-Jewish Ku Klux Klan resurgence during the early 1900s. The rhetoric of these groups was couched in terms of ‘native-born’ white Protestants vis-à-vis those of ‘foreign’ origin, for example, Catholics. There was even a political party known as the Native American Party. Thus, whereas popular culture may refer to Indian peoples as Native Americans, we feel it is important to separate this group from the white supremacist terms used by the nativist movement. Moreover, we seek to defuse the specious argument made by some that if one is born in the United States, one is a native American, thereby dismissing the unique situation and status of American Indian peoples. Indian peoples encompass a variety of tribes, each with its own history and different structural relationships with the U.S. government. Finally, many native Hawaiians consider themselves Native Americans. Although not grouping native Hawaiians with American Indians in the 2000 census, the U.S. Census Bureau, after years of grouping native Hawaiians with Asians, put them in a new category with Pacific Islanders.”—
Paula D. McClain and Joseph Stewart Jr., Can We All Get Along?: Racial and Ethnic Minorities in American Politics
I admit to being guilty of using the term “Native American” because I thought it was the preferred nomenclature of American Indians, while being partially unaware of its white supremacist origins, and incorrectly crediting the term “Indian” as a prejudicial comparison of American Indians to Desi Indians by the British. I feel terrible. The more you know….
I had no knowledge of the white supremacist origins of “Native American.” Not knowing things like this makes me furious about the lack of proper history being taught in public Amerikkkan schools. Our history lessons are all white worshiping fairytales. What should I use? I want to know these things.
I’ve heard “Indigenous” used here as well. “Indian” is, while uncommon, also sometimes used, but I’ve only seen/heard it used in very specific contexts (where it’s VERY clear who the speaker/audience is).
So I think we all know by now that in 2010, Archie Comics introduced Kevin Keller, an openly gay man living in Riverdale. His introduction was so popular that the comic sold out, and it was the first time they ever had to do a reprint. Recently, Kevin Keller got married, and it’s possible they’ll have to do another reprint, because that one sold out too.
Well, certain conservative groups are not happy. (When are they ever happy?) Million Moms decided to threaten boycott over this, threatening stores like Toys’R’Us for even stocking the comic. However, Archie creators and Toys’R’Us totally read the news, and decided to hold the line.
So, like, that’s pretty cool. But then CEO of Archie Comic Group, John Goldwater, went and said this (emphasis mine):
We stand by Life with Archie #16. As I’ve said before, Riverdale is a safe, welcoming place that does not judge anyone. It’s an idealized version of America that will hopefully become reality someday. We’re sorry the American Family Association/OneMillionMoms.com feels so negatively about our product, but they have every right to their opinion, just like we have the right to stand by ours. Kevin Keller will forever be a part of Riverdale, and he will live a happy, long life free of prejudice, hate, and narrow-minded people.
Young women of color who read this book rejoiced at finally finding a book with a main character to whom they could relate, especially readers of biracial or Native American descent, who have a particularly hard time finding characters of a similar background. The Hunger Games were a step in a right direction, a step forward for young adult books, a glimpse into a future where characters of books are universally relatable.
The movie, on the other hand, was a step backwards, a slip back into the old mentality that white people cannot relate to anyone other than a white characters on the big screen (despite the fact that Hollywood asks people of color to do this with nearly every single movie).
You’re walking down the street and you’re wearing a UFC shirt. I want to fight you. I don’t know why you’re wearing it. Maybe you’re a fan but you don’t actually fight yourself, maybe you just really like the way that shirt looks or feels on you, or maybe you even LOVE to fight, but you don’t necessarily want to fight right now, and you don’t necessarily want to fight me. I don’t know anything about why you’re wearing the shirt that, to me, has a connotation of fighting, but I’m gonna use it as a justification to punch you in the face. Who’s fault was that? Yours, minding your own business and wearing your own damn UFC shirt, or mine, who made assumptions about you and hurt you even though you might not have really wanted to get in a fight?
Answer key: It wasn’t your fault.
