talkpolitics | Entries tagged with discrimination

mahnmut.livejournal.com

Hi once more, all you wannabe benevolent dictators of your imaginary utopian countries! It's been a while since the last time that we had one of our regular hypothetical situations which you, being the awesome ruler of your great fictional nation that you are, as inspired by the NationStates game, will have to be dealing with. Last time Ms Parke, the overworked bureaucrat won by a landslide, arguing that each bill in legislature should have just one topic and purpose. But now the problem is a bit different - and quite timely, might I point out.

The Issue

Conservative commentators have remarked that many foreign immigrants in Insert Country Name are failing to take part in, or even acknowledge, the country's rich and varied culture, traditions, and social mores. This has caused some interethnic strife, and reports of violence in minority-dominated neighbourhoods have been increasing every day.

( The debate & a poll )

htpcl.livejournal.com

Hey ma'fellow ~~indifferent armchair-dwellers~~ reasonable folks who care about freedom and peace almost as much as I do! Now that a week has passed since the act of barbarism in Paris which was instantly branded by some smartheads (and politicians) "a clash of civilizations", perhaps it's time to sit back a little and assess things a bit more soberly. In my opinion there's no such thing as a war of the civilizations, not really. Of course there can't be a yes or no answer to such complex issues spanning generations and even centuries, but still. On one side, this isn't a Muslims vs Christians clash per se. It's rather a conflict of values, one side refusing to adopt the other's values even when the former is being hosted by the latter, with all the hospitality that comes with that.

But even then, these are not "Christian" values by definition, but rather values of humanism. Free expression included. Unfortunately, many among the Muslim community do not necessarily identify with these valeus, or at least do not place them anywhere near the top of their list of priorities - but instead they fear they could lose their identity and damage their own culture and faith if they do. This couldn't be any further from reality, though. Adopting the principles of secularism, humanism and the Age of Enlightenment that have become so fundamental for the West would not only not undermine the Muslim world - it would most likely enrich it and allow it to develop - a process that Europe has been taking for granted for quite a while now. It's no surprise that the main factor for that was the separation of church and state, of religion and politics.

( Read more of this incoherent diatribe )

ricomsmith77.livejournal.com

Originally posted by

ricomsmith77 at "Brown Out: Why Ferguson Has Shown U.S. Its True Colors"

Let me tell you a story.

August 9th, 2014....

...a young, unarmed man is walking down the middle of an empty street with a friend. A police officer drives up to them in his vehicle and begins questioning the two men and tells them they need to leave the street and go to the sidewalk. After a brief confrontation, the officer and the unarmed man gets into a struggle inside the window of the vehicle. The officer pulls out his gun and fires a shot that hits the man in his hand. The man then runs away from the vehicle and down the street, at which point the officer gets out of his vehicle and continues shooting. The man falls to the ground and then proceeds to put his hands in the air, in a sign of surrender to the officer. The officer shoots him again, this time landing a fatal shot to the head.........the man dies in the middle of the street.

What happens next, is what the world has been watching unfold on television and on social media.......
( Read more... )

nairiporter.livejournal.com

In 2010 it became clear that the FIFA World Cup in 2022 would be hosted by Qatar. A very controversial result that stirred calls for boycotts, and even for a re-vote. Still, the projects for the new stadiums have already been initiated, with some massive construction works going on all around the tiny country. From the day when the construction started, until today, various construction incidents have claimed the lives of at least 1200 workers, mostly from India and Nepal. This fact, as well as the horrible overall working conditions for foreigners in Qatar, have caused a major outcry around the world.

According to a recent Amnesty International report, guest workers in Qatar have been subject to exploitation for much longer than that, and this is not only limited to the construction sector. That NGO has explored the working conditions of the housekeepers and chambermaids in the wealthy Gulf monarchy, and the conclusion is that not only do they receive ridiculously low wages, but they often work for 100+ hours a week, without breaks and days off, they suffer from insomnia, frequent humiliation and violence at the hands of their employers - or should I say, masters.

( Read more... )

htpcl.livejournal.com

Hey, fellow ~~indifferent popcorn-munchers~~ conscientious peace-lovers! Here's a tale for ya. "We're one of the most hospitable, amorous and warm-hearted people in the world", the communist propaganda used to teach us Bulgars back in the good days of old.

