"When wealth is passed off as merit, bad luck is seen as bad character. This is how ideologues justify punishing the sick and the poor. But poverty is neither a crime nor a character flaw. Stigmatise those who let people die, not those who struggle to live."

Why Whites Hate Affirmative Action

gradientlair:

Lack of knowledge on the actual policies. Very few people actually understand the original executive orders, subsequent judicial decisions and legislation beyond sound bites via “news” that is insistent upon painting this as “taking stuff” from Whites for Black people (as if it is “just” about Black people). Honesty, how many White people have reviewed the actual history of why this is needed? It’s almost as rare to find as anyone who calls themselves “patriotic” who has actually read the Constitution or a Christian who has read the Bible. Media soundbites shaped by bigotry (in a White supremacist capitalist patriarchal society) absorbed by many Whites whose life ideologies have been shaped by bigotry is not going to produce the nuance and thought necessary to understand affirmative action. (Even so, these two simple, non in-depth cartoons explain this almost as well as the complex legalese: 1 and 2.)

Anti-intellectualism. Piggybacking on the first point, the current culture of anti-intellectualism doesn’t encourage most White people (and Americans at large) to actually investigate things they are “for” or “against.” It’s much simpler to decide to be “for” anything shaped by a legacy of White supremacy and White privilege and against anything that appears to be contrary to the former. Whites are used to being a “baseline,” the “norm,” or not considered a group at all, but those whom other groups are compared to.  Sociopolitically, many Whites are having a “day of reckoning” moment by even being classified as a “group,” or a “race” as Tom Scocca pointed out so well in a recent article about Romney’s overwhelming support from Whites. These factors contribute to the resistance to affirmative action.

Ahistorical views on race. If a White person takes the “why isn’t there a White history month” and “why isn’t there a White Entertainment Television station” stances on Whites and the media, it can be safely assumed that they are either uneducated or being willfully ignorant about the role of race in America and why certain spaces exist for Black people amidst the media, public discourse and culture itself. By pretending that the tide of history has no racial element, they can then infer that if everyone “is equal” (as if being equal means being treated equally) Black people are “unfairly” getting “goodies” through affirmative action. This also ignores the fact that even with said theoretical ”goodies,” unemployment, health care, finances, real estate, and more is markedly worse for Black people (and other people of colour) versus White. The latter is written off as Black “character failures” in the ever so common victim blaming ideologies such as American “exceptionalism” and even “patriotism” at times. This is where LIES about “poverty culture” come about as a way to praise greed, wealth and Whiteness and demonize suffering, poverty and Blackness.

The concept of what “greatness” is. The inherent racism involved in assuming that someone White is always “more” qualified, as if being White is a skill itself, is common in everything from college admissions to employment applications. The idea is that some “stupid” minority “stole” a slot from the perfect White knight on a horse who deserved things because he “worked” for them prevails. Further, the idea that perhaps a series of advantages afforded by White privilege is “hard work” would be even more humorous if it wasn’t despicable. Said privileges often place Whites ahead in spaces by sheer virtue of the luxury of Whiteness, not any actual work.  The myth of meritocracy is a plague on the American psyche. (Christopher Hayes wrote about this oh too well in his book Twilight Of The Elites - America After Meritocracy. Also, I recently read a fascinating study about the REALITY of financial aid versus the myth that “stupid” minorities “take all of the college monies,” and other assorted lies.)

A zero/sum view of racism. Ultimately, many Whites feel that any joy, success or progress in Black life means misery, failure and regression in White life. Period. This tunnel vision view is rooted in racism and fear. Research has revealed that many cisgender heterosexual White men feel like the “real” victims in America. Even if they are victims, would that not be at the hands of men just like them, except of a higher social class? Not to them. Racist social narratives involve the worship of “job creators” (the same ones who fire these men) as heroes because after all, they share Whiteness even if they don’t share class, status or cash. Other research has revealed that while some Whites view past times (during and pre-Civil Rights era) as a time more racist against Blacks, they view today as “more racist” against Whites. Of course this is false and has more to do with the idea of some Black people not suffering and Barack Obama’s existence more than any in-depth study of how race is a primary factor to consider when examining socioeconomic status. The enlightened exceptionalism involved in some who even choose to praise Oprah or Beyonce or LeBron James is what allows them to pretend that life for the average and for most Black people has dramatically changed, when for many, it has not. Claims of “reverse racism,” which doesn’t exist, are more common now than ever.

