Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Godstud wrote:MLK's dream has been achieved.
So it’s hard to believe that just over three and a half years after that triumph, King would tell an interviewer that the dream he had that day had in some ways “turned into a nightmare.” But that’s exactly what he said to veteran NBC News correspondent Sander Vanocur on May 8, 1967. In an extraordinary, wide-ranging conversation, King acknowledged the “soul searching,” and “agonizing moments” he’d gone through since his most famous speech. He told Vanocur the “old optimism” of the civil rights movement was “a little superficial” and now needed to be tempered with “a solid realism.” And just 11 months before his death, he spoke bluntly about what he called the “difficult days ahead.”
Wellsy wrote:There is an issue in the current state of the political imagination of many Americans, and black Americans are similarly restrained by complex means of to forget their history and water things down.No. They are not.
Godstud wrote:No. They are not.
Racism is the exception in modern USA. It was not, when MLK lived.
Black people are NOT restrained in any manner, and if anything, there is more emphasis on learning their history, which is an integral part of American history. There is no "black history". There is American history. The racism comes in trying to separate the two.
Wellsy wrote:Many black and white Americans do not intermingle and things are weird even in some of the blackest cities in America in terms of segregation of neighborhoods and schools.This happens everywhere, and even black people are guilty of doing this. People who are alike tend to form groups.
Wellsy wrote:There are plenty of things on the face of them that don’t reflect MLKs dream of being seen by the content of character and not their color.Most people do judge by content of character and not their colour. People who discriminate on colour are the exception.
Wellsy wrote:We can go down that route any argue the disproportionate outcomes that reflect institutional and normative inertia of antiblackness in the US whether its economic opportunities, education, the justice system, health and so on. But we are certainly not living the dream of MLK.Dreams often have to change in the face of reality. Systemic racism doesn't exist, today. Discrimination in policing has to do with poverty and other factors. Sure, some racism is bound to be present, but it's the exception.
Godstud wrote::eh: This happens everywhere, and even black people are guilty of doing this. People who are alike tend to form groups.
What this corresponds to in the geographical analogue, is that the boundaries of the neighbourhood have to be broken down. That is to say any kind of person might want to live there, and living there is always a matter of choice. The neighbourhood is dissociated from the kind of people who live there.
Likewise, dealing with the social problems in a poor area is a vital social task for the whole country. Some people live in a neighbourhood only because they can’t afford to live anywhere else. If improvements force people to move out, then everyone has a problem. Someone has to take on the role of custodians of the neighbourhood, and it has to be made a worthwhile and honourable profession worth sticking around for. Now, just as I would question that commercialisation of child-care can ever provide the full range of things that children need, I also question whether paid social workers and security guards can provide everything that a neighbourhood needs. Like kids, streets need love, even if from amateurs. And it’s everyone’s problem.
Society at large is free-riding on the backs of people living in “poor neighbourhoods” who are bearing the brunt’s of society’s problems, problems arising from inequality, from social change, from immigration and even just raising the next generation of workers. A big part of what these people need to do is to spread the pain and get the wider community to start picking up their share of responsibility for these problems.
Most people do judge by content of character and not their colour. People who discriminate on colour are the exception.
Dreams often have to change in the face of reality. Systemic racism doesn't exist, today. Discrimination in policing has to do with poverty and other factors. Sure, some racism is bound to be present, but it's the exception.
There are always ways to make things fairer, and USA might struggle forever to get to absolute fairness, in everything.
Godstud wrote:When you talk about neo-liberal policies, you have to think about Affirmative Action and how it didn't do what it promised, and caused other problems.