Victim-blaming sounds just as ridiculous in cases of sexual assault. Revealing clothing does not cause rape; support victims and hold rapists responsible for their actions.
“shame is not a catalyst for change; it is a paralytic. Anyone who has ever carried extreme personal shame knows this. Shame doesn’t make you stronger, nor does it help you to grow, or to be healthy, or to be sane. It keeps you in one place, very, very still.”—
In a bold and unprecedented move, representatives of the Lakota Freedom Delegation recently declared the Lakota Nation is formally and unilaterally withdrawing from all agreements and treaties with the government of the United States.
“We are no longer citizens of the United States,” said longtime indigenous rights activist Russell Means at a press conference at Plymouth Congregational Church in Washington, D.C. on Dec. 19. “We offer citizenship to anyone provided they renounce their U.S. citizenship,” said Mr. Means.
The Lakota delegation delivered signed documents to the U.S. State Department informing officials of the decision to formally declare sovereignty from the United States as a result of its genocidal assault on the political, cultural and economic freedom of the Lakota Nation. The geographic area making up what will be called the Republic of Lakota covers portions of northern Nebraska, half of South Dakota, one-quarter of North Dakota, 20 percent of Montana and 20 percent of Wyoming. Mr. Means used the term “apartheid” to describe the dire conditions facing the Lakota Nation.
The life expectancy of Lakota men is less than 44 years; 97 percent of the Lakota people live below the poverty line. The Lakota infant mortality rate is 300 percent higher than the national average. The tuberculosis rate on Lakota reservations is 800 percent higher than the national average; cervical cancer is 500 percent higher than the national average; the rate of diabetes is 800 percent higher than the national average
The unemployment rate on reservations is over 85 percent with the median income between $2,600 to $3,500 per year. One-third of the homes on reservations lack clean water and 40 percent of the homes lack electricity. In addition, alcoholism affects 8 in 10 Lakota families with rates of drug abuse and suicide increasing.
Naomi Archer, communications liaison for the Lakota Freedom Delegation, said many other indigenous nations and political independence movements in North America, South America, Europe and Africa have reached out in solidarity and support. A portion of the document delivered to the State Department read, “Should the United States and its subordinate governments choose not to act in good faith concerning the rebirth of our nation, we hereby advise the United States Government that Lakota will begin to administer liens against real estate transactions” within the five state area of what will be called the Republic of Lakota.
A history of broken treaties
The first contacts between the Lakota and the United States began after what is commonly known as the “Louisiana Purchase” in 1803. It is estimated that the United States bought 530 million acres of land from France for $15 million. Part of this sale included land already inhabited by the Lakota. They never consented to the sale of any of their land.
“Women who are too sexual aren’t taken seriously, and women who aren’t sexual enough aren’t taken seriously. Women who are conventionally attractive get valued solely for their sexual appeal; women who aren’t conventionally attractive get dismissed for their lack of it. Women who are conventionally attractive are assumed to be dumb bimbos; women who aren’t conventionally attractive are assumed to be either bitter or desperate. Women who are conventionally attractive get trivialized; women who aren’t conventionally attractive get treated with pity and contempt. We can’t win.”—
“Every time I read an article about conservatives being “pro- life” I am reminded of my brother who died of ALS at the age of 47. He spent the last 6 years of his life in nursing homes where the care, supervision and meals were abysmal. One of his former roommates was smoking a cigarette, fell asleep and burned to death because his diaper caught fire. Another roommate went home for the weekend to visit his mother and committed suicide in the garage of her home so that he wouldn’t have to return to the nursing home. I have to say that in all the years my brother was there I never once saw a group of conservatives out in front of the building shouting slogans about the sanctity of life and how all lives - no matter what age - are meaningful. I never once saw a group of evangelicals visiting with patients, pushing wheelchairs, or feeding the elderly residents. There were no Rick Santorums advocating on behalf of my brother who several years before had been a pro golfer and was still the father of two adorable young boys. When conservatives and evangelicals understand that ALL life really is sacred, including that of the elderly, the permanently disabled, the terminally ill, and the women and children who accidentally get bombed in the course of a war, then maybe I’ll listen to their opinions on contraceptives and/or abortion. For now, however, this is really just a politically heated argument about women’s reproductive rights and who gets to control those rights.”—
You’re free to believe that fetuses are people if that makes you happy, but you know who’s definitely people, no questions, no debate? ACTUAL PEOPLE.
