I saw a post on this a while back that has since gotten lost in my likes, but please stop talking about men being entitled and unsupportive in their relationships with women as “demanding emotional labor.”

“Emotional labor” does not refer to your personal relationships. Emotional labor is a term coined to describe the expectations placed on workers to perform certain emotions (usually happiness) for their bosses, customers and sometimes even coworkers.

And yes, of course this is an expectation that women in particular are expected to live up to, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay for us to appropriate the term and misuse it like this.

Poor Person: I need food stamps so I don’t starve.

Conservative: That’s lazy. Get a job.

Poor Person: Fine. I got a job, but it doesn’t pay enough. The minimum wage needs to be raised.

Conservative: Still lazy. Go to college so you can get a better job.

Poor Person: Fine. But I’ll need financial assistance to afford college.

Conservative: Still lazy.

Poor Person: Fine. I went to college, put myself in debt, and got a degree. But the only jobs I can get without experience are unpaid internships. Businesses should be required to pay their interns.

Conservative:

Conservative: Still lazy.

Poor Person: How the hell do you expect me to get out of debt?

Conservative: It’s your own fault. You choose to go to college even though you couldn’t afford it.

Poor Person: But you’re the one who keeps telling poor people to go to college. Are you saying that I’m lazy if I don’t go to college, and lazy if I do?

Conservative: Yes.

Poor Person: Then what the hell should I do?

Conservative: Be born rich.

Poverty and oppression make people fatter

A common fat-phobic belief is that fat people are fat because they overeat. A recent submission to @facebooksexism​ perfectly illustrates this stereotype and the harmful classist attitudes it perpetuates: 

Like most fat-phobic beliefs, this stereotype is completely wrong.

It is well accepted in public health science that food insecurity – which is the lack of consistent, dependable access to enough food for active, healthy living – predicts higher body weight

Some reasons for this association include:

  • Limited resources and lack of access to nutritious, affordable foods. Heavily processed, low-nutrition foods are usually cheaper, but are more calorie dense and less satisfying to eat.  
  • Cycles of food deprivation and overeating. Low income people often run out of money for necessities like food before their next paycheck arrives, resulting in extended periods of hunger and starvation followed by periods of compensatory eating when the paycheck arrives. Such eating patterns cause weight gain over time.
  • High levels of stress, anxiety, & depression, all of which cause physiological changes resulting in weight gain over time.
  • Limited access to health care. Many chronic health conditions, like polycystic ovarian syndrome, thyroid dysfunction, and type II diabetes, cause weight gain when left untreated. 

All of this means that systematic oppression causes people to be fat for reasons that are outside of their personal control, and that poor fat people are not lying when they report that they cannot afford to put food on the table. Stop spreading the harmful, oppressive, and fat-phobic belief that you can judge a person’s nutrition or eating habits by the size of their body.   

- Mod D

washingtonpost.com
It’s unconstitutional to ban the homeless from sleeping outside, the federal government says
The Justice Department steps into a case that could have broader implications.

Boise, like many cities — the number of which has swelled since the recession — has an ordinance banning sleeping or camping in public places. But such laws, the DOJ says, effectively criminalize homelessness itself in situations where people simply have nowhere else to sleep. From the DOJ’s filing:

When adequate shelter space exists, individuals have a choice about whether or not to sleep in public. However, when adequate shelter space does not exist, there is no meaningful distinction between the status of being homeless and the conduct of sleeping in public. Sleeping is a life-sustaining activity — i.e., it must occur at some time in some place. If a person literally has nowhere else to go, then enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance against that person criminalizes her for being homeless.

Such laws, the DOJ argues, violate the Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment, making them unconstitutional. By weighing in on this case, the DOJ’s first foray in two decades into this still-unsettled area of law, the federal government is warning cities far beyond Boise and backing up federal goals to treat homelessness more humanely.

If your parents were “well off” it’s highly likely you lived in a school district full of other kids in your family’s income/wealth bracket, so even if you went to a “public school,” that means fuck all tbh. Because schools are highly segregated based on wealth and race of the surrounding area

 with segregation comes quality disparities. this is a fact, it’s indisputable.

with money comes a better education, with money comes more opportunities for scholarships, with money comes greater access to tutors, with money comes greater access to education preparation as young children, etc. 

Like this system is built for you, the keys you needed to open gates keeping you from success were in your parent’s $ pockets.

This shit isn’t new.

I just read some Judith Butler out loud to my husband and he had NO idea what I was saying. As much as I do enjoy reading Butler she represents a lot of the problems with academic writing.

I understand that not all books and papers can cater to the laymen, sometimes prior knowledge is simply required for context.

But there is still a great amount of work that is written BY academics FOR academics and I think that is a little tragic.
Books and papers should have a level lf accessibility that isn’t hindered by a lack of not having a thesaurus for a brain. Your writing should not be so dense, when you are talking about social issues, that the very people you speak of can’t understand your work.