The Painful Truth About Affirmative Action
Why racial preferences in college admissions hurt minority students—and shroud the education system in dishonesty.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar ... on/263122/
The Sad Irony of Affirmative Action
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publica ... ive-action
It is, however, this very consequent egalitarianism which is simultaneously the limitations of the Jacobin politics. Recall Marx's fundamental insight about the "bourgeois" limitation of the logic of equality: the capitalist inequalities ("exploitations") are not the "unprincipled violations of the principle of equality," but are absolutely inherent to the logic of equality, they are the paradoxical result of its consequent realization. What we have in mind here is not only the old boring motif of how market exchange presupposes formally/legally equal subjects who meet and interact on the market; the crucial moment of Marx's critique of "bourgeois" socialists is that capitalist exploitation does not involve any kind of "unequal" exchange between the worker and the capitalist - this exchange is fully equal and "just," ideally (in principle), the worker gets paid the full value of the commodity he is selling (his labour force). Of course, radical bourgeois revolutionaries are aware of this limitation; however, the way they try to amend it is through a direct "terrorist" imposition of more and more de facto equality (equal salaries, equal health service...), which can only be imposed through new forms of formal inequality (different sorts of preferential treatments of the under-privileged). In short, the axiom of "equality" means either not enough (it remains the abstract form of actual inequality) or too much (enforce "terrorist" equality) - it is a formalist notion in a strict dialectical sense, i.e., its limitation is precisely that its form is not concrete enough, but a mere neutral container of some content that eludes this form.
People segregate, naturally. I was not talking about "ghettos". When I mean 'segregation' I do not mean such things as not allowing people of certain skin colour. I am talking about like people seeking out like people. Tribalism is human.
MLK probably wanted a colour-blind nation, but every time someone says they don't see colour, they are called a racist. You can't win.
Pants-of-dog wrote:When did racism end in North America?For your kind it can never end because you do not want it to. You always want that victim narrative.
Wellsy wrote:The color blind thing is an issue because it simply isn’t the reality. It like people saying they’re equal in their relationship and fee that way but in reality the woman still disproportionally carries the mental load which is characterized along gendered lines.No. False. A great many people don't "see" colour because they're not taking it into account when dealing with people. That was the goal of MLK, wasn't it? Whenever people say "I don't see colour.", they actually mean it(in a way where they do not discriminate based on it). But... it doesn't suit the SJW narrative of perpetual victimhood.
Godstud wrote:…. it can never end …
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you cannot even say when it ended, why do you believe it ended?You can't always put a precise date on when something like racism ends. Why can't you employ simple common sense to your ideology of victimhood?
Godstud wrote: No. False. A great many people don't "see" colour because they're not taking it into account when dealing with people. That was the goal of MLK, wasn't it? Whenever people say "I don't see colour.", they actually mean it(in a way where they do not discriminate based on it). But... it doesn't suit the SJW narrative of perpetual victimhood.
Women don't carry any more "mental load" than men do. That's a Feminist talking point that's simply a lie they tell to women, as Feminism has done for the last 40 years. Women are suffering more from mental illness because of their choices. The idea that women can be independent, "men are trash", and don't need men, has been pushed by Feminism. It doesn't work in practice. It's hurt women.
Men and women need each other. We compliment each other and the cases of women having higher "mental load" is from the single mothers who chose to be single parents. Women have the choice of whether to have a child, or not. Men do not. Men choose whether or not there's a relationship. Different but equal.
Women have equality with men in Western society, and in most Eastern societies. In fact, I can point you to things showing that they are favoured in the West. Are there exceptions to female equality and racial equality? Of course. There always will be ignorant and uneducated people, who judge on appearances rather than character.
Research suggests that the ways in which couples generate a sense of themselves and their partners as mutually caring often reproduce gender inequality – the creativity and intimacy of couples is not yet typically harnessed to gender transformation. Many couples refer to gendering (i.e. underpinning gender difference) structural factors – the vagaries of employ- ment including men and women’s different earnings and prospects in the labour market, the incompatibility of combining the demands of childrearing and full-time employment – as if a traditional division of labour adopted because of such structures beyond their control were therefore exempted from any possible inequality. Many also deploy a variety of gendering but appar- ently gender neutral devices to maintain a counterfactual sense of equality (‘she happens to be better at cooking,’ ‘he doesn’t enjoy cooking as much’).
These results correspond with the findings of Strazdins et al. (2008), which suggest that mothers' employment is conducted in a different "time context" to that of fathers. That is, mothers modulate their work hours according to their children's ages and partner's work, and hold down jobs in the context of having partners with heavy work time commitments. The current study suggests when mothers fall short of adjusting their work hours in response to family and external demands they will risk being able to maintain a work and family life balance as well as their physical and mental wellbeing.