People who are already livingtheir lives. Not just people with a heartbeat, and fully-developed fingers and toes, and human-specific EEG patterns. People who have families and jobs and friends and hopes and dreams and disappointments.
How the fuck can you possibly believe that the “lives” of pre-sentient proto-people are more important than the millions of suffering children and adults who already exist?
“What is more troubling than this oddly timed debate about birth control is the vehemence with which I have seen women needing to justify or explain why they take birth control—health reasons, to regulate periods, you know, as if there’s anything wrong with taking birth control simply because you want to have sex without that sex resulting in pregnancy. In certain circles, birth control is being framed as whore medicine so we are now dealing with a bizarre new morality where a woman cannot simply say, in one way or another, “I’m on the pill because I like dick.”—
I appreciate Kay Bradley’s reality check in Sunday’s paper. I especially appreciate the sheer effort she put in journeying from her reality into ours.
In our clamoring for our sweet, sweet child support money and abortion parties, we often forget just how lucky we are here, in the world’s #37th best country for health care. I forgot how easy it was to get birth control. I forgot about the healthcare programs which provide birth control for low income families, which is odd considering how I’m constantly reading about attempts to get these programs defunded or rendered toothless with medieval regulations.
This may be hard to believe, but not all women have the same access to contraception as Kay Bradley. I know, people for some reason live differently than Kay Bradley and expect to be taken seriously.
Ok I am trying to write a coherent response to an incoherent letter but all I end up doing is banging on a keyboard and snapping at my loved ones. This letter can be popped with one simple fact.
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT PAYING FOR BIRTH CONTROL
It requires the insurance company, the one you pay into, to cover it. Not your religious employer. Not the hard-working taxpayer who loves complaining about birth control just as much as they love complaining about people who aren’t like them having too many kids.
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT PAYING FOR BIRTH CONTROL
And further, I’d like to point out that if this violates your employer’s religious liberties, so does everything you do with the wages you earn that s/he doesn’t approve of. Because your insurance is compensation for the work you do.
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT PAYING FOR BIRTH CONTROL
And with that fact, Kay’s letter pops and collapses in a flaccid, wrinkled heap of rubber and nonsense.
As you almost definitely know by now, Rush Limbaugh made waves last week with his ridiculously absurd characterization of women who want their insurance to cover their birth control as sluts and prostitutes who should be obligated to film pornos for him. This prompted a lot of people to demonstrate the incorrectness of this statement; the #iamnotaslut tweets, for example. This is all well and good, but third wave feminist that I am, I wondered: what about the people who are whores or sluts? Where does that leave them?
Allow me to tell you a story that illustrates my point. A friend of mine once made the mistake of getting into a cab that had a crazy racist for a driver, who proceeded to berate him and call him a “fucking kike.” My friend is not Jewish. Was the appropriate response, then, “oh no, ha ha, I believe this is a simple misunderstanding, sir. I am not a fucking kike, you see, but merely a gentile with a Roman nose”? No, no it was not. The appropriate response was to say “fuck you, asshole!” and get out of the cab, which is what he did. Do you see where I’m going with this?
By responding to the charge of whoredom with “no we’re not!” we degrade our fellow humans by implying that being a sex worker is bad, dirty, undesirable…all of the nasty words that have been used to keep women down for centuries. Sex workers are people too, with feelings, dreams, hobbies, etc. You might not even know it, but someone in your life could be doing sex work right now. Do you really want to risk hurting that person by arguing with Rush Limbaugh on his own horrible terms?
Often when I see introductory conversations about feminism/women’s studies, it is prefaced over and over again with “we’re not about hating men!”
