quixotess: midwestmountainmama: blushingfemme: This is so powerful, why doesn’t it have more reblogs/likes?! because poor fat people are represented as drunk smoking abusive scum of the earth that walk around in their underwear and spend too much time on the phone and watching t.v.? Look—I have some *serious* issues with how adoption works in this country (specifically around immigration right now, but also around what is called a family and who gets to adopt and whose babies are being adopted)—but I also dont think that poor people are inherently fucked up parents either. I don’t think people with dirty walls are inherently bad parents, I don’t think people who walk around in their underwear are inherently bad parents—fuck, i don’t even think smokers are inherently bad parents. i do think it doesn’t make much sense tho, to attribute ALL of of those nasty negative things to poor people. Or to attribute “clean” “well off” “caring” “nuclear familial desire” to only upper class white gay men. how would this picture be represented if it was two dykes of color in the barrio holding each other crying because they want to adopt and can’t. Would a picture like this work? especially realizing that the more common scenario for say, latina dykes is that their family is *deported* because their union isn’t recognized?  Ugh, I hate this cartoon. Ugh.  Like seriously, the gay guys are fit to parent because they drink water and read books, while the “trashy” spouses are unfit to parent because they drink beer and watch television? Because that lady’s bra is showing? Because that guy is balding? Ugh. Have to agree with Quixotess. This comic doesn’t do a good job of arguing its point, which is that many good candidates for adoptive/foster parenthood are denied because of their sexuality, while bad candidates are passed through. It’s packed with classist imagery: fatness, untidy dress, excessive alcohol and nicotine consumption, blatant religiosity, uncontrolled children, loudness, untidy body language, abusive parenting, bad housekeeping, and even that old chestnut, the always turned on television. This comic says: poor people are fat, irresponsible, abusive, disgusting, excessively religious middle class people are intelligent, clean, responsible, soulful, family oriented Also, just see the above bolded paragraph.
View Separately

quixotess:

midwestmountainmama:

blushingfemme:

This is so powerful, why doesn’t it have more reblogs/likes?!

because poor fat people are represented as drunk smoking abusive scum of the earth that walk around in their underwear and spend too much time on the phone and watching t.v.?

Look—I have some *serious* issues with how adoption works in this country (specifically around immigration right now, but also around what is called a family and who gets to adopt and whose babies are being adopted)—but I also dont think that poor people are inherently fucked up parents either. I don’t think people with dirty walls are inherently bad parents, I don’t think people who walk around in their underwear are inherently bad parents—fuck, i don’t even think smokers are inherently bad parents.

i do think it doesn’t make much sense tho, to attribute ALL of of those nasty negative things to poor people. Or to attribute “clean” “well off” “caring” “nuclear familial desire” to only upper class white gay men.

how would this picture be represented if it was two dykes of color in the barrio holding each other crying because they want to adopt and can’t. Would a picture like this work? especially realizing that the more common scenario for say, latina dykes is that their family is *deported* because their union isn’t recognized? 

Ugh, I hate this cartoon. Ugh.  Like seriously, the gay guys are fit to parent because they drink water and read books, while the “trashy” spouses are unfit to parent because they drink beer and watch television? Because that lady’s bra is showing? Because that guy is balding? Ugh.

Have to agree with Quixotess. This comic doesn’t do a good job of arguing its point, which is that many good candidates for adoptive/foster parenthood are denied because of their sexuality, while bad candidates are passed through. It’s packed with classist imagery: fatness, untidy dress, excessive alcohol and nicotine consumption, blatant religiosity, uncontrolled children, loudness, untidy body language, abusive parenting, bad housekeeping, and even that old chestnut, the always turned on television.

This comic says:

  • poor people are fat, irresponsible, abusive, disgusting, excessively religious
  • middle class people are intelligent, clean, responsible, soulful, family oriented

Also, just see the above bolded paragraph.

Source: saveholden

Sookie’s is the callousness of the bourgeoise writ large–eroticising and sympathising with the glamourous ruling class exploitation of the working class she claims to be friends with. Where Tara, Lafayette and Jesus are engaged in a class struggle against the vampires who have oppressed and tortured them, Sookie demonstrates her solidarity with the extremely pale violent ruling class at every step of the way (race and class solidarity at once – no vampires of colour last on the show). Though she has no energy to save her best friend from violence, everything involving her vampire paramours is a crisis requiring immediate action.

They want to do real bad things to you. Emily Manuel for Tiger Beatdown.

This is an interesting piece. I’m not sure the capitalist-vampire analogy is as strong as it could be… something I need to come back to. Love these closing paragraphs:

As much as Alan Ball and company have changed the Charlaine Harris penned Sookie Stackhouse mysteries, the basic system of eroticised exploitation remains the same.  It’s telling that vampires are completely eroticised, but Lafayette and Jesus are not, and Tara rarely is.  The question therefore is: why does True Blood stage this?  It is very clearly not in the name of critique–no matter what they do, vampires remain generally sympathetic given the show’s Sookie-centred point of view.

