Things that matter.


Link

Jul 22, 2014
@ 1:10 pm
Permalink
3 notes

George Fox previously won exemption to Title IX so it could discriminate against divorced or unwed parents @insidehighered »

Many advocates for gay and transgender students were surprised and angered when they learned that U.S. Education Department had granted George Fox University an exemption from parts of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The exemption will permit George Fox to deny a transgender student the right to live in male student housing. George Fox said, and the Education Department accepted, that its Quaker religious beliefs would be violated by being forced to let the transgender student live in a way that affirms his gender identity.

This is not the first time George Fox has sought and received exemptions from Title IX. And the previous exemption (no longer in place) suggests that policies that the university once said were based on Scripture and could not be changed could in fact be changed.

In 1985, the Education Department said that because of its religious views, George Fox could — in what would otherwise have been a violation of Title IX — decline to enroll or hire divorced individuals or the parents of out-of-wedlock children. Details are not available on Education Department deliberations in the case, but it apparently took years for the department to make a decision; George Fox requested the exemption in 1976.


Quote

Jul 22, 2014
@ 9:51 am
Permalink

The 33-story building, now under construction at 40 Riverside Boulevard on the Upper West Side, will contain 219 luxury units facing the Hudson River. There will also be a segment on floors two through six that will contain 55 street-facing units for the building’s poorer residents. This segment will have its own entrance. The more affordable units will be given to families of four whose annual income is $51,540 or less — about 60 percent of the area’s median income. Residents living in the lower-income part of 40 Riverside will be prohibited from using the attractive amenities commonly found in Extell properties, including a gym and a swimming pool.

Luxury New York Condo Will Have A ‘Poor Door’ For Lower-Income Residents


Quote

Jul 21, 2014
@ 7:24 pm
Permalink
683 notes

Like all mythology, that of the criminally bad Black mother spread through storytelling—lurid tales told with bitter resentment. Haven’t you heard the one about the jaywalking mother whose son was hit by a drunk driver? Surely you know all about the homeless mother who left her two children in the car during a job interview. And now there’s the McDonald’s mother who abandoned her daughter at the playground.

But what do these stories leave out? Our welfare system is designed to put everyone to work regardless of circumstance. Unfortunately, the low-wage jobs attainable for most mothers lead to a parental quagmire. Between low paychecks and inflexible work schedules, how is one to arrange for adequate child care? With no apparent options, the answer is often that they simply cannot.

Such women, it’s been repeated to you, are bad mothers who deserve to be punished, and increasingly we’re doing just that. Indeed, the mythology of bad Black mothers was never just a part of our cultural folklore—it’s entrenched in our legal system.

Over the last three decades, the population of incarcerated women has grown by over 800%, and women of color have been locked up at disproportionately high rates. African American women are three times more likely than White women to be thrown in jail or prison.

The justice system doles out particularly harsh punishments for infractions that relate to motherhood. Although pregnant Black and White women take drugs at similar rates, expecting Black mothers are 10 times more likely to be reported to child welfare for drug use, according to the Drug Policy Alliance.

Mandatory minimum sentencing has slowly eliminated judicial discretion and exacerbated the racial disparities. In addition, most child maltreatment laws and definitions of neglect are very vague, leaving room for prejudice based on race, class and gender to creep in. One in nine Black children have an incarcerated parent. Who stands to gain from this?

Noah Remnick

Quote is from Debra Harrell and The Mythology of Bad Black Mothers in The Los Angeles Times. Though she is out of jail now, she was subsequently fired from her job and her daughter remains in state custody. @prisonculture shared a link for a fundraiser for her at You Caring.

I am fascinated (as in repulsed) by the people pretending to care about the well-being of her daughter—by ignoring all of the structural inequalities and lack of options for Debra—suggesting that she could’ve been kidnapped playing at the busy child park. If they care then they must care about the structural problems that lead to lack of options. And if they care, then they have a funny way of showing it since when Black girls and even adult Black women go missing, there is less concern, less media coverage and often they are marked off as “runaways.” So now Black girls are capable of being taken? I know Harrell was in a bind that poverty creates and even those all about bootstraps magically have no answer for the fact that McDonald’s fired her because they don’t pay her enough to afford childcare. And she worked

Take a look at Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment by Patricia Hill Collins; she goes further than this article did as to how the mythology of the “inherently” bad Black mother came about and how it unironically co-exists with the “thoughtful mammy” who raises any children (especially White ones) “well,” except her own. Critical read. 

(via gradientlair)

(via newmodelminority)


Photoset

Jul 21, 2014
@ 12:15 pm
Permalink
1,238 notes

(Source: sandandglass, via kenyatta)


Quote

Jul 20, 2014
@ 9:04 am
Permalink
272 notes

You know when you enter a Starbucks store, it’s usually always displayed in some posters there, their message which is: Yes, our cappuccino is more expensive than others, but - and then comes the story - we give one percent of all our income to some Guatemala children to keep them healthy. For the water supply for some Sahara farmers, or to save the forests, to enable organic growing coffee…whatever, whatever. Now, I admire the ingeniosity of this solution. In the old days of pure simple consumerism you bought a product and then you felt bad. My god, I’m just a consumerist while people are starving in Africa. So the idea was you had to do something to counteract your pure distractive consumerism . For example, I don’t know, you contribute to charity and so on. What Starbucks enables you is to be a consumerist and be a consumerist without any bad conscience because the price for the counter measure - for fighting consumerism - is already included into the price of a commodity. Like you pay a little bit more and you are not just a consumerist but you do also your duty towards environment - the poor, starving people in Africa and so on and so on. It’s, I think, the ultimate form of consumerism.

— Slavoj Zizek (via blackestdespondency)

(via kenyatta)


Quote

Jul 19, 2014
@ 9:28 am
Permalink
37 notes

Rep. Renee Ellmers: “To connect with female voters, the GOP needs to talk down at a woman’s level. When you show a pie chart all they see is calories.”

— (Actual story: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ellmers-gop-policy-down-womans-level)


Quote

Jul 19, 2014
@ 9:25 am
Permalink

Under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA), all workers have the right to engage “concerted activity for mutual aid or protection” and “organize a union to negotiate with [their] employer concerning [their] wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.”

When the Boss Says, ‘Don’t Tell Your Coworkers How Much You Get Paid’ - Jonathan Timm - The Atlantic


Quote

Jul 19, 2014
@ 9:22 am
Permalink
2 notes

The reason women don’t vote for Republicans is not that they haven’t had the impact of Republican policies spelled out in simple enough terms for them. It’s because they understand Republican policies perfectly well. Women vote against Republicans because they know the impact Republican policies have on their lives.

Renee Ellmers defends her “bring it down to a woman’s level” comment.


Quote

Jul 19, 2014
@ 9:19 am
Permalink

Which is sadder and more tired: the idea that men speak on “a much higher level” than women, or that a guy on the floor of Congress pointing at a four-color graph is some sort of daunting sophisticate?

Congresswoman Ellmers on “A Woman’s Level” : The New Yorker


Photoset

Jul 18, 2014
@ 4:32 pm
Permalink
56,244 notes

sandandglass:

Jon Stewart tries to get Hillary Clinton to say she’s running for president.