Well, not so fast. Here's one "example" that I don't recommend anyone emulating:

Asylum Seekers Summarily Expelled

Bulgaria's Rozovo Inhabitants 'Discriminate' Refugees - Ombudsman

Caption: "Is our fabled hospitality a myth, after all?"

Three Syrian families. I mean, yeah. THREE Syrian families had rented a couple of apartments in a village. And the local villagers (mind you, the word has a fairly negative connotation over here, meaning backward, retrograde, redneck-types) summarily expelled them. Why? Because "those people are barbarians, they're cannibals" (quote). Bottom-line: they're brown people, they look odd and speak funny. So their place ain't here, ya know!

Evgeniy Daynov: Expulsion of Syrians in Rozovo Disgrace for Bulgaria

( First things first )

paft.livejournal.com

From the New York Times:

Long-term joblessness — the kind that Ms. Barrington-Ward and about four million others are experiencing — is now one of the defining realities of the American work force.

The unemployment rate has fallen to 7.3 percent, down from 10 percent four years ago. Private businesses have added about 7.6 million positions over the same period. But while recent numbers show that there are about as many people unemployed for short periods as in 2007 — before the crisis hit — they also show that long-term joblessness is up 213 percent.

In part, that’s because people don’t return to work in an orderly, first-fired, first-hired fashion. In any given month, a newly jobless worker has about a 20 to 30 percent chance of finding a new job. By the time he or she has been out of work for six months, though, the chance drops to one in 10, according to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

I've so far had three conversations, online and off, with people who say that, when hiring, they either reject out of hand any resume that shows the person is unemployed and/or over a certain age or instruct their recruiters to do this. They look ever so regretful about it. Shake their heads. Furrow their brows. Shrug as though they aren't responsible and some invisible force is making them do it.

So I have a question for any of you employers who do this or instruct your recruiters to do this. If you are going to systematically shut out Americans who've faced long-term unemployment, or have been careless enough to be born before 1964, surely you support some form of public assistance that will prevent the resulting large pool of the permanently jobless from starving or living on the streets? Is that correct? In between tossing into the shredder any resume or application that indicates the person has been out of work for more than a few months, or (horrors!) has a few gray hairs, no doubt you actively campaign for some permanent government system of financial support for the thousands and thousands of human beings you are consigning to permanent unemployment.

Right?

If not, what alternative are you proposing for dealing with this large pool of human resources you are so willing to toss into the dustbin?

*

geezer-also.livejournal.com

With the Martin/Zimmerman thing going on this may have escaped the notice of many.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/gay-wedding-flowers-case_n_3516294.html

( Read more... )

Mood: contemplative
Music: Gordon Lightfoot

paft.livejournal.com

From the New York Times

'Someone loses their job,' Ms. Wu said, 'so they can’t pay their bills — and now they can’t get a job because they couldn’t pay their bills because they lost a job? It’s this Catch-22 that makes no sense.'

Back in 2010, I posted an OP about employers essentially saying "the unemployed need not apply" for job openings. I observed that the trend seemed to increasingly be that once you're out, you're out. If employers see simply being without a job as a bar sinister, then unemployment can go from being a temporary downturn to a live-ruining catastrophe.

According to this New York Times article, people affected by the current downturn in the economy are facing yet another hurdle -- prospective employers are doing credit screenings, and refusing to hire people who have problems with debt.

The increasing gulf between the rich and the poor in this country tends to be spoken of in terms of income inequality, but there's more to it than that. Many of the haves seem to be making an effort to actually close ranks against the have-nots. Got laid off? Faced hard times? Run up debt? This indicates you are incompetent and untrustworthy. The workplace doors are now closed, buddy.

And this is being done at the same time struggling Americans are being told that the only solution to putting food on the table is getting a job. Or two jobs. Or three.

What, exactly, is someone supposed to do if they are denied employment because they are unemployed and/or have bad credit AND are cut out of unemployment benefits and food assistance? How are they supposed to exist?

*

luzribeiro.livejournal.com

First off, I hope none of our pals here have received bad news about dear and close people suffering in the horrible attack in Boston.

All the debates about when the appropriate time to begin talking about these things aside (and being aware that an agreement is inevitably impossible to reach on this issue), here's something I've noticed in the recent couple of days that left me with mixed feelings.