But not all mothers want, or are in the position to be able, to adjust their working hours in response to family and external commitments. Indeed, this research suggests that some mothers, particularly mothers with a strong attachment to the workforce and high job satisfaction, persist to work longer hours while experiencing continuing high work-family tension and a decline in their wellbeing. This indicates that approaches rooted in reduced engagement with the workforce that enables mothers to afford time to take on primary responsibility for family domestic matters is not an adequate solution for all mothers and families. This resonates with findings from recent studies suggesting that the relationship between part-time work and work-family balance is often subject to job context. That is, non-career women gain a far greater benefit from part-time work than professional women whose greater work demands constrain the benefits they derive from part-time schedules (Duxbury & Higgins, 2008; Higgins, Duxbury & Johnson, 2000).
These results suggest that existing approaches, such as part-time schedules, flexible working hours, and attempts to reconfigure the balance of paid and unpaid working hours within couples, need to be complemented with new initiatives.
In conclusion, Australian mothers in recent decades have greatly increased their participation in the labour market. Fathers, however, have not increased their participation in unpaid household work to a matching degree. But, without equal sharing of the dual roles of earner and carer between mothers and fathers, mothers will inevitably feel the work-family tension more keenly. Furthermore, institutional and structural changes supporting mothers' increased workforce participation are few and slow coming. Consequently, working mothers faced with the challenge of reconciling family and work commitments are often forced to find individual solutions. However, work and family life balance is not a problem specific to individual families. Rather, it is a universal problem shared by many families, and as such it requires institutional and structural changes supported by society as a whole.
Thus, husbands may consider any amount of household labor they do a contribution, character- izing it as “helping” their wives. When husbands believe that they are helping their wives, especially when they compare themselves favorably to their peers (Greenstein 1996a, 2009), they can easily feel disappointment or frustration when per- ceptions of the division are not viewed as such by wives with lower behavioral egalitarianism. Husbands may see their labor as ending when they return home from work, whereas wives may see themselves as having to then start a “second shift” of housework (e.g., ‘9 to 5’ work day for husbands vs. ‘24 hour’ work for wife and mother; see Hochschild and Machung 2003). This disconnect may be reflected in perceptions of marital quality by both parties. If trends in higher cognitive and behavioral egalitarianism continue, yet women are not held accountable for the provider role and men for household tasks, discrepancies in husbands’ and wives’ behavioral egal- itarianism may persist.
Many women emphasized that men got the best deal because they were free of responsibility for housework and for caring for children:
Husbands [have the best deal because they] are exempted from responsibility for household chores and jobs to do with the children. (23-year-old salesperson)
Some of these women stressed that housework and childcare entailed emotional and mental work as well as physical work:
They don’t have the full responsibility of running a house like we do. They have their job [paid] and their outside jobs at home, but they don’t have all the men- tal stress and worry of the problems to do with the kids and sorting out differ- ent things in the household. (47-year-old salesperson)
Several women pointed out that they too had a paid job as well as the responsibility at home:
Women have a greater responsibility than men. In today’s society we have to go out to work but when we come back we’ve got the household to look after and the children. We have to think about what is going on tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. We have to plan for the situations that will arise. I have to pre- pare the children’s clothes for the following morning. In my case my husband will do what he is told but he has to be told! (34-year-old flight attendant)
In the justifications they offered for saying men got the best deal, 25 per- cent of the women made a reference to men’s greater freedom:
He’s out of the house because he doesn’t have anything to do at home and he’s mixing with people at work. (30-year-old student)
Some women saw men’s best deal in marriage as one manifestation of their advantaged position in society:
Men get a better deal in life generally. They get more choice over what happens to their bodies. They get better opportunities in their career. As for me, in five years I’ll still be a mother and wife. (27-year-old homemaker)
Within 20 minutes of ITV publishing this image, […]
Although I hadn't seriously expected that my favor[…]
First I want to say that I have not been intereste[…]
@Pants-of-dog The topic is indeed genocide(which[…]