zuky:

thesmithian:

…[some] may not remember what made Iran-Contra such an extraordinary scandal. The Reagan administration “raised money privately” by selling weapons to a sworn enemy of the United States. Why? Because it wanted to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. And when I say “illegal war,” I mean that quite literally—Congress told the Reagan administration, in no uncertain terms, that Reagan could not send money to the Contras. Period. The Reagan administration, unrestrained by laws and the Constitution, did so anyway, and much of the president’s national security team ended up under indictment.

more.

Reagan knew everything. However, I bet this Time magazine piece doesn’t get into the juiciest part of Iran-Contra, which is that in the 1980s the CIA put into operation a crack cocaine pipeline to import narcotics from Central and South America and distribute it in US inner cities. This is not a “conspiracy theory”, this is a documented conspiracy, most rigorously researched and reported by Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Gary Webb, whose series in the San Jose Mercury News and subsequent book “Dark Alliance” literally got him killed. To me, that’s the story of Iran-Contra: not that Reagan sold weapons to Iran, but that the US government imported and sold crack to Black America, as part of an arms and drugs trade which funded war in the Third World and which devastated lives and filled prisons in the USA.

View post...
"

Lower income for all women, particularly those of color, means less money to support their families with necessities such as housing, food, education, and health care. Closing the pay gap is even more important for women of color who are more likely than their white counterparts to be breadwinners.

The long-term wage gap hurts families of color tremendously, forcing families to choose between putting food on the table or saving for a college education and retirement. On average, an African American woman working full time loses the equivalent of 118 weeks of food each year due to the wage gap. A Latina loses 154 weeks’ worth of food. The stubbornly persistent gender-based wage gap adds up substantially over the lifetime of a woman’s career. For women of color the loss of savings over a 30-hour-a-week to a 40-hour-a-week work lifespan is significant. A woman of color will have to live on one-third to 45 percent less than a white man based on the average benefits that are afforded through Social Security and pension plans. Research shows that a woman’s average lifetime earnings are more than $434,000 less than a comparable male counterpart over a 35-year working life.

Analysis done in 2012 by the Center for American Progress illustrates that the money lost over the course of a working woman’s lifetime could do one of the following:

—Feed a family of four for 37 years
—Pay for seven four-year degrees at a public university
—Buy two homes
—Purchase 14 new cars

Simply be saved for retirement and used to boost her quality of life when she leaves the workforce

Lifetime earnings are even lower for women of color because they face higher levels of unemployment and poverty rates. In March 2013 unemployment rates of black [women] and Latinas were significantly higher than their white counterparts at 12.2 percent and 9.3 percent respectively compared to white women at 6.1 percent. According to the National Women’s Law Center, poverty rates among women, particularly women of color, remain historically high and unchanged in the last year. The poverty rate among women was 14.6 percent in 2011—the highest in the last 18 years. For black women and Latinas that same year, the poverty rate was 25.9 percent and 23.9 percent, respectively.

"
Sophia Kerby, “How Pay Inequity Hurts Women Of Color,” Black Politics On The Web 4/9/13 (via racialicious)

babyslime:

skyliting:

rememberyes:

boldmatter:

jadelyn:

likeadeadchinadoll:

and for those interested, you can find the report HERE

Just in case any dudebros are unclear on what this means: it means that your buddy who totally just had some bitch trying to ruin his life by accusing him of rape…almost certainly actually did rape her.  

Just keep that in mind.

Yeah man, imagine that, bitches don’t be lying.

Can we put this into context? It means that 99.4% of rape allegations are true

It means that 99.4% of rape allegations are true.

When you read through and learn about those 0.6% who did make false allegations, there are some seriously important things to note. Firstly :

“Furthermore, the report shows that a significant number of these cases involved young, often vulnerable people. About half of the cases involved people aged 21 years old and under, and some involved people with mental health difficulties. In some cases, the person alleged to have made the false report had undoubtedly been the victim of some kind of offence (sic), even if not the one which he or she had reported.
And then, when you get into the case studies you find things like a 14 year old girl sleeping with an 18 year old. When discovered, she claimed the sex was non-consensual in fear of her father’s disapproval, but investigation of texts and emails found that to be untrue. THAT SAID, the 18 year old was found to have a history of pursuing and seducing many very young girls, and once he was counseled he expressed not only regret over his actions, but the knowledge that he was purposefully picking vulnerable girls who could be easily manipulated into consent.

Another case was a married couple, where the wife claimed rape and domestic violence, so the husband was arrested and held. After some contact between the two while he was incarcerated, she went back to him and wanted the charges dropped. It’s okay because she still loves him. When the DA decided to keep going, she suddenly said that she made it up and he never raped her at all.
Further counseling revealed that the allegations were true, but she didn’t want to be without him so she lied about the allegations being false.
I don’t know about you, but this kind of sounds like classic domestic violence, and the kind of patterns you get into after living with an abuser.
The point I’m trying to make is that even though there are 0.6% false claims… when you break them down you find that there’s generally a lot of skeevy shit going on, and like the above quote, many of the alleged rape victims are actual victims of other abuses. For some of them, I’m guessing that an allegation of rape was the only way to bring enough attention to their abuse to finally get protection by law enforcement, or enough care from family to be freed from their abusive situations and moved somewhere safe. Some are mentally ill and have been taken advantage of, or are victims of statutory rape because they are not even remotely mature enough to truly consent to a sexual relationship with an adult.
These cases aren’t just as simple as, “some bitch regretted sex and cried rape”.