People who benefit from affirmative action also want it destroyed. While more than anyone else, White women have benefited from affirmative action, many of them stand with White men against affirmative action while simultaneously benefiting from it. Most people now know the name Abigail Fisher and know it well. Further, many older Black people (primarily men from what I’ve seen) want it dismantled despite the fact they benefited from it in the past. They clearly knew that in their time especially, being qualified was not enough. Assumed inferiority blocked their way.

Related Posts: CEO? Have A Seat. Kthanxbai., Black Woman? Want A Job? Register On Monster.com As A White Woman, False Equivalence, Kerry Washington Talks Affirmative Action On Real Time


lightspeedsound:

theuppitynegras:

howtobeterrell:

*slow hand clap*

amen

hngggh

OH MY GOD RACHEL MADDOW PLEASE JUST MARRY ME RIGHT NOW 


alexandraerin:

thepoliticalfreakshow:

justinspoliticalcorner:

Gov. Voldemort Rick Scott (who, not coincidentally, has a financial interest in a drug testing facility; he just transferred legal ownership of it to his WIFE) decided to drug test welfare recipients. This cost taxpayers millions of dollars and lined his wallet, and they found that only 2% of all welfare recipients tested actually tested positive for drugs. Of that 2%, ALL of them had family members who were eligible for welfare, so NO welfare money was saved by attempting to deny it to people on drugs. (I’ll also note that I heard nothing about getting people who tested positive into a rehab, or any concern for innocent minor children who rely on welfare to, you know, not starve.)

Now considering that data exists that has found that 5% of Americans use illegal drugs (that’s the LOWEST percentage I have found; other data puts it at 22 million people, or 9% of the population), that means that, according to the findings in Florida where only 2% of the tested population tested positive, people on welfare are LESS LIKELY to use illegal drugs. In fact, people on welfare are anywhere from 3% to 7% LESS LIKELY to be using illegal drugs than the general population as a whole.

Also, let’s not pretend that there are not “false positives” when drug testing, because there are. Your legal doctor-prescribed medications can show up as opiates or other “illegal” drugs. You can eat a poppyseed bagel and have a false positive. If there is a possibility that a test could be WRONG and deny a family some needed assistance so they can EAT, there is something gravely wrong with the idea.

Furthermore, you can’t buy non-food items, which is fair, because it is FOOD assistance, not Food and Toiletries Assistance…but that means that someone who can’t afford to eat without enduring the shame and hassle and difficulty involved to request food assistance (meager as it is) probably can’t afford other things like: pet food, diapers, toilet paper, shampoo, toothpaste, soap, tampons or sanitary pads, shaving razors, aspirin, vitamins, and so on.

In some places, you can’t use food stamps to buy hot food (like a roast chicken from a grocery store’s deli section), prepared food (like pre-made sandwiches, which are, oddly, sometimes cheaper than buying all the bread, condiments and fillings separately), frozen food, and so on. Guess what? People who have never been on food stamps get very angry if folks buy, say, a birthday cake (allowed) or soda pop or chips (allowed, but people have the nerve to bitch about it, because you’re not allowed to eat junk food EVER if you’re on food stamps). No, you deserve your suffering because you’re asking for help that YOUR TAX DOLLARS help pay for. Now that YOU have fallen on hard times, you better make sure your cart contents meet with everyone’s approval because they all think it is 100% THEIR tax dollars paying for that pint of store-brand ice cream that you should be ASHAMED of yourself for purchasing with food stamps.

It is “unfashionable” to point out that a lot of these drug testing schemes, in addition to being very profitable for certain corporations and individuals with a financial stake in those businesses, operate on the old and well-debunked Reagan-era myth of the “Welfare Queen” who is always presumed to be both a person of color and someone taking advantage of a broken welfare system to avoid working for a living. In truth, the average welfare recipient is a white mother in the suburbs who remains on welfare about two years and is actively searching for employment (and this is partially true because there are more white people in general). Why is it unfashionable: Because when you say something sounds problematic and racist, conservatives clutch the pearls and act offended. Well, boo hoo. Stop being racist, then. Problem solved!

The idea is that “lazy people of color” are using “your” taxpayer dollars (it is always assumed that these people do not also pay taxes) to avoid work while getting high on illegal drugs, but the truth is that this is bunk and it is not-so-thinly-veiled racism.

h/t: Lorilei at AddictingInfo.org

Republicans, how’s that line about minorities becoming dependent on the nanny-state pan out for you now?