Namely: lots of voices expressing a hope that the perpetrator of the attack was a white male Christian American rather than a representative of any minority group, or worse, a foreigner. We all know Muslim terrorists were one of the very first guesses, and the fact that two Saudi citizens were found among the injured, and one was even held for a time under armed guard in the hospital, seems to provide a confirmation that this assumption was quite prevalent.

( Case in point... )

peristaltor.livejournal.com

Over a decade ago, I had a pretty fun job with a few minor drawbacks. For one, it was seasonal, with lots of work in the Spring, a Shitload in the Summer, lots in Fall, and almost nothing in Winter. Secondly, the Shitload of work got to be a strain, with sometimes 16 hour days and longer. Management always claimed that nothing could be done, that everyone pulled the same hours.

I should confess a minor problem. When I work too much or have too much stress in life in general, I make mistakes. Perhaps this is understandable, but not to management at this particular job. I made a few mistakes and was called on the carpet to answer for them. In my defense, I noted that I had requested fewer long days specifically because I recognize this tendency of mine. I don't want to make mistakes, but under these circumstances they have always occurred. And the other employees doing this job with no errors (that I knew about) were sometimes 15 years younger than myself. I asked my supervisor, ( as I do, something snarky but with poetic poignacny. )

enders-shadow.livejournal.com

fuck arizona
i mean, really.

http://m.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/business/2013/01/proposed-us-loyalty-oath-for-students.html?page=all&r=full

im always shocked that some people think theres no discrimination against atheists.

sure, atheists are usually not part of minority groups--it seems (in the US at least) to largely be educated white guys, though obviously of the millions of atheists worldwide that are of various class and ethnic backgrounds.

it does seem that dumbfuck christians are unable or unwilling to let others be non christian. fucking idiots.

and this is why the GOP, that called itself, hezbollah, er, the party of god, is so fucking absurd.

instead of tackling the education problems in schools, lawmakers spend their time crafting a bill meant to deny a HS diploma to atheists.
fucking pricks.

oh, and lastly, one of the sponsors of the bill responded to a local paper, using the deadline to submit bills to explain that maybe some language might be changed to not rile everyone up.

link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/01/25/arizona-republicans-propose-bill-that-would-not-allow-atheists-to-graduate-high-school/

quote from rep thorpe is towards bottom of link

the bill is two fucking paragraphs long, you dipshit politician who doesnt think anyone will go find the bill you wrote/sponsored.

http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/51leg/1r/bills/hb2467p.htm&Session_ID=110

jackasses, all of them.

Posted via m.livejournal.com.

luzribeiro.livejournal.com

In recent days, POTUS Barry Hussein Al-Bama has received a lot of rebuke from various feminazis, pesky minority groups and even some moderate conservatives (yeah, rumor has it that they're still out there, although their existence is yet to be verified), for the apparent lack of diversity in his new administration. The iron(y) has burnt through shirts, pants & all, and is now scorching the wooden table underneath.

In response to all this criticism, amidst boos and yells "You lie", Al-Bama said, "Being the new-old POTUS, I'm planning to fill my cabinet with the best prepared peeps around, regardless of skin tan, age, sex, sexual orientation, or food preference. Or any other identification nonsense, to that matter. In the meantime, I've been told that my previous administration had waaay too much color in it and wasn't representative enough for Murkka. So, in order to truly represent all Amurkkans, I'll have to take reversed reverse re-affirmative re-action and appoint a bunch of old white Christian dudes whenever an opportunity comes by".

( Some are lovin' it, some ain't )

underlankers.livejournal.com

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9529123/Vatican-official-says-Israel-fostering-intolerance-of-Christianity.html

Israel is by now coming to the conclusion that a Jewish state for Jews evidently has no place for Christians any more than it does Muslims. After all, in a Jewish state Christians aren't real citizens of that state because they're not Jews. There are members of the Knesset ripping up Bibles and the Ultra-Orthodox being taught to spit on Christian clerics. Were this a Muslim state, the US media would be going ballistic and foaming at the mouth over this, especially if members of the Iranian parliament were ripping up Bibles in the assembly and throwing them in the trash.

Personally, I think this is another example of a double-standard that's allways operated in Israel's favor when it has no reason to do so.

malasadas.livejournal.com

Today is the 55th anniversary of the Little Rock Nine, the 9 African American high school students who attempted to enter Little Rock Central High School were met with National Guard troops, definatly sent there by Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus to prevent the school's court ordered desegregation. Faubus later agreed to use the troops to protect the students, but he instead dismissed them, leaving the students vulnerable to the mob. President Eisenhower then sent the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army to take direct control of the Arkansas National Guard and protect the Little Rock Nine as they took classes.

