Thomas Piketty and Elizabeth Warren

If you haven't watched/listened to this yet, then stop what you are doing and listen now.

It is the mean girls, guys, they are to blame for everything.

Lily Allen, shut the fuck up. Look a blog post in a sentence.

Allen is that girl who wants all the benefits of being the “cool girl” within the patriarchy. This really just means she gets to be the exception, talk about how we’ve achieved equality, while making racist shallow pro equality anthems. The piece on her for the ShortList demonstrates that.

Some of the lowlights:

“I’m not an archetypal woman. All my best friends are boys.”

I’ve written about this statement or variations of it so much! The subtext here is “I value the opinion of men and all things masculine over women and the feminine.” This is what happens to young women in the patriarchy; we all want to distance ourselves from other women within the expectations set by men. So men conversations and thoughts are prioritized over feminine one’s as long as the woman isn’t considered a threat. I have so many examples of this, particularly centering around my own “one of the guys” history’s interaction with progressive feminist thought. I’m cool with the guys as long as I’m talking football and owning at darts, but ain’t no one got time to listen to me bitch about rape culture during beer pong. You’re not in, you’re not one of the boys, you’re still a cis woman, and you will be treated as such, usually when it matters, like safety matters. You become hysterical, dramatic, and untrustworthy pretty fast when you challenge the patriarchy even inadvertently.

“But I don’t think men are the enemy, I think women are the enemy. I know that when I’m sitting in a restaurant and a really beautiful woman walks in, who’s skinny, I instinctively think, ‘Oh she’s really skinny and beautiful and I’m really fat and ugly.’ Every man I speak to always say they find that kind of woman gross, and they prefer a bit more meat on their ladies. So it’s more of a competitive thing. It’s weird. It’s just really unhealthy and we’re our own worst enemy. We should stop being so horrible to each other.”

So to summarize, men aren’t competitive at all. Judging other women harshly totally isn’t a manifestation of the patriarchy, and it’s ok anyway because men prefer women who look like her so she wins regarding the male gaze. This reaction to other women isn’t instinctual; it is a conditioned response.

“Feminism. I hate that word because it shouldn’t even be a thing any more. We’re all equal, everyone is equal so why is there even a conversation about feminism? What’s the man version of feminism? There isn’t even a word for it. There’s no reason for it. Menanism. Male-ism. It doesn’t exist.”

But Allen, there are so many words for the men’s version of feminism, starting with patriarchy, men’s rights, rape culture. Should I go on?

I probably should have begun with the statement, women, men, and other genders aren’t equal. Allen is reinforcing the gender binary and conflates gender and biological sex because she doesn’t know any better, nor does she know shit about feminism. Additionally, equality probably isn’t ever going to be a thing because as a society we refuse to give up social constructs like race and gender. As a result the expectation has to shift to equity. Allen going say things are equitable? Probably not, it would be hard (out there) given the economic divide that is so influenced by race, gender, and obviously class. *side eye*

I’m using Allen as an example here, but I’m really over famous people claiming to be above things when they are clearly engaging in the same petty politicking. Allen’s video for “Hard Out Here” mocks Miley Cyrus, because women need to stop being mean to other women. All the while this video using black women’s bodies the same way Cyrus has been. Both are examples of racism, classism, and sexism as sanctioned by the patriarchy.

Allen comes off as ignorant and a Men’s Rights Activists in training. Feminism is about gender equity and equality. It isn’t about women’s superiority or domination of men. People who promote these sort of thinking are fearful of losing their privilege. They view power as a zero sum game where in order for some to advance others must retreat. This isn’t true.

This Pope amiright?

I have a great love for the Jesuits. I love them. They get shit done, and I like them a lot more since they put down the sword for god and all that.

John Nichols wrote about Pope Francis, inequity, and capitalism, which is awesome. Pope Francis gets real specific as to the causes of inequity saying the “new tyranny” of capitalism and the “idolatry of money” and “as long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequity, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems.” Drops mic.

Is it wrong to hope this is some kind of declaration of war on capitalism from the Catholic Church? I know it isn’t going to happen, but damn. Pope Francis warns about a throwaway culture that discards those who are no longer useful to the market at the expense of a culture of inclusion. He warns about a culture of exclusion being fatal.

Pope Francis’s statement demonstrates the growing international dialogue around the economy and inequity. His rejection of economic models and theories that have failed over and over, but are still being pushed such as austerity. Pope Francis also invokes facts in his argument against capitalism, which is bananas given the massive scale resistance to all things factual.

