Now Playing Tracks

odinsblog:

ruckawriter:

worldoflis:

girldwarf:

Deconstructing Masculinity & Manhood with Michael Kimmel @ Dartmouth College

YAAAAEEESSSSSSS

You know what I like, and feel is so important? That he doesn’t say “Men thinks those are THEIR positions”. He says “We think those are OUR positions.”

As a male feminist, he still doesn’t exclude himself from the group of men.

Damn.

Well said.

We are (still) living in the age of the angry White male…who, unironically, is the beneficiary of 99.999% of society’s benefits 

(Source: exgynocraticgrrl)

liberalsarecool:

memegop:

Powerful explosives remove the mountain tops; the process creates thousands of tons of rubble. The dirt, rock, and toxic mining chemicals, referred to as “valley fill” are simply bulldozed into the surrounding valleys, choking streams, and burying plant life all in one fell swoop. 
‪#‎MemeGOP‬ ‪#‎UniteBlue‬

A message to the “drill, baby, drill” crowd. You’re idiots. Dishonest idiots.

It used to be that economic expansions improved the incomes of the bottom 90 percent more than the top 10 percent.

But starting with the “Reagan” recovery of 1982 to 1990, the benefits of economic growth during expansions have gone mostly to the top 10 percent.

Since the current recovery began in 2009, all economic gains have gone to the top 10 percent. The bottom 90 percent has lost ground.

We’re in the first economic upturn on record in which 90 percent of Americans have become worse off.

Robert Reich writes Why the Economy is Still Failing Most Americans (via holygoddamnshitballs)

We are an efficient society. Those efficiencies have gone mostly to the top 1% by the greedy CEO-class using stagnant overall wages, low minimum wages, and outsourced labor en masse. Our society has squeezed every last drop out of the working classes.

A broad recovery is forbidden by the CEO-class.

(via liberalsarecool)

But Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Chase Manhattan Bank, an JPMorgan Chase are not powerful because they worked hard. The best illustration of this point comes through a historical analysis. How did the banking system in this country get started? How did the richest people in the richest country in the world get their money?

Banking got started in this country by investing in the Triangular Slave Trade. The reason historians call it Triangular Slave Trade is that Europeans went to Africa, enslaved the people, brought them to this part of the world, and sold the people for products like hemp, sugarcane, cotton, and then those products were sent to Europe. That is why there were three angles: Africa, the United States, and Europe. The banking system—Lloyd’s of London, Barclays Bank, Bank of America, Wells Fargo-invested in that process and that is how their hegemony was established. In the last five years, almost all the banks I just mentioned have reluctantly acknowledged that they became established through the institution of slavery and the slave trade. So we see many people today questioning the system considering this simple fact: ‘Because the banks got rich by exploiting my ancestors I don’t see why I should have to pay them anything. They owe me if anything. I don’t want their money, because there is no price tag that can be placed on the suffering.’

Ahjamu Umi, from a guest lecture on March 21, 2013 at Concordia University

See also: “Wachovia apologizes for slavery ties,” CNN Money, June 5, 2005 & “American finance grew on the backs of slaves,” Chicago Sun-Times, March 7, 2014.

For more reading on the origins of the present American banking system and its foundations in the Euro-American slave trade, check out Slavery and American Economic Development (2006) by Gavin Wright and Debt, investment, slaves: credit relations in East Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, 1825-1885 (1995) by Richard Kilbourne.

(via cerebralproxy)

Think of the centuries of wealth created by cotton, sugar, and textiles in the UK and USA built on the institution of African slave labor.

(via liberalsarecool)

(Source: paradelle)

Whenever I hear the "Women are paid $.78 for the man’s $1" I flip it around.

Men make $1.22 for every woman’s $1.

It interests me that even the most common simple measure of gender inequality is firmly based on male-as-normative …

bisexual activist and queer theory blogger Patrick RichardsFink 

this is an interesting point, although mathematically inaccurate: assuming the women:men, 0.78:1 ratio is correct, men make $1.28 for every woman’s $1

A white man makes $1.34 for every dollar that a black man makes

A white man makes $1.52 for every dollar that a latino man makes

A white man makes $1.24 for every dollar that a white woman makes

A white man makes $1.44 for every dollar that a black woman makes

A white man makes $1.67 for every dollar that a latina woman makes

That’s some bullshit right there.

Let’s take it a step further. For every hour a white man works, a black woman has to work 86 minutes to earn as much money. 57.6 hours a week compared to the white man’s 40.

Take it another step further. Assuming a Monday through Friday, 9 to 5 job, from Thursday 12:45pm through Friday end of business, a white man gets paid for his work, a black woman is, by comparison, working for free.

(via quentintortellini)

(Source: fliponymous)

To Tumblr, Love Pixel Union