On a conceptual level, this is very true— feminism is about getting rid of socially constructed gender roles, period. Not hating men. Men do get hurt by patriarchal ideas (not being able to express emotion, being overly dependent on themselves and not others, etc), they are just not included as much because when you have the majority of the world’s poor as women with children, or an epidemic of sexual violence that primarily affects women, it is hard to find time or energy to talk about how men feel. It might feel abrasive or extreme to some people because that is the world we’ve grown up in— a world in which men are the primary focus. So when women become the center, it sticks out because we’re not used to it. It feels like radicalism and not the politics of equity that it actually is.
But there’s a part of this that we often overlook: some feminists do hate men, and for very good reasons. We’re talking people (not just women, but men who are feminists, trans people who are feminists, genderqueer feminists, PoC feminists etc) who have survived multiple rapes. We’re talking about people who have been consistently marginalized by a society in which the majority of power is concentrated in the hands of men, whether it’s poor child support enforcement, direct physical violence or intimidation, psychological establishments which misdiagnose and mistreat people, etc.
In a world in which you are more likely to experience sexual violence (1 in 4 women, 1 in 6 men, 1 in 3 non-binary people, 99% of the time perpetrated by men) than be hit by a car, die in a plane crash, be in a terrorist attack, get struck by lightning, or catch the new Totally Drug Resistant Tuberculosis, it makes a lot of sense that people would not like men. Especially if, in the span of your life, the world has consistently proven to you that men can’t be trusted. And this is just one issue— there’s domestic violence, emotional abuse, harassment, etc.
By erasing the existences of people out there who do actually hate men, we prevent any possible discussion on why. Obviously, the majority of people like this (the past me included) would prefer not to have to hate men. The key here is “have to”, because yes, a lot of us must put up barriers in order to protect ourselves from being hurt in some of the worst ways possible.
The point is, it’s not a zero-sum, either/or dichotomy. You can certainly hate men (for many good reasons) but still believe in feminist politics, because you want to create a world in which men don’t have to be hated. It is all very compatible. This is also where most people get the wrong idea of separatism— it’s not about “reverse” domination or discrimination, it’s about literally avoiding the most probable sources of pain and suffering (again, 25%, 17%, and 33% chances, all astronomically high). For people who have experienced sexual violence or domestic violence for a very long time, separatism is empowering and even necessary. Dorothy Allison spent years reading only books by woman authors, and for very good reasons. Of course she knew rationally that not all men are evil/out to hurt her, but even the association was too much for awhile.
Instead of saying, “no, feminism is not about hating men”— shaming and erasing survivors for understandably feeling the way they feel— let’s ask why people hate men in the first place. What are those reasons, and how does patriarchy cause those reasons?
I haven’t been watching the Eschergirls blog for that long, but I’m extremely grateful for all the artwork that’s been posted here. It’s given me a chance to learn from sequential art masters, as well as reputable how-to books. I’ve paid attention to the techniques shown in both of these venues, and I think I now have a handle on how to draw the essential comic book superheroine:
-Visible breasts (nipples a plus)
-Make as much of the butt bare as possible. Lovingly rendered battle thong is a plus.
-Cut-outs in outfit
-Must wear high heels
-Must have ideal hourglass figure.
-MUST NOT LOOK MASCULINE IN ANY WAY!
Assuming all else is optional and not really that important, I’ve created a brand new COMPLETE superheroine!
Isn’t she totally hot? Her superpower is being able to show boobs and butt at the same time. I know; that’s not so unique. All superheroines have this power. But I also gave her a cape!
The most important thing I’ve learned from these sequential art masters and how-to books is that women are not more than the sum of their parts. They are just parts. And as long as the most important parts are shown in every panel, it’s okay to mutilate and mangle the throwaway remainder of the woman’s body. There’s only so much room in each panel, so it’s best to stick to what’s really essential in a woman.
I think I’m gonna go pat myself on the boob for a job well done.
This is so awesome. I always joke that this is what they want anyway given that often, in the images on this blog, it looks like everything else is just a pain for the artist to draw.