Point of interest: 2% vs. 5%/9% isn’t “3 to 7 percent less likely”. The difference is actually three to seven percentage points, and when we’re talking about single digit values the disparity between them is far greater than “3% less likely” conveys.

To use a very simple example: if 2% of welfare recipients use drugs and even just 4% of the general population use drugs, that means welfare recipients are 50% less likely to use drugs. That is, half as likely. That is, other people are twice as likely to use drugs as welfare recipients.

So this article makes a lot of great points, but if you’re going to quote it to people, don’t repeat “3% less likely”. That sounds like a margin of error. Say something like “less than half as likely”. Or use the 2% figure by itself, and emphasize that it’s lower than the average.


Welfare Recipients Are Actually Mostly White And Less Likely Than The Average American To Use Drugs

divineirony:

abaldwin360:

Here’s a graphic circulating around Facebook AGAIN. I’m sick of it, and I think it is stupid:

Short answer: No, and fuck the people who made this graphic.

Long answer: Let’s learn from what happened in Florida.

Gov. Voldemort Rick Scott (who, not coincidentally, has a financial interest in a drug testing facility; he just transferred legal ownership of it to his WIFE) decided to drug test welfare recipients. This cost taxpayers millions of dollars and lined his wallet, and they found that only 2% of all welfare recipients tested actually tested positive for drugs. Of that 2%, ALL of them had family members who were eligible for welfare, so NO welfare money was saved by attempting to deny it to people on drugs. (I’ll also note that I heard nothing about getting people who tested positive into a rehab, or any concern for innocent minor children who rely on welfare to, you know, not starve.)

Now considering that data exists that has found that 5% of Americans use illegal drugs (that’s the LOWEST percentage I have found; other data puts it at 22 million people, or 9% of the population), that means that, according to the findings in Florida where only 2% of the tested population tested positive, people on welfare are LESS LIKELY to use illegal drugs. In fact, people on welfare are anywhere from 3% to 7% LESS LIKELY to be using illegal drugs than the general population as a whole.

Also, let’s not pretend that there are not “false positives” when drug testing, because there are. Your legal doctor-prescribed medications can show up as opiates or other “illegal” drugs. You can eat a poppyseed bagel and have a false positive. If there is a possibility that a test could be WRONG and deny a family some needed assistance so they can EAT, there is something gravely wrong with the idea.

Also, just as an aside, if you think that people on food assistance are rolling in free Government Cheese Bucks, consider that the average allotment comes out to about a dollar and change per meal. What can you buy to eat for less than two bucks a meal? Think on that. Now imagine doing that forever. Until you are denied benefits, of course.

read more

Or as my racist teabagger “friend” on Facebook likes to say, “democrats don’t drug test for welfare to pander to minorities!” When I tell him that’s racist, he says “it’s liberals (me) who play the race card”. lol, :::eye roll:::


thepeoplesrecord:

More implications of being a woman in America.

Source


Melissa Harris-Perry: Nothing is riskier than being poor in America [full video]


darkjez:

afroboheme:

Poverty rates are higher for women than men.

Women are poorer than men in all racial and ethnic groups. 

Black and Latina women face particularly high rates of poverty.  

Only a quarter of all adult women (age 18 and older) with incomes below the poverty line are single mothers.

Elderly women are far more likely to be poor than elderly men.

Poverty rates for males and females are the same throughout childhood, but increase for women during their childbearing years and again in old age.

Women are paid less than men, even when they have the same qualifications and work the same hours.

Women are segregated into low paying occupations, and occupations dominated by women are low paid.

Women spend more time providing unpaid caregiving than men. 

Women are more likely to bear the costs of raising children.

Pregnancy affects women’s work and educational opportunities more than men’s.

Domestic and sexual violence can push women into a cycle of poverty.

Source

PDF

Wow… these stats are chilling.

I’ve probably reblogged this before, but it’s always relevant.


crankycritic:

A white man won the Pulitzer Prize for taking a photo of a starving Black African and the vulture waiting for him to die so it could eat him.

Oh.

So he couldn’t put down the camera and I don’t know, buy the child some food?

And I’m supposed to give a shit that he killed himself due to guilt?

No.

I want to know why that entire fact was centered around the white man.