The experience of the Little Rock Nine is recalled in the Renaud Brothers 2007 documentary:

Twelve years later, in 1969, I was born into an America that had taken many faltering steps on the path of racial equality, but which was still stumbling in many respects. In 2007, fifty years after the Little Rock Nine, my first child, a daughter, was born into an America that had made true and impressive gains in expanding opportunity not just on racial lines, but across numerous populations. Her opportunities as a woman in education and career are vastly better than any previous American generation. People with disabilities have genuinely protected rights in education and work, and society's relationship with gays and lesbians in our communities are vastly better than the year I was born.

But I would be foolish to think all work related to justice is accomplished. Emancipation may have brought legal equality to black Americans, but it has not brought a broadly enjoyed prosperity. Our nation demonstrates a decided uneasiness with demographic trends that will clearly make us a less white nation over the next two generations. Sexism holds powerful cultural influence even today, and while acceptance of same sex families is growing, there are vast tracks of territory in America where those families have no legal rights enjoyed by other "traditional" families.

So, as Dr. King said in 1967, the "arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." This applies not only in America but across the world where many nations have seen dramatic changes in the 55 years since 1957.

What changes have your society seen that you believe increase justice? What would you like to see yet happen?

airiefairie.livejournal.com

What is the motive behind the terror act in Wisconsin? (Because that is what it is). Is it hatred for Muslims, with whom the attacker erroneously associates the Sikhs? Or is it distrust to "otherness"? Or sheer ignorance? The Sikh religion is little known outside of India, and it is worth exploring more closely, because it is indeed unique in many ways. And because, as was concluded yesterday, when something different is not familiar enough, this generates distrust, and fear, and even anger, and hence, violence.

First of all, Sikhism originates from the North Indian state of Punjab. The Sikhs are about 2% of India's population. The most prominent moment in their history was in the 80s when Sikh separatists attempted to create an independent state in Punjab, the most prosperous part of India. The then PM Indira Gandhi responded by storming the sacred Sikh shrine in Amritsar, the Golden Temple. And she met the Sikh revenge in 1984 when her body-guards (who were Sikhs) assassinated her. And this led to bloody pogroms across the country.

The Sikhs who live in the US are about a quarter of a million. The first Sikhs came to America in the end of the 19th century, looking for a better life. Initially most of them were occupied in agriculture. With time they earned a positive image, accumulated wealth, and occupied high posts in society and in the administration and business. It is no coincidence that president Obama mentioned the Sikh heritage which had enriched America, and the Sikh community which had become an integral part of the great American family, when he was giving his condolence speech after the terror attack.

( What makes Sikhism unique )

mahnmut.livejournal.com

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/18912902

So, Caster Semenya has taken the silver in 800m, whereas she could've easily taken the gold. If she wanted to. But maybe she didn't. The reason?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/five_ring_circus/2012/08/11/caster_semenya_2012_olympics_did_the_south_african_runner_lose_the_women_s_800_meters_on_purpose_.html

"Speculations are that she had pulled a badminton move and tanked the race. Why would someone intentionally perform below their standard in the biggest race in four years? One South African track and field observer suggested that it might be “scandal avoidance” - her 2009 triumph brought such unpleasant consequences that she’d just as soon avoid further scrutiny, and an Olympic silver medal brings considerably less attention than the gold."

I hate to say it, but that was the first thought that crossed my mind as I was watching the 800m women's final. I confess I'm guilty of having my own suspicions. And then, there's that too:

"In fact, Sports Illustrated’s David Epstein called it in a piece published days before the final: “If Semenya wins the gold, she is likely to be accused of having an unfair advantage. If she runs poorly, she is likely to be accused of sandbagging the race so as not to be accused of having an unfair advantage.”"

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, eh?

( Some more thoughts )

enders-shadow.livejournal.com

http://www.garyinthehouse.com/

Warning: graphic images in the first video on the page.

He's running an "I'm anti-abortion" campaign against Keith Ellison for the democratic primary for the house.
He claims Ellison is a baby killing racist, cause he supports Planned Parenthood.