My friend just offered up a line too good to pass up also: “she is like a hypnotic purple penguin.”
Bitch, every white tear I jerk out of you is a real difference as far as I’m concerned. Because the real revolutions start with SPEAKING OUT.
This is a known pattern of the colonizer: The desperate need to set the terms and rules of engagement and defining our own decolonization for us. Not because they want to enter into discussion, but because they want any and all discussion to happen on their terms, to uphold their ideologies, to serve their interests.
Which is why there’s such a massive movement to shut down non-white and/or indigenous people through cries of OMG RUDE! YOU’RE HURTING YOUR OWN CAUSE!
What they can’t deal with is that they missed the entire point: It’s absolutely nobody’s cause to appease the oppressor while speaking out on their oppression. MY CAUSE IS SPECIFICALLY TO UPSET YOU AND SHAKE YOU AND MAKE YOU CRY because only after those precious white feefees have been dealt with can you move onto examining the real issues at hand.
all of this, as if it’s not “making a real difference” to shake you awake to the reality of the situation.
I also personally believe that if your only takeaway is that people sometimes get pissed off when you say shitty things, then that’s plenty of change for one day.
The point of that post wasn’t that homoerotic subtext is meaningless or imagined, its that it isn’t enough.
(And I fucking side-eye anyone who tries to use this discussion to claim that fangirls need to find a better hobby than slash fiction — it completely marginalizes all the queer people who care about gay subtext. Also, its just fucking gross to be THAT angered by people who think two canonically straight characters are fucking.)
Do I believe Kirk and Spock are fucking? Do I believe there’s a huge romance between Dean and Cas? Do I believe John and Sherlock’s romance is so legendary that they were in love in every single iteration of their story?
Yes I do!
The point of the post was not that shipping same-sex couples is wrong or homophobic or delusional.
The point is: it matters that the shows and books and writers who provide us with all this glorious subtext don’t ever make it explicit. They never come out and say the “gay” word, unless its in a mocking, fanservicey manner. It matters that we’re never going to see Merlin and Arthur get it on, it matters that we’re NEVER going to see John and Sherlock fall in love.
Yes, write fics for it, talk about the subtext, fangirl and boy yourselves to death over how amazing these romances are — shit, I do that every night — but it should PISS US ALL OFF that these romances will never make it out of fanon.
The stories we tell ourselves about ourselves have political power. Its revolutionary, for a queer kid to see a canonically gay relationship on screen — because when we see someone talk about people who are like us, we are validated, to some extent.
I want a world in which fandom doesn’t have to do all the legwork when it comes to portraying gay characters; in which creators have more responsibility than just nudge-nudge-wink-winking at us. Even when they do acknowledge that the gayness might be a little more than subtext, I want them to write it into the show, write it into the story.
For example: I love that J.K. Rowling later-confirmed that Dumbledore was in love with Gellert Grindelwald, and I was also angered that this was never made clear in the actual book. And I’m even more angered by the fact that Dumbledore/Grindelwald is the only canonical gay relationship in the Harry Potter series, and that no one would even know that, unless they read that interview with Jo.
Keeping the homosexuality forever marginalized in subtext, keeping it forever out of explicit canon — its another way of telling queer people that their voices and their stories are not as important as their straight counterparts. That their lives are not to be brought to the attention of the mainstream, that their presence is acceptable in a narrative only if they keep their sexuality and their relationships under-wraps.
Subtext is fine and well — fanon and fandom are fucking beautiful things — but I want the canon to acknowledge it, dammit.
“When we understand that privileged people derive material benefits from the exploitation of oppressed people, and that this means we benefit from the violence used to keep them down, we cannot sincerely condemn them for violently rebelling against the structrual violence that privileges us.”—Peter Gelderloos (via mutualaddiction)
Republicans have morality upside down. Santorum, Gingrich, and even Romney are barnstorming across the land condemning gay marriage, abortion, out-of-wedlock births, access to contraception, and the wall separating church and state.
