— Michael Rivero (via lapalomanegra, fucknobigbrother) (via femmewolfprince) (via navigatethestream) (via solidarityforever) (via mommapolitico) (via truth-has-a-liberal-bias) (via kogiopsis) (via yawniambored) (via aliaisqueen) (via caffeinatedriot) (via official-mens-frights-activist) (via rainforest-rusalki) (via commodifiedsouls)
Female executives who value diversity were thought to be less warm and competent, and people of color were also thought to be less competent. White men, on the other hand, were given increased marks for warmth and ability when they sought greater diversity.
The researchers also conducted an experiment to test these ideas,…When women advocated for other women, they were seen as colder, and when people of color advocated for people like them, they were seen as less competent. “People are perceived as selfish when they advocate for someone who looks like them, unless they’re a white man,” said David Hekman, one of the study’s authors.
Well shit, isn’t that convenient. I guess it’s up to the white man to save us from the white man.
If you take a young man and woman and they both tell a stranger that they work in the same restaurant, it’s very likely that they will assume that the woman is the waitress, and the young man a cook.
But I thought a woman’s place was in the kitchen? Not when she’s being paid for it. I can’t believe it took me this long to realize the implication of this. A woman’s place is one of servitude.
this fucking hit me like a fucking train
Here’s some food for thought while we’re in the midst of summer blockbuster season.
Someone very late last night (I apologize for not remembering who) posted a question asking why we hardly ever see practical effects in movies anymore. The effects in even the biggest, most expensive summer blockbusters are generally computer renderings, which, despite their sophistication, oftentimes just don’t look as good or seem as convincing as practical effects.
The short answer is: it’s cheaper.
Digital production, as the Variety article notes, has become a globalized business, which makes it particularly hard to organize workers. The nature of the work also makes it very easy for a studio to shop around for the cheapest rates. This has resulted in a race to the bottom in the industry, in which VFX work leaves countries with relatively stronger worker protections and higher wages to countries with lax labor laws and low wages. Predictably, this has led to worker exploitation. One former visual effects artist in India recounts,
At one studio, artists are asked to work without salary for at least four months, at which point the studio can ask them to leave if they didn’t find their performance “good” enough. At another studio, they reduced their staff in the 3D animation department from 150 people to a mere 5 people. One studio takes Rs 30,000 (approximately $550) as a deposit from artists and only returns to the artist (without interest) once they complete two years employment at the studio. [Note: An average MONTHLY salary might be Rs 7,500 ($138 month) so the deposit is equivalent to nearly 4 months salary.]
This situation isn’t just a result of technological advances and the ‘natural’ workings of the free market. David Sirota points out
That’s where governmental subsidies came along to distort the market. Violating the spirit, and the letter, of World Trade Organization regulations and U.S. domestic trade statutes, industrialized countries like Canada, Britain, Australia, Germany and New Zealand have started offering massive taxpayer-financed handouts to studios if the studios source their visual effects and post-production services in those nations. In British Columbia, for example, public subsidies pay up to 60 percent of the entire salary of visual effects workers. The United Kingdom and New Zealand have been following suit with recent efforts to further expand their own subsidies.
This never-ending taxpayer-funded bailout has grossly distorted the global market for visual effects, artificially deflating studios’ overall price for visual effects in the high-subsidy nations.
Things are quite dire. As Sirota notes, U.S. states are spending about $1.5 billion in subsidies fighting over the scraps of domestic visual production work that are left but these investments of taxpayer money aren’t generating significant revenue or local economic growth. Dozens of visual effects companies have gone out of business or are teetering on the edge. Artists at home can’t find work and artists overseas are being treated like indentured servants.
The Variety article assesses the crisis quite bluntly:
A harsh question has to be addressed: Would the studio tentpole business be viable if it couldn’t get vfx companies, states, nations and, yes, even artists, to subsidize the pictures either through tax policy, working for below cost or accepting poor compensation? In short, would tentpole production make financial sense if the studios couldn’t play all these people for saps? I’m not convinced it would.
You might think it’s odd that I’m writing so much about what is, relatively speaking, a rather small segment of the U.S. labor market. And I am not at all an expert in the movie business. But I do pay attention to labor issues and have noticed the same interlocking pattern of outsourcing (when possible) or casualization (when not), flagrant abuse of workers, and deeply misguided government policies—a pattern which always results in fewer good, full-time jobs, lower wages, and deepening inequality.