If you have something important to say then it is imperative that you work hard on making sure that people are ABLE to hear it.

fucking-angels-man said: 

Think this is gross tbh…

_____

Something similar was shared here about a year or so ago and I got WAY too many “but it’s trues…” Listen, if you can’t understand how this is fatphobic, classist, and totally ignorant to the systemic effects and cycles of poverty in many western countries right now, just go ahead and unfollow me and save your comments.

“Does the rotting house have anything to do with the way that people of that period, that whole aristocracy fell apart?

DEL TORO: Yes. This is not Downton Abbey. This is … I don’t like what I call “class porn,” where everybody’s all gooey over, “If only the aristocracy was still in charge, life would be so civilized.” Fuck that. It’s not true. It was never true.” x

I love Guillermo del Toro

another day, another dollar, another instance of wanting to write a long post calling out the 2015 discourse’s massive, massive classism problem but not wanting to invite the wank and criticism it would induce

but in short: the rural poor are not your punching bags for jokes about homophobia, trump supporters, and fat ugly americans, and poor people as a whole are grossly underrepresented in talking about marginalization and are not included in discussions about the issues that affect them directly. and a massive part of that comes from there not being a vanguard of like, Poor Academics the way that there are Feminist Academics and Queer Academics and Black Academics and so forth. every other institutionally marginalized group is represented in academia but because of the inherent lack of opportunity to pursue higher education that comes along with being poor, poor people’s voices aren’t really heard to the same degree. 

not to mention that structural and institutional poverty is a problem that can only really be solved by politicians, and the problem is that right wing politicians have a vested interest in keeping poor people poor and uneducated so that they will continue to vote against their own interests and effectively continue to marginalize themselves, and meanwhile said conservative politicians keep their jobs and nothing changes. and even well-meaning leftist economists can’t do anything about it.

and MEANWHILE, youth activism is so intently focused on gender and race to the exclusion of class because most activists are college students, who have not really had to deal with the effects of Poverty with a capital P. see also: the difference between being poor and being broke. and activist language policing is so inherently classist in the first place because it serves to exclude and silence anyone who doesn’t have an academic background or the free time to read blog after blog on the internet to figure out why, exactly, using that word or that asterisk is so offensive and makes you such a terrible person even if your intent is, actually, good. so much of activism requires a significant time investment and a certain level of education that people who work minimum wage jobs and have families just cannot afford. so because they’re insufficiently educated, they’re regarded as insufficiently oppressed or treated like they’re actively part of the problem. 

(not to mention the internet’s obsession with degrading service workers who are employed by problematic – ugh that word, but it’s the one that fits – companies. “we went to party city and threw all the racist costumes on the floor!” “we vandalized the ‘girl toy’ and ‘boy toy’ signs at target!” literally nothing enrages me more than this.)

see also: the co-option of the term “emotional labor,” which originated as a phrase coined to describe the mental and physical toll of the requirement for service industry workers to display cheerful, positive emotions toward customers, which has been bastardized by middle-class feminists to refer to standard politeness and talking about feelings within any form of relationship, be it with a friend, significant other, or parent. 

i could go on and on. i won’t, because i already wrote way more than i intended. it’s a massive, massive intersectionality fail. i’m just so tired of it.

ok if your parents can legally kick you out and have nothing to do with you when you turn 18, why does fafsa need you to include them until you’re 24. oh yeah because teens and early 20-somethings rarely have income… WOW. WHAT A CONCEPT. ALMOST LIKE THEY SHOULD BE ALLOTTED MORE MONEY FOR EDUCATION 

I am amused by how often I see white cishet men who ignore sexism as a problem, who ignore homophobia and transphobia and who think that racism isn’t a problem but are deeply invested in class issues.

They talk about health care, wealth distribution, minimum wage, anti capitalism etc.

It becomes increasingly clear that THAT issue matters to them because THAT IS THE ONE THEY HAVE EXPERIENCED.

Nothing they do not experience has any relevance or concern and the things they do are top priority.

Position: Drug testing for Food Stamps if inefficient, and classist, and immoral.

Argument one: inefficient [source] States that do this spend absurd amounts of money on drug tests, test hundreds of thousands of people and find less than a dozen actual drug users. 

Argument two: classist. It encourages a hatred and mistrust of the poor by pushing the argument that food stamps are a welfare service that is abused by “undesirables” 

Argument three: Immoral. Even drug addicts deserve food. 

everydayfeminism.com
Don't Fall for These 3 Excuses for Gentrification – They're Excusing Colonization, Too
Ever heard that gentrification can change neighborhoods in a "positive" way? If you think gentrification is inevitable, or even a sign of progress, here's how those beliefs dangerously mirror oppressive colonization.

If you live in an urban center, and even if you don’t, you’ve probably heard about it. You may hear it brought up around dinner tables and family functions or while you’re out with friends. You’ve heard its “inevitability” defended by various news outlets. Maybe you’ve even contemplated your own role in the rapid shifting of neighborhoods.