But America’s problem isn’t a breakdown in private morality. It’s a breakdown in public morality. What Americans do in their bedrooms is their own business. What corporate executives and Wall Street financiers do in boardrooms and executive suites affects all of us.
There is moral rot in America but it’s not found in the private behavior of ordinary people. It’s located in the public behavior of people who control our economy and are turning our democracy into a financial slush pump. It’s found in Wall Street fraud, exorbitant pay of top executives, financial conflicts of interest, insider trading, and the outright bribery of public officials through unlimited campaign “donations.”
Political scientist James Q. Wilson, who died last week, noted that a broken window left unattended signals that no one cares if windows are broken. It becomes an ongoing invitation to throw more stones at more windows, ultimately undermining moral standards of the entire community
The windows Wall Street broke in the years leading up to the crash of 2008 remain broken. Despite financial fraud on a scale not seen in this country for more than eighty years, not a single executive of a major Wall Street bank has been charged with a crime.
Since 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission has filed 25 cases against mortgage originators and securities firms. A few are still being litigated but most have been settled. They’ve generated almost $2 billion in penalties and other forms of monetary relief, according to the Commission. But almost none of this money has come out of the pockets of CEOs or other company officials; it has come out of the companies — or, more accurately, their shareholders. Federal prosecutors are now signaling they won’t even bring charges in the brazen case of MF Global, which lost billions of dollars that were supposed to be kept safe.
Nor have any of the lawyers, accountants, auditors, or top executives of credit-rating agencies who aided and abetted Wall Street financiers been charged with doing anything wrong.
And the new Dodd-Frank law that was supposed to prevent this from happening again is now so riddled with loopholes, courtesy of Wall Street lobbyists, that it’s almost a sham. The Street prevented the Glass-Steagall Act from being resurrected, and successfully fought against limits on the size of the largest banks.
Windows started breaking years ago. Enron’s court-appointed trustee reported that bankers from Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase didn’t merely look the other way; they dreamed up and sold Enron financial schemes specifically designed to allow Enron to commit fraud. Arthur Andersen, Enron’s auditor, was convicted of obstructing justice by shredding Enron documents, yet most of the Andersen partners who aided and abetted Enron were never punished.
Americans are entitled to their own religious views about gay marriage, contraception, out-of-wedlock births, abortion, and God. We can be truly free only if we’re confident we can go about our private lives without being monitored or intruded upon by government, and can practice whatever faith (or lack of faith) we wish regardless of the religious beliefs of others. A society where one set of religious views is imposed on a large number of citizens who disagree with them is not a democracy. It’s a theocracy.
But abuses of public trust such as we’ve witnessed for years on the Street and in the executive suites of our largest corporations are not matters of private morality. They’re violations of public morality. They undermine the integrity of our economy and democracy. They’ve led millions of Americans to conclude the game is rigged.
Regressive Republicans have no problem hurling the epithets “shameful,” “disgraceful,” and “contemptible” at private moral decisions they disagree with. Rush Limbaugh calls a young woman a “slut” just for standing up for her beliefs about private morality.
Republicans have staked out the moral low ground. It’s time for Democrats and progressives to stake out the moral high ground, condemning the abuses of economic power and privilege that characterize this new Gilded Age – business deals that are technically legal but wrong because they exploit the trust that investors or employees have place in those businesses, pay packages that are ludicrously high compared with the pay of average workers, political donations so large as to breed cynicism about the ability of their recipients to represent the public as a whole.
An economy is built on a foundation of shared morality. Adam Smith never called himself an economist. The separate field of economics didn’t exist in the eighteenth century. He called himself a moral philosopher. And the book he was proudest of wasn’t “The Wealth of Nations,” but his “Theory of Moral Sentiments” – about the ties that bind people together into societies.
Twice before progressive have saved capitalism from its own excesses by appealing to public morality and common sense. First in the early 1900s, when the captains for American industry had monopolized the economy into giant trusts, American politics had sunk into a swamp of patronage and corruption, and many factory jobs were unsafe – entailing long hours of work at meager pay and often exploiting children. In response, we enacted antitrust, civil service reforms, and labor protections.