He also has a video hating on Keith Ellison for being a muslim.
"Islam tells you to kill Christians!" type of bullshit

This man is awful, awful awful. Can we agree, even those who disagree with abortion, that this man is a *enter nasty word here* who should feel ashamed of those two videos?

luzribeiro.livejournal.com

Boy Scouts reaffirm ban on gays

"After a confidential two-year review, the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday emphatically reaffirmed its policy of excluding gays, ruling out any changes despite relentless protest campaigns by some critics.

An 11-member special committee, formed discreetly by top Scout leaders in 2010, "came to the conclusion that this policy is absolutely the best policy for the Boy Scouts," the organization' national spokesman, Deron Smith, told The Associated Press.

Smith said the committee, comprised of professional scout executives and adult volunteers, was unanimous in its conclusion — preserving a long-standing policy that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 and has remained controversial ever since.

As a result of the committee's decision, the Scouts' national executive board will take no further action on a recently submitted resolution asking for reconsideration of the membership policy."
---

I know, first thing many would think of as a response would be that the Boy Scouts, being a private club, should feel free to do as they please. On the other hand though, it's beyond me why the federal government would continue to fund an organization like this, in light of their outright discriminatory policies.

( More specifically... )

malasadas.livejournal.com

There was a recent post in this community on the topic of the "men's movement". Among the many responses to the post were many on a similar theme: that the so-called goals of almost any so-called "men's movement" that have been raised, are not issues that require an additional movement other than feminism, a movement aimed, as it were, at forces OUTSIDE of the population of men in our society.

I have to agree. In my experience, many claims, even those made in earnest, about sytemic problems faced by men, are claims about problems that would mostly cease to be major factors harming men if feminism were successful. It is one thing to observe that many men suffer due to negative social trends and would lead better, more fulfilled lives with broad social change. It is quite another thing to conclude that a separate social movement aimed at factors EXTERNAL to men and, often, in opposition to feminism is what will solve them.

I'd like to look at some of the various issues I've heard related to problems faced by men and boys -- some raised by "men's rights" activists and others by research into socialization -- and look at them personally and whether or not a "men's rights" movement would do anything effectively about them. This will be heavy on anecdote and personal experience, and behind spoiler tags to avoid boring anyone to death.

Issue #1:

There's growing research that shows that being brought up as a boy is not as well understood as we thought and that while research from the 1970s through the 1990s helped us undserstand girls' socialization better, boys have been overlooked. What we have been learning in recent years is that there are, indeed, damaging socialization trends that impact boys as a whole and we need a systemic approach to more healthy growth and development.

None of that, however, is something that is exactly OUTSIDE of feminism. In fact, feminism's anlysis and criticism of society are entirely germain to improving the lives of boys. I would go so far as to say that any men's rights advocates who look at the problems faced by boys as they grow up and see a large number of issues that stem from anything other than patriarchy are being myopic. Those who look and see issues stemming from an alleged "female power structure" are being dishonest.

A personal example: I grew up short, nerdy and listening to classical music. I was bullied which probably surprises nobody. One particular bully was especially persistent throughout 7th Grade, even bragging to his buddies that he had given me a bruise a day every day for a month. I was certainly not alone being on the receiving end of bullying, and fellow victims were typically boys who also fell outside of normal role types or behavior that was deemed acceptable for boys. Another classmate who, in retrospect, was very likely autistic was bullied until he committed suicide. The bullies, themselves products of homes often with brutal messaging about how boys SHOULD behave, were enforcers of our social roles: since I did not like to play sports and did not participate in other social likes of my classmates, I was an easy target. And I was luckier than most, having a very supportive family structure and at least my own social niche within the school, small as it was. Regardless, it took a damaging and lasting toll.

And the right solution for that problem lies within feminism's analysis. The gender roles enforced by bullying were not ones where females were dominent in any way -- they were ones where any indication of being LIKE a girl were violently attacked in a boy while simultaneously expecting girls to be meek.

Issue #2:

I'm not proud of this at all, but there was a long period of my life when I flirted with what has been called "nice guy" syndrome. Combine some very low self esteem from the bullying with some deeply flawed thinking and my "fantasy" of how relationships could go is summed up in this XKCD:

Alt Text: Friends with detriments

Of coures, "nice guy" syndrome also comes with some terribly anti-woman traps as well -- over time, becoming convinced that women "always go for jerks" means you end up thinking you are a the "good person" while simultaneously risking bigoted conclusions about 50% of the population. It took some serious and unpleasant looks at myself to climb out of that.