This points to a broader, infrequently noted, problem with popular entertainment–the continual reinforcement of class structures, the way it encourages us towards towards aspirational identification with the rich, the powerful, the glamourous.  We watch the rulers and not the ruled; True Blood is followed on HBO by Entourage and Curb Your Enthusiasm, two shows about the elite of Hollywood.  In a world where the Tea Party protest for the rights of billionaires to receive tax breaks, it’s hard to underestimate the effect of capitalist ideology in convincing working people to identify with the powerful against their own interests.  True Blood is just one tiny little data point in a broader pattern, but it’s a telling one.

divacristovao:

Always had questions about this…

nomellamoliz:

laprima510:

Homo cholos tellin their story

“Homeboy” examines the lives of several gay Latino men living in and around Los Angeles who are former gang members. Ranging in age from early-20’s to mid-40’s, most of these men entered gangs while in their early teenage years. This is a story of their individual journeys. Includes an interview with Luis J. Rodriguez, poet, activist and author of the bestselling memoir, Always Running: La Vida Loca, Gang Days in LA. - www.homeboyfilms.com

So now I really want to see this film.

(via cocothinkshefancy)

Source: laprima510

Women who feel no compunction to improve what nature bestowed upon them are, in my experience, arrogant, lazy or deluded, and frequently all three. This is especially true in the service industry, where a bare face is no more acceptable than a dentist with halitosis. It tells me that a woman doesn’t really care what others think of her. Wearing even a little make-up shows respect to others, demonstrating on the outside that you are professional, a stickler for detail, someone who doesn’t cut corners.

Liz Jones of the Daily Mail is kind enough to point out a woman’s self-worth and professional capability should be rooted entirely in how much lipstick she’s wearing. 

(via regularpersonlemon)

The entire piece is hilarious:

If an employee is too bolshy to stick to the sartorial edicts from on high — whatever those edicts might be — then how do we know they would adhere to rules that tell them to be polite, or honest?

For beneath the foundation-smothered surface of this issue, it tells us something far deeper, and more important, about the modern British workplace.

A recent survey of employers found the reason so many jobs are given to immigrant workers is simple: British workers don’t want to make an effort.

They think the world owes them a living, and that their ‘rights’ as an individual are all that matters.

They have such enlarged egos, so much ‘sense of self’, that they cannot subjugate themselves to any one else any more. Not even the boss.

Why does a young woman think her desire to show us her open pores and ruddy complexion outweighs the wishes of her employer to present a polished face to the customer?

To succeed in any sphere you have to conform at least a little. What a small compromise it is to be asked to wear make-up (which, as a Harrods employee, Ms Stark could have purchased at huge discount) in exchange for a job during a recession.

I don’t expect us to return to the cap-tugging subservience that existed before World War II, but surely there is nothing wrong with possessing some degree of humility?

Conforming to a high standard of dress code — and, yes, making the best of your looks in the workplace — is a sign of strength, not weakness. Kate Middleton, Michelle Obama and even Hillary Clinton do so, every waking moment of their lives. You’d think a shop assistant could bring herself to do the same.

Conforming is a sign of strength. Conforming. Is a sign of strength.

Conformity is conformity. It’s neither a sign of strength nor of weakness.

(via sdfwe4332-deactivated20120124)

Source: jawdust

What Tami Said: Who is the black Zooey Deschanel?

thegreatpumpkin:

itsonreserve:

Not to make everyone upset because they think they really do look good in photographs of themselves in frilly collared dresses eating ice cream and holding an over-sized balloon with the sunset behind them, jumping adorably off a ledge or whatever (choose your choice, blah blah blah), but this article poses an interesting question, and I’m wondering if anyone has any thoughts.

This part is spot-on:

I also find it worth noting that the persona that Klausner writes about is bound by class and race. The cult of domesticity defined idealized womanhood centuries ago—and that definition included both perpetual childhood and whiteness. The wide-eyed, girlish, take-care-of-me characters that Deschanel inhabits on film are not open to many women of color, particularly black women. 

I have to agree with Tami when she says this is a White girl thing. MPDGs of color may exist (although, I actually don’t personally know any), but I would venture to say that there are fewer of them and they definitely aren’t coded in the same way that White MPDGs are.

Excellent point. Follow the link in the above quote for a good read on race, class, femininity and manic pixie dream girls.

(via cocothinkshefancy)

Source: jessica-messica

As clothes have become cheaper, our clothing consumption has gone through the roof. In 1930, the average American woman owned an average of nine outfits. Today, we each buy more than 60 pieces of new clothing on average per year. Our closets are larger and more stuffed than ever, as we’ve traded quality and style for low prices and trend-chasing. In the face of these irresistible deals, our total spending on clothing has actually increased, from $7.82 billion spent on apparel in 1950 to $375 billion today.

“The History of the Cheap Dress”, on Etsy

A fascinating and brief history of the rise of cheap clothes. Focused on women, but men can learn much from it, too. Two of the key results of this trend are a glut of clothes on the second-hand market and too many people impulse buying cheap clothes they don’t need.

(via putthison)

(via freeusapress)

Source: putthison

DC Gentrification Bingo: Every single time we read something even moderately related to gentrification in the District, the same topics, theories and names seem to pop up, over and over and over again. So let’s have a little fun — who can get to a bingo in the fewest number of media reports or blog posts? Is there a more general gentrification card? If not, who’s going to make one? (I not so secretly hate bingo cards for being so last whatever, but yeah).
View Separately

DC Gentrification Bingo:

Every single time we read something even moderately related to gentrification in the District, the same topics, theories and names seem to pop up, over and over and over again. So let’s have a little fun — who can get to a bingo in the fewest number of media reports or blog posts?

Is there a more general gentrification card? If not, who’s going to make one?

(I not so secretly hate bingo cards for being so last whatever, but yeah).

Source: dcist.com