Gentrification isn’t a new issue by any means, but it has exploded in the past several years with rising rent costs, tech company startups, and eager college graduates.

In the many conversations I’ve been in about gentrification, the theme I’m always brought back to is that it’s “inevitable” and “just a part of our changing world.” It “can’t be stopped.” This is always where I get annoyed and frustrated. I have to pause and think, is it actually something that cannot be stopped? Is it one of those things like racism – just seen as “a sign of the times,” or explained away with “this is how it’s always been?” Just something that will go away if we stop talking about it?

The idea that gentrification can’t be stopped is tiring and frustrating, but it comes from the fact that it’s such an overwhelming and rapidly expanding issue. It comes from the fact that gentrification benefits the most powerful and privileged. It comes from the fact that it stems from oppressive systems of capitalism and colonization. And it came from the age-old belief that people should own land at any and all costs, including that of human life.

We hear that gentrification is inevitable, that it’s progress, that it makes cities safer, and that it happens because the primarily low-income and people of color communities that lived there before could not take care of it. These arguments, in many ways, are history repeating itself.

CLICK THE HEADER LINK TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE.

3

The tragic irony of being a low-income college student

For centuries, “college was reserved for elite, mostly white men,” Anne Phillips, executive director of Class Action, told Mic. That is changing. The Pew Research Center reported in 2014 that enrollment rates of low-income students have increased over the past few decades. But these students still generally lack visibility, cohesion and necessary support — and it’s leading to an unfortunate ironic situation.

  • rich kid:why should poor kids get to go to school if they got bad grades?
  • rich kid:personally i dont think anyone should be able to attend college if they're too stupid
  • rich kid:and gpa is a good measurement of intelligence
  • me:u got a 1.3 in high school and ur about to graduate
  • rich kid:yeah but my daddy pays for me to go here so its different
Another thing about the veganism = privilege myth

Veganism is a social justice movement, not an individual person’s grocery list. You can recognize the importance of this movement even if a plant based diet is a struggle for you, and you can do whatever you can to avoid violence to animals even if you can’t do everything. For example, when I was in high school I saw Meet Your Meat and was moved by the horror of animal agriculture. I had to eat free lunch which was never vegan, so I did the vegetarian option and made vegan-type choices on my own time, like learning to bake without eggs. It literally never occurred to me that people would use my real life poverty as a hypothetical scenario to justify their own violence toward animals or refusal to interrogate speciesism. (Because it’s never “I can’t afford…”, it’s always, “Some people…”) Through unstable housing and a bunch of issues I continued to learn about animal exploitation and then I went vegan one summer, years later. I’ve been vegan for 7 years but I still constantly learn about speciesism, such as recognizing that it’s about more than just animals who are commodified as food, clothing, or other products.

People aren’t offering these “privilege” comments as constructive criticism, so that we can strengthen the animal rights movement and create broader, more inclusive, more accessible tactics for addressing violence against animals or the horrifying effects it has on every aspect of society and the global environment. They say this because they want to entirely shut that conversation down. Their alternative, the thing they’re arguing, is that we should all refuse to engage in any thoughtful critique on the numerous ways humans oppress animals. The argument is that we should all maintain the status quo in which humans commit violence to animals, the end.

If a plant based diet was only accessible to the privileged, this does literally nothing to justify violence against animals because the logic of animal rights still stands. All it means is that we do everything within our means to avoid that violence while fighting for the material conditions that make it more accessible to everyone. Because it was never about an individual’s personal consumption, but a society’s institutional structures.

Let’s say that a vegan diet was only for rich people and nobody else could afford to eat things like spaghetti or beans or oatmeal. Or, let’s address the conditions where some produce is too expensive for a lot of us and we might not be eating as many vegetables/fruits as we’d otherwise buy. This complete and utter crisis requires a broad range of tactics. This would mean that we need to continue to fight for food justice and accessibility, and demand government accountability because they are the ones subsidizing meat, eggs, and dairy, which would otherwise be expensive beyond most people’s wildest imagination, to the point where your average person wouldn’t be able to eat any animal products, ever. What if the government subsidized plant based foods on this same scale? What if fresh organic kale was like 2¢/lb? Literally? I’m always blown away by how people who attack veganism desperately depend on thinking small and resting their entire argument on conditions continuing to be horrible.

Y'all realize how backwards it is to shame folks for living at home with their parents in THIS economy, when wages have stagnated and student loans crush people who cannot pay them back, when credit scores are used to deny housing and lack of housing is used to deny employment? Like please, gtfo and go learn something.

Shamming folks who have to live at home, or who are smart enough to do it as long as their parents are cool with it, is not only classist as fuck, but it plays right into capitalist notions of success. In other words make money, buy shit – and of you can’t, well, then you’re a failure, never mind all the institutionalized inequality. Don’t talk about that.