One of the worst things that "nice guy" ends up doing as a mode of thought is it plays right into the foolish trope that women hold all the power in relationships and dating. It is part of that thinking that women can be vapid and dependent even as objects of desire, but they also get to pick who they sleep with...so that's the real power in relationships. Meanwhile, men have to all things, secure, confident, financially powerful and professional -- and they still lose.

In a very few words: fuck. that. shit.

Let's suppose that the "nice guy" conclusion is even vaguely correct and that "jerks" get a lot more "success" in dating. But that's not indicative of something wrong with women as the brokers of power in relationships -- that's something wrong with society-wide socialization that valorizes demeaning behavior.

But much more important than that, another deeply sexist flaw with "nice guy" thinking is that anyone is OWED a chance at a relationship. Seeing loyal friednship with deeply ulterior motives as a path towards relationships assumes that one has a gained a privelege to someone else's very personal decision making, so the "nice guy", ends up thinking he is owed something nobody is actually owed.

So again, there's no need for a men's movement to address men's lack of power in relationships. What is needed is for men to seriously reconsider some the widely held ideas about how relationships work.

Issue #3:

Former director of policy planning at the State Department, Dr. Anne-Marie Slaughter, caused a stir recently with an article in the Atlantic Magazine called Why Women Still Can't Have It All describing her efforts to combined being an involved parent with her appointment to one of the highest level positions within the State Department and her beliefs about why women in her cohort of highly educated and successful professionals have been taught to expect to do what she now sees as impossible -- reach the highest echelons in government service or business and educational leadership while simultaneously maintaining a healthy and involved family life.

Dr. Slaughter's article has spawned a fair amount of criticism and much of it is well-earned. She is, by her own admission, talking to only about an elite group among the elite where she regained her involvement in parenting by stepping down to...a tenured full professor at Princeton University, not exactly a part time job itself. Her essay does not consider the situation of women who choose to be and to remain childless, and there is serious question about whether or not feminism ever did promise that women could "have it all".

Regardless, quite a lot of what Dr. Slaughter wrote seems familiar to me, although from a different role perspective. Namely, most of our "professional" fields were constructed when the expectation was that a highly professional job, such as a doctor, a lawyer, a business executive or an academic, would be held by a man, and that man would have a full time wife at home to see to "household duties". These careers were never intended to be populated by people who did less than dedicate the majority of the weekdays to career, placing family into a secondary position. In order to rise among the highest eschelons on those careers, family had to be essentially neglected.

I've had this experience in my own career as an academic. Early in my pre-tenure years, my colleagues recognized that I have a talent for organizing things so I was blessed with service assignments. Also early in those years, I married and had our first child. One reason that I enjoy an academic careeris that it has flexible hours, but given that I was responsible for program administration, would never short change my students and was determined to be an involved father in my daughter's life, I did neglect one aspect of my job: scholarship. I published, but the kind of time commitment needed to churn out a large number of articles each and every year was not something I felt I had. I took my time working on projects that got me a few, high quality publications prior to tenure.

And prioritizing my family when I got high accolades at two aspects of my job and did reasonably well at the third nearly cost me my career. My closest colleagues appreciated my work and how I worked, but further up the university hierarchy, being satisfied with slow but high quality scholarship was greeted with hostility even at a university with an undergraduate, liberal arts focus.

At the end of the process, I came out tenured but not without extraordinary efforts on my behalf.

So what does this teach me? That we have entire career trajectories that are modeled after people not being able to engage home and work with both being satisfactory if one values both. It is very likely that corporate CEOs, high level government employees and their equivalents in academia, law and medicine will never have a work/home balance, but does one have to expect career consequences at all levels of these professions? I know junior faculty who believe they can never prioritize family life for fear of losing tenure as I almost did, and junior law associates and medical residents are well known for their inhumane work schedules.

These are not work patterns that were designed to privilege women. A men's movement that discusses work and family would need to ask MEN to think about how necessary these career requirements should be and why anyone finds them acceptable.