I want to know why, when a white American soldier guns down innocent women and children in Afghanistan, the following news stories center around his life and his trials.

Why didn’t that Black African boy’s story matter? Not even his NAME was mentioned.

And those Afghani people SLAUGHTERED like cattle? Where were their names and their stories, their sympathies and prayers?

Why is it that an institution REWARDED that white man for his INHUMANE, CALLOUS, CRUEL AND WRETCHED indifference to a STARVING BABY.

THE PULITZER PRIZE?

There is a disgusting disconnect, a canyon, a broken bridge with two groups of people are either side.

PEOPLE OF COLOR ARE NOT GOING TO BRIDGE THE GAP YOU CREATED AND CONTINUE TO THRIVE ON.


cognitivedissonance:

A new Pew Research Center survey of 2,048 adults finds that about two-thirds of the public (66%) believes there are “very strong” or “strong” conflicts between the rich and the poor—an increase of 19 percentage points since 2009.
More findings:
Nearly one-third of Americans say there are “very strong conflicts” between poor people and rich people, double the proportion that offered a similar view in July 2009.  
Conflicts between rich and poor now rank ahead of three other potential sources of group tension—between immigrants and the native born; between blacks and whites; and between young and old.
Younger adults, women, Democrats and African Americans are somewhat more likely than older people, men, Republicans, whites or Hispanics to say there are strong disagreements between rich and poor.
However, people’s perception of why the rich become rich has not changed much. Pew Research points out similar opinions to the ones below were found in 2008:

Pew uncovered one very interesting point:

The biggest increases in perceptions of class conflicts occurred among political liberals and Americans who say they are not affiliated with either major party. In each group the proportion who say there are major disagreements between rich and poor Americans increased by more than 20 percentage points since 2009.

Emphasis mine. Could this mean independents could be an even bigger influence than usual in 2012? And what does that mean for both parties? Maybe talking about jobs and the economy isn’t the worst move… The GOP’s constant denial of the existence of class warfare and incongruent insistence President Obama sparked it may also backfire.

cognitivedissonance:

A new Pew Research Center survey of 2,048 adults finds that about two-thirds of the public (66%) believes there are “very strong” or “strong” conflicts between the rich and the poor—an increase of 19 percentage points since 2009.

More findings:

  • Nearly one-third of Americans say there are “very strong conflicts” between poor people and rich people, double the proportion that offered a similar view in July 2009.  
  • Conflicts between rich and poor now rank ahead of three other potential sources of group tension—between immigrants and the native born; between blacks and whites; and between young and old.
  • Younger adults, women, Democrats and African Americans are somewhat more likely than older people, men, Republicans, whites or Hispanics to say there are strong disagreements between rich and poor.

However, people’s perception of why the rich become rich has not changed much. Pew Research points out similar opinions to the ones below were found in 2008:

Pew uncovered one very interesting point:

The biggest increases in perceptions of class conflicts occurred among political liberals and Americans who say they are not affiliated with either major party. In each group the proportion who say there are major disagreements between rich and poor Americans increased by more than 20 percentage points since 2009.

Emphasis mine. Could this mean independents could be an even bigger influence than usual in 2012? And what does that mean for both parties? Maybe talking about jobs and the economy isn’t the worst move… The GOP’s constant denial of the existence of class warfare and incongruent insistence President Obama sparked it may also backfire.



bebinn:

oneprochoiceview:

prochoicegeneration:

abortionconfessions:

Iffy about this one, but still made it.

“But I never, ever thought it meant that other people should not be allowed to make their own choice.  It just meant, for me, it was a wrong one.”
My heart goes out, really and truly, to all those who regret their abortion.  But it gives me hope to hear from the people who don’t think that their regret means that abortion should be illegal.
—Maria

That was my first thought, too. I also think that this confession brings up a great argument against abortion restrictions based on gestational period. Without giving each person an adequate amount of time to consider each and every option, there’s a greater chance that those people will not be very confident in their decisions.
I wish this person had not lived in an area that had restrictions in place so that they may have had time to make a decision with which they could feel comfortable and happy. I hope that they are able to seek the support they need to be okay with their decision, and I greatly appreciate their open-mindedness for other people’s needs!