It’s not just blue collar factory workers or Walmart employees or fast food workers who are being underpaid and overworked and thereby forced to subsidize profits that largely go to shareholders and CEOs. It’s also well-educated, white collar workers in highly skilled fields.
Perhaps the comfortable, white collar folks who supported NAFTA and other neoliberal policies that have decimated U.S. manufacturing are finally realizing that no worker is insulated from these trends. It doesn’t matter how smart, educated, skilled or hardworking you are. If the bosses can figure out a way to rip you off, they will.
Independence from the Sexual Revolution (via medusasseveredhead)
Oooooh girl. Now that I live with a lesbian couple I’ve been wondering why the dishes situation feels soooo fucking different and this articulated it perfectly.
This is really well put, and it rings true in my own situation - I do all the cooking, cleaning and childcare, but if I fuck up with any of those things, in the eyes of general society, I don’t get the blame - she does, because they think it’s still fundamentally her responsibility, she gets the blame for delegating badly. People think I’m amazing for doing normal, everyday standard shit, and I never get criticised because they think it’s a miracle that I’m even doing it in the first place. If she was doing what I do people would think of her as just a run of the mill housewife, but for some reason it makes me exceptional. It’s bullshit.
My sister and her fiance are going through some shirt right now because he’s a man. Prior to them moving in together, he had been taking care of himself for years, doing laundry, cleaning, etc. Then she’s there and he’s suddenly become a stupid helpless baby who needs her explicit directives to do anything at all related to housework. The dude has a doctorate from an Ivy and he can’t figure out when to start dinner?
Civilization would crumble into foul-smelling, bedraggled, malnourished chaos if not for the unpaid care work of women.
Prison to Table: The Other Side of the Whole Foods Experience | Dissent Magazine
I haven’t shopped at Whole Foods for 11 years based on other issues I feel are scamming people who try to purchase from well-meaning companies. That and their stuff is overpriced for what it is. (via faboomama)
Capitalism and feminism are on a collision course, because capitalism depends on the unpaid care work of women in the family. One major analysis showed that the rate of American women’s labor force participation was slowing compared to the other OECD countries and identified the US’s failure to enact family-friendly labor policies as the chief culprit. Another important study found that the persistence of the gender pay gap was largely due to the lack of workplace flexibility in many sectors and occupations.
It is no accident that the societies ranked as having the most gender equality are the European social democracies, which tend to have the most economic equality, as well. It is also hardly coincidental that in America over the past twenty years, feminism has stalled while economic inequality has skyrocketed. Both feminism’s halt and inequality’s surge are connected to the rise of the neoliberal capitalist state, with its deregulated workplaces, its deep cuts in social services and its reliance on the unpaid labor of women to provide care.
some English lady who spent 5 weeks in Malaya in 1879 that Syed Hussein Alatas quotes in The Myth of the Lazy Native. The joke practically writes itself, but Alatas says it for us: “We may ask the author what is meant by work here? Is cleaning fish and pounding rice not work? Work here means wage earning outside the home. Are making mats and selling fruits not work? It is clear that work here means that activitiy introduced by colonial capitalism. If the ladies became coolies or servants of British planters or firm officials, she would then have considered them as working.”
So when the settler colonials say Indigenous people are lazy, they really mean “they won’t work for us to help us engineer their economy for our benefit”.
After a slew of lawsuits from cheerleaders across the country, there seems to be a glimmer of hope – at least in Oakland.
Just about 6 months after Lacy T., a cheerleader for the Oakland Raiders, filed a lawsuit that alleged her employer paid dancers less than minimum wage, committed multiple wage theft violations and imposed illegal fines for things like gaining weight the Oakland Raiders have determined that the cheerleaders will now be paid the state minimum wage of $9 an hour.
Perhaps most interesting is that the cheerleaders will also be paid for work-related events such as practice, public appearances, and team photos; a wage and hour mandate that wasn’t previously imposed.
In what just may be the most stunning example of hypocrisy in my lifetime, Mother Jones has uncovered numerous investments on the part of Hobby Lobby’s retirement fund in a wide variety of companies producing abortion and contraception related products. Hobby Lobby is currently seeking relief from certain contraception benefit requirements […]
Double standard double standard, violating basic common sense.
Their lawsuit wasn’t really about contraception or abortion. It was about using “religious liberty” to attack workers and poor people, to further expand corporate power, and to try to unravel a black liberal president’s signature accomplishment. Hurting women is a side benefit (in their eyes).