Ferguson’s experience offers lessons in integration (x)
This lines up with studies done on housing segregation a while back. The “racial tipping point” was about 8%. In other words once the perception of the neighborhood was that more than 8% of it was non-white, people (and by that I mean white people) started moving.
While housing segregation has been institutionally enforced (de jure) it’s very commonly individually practiced (de facto).
I’ve been saying this for a very long time and now the studies are bearing it out:
When most white people say “diversity,” what they actually mean is “tokenism.” They actually mean “as long as whites remain dominant and aren’t outnumbered by those Others, then YAY for ‘diversity’ and all the props I get for supporting it!”
My Least Favorite Trope (and this post will include spoilers for The Lego Movie, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Matrix, Western Civilization, and—cod help me—Bulletproof Monk*.) is the thing where there’s an awesome, smart, wonderful, powerful female character who by all rights ought to be the Chosen One and the hero of the movie, who is tasked with taking care of some generally ineffectual male character who is, for reasons of wish fulfillment, actually the person the film focuses on. She mentors him, she teaches him, and she inevitably becomes his girlfriend… and he gets the job she wanted: he gets to be the Chosen One even though she’s obviously far more qualified. And all he has to do to get it and deserve it is Man Up and Take Responsibility.
And that’s it. Every god-damned time. The mere fact of naming the films above and naming the trope gives away the entire plot and character arc of every single movie."
men love “fat asses” and big titties but act like those things commonly exist naturally on thin women and they “don’t count” when accompanied by a jiggly belly and thick thighs
U N L E A S H T H E B E E S
And I don’t feel any different. "
This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.
THAT makes a lot more sense, now, thank you.
I can attest to the original poster’s comments. A few years back I took an intensive seminar on faith-based progressive activism, and we spent an entire unit discussing how many of Jesus’ instructions and stories were performative protests designed to shed light on and ridicule the oppressions of that time period as a way to emphasize the absurdity of the social hierarchy and give people the will and motivation to make changes for a more free and equal society.
For example, the next verse (Matthew 5:40) states “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” In that time period, men traditionally wore a shirt and a coat-like garment as their daily wear. To sue someone for their shirt was to put them in their place - suing was generally only performed to take care of outstanding debts, and to be sued for one’s shirt meant that the person was so destitute the only valuable thing they could repay with was their own clothing. However, many cultures at that time (including Hebrew peoples) had prohibitions bordering on taboo against public nudity, so for a sued man to surrender both his shirt and his coat was to turn the system on its head and symbolically state, in a very public forum, that “I have no money with which to repay this person, but they are so insistent on taking advantage of my poverty that I am leaving this hearing buck-ass naked. His greed is the cause of a shameful public spectacle.”
All of a sudden an action of power (suing someone for their shirt) becomes a powerful symbol of subversion and mockery, as the suing patron either accepts the coat (and therefore full responsibility as the cause of the other man’s shameful display) or desperately chases the protester around trying to return his clothes to him, making a fool of himself in front of his peers and the entire gathered community.
Additionally, the next verse (Matthew 5:41; “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”) was a big middle finger to the Romans who had taken over Judea and were not seen as legitimate authority by the majority of the population there. Roman law stated that a centurion on the march could require a Jew (and possibly other civilians as well, although I don’t remember explicitly) to carry his pack at any time and for any reason for one mile along the road (and because of the importance of the Roman highway system in maintaining rule over the expansive empire, the roads tended to be very well ordered and marked), however hecould not require any service beyond the next mile marker. For a Jewish civilian to carry a centurion’s pack for an entire second mile was a way to subvert the authority of the occupying forces. If the civilian wouldn’t give the pack back at the end of the first mile, the centurion would either have to forcibly take it back or report the civilian to his commanding officer (both of which would result in discipline being taken against the soldier for breaking Roman law) or wait until the civilian volunteered to return the pack, giving the Judean native implicit power over the occupying Roman and completely subverting the power structure of the Empire. Can you imagine how demoralizing that must have been for the highly ordered Roman armies that patrolled the region?
Jesus was a pacifist, but his teachings were in no way passive. There’s a reason he was practically considered a terrorist by the reigning powers, and it wasn’t because he healed the sick and fed the hungry.
In other words, Jesus was executed by the State because he challenged the State’s power.
all early 2000s strokes interviews sound like bad fan fiction
"Julian flops down on the seat opposite and slips back into the leatherette. His talk with his new friend seem to be going well for the first few seconds, so he tries to kiss her again. She’s not sure. Why can’t they talk some more? Julian rolls his eyes and sinks deeper into the couch."
Based on this (x). Conclusion: they’re still fuckers.
Or maybe daddy works all week to provide us money for food and clothes
Because daddy’s labour is arbitrarily placed at a higher value and the work he does all week is no more important or legitimate than domestic labour. The capital value of the same relative labour is dependent on the gender of the person its performed by, and the capital values of different, specific kinds of labour, are dependent on the gender of the person who usually performs them in a society. The work easily available to women is priced cheap or free, and the work women have to struggle harder to get is still worth less capital than that same work when performed by men.
In short, daddy gets to choose what he gets to work on, and the job he gets to choose can easily generate more than enough money to feed and shelter more than one person. In this scenario, women still have to do work, but are often forced to depend on others to support them, let alone able to consider supporting others with their labour.
In some cases, men might actually prefer their wives to do even less in terms of domestic labour, because it will be a symbol of conspicuous leisure, which is the mark of status. Women doing no work at all only happens if daddy has so much money and power that he wants to show it to people by how he can support a family with even less work on their part.
A society directing women to be dependent on men, who like their women that way, is definitively a patriarchy, and the division of labour between men and women continues to reinforce gender inequality even today.
Hopefully you can see more of the repercussions of EXACTLY WHAT WAS IMPLIED IN THE ORIGINAL POST now.
This is the English word I want to get tattooed on my wrist. It means “to keep breathing even though the water rises all around you.” English is such a mystical exotic language. They can fit so much meaning into so small a word.