Pope Francis’ opinion might not change much, but he has a hell of a range and when he speaks people listen. And they are listening to a change in the arguments being made against capitalism. It should be noted that Catholicism has been wildly popular among the impoverished forever. Something about it resonates with the powerless, particularly the economically powerless. Personally, I think it has something to do with the New Testament teachings centering on love and embracing the weakest among us, but also liberation theology. I don’t know any Catholic who hasn’t learned about liberation theology.

Another day, another act of Walmart stupidity

Don’t get me wrong. I hate Walmart, but sometimes I wonder about their PR people. Do they have PR people? Are these people being paid minimum wage? Or is Walmart so powerful and eliminated so much of the competition that they no longer need PR people? The answer to these questions doesn’t really matter. What matters is the meta experience of Walmart employees that are aware them make a poverty wage and the store that employees them is collecting food for them.

Take a minute. Throw something. I’ll wait. I threw a mug…it didn’t break.

So this is happening in Canton, Ohio. Walmart claims that it is proof employees are looking out for one another by trying to provide Thanksgiving meals to their coworkers. Of course, everyone else things it is proof the company doesn’t pay enough to survive. Olivera Perkins wrote the story for The Plain Dealer.

This food drive is in employee only areas out of the line of sight of customers, because can’t let your customers know something like that. It should be noted that Walmart employees go on strike  today (Monday) in Cincinnati and Dayton.

Naturally, employees and those trying to organize them are pretty angry about all this because I don’t know pay your employees. Kory Lundberg, Walmart spokesman, claims the food drive is proof employees care about one another: “It is for associates who have had some hardships come up. Maybe their spouse lost a job.

“This is part of the company’s culture to rally around associates and take care of them when they face extreme hardships.”

Lundberg asserts that the food drive was decided at a store level in Canton. This is all in the wake of more Walmart strikes across the states. The people involved in these strikes are looking for fair pay, safe working conditions, etc. The activists and organizers are working on something for Black Friday, but no one is talking about specifics at least to the press.

This isn’t a new drive at the Canton Walmart, and some people are wondering why it is a big deal now. Employees seem mixed; some think it is useful and kind while others feel ashamed and demoralized by it. I’m not going to get into pay rates, but even by the spokesman’s assert average rate still only comes about to about $25,000 per year, and it is assumed he went high on his rate.

You can read more from Allison Kilkenny. I really don’t understand how anyone can be in favor of the Walmart model, which is essentially short-term profits over long-term sustainability resulting in inequity, poverty, and hunger. Good job guys.

Will poverty always exist?

Discuss the notion of long term welfare dependency- have we solved this problem? Will the poor always be with us?

This is the discussion for this week’s Social Welfare and Social Policy course. You can imagine my thrill in anticipation of the responses from my peers. I know that reads as condescending, but a woman in my class stated teachers' unions were the problem with education…I know apparently there is only one problem with education. I had a physical reaction to her statements, so plus for not being in the same group.

Anyway, there are a few things to unpack in the question, the first being the connotations invoked when one says “long term welfare dependency.” You immediately recall images of the socially constructed "welfare queen" from Reagan and the unwed mother letting her sons be killed in Chicago via Romney. The people brought to mind are thought of as problems, burdens, and a drain on the system because they are seen as not contributing to society. I however do not believe long term welfare dependency is bad or good, instead it is necessary. Most people however, think of the “welfare queen” when they hear the phrase. I think about unemployment insurance, Social Security, and school lunch programs. A child going into kindergarten could have free lunch for 13 years. That is long term use. Anyone arguing to starve children? Well, some people are (House GOP and their quest to cut SNAP), but they aren’t going to admit it. I know some people hate Social Security, but it keeps a lot of seniors out of poverty, and people can receive it for decades.

I’m not arguing people should be dependent, but I am saying that if someone is they aren’t a problem. The problem is a society that allows for the existence of the destitute while the upper class continues to accumulate wealth. So we have fixed nothing because we have never actually addressed the real problem. In a world with finite resources, one person profits at the expense of others. A few weeks ago we had a debate in this class on Social Security, and my team was abysmal. They said nothing, but what was scripted for them, which means my leftist self got to run amok. Our professor asked if we were in favor of the wealthy paying into a program they receive little to no payout from. To which I responded, absolutely, they are wealthy at the expense of others so they should have to invest in the people they have exploited and society at large.

The poor will always be with us because we embrace systems and structures to profit off their poverty and that work to keep them in poverty. As long as this is the case, long term welfare dependency will be required. After all it is in corporations’ best interests to push for work requirements that don’t require a living or minimum wage. The uncomfortable reality is that some people benefit from keeping a subclass of people, with less economic power and limited (and continuing to be limited) rights. Poverty isn’t the result of individual bad choices, though that can exacerbate it. Instead, bad choices are the results of systematic oppression, which leaves only so many options to the oppressed.