There are a lot of reasons someone might get an abortion near the legal limit in the United States. There are even more reasons in countries with more restrictive laws, such as spousal consent or even longer waiting periods. Some of these are:
No pregnancy symptoms
No recognition of pregnancy symptoms
Denial of pregnancy
Raising money (look up “chasing the fee”)
Arranging transportation (difficult in states with only one or two providers)
Arranging care for dependents (children, parents, spouses, siblings)
Getting time off work
Waiting periods
Misinformation and delays from crisis pregnancy centers
Dealing with the aftermath of rape (shock, grief, denial, and troubles with evaluating options and making decisions all lead to delays in taking action)
Obtaining parental consent
Safety concerns in an abusive situation
Health concerns in the pregnant person and fetus that don’t show up until later in the pregnancy
Changes in life situations (losing a job, losing a home, losing insurance, losing a significant other)
Though I can’t speak for this specific poster, these issues all contribute to rushed decision-making. Working to end restrictive laws, regulate crisis pregnancy centers and support vulnerable populations, such as teens, those with lower education levels, and those in poverty would most likely reduce later abortions and help people come to the decision that is right for them.

bebinn:

oneprochoiceview:

prochoicegeneration:

abortionconfessions:

Iffy about this one, but still made it.

“But I never, ever thought it meant that other people should not be allowed to make their own choice.  It just meant, for me, it was a wrong one.

My heart goes out, really and truly, to all those who regret their abortion.  But it gives me hope to hear from the people who don’t think that their regret means that abortion should be illegal.

—Maria

That was my first thought, too. I also think that this confession brings up a great argument against abortion restrictions based on gestational period. Without giving each person an adequate amount of time to consider each and every option, there’s a greater chance that those people will not be very confident in their decisions.

I wish this person had not lived in an area that had restrictions in place so that they may have had time to make a decision with which they could feel comfortable and happy. I hope that they are able to seek the support they need to be okay with their decision, and I greatly appreciate their open-mindedness for other people’s needs!

There are a lot of reasons someone might get an abortion near the legal limit in the United States. There are even more reasons in countries with more restrictive laws, such as spousal consent or even longer waiting periods. Some of these are:

  1. No pregnancy symptoms
  2. No recognition of pregnancy symptoms
  3. Denial of pregnancy
  4. Raising money (look up “chasing the fee”)
  5. Arranging transportation (difficult in states with only one or two providers)
  6. Arranging care for dependents (children, parents, spouses, siblings)
  7. Getting time off work
  8. Waiting periods
  9. Misinformation and delays from crisis pregnancy centers
  10. Dealing with the aftermath of rape (shock, grief, denial, and troubles with evaluating options and making decisions all lead to delays in taking action)
  11. Obtaining parental consent
  12. Safety concerns in an abusive situation
  13. Health concerns in the pregnant person and fetus that don’t show up until later in the pregnancy
  14. Changes in life situations (losing a job, losing a home, losing insurance, losing a significant other)

Though I can’t speak for this specific poster, these issues all contribute to rushed decision-making. Working to end restrictive laws, regulate crisis pregnancy centers and support vulnerable populations, such as teens, those with lower education levels, and those in poverty would most likely reduce later abortions and help people come to the decision that is right for them.


Just finished watching another documentary

stfuhypocrisy:

ramblings-of-a-mad-woman:

It was based in Nicaragua where the government has made a pact with the Catholic Church and banned all abortions no matter of circumstances.

There were women in hospitals that faced extremely high chances of death if they carried on with their pregnancy and the further into the pregnancy they got, the more likely it became that they die.

Rape victims and victims of incest were not granted abortions.

Neither were women living in poverty, on the streets with large families and no way of feeding another child.

It’s horrific.

Doctors can face having their license taken off them and 8 years in prison for performing an abortion.

Women are forced to seek doctors illegally, often resulting in shoddy back alleys or people that do not have the qualifications or the know how on how to safely terminate a pregnancy.

Some women perform abortions on themselves as they cannot afford to pay for an illegal abortion.

Where as before the law was passed rape victims would be granted an abortion, they no longer have that privilege.

There was one woman in hospital that had a serious heart condition and required strong medication for it. She is pregnant and if she continues to take the medication she increases her chances of giving birth to a deformed child or even having a serious miscarriage.

However, if she stops taking the medication she could die.

What kind of a government condones the death of a woman based on a mass of tissue in her womb? =(

I respect peoples beliefs and religious values but this is cruel and unjust.

What’s the name of the documentary?

What the hell kind of sense does this make? This makes no goddamn sense whatsoever.