Issue #4:

"Men's Rights" advocates are not wrong to point out that men are more likely to be victims of violence overall. What they obsfuscate is that sexual and domestic violence are overwhelmingly perpetrated by men against women. It isn't that men are not victims of violence; it is that the seriousness of what women face at the hands of rapists and abusers is not diminished by that nor does it make it less important to investigate what elements of our culture are teaching a cohort of men that violence is an acceptable response in a home dispute or that sexual violence is ever something they can justify.

Simply put: violence that is visited by men against other men is not a phenomenon, however how tragic, that takes away from the fact that someone who is beaten or killed in the home environment is overwhelmingly likely a woamn at the hands of her partner.

And men are raped as well. I say that as someone who was sexually assaulted by another man. But again, what I see as needed to help with that is more and better feminism on the subject of rape prevention. My assailant needed to believe that he had no right to assume an aggressive physical advance would have been acceptable towards ANYONE, even someone who might have been a willing sexual partner. I needed support in the wake of that attack that helped me understand HIS violation was HIS fault.

Sounds like feminism to me.

And even in the general outlier case of female on male sexual violence -- it is almost always something I observe that is made more difficult by a fairly perverted view of male sexuality. Think of the case that makes the media with some frequency: a female teacher or other adult authority figure having sex with a barely pubescent boy. Since boys are frequently raised to believe that saying "no" to sex is something boys don't do, it makes the violation of trust even more damaging for many, and that is directly the fault of a view of male sexuality that is perpetuated mostly by men. What can the "men's movement" do in this case? It certainly has no external, female power structure to deconstruct -- it is much more a case of "Physician, Heal Thyself".

So there I have it, after mostly personal reflection and experience, a conclusion: I don't need a "men's movement" that is organized around reforming a power structure that disempowers men. If anything, I need a men's movement that is dedicated to changing how men view ourselves and disinvesting ourselves of distorting elements of privilege that lead to bullying, maladjusted senses of relationships, alienating ideas about career expectations and flat out disordered views of power and sexuality. I'd be interested in men talking to other men about those things.

I wouldn't mind more and more successful feminism too.

lafinjack.livejournal.com

Over the weekend two Tulsa, Oklahoma men are suspected of killing three black men and wounding two others.

Two years ago the father of Jake England was shot and killed in front of him by a black man, which is the suspected motive for his and William Allen's shootings. Three months ago his girlfriend committed suicide in front of him. The day before the shootings, he posted on Facebook: "It's hard not to go off between that and [my girlfriend] sheran I'm gone in the head."

Just over ten years ago Andrea Yates was convicted of the drowning murder of her five children in a bathtub, which was later appealed to guilty by reason of insanity. Yates sincerely believed that her bad parenting would send them to hell, and that by killing them they would go to heaven. She had a long previous history of psychological issues, suicide attempts, and psychiatric hospitalizations, which were exacerbated by post-partum depression.

The United States has a pretty poor history in the recognition and treatment of mental illness. Both of the above cases came after many, many warning signs missed by friends and family, in a country where mental illness is vilified and mocked, and whose mental health treatment ecosystem is patchy at best. Both were easily preventable. Both were failed by society.

These two people are far from the first victims of this damaged environment, and will not be the last.

Music: KHTK 1140 The Fan - The Don Geronimo Show - April 10, 2012 | Powered by Last.fm

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

MONTHLY TOPIC:
AI Regulation: Striking the Balance

DAILY QUOTE:

"Clearly, the penguins have finally gone too far. First they take our hearts, now they’re tanking the global economy one smug waddle at a time. Expect fish sanctions by Friday."

(nairiporter)

July 2025

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

Talk politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods.

Entries tagged with discrimination

Clash of Cultures

A matter of inclusion, not a clash of civilizations

"Brown Out: Why Ferguson Has Shown U.S. Its True Colors"

Qatar's new slavewomen

So much with the "hospitable nation" myth

The Permanently Unemployed

Florist sued for not doing gay wedding

"...Need Not Apply."

Something sticks out in the aftermath of the bombing

It Takes Two

church and state

Al-Bama's reversed-reverse re-affirmative re-inaction policy

In the words of the Joker: "Here we go":

"The Arc of the Moral Universe is Long, But it Bends Towards Justice." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

With turban, but no Quran

Of Caster and Oscar

This is why we can't have nice things.

The Bigot Scouts

I don't need a men's movement

(no subject)

Credits & Style Info

Links

July 2025

Summary