And then again in 1930s after the stock market collapsed and a large portion of American workforce was unemployed. Then we regulated banks and insured deposits, cleaned up stock market, and provided social insurance to the destitute.
It’s time once again to save capitalism from its own excesses — and to base a new era of reform on public morality and common sense.
“Free speech as a legal concept only guarantees you the right to speak. It doesn’t guarantee you the right to be heard, it doesn’t guarantee you the right to be agreed with, it certainly doesn’t guarantee you the right for your speech to not be challenged by someone else’s speech, and most importantly of all, it doesn’t mean you can’t suffer consequences if and when your free speech is used to cause harm to someone. Which is exactly what sexual harassment, racial slurs, and verbal bigotry are. That’s not censorship. That’s fairness.”—“Not Okay”: MovieBob on Sexism and Harassment in Nerd Culture. (via jerrymuffinbutt)
“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”—
abusers are secretly good on the inside when they’re your fambly!! you should forgive them bcuz they love you even though they kept you living in terror for years!!! and if you don’t forgive your rapist you will turn EVIL
also “as afraid as you were of me, I was more afraid of you” YES BECAUSE IT’S TOTALLY APPROPRIATE TO ABUSE CHILDREN IF THEY HAVE ~*~SCARY POWERS~*~ LOL YUP
jesus fucking christ who approved this fucking script
Shafir has proved that anyone faced with adverse conditions will consistently make bad economic decisions. An experiment he conducted with Mullainathan and Zhao placed financially-savvy Princeton students from prominent families under the stressful and rushed conditions that poor people face every day. They were given questions to answer in a series of timed rounds, but were permitted to “borrow” time from a subsequent round.
“My students at Princeton are well-to-do and intelligent,” Shafir says. “They are the sons and daughters of senators and other highly successful people. And yet these brilliant students took precisely 10 minutes to start borrowing too much; they were tending to the present without any thought to leaving something for the future.
“Given enough time, a person will consider the future cautiously. He won’t engage in nonsense and won’t borrow at high interest he can’t afford. But if you put him under strict deadlines and pressure him, he’ll start behaving foolishly. We all put off for tomorrow things that need to be done today, and pay high interest because we didn’t pay on time. All the mistakes poor people make with money we make with time - but for them the price is too high. A person probably doesn’t seem intelligent when he doesn’t have enough time to consider the future, but if he did have enough time he would start acting intelligently. Poverty is an emotional state.”
I love this.
Hopefully this will make people stop acting like poor people are just a whole bunch of giant fools.
“One overlap, though, between prison rape of men and non-prison rape of women is the way American society views both as an inevitability. That plays out in different ways, but there’s a sense that incarceration must naturally lead to rape (see, e.g., “don’t drop the soap!” jokes), and that femaleness is inherently sexually tempting and therefore also leads to rape if you’re not vigilant about preventing it (see, e.g., every rape prevention tactic that focuses on what women should or should not do — don’t walk home alone, don’t wear revealing clothing, etc etc). At the same time, inevitability is tempered by the perceived ability to prevent rape if you just do things “right” — don’t commit a crime so that you end up in jail, don’t break any of the Rape Avoidance Rules For Ladies.”—
Funny (read: fucking infuriating) thing about this: where female pleasure is generally a no-no, female pain is often viewed as less extreme. This skewed perception of female sexuality results in “Blue Valentine” being rated NC-17 because a woman is shown enjoying receiving oral sex, while “The Last House on the Left” and “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” come away with R-ratings, despite both having explicit rape scenes.
So not only does our film culture limit female sexuality, but it limits it to the exact opposite of what anyone would hope sexuality to be: dark, shameful, violent, and only ever remotely pleasurable if orchestrated by a man - but never at the expense of the man’s own pleasure.
In “Blue Valentine”, Ryan Gosling gets Michelle Williams off, after all. We don’t see his character orgasm.
And, evidently, that’s far too threatening to the virility of men everywhere.