(Source: handsome--gretel)

"Regardless of individual men’s behavior, the facts of patriarchy give women ample reason to resent men collectively simply because “male” is a privileged social category in relation to which women experience oppression. This is quite different, however, from holding individual men accountable for the existence of patriarchy and blaming them simply for being men.

In other words, when a woman says, “I hate men,” this doesn’t necessarily mean she hates me, Allan. But, living in a society dominated by individualistic thinking makes it easy to lose sight of the crucial distinction between men as individuals and men as a category of people.
[…]
Women’s anger is an important engine for change, and if women have to tiptoe around worrying about whether it might hurt a man’s feelings, they’re going to be silenced."
Allan G. Johnson, The Gender Knot
"In spite of the fact that she’s a full human being, a woman is expected to content herself with being something less than half of that. She’s expected to allow men to see themselves as superior to her, to subordinate her needs and interests to his; to accept lesser occupations, slower promotions, lower pay, higher standards, to shape and mute her intelligence to avoid threatening men’s egos, to endure being ignored, unheard, and invisible because she’s a woman in a man’s world, to do the work he won’t do because it’s beneath his status as a man.

She’s expected to accommodate herself to often impossible patriarchal standards of female beauty, an accommodation that often involves relating to her own body as an enemy or a failure, and molding, squeezing, and even starving herself in order to satisfy the male gaze. And she has to do all of this on top of being an adult in her family and community, holding up at least half the world with her labor, keeping herself and her family together whether her husband is there or not, raising children, and maintaining ties with extended kin.

None of this comes naturally to any girl simply by physically maturing into a woman. The extent of her “obligations” requires her to deny, mask, and distort the fullness of who she really is or could be."
Allan G. Johnson, The Gender Knot
"The paradox between male privilege and male misery is often used to argue that women’s oppression is balanced by a similar or even worse lot for men. Warren Farrell, for example, writes that societies such as that in the United States are both patriarchal and matriarchal, with each gender having its own areas of oppressive domination. As with other false parallels, Farrell draws attention away from patriarchy to men as victims who deserve sympathy as much as women do.

At the extreme, men’s woes are used to blame women for the price men pay for privilege, even though the price usually is exacted by other men. Men’s reluctance to open themselves fully to their inner emotional lives, for example, is based far more on fear of being vulnerable to other men or of being seen as insufficiently manly-not in control and controlled by others-than on worries about women. In similar ways, the competitive grind, insecurity, or fear of violence that many men experience is overwhelmingly in relation to other men, not women."
Allan G. Johnson, The Gender Knot
"Crime and educational quality matter, but the percentage of Hispanics in the neighborhood has no significant effect on whites’ home purchasing decisions. Although previous research has found that whites wish to avoid concentrations of Asians and Hispanics, results from our research design do not support this claim.

We find a different story, however, for Black neighborhood composition. Although educational quality, crime, and housing values remain as important predictors, there is a significant negative effect of Black composition on whites’ reported likelihood of buying a house. The Black composition effect is striking. The estimated racial composition coeffecient is roughly 10 times greater when the [group] is Black than when it is Asian or Hispanic.

After removing the effects of race proxy variables, we cross-tabulated Black composition by the likelihood of buying the house. About one-quarter of whites said they would be very likely to buy a house when the racial composition was 15 percent Black or less. But when the neighborhood exceeded 65 percent Black, essentially no whites said they would be very likely to buy the house, even when crime was low, school quality was high, and housing values were increasing."
Michael O. Emerson, Karen J. Chai, and George Yancey - “Does Race Matter in Residential Segregation? Exploring the Preferences of White Americans”
"When the economy falters, privileged members of society are able to help themselves over the difficult bumps and fluctuations of a market economy. Their net worth, not wages, provides the necessary reserves to ride out cyclical downturns in the economy or other disasters. Although the Thernstroms acknowledge racial differences in wealth, they attribute the black deficit to age and family structure. African American families, they argue, are younger and are more likely to be headed by single parents. Both factors militate against wealth accumulation and both, not coincidentally, are characteristics about which individuals exercise some choice.” Differences in the accumulation of wealth between different racial groups, however, are not solely the result of age, family structure, or the inclination to save-blacks and whites save about the same proportions of their income. In fact, African Americans lost much of the wealth they acquired after the Civil War to white thievery and discrimination. A recent study by the Associated Press found that more than four hundred blacks were dispossessed of more than twenty-four thousand acres of farm and timber land in the South, worth millions of dollars today, through fraud, discrimination by lenders, and other illegal means."
Michael K. Brown et. al, Whitewashing Race: The Myth of a Color-Blind Society (via wretchedoftheearth)

(via thisiswhitehistory)

"The extreme oppressiveness of U.S. slavery is thus not taken seriously by many white Americans, and even by some recent immigrants who are not white. Not surprisingly perhaps, brochures circulated by southern local and state government officials still provide a distorted view of U.S. history. One South Carolina brochure provided to visitors at the state’s travel centers has a two-page history of the state from the 1500s to the present, with no mention of slaves or slavery ever being there. Yet slavery was central to that state’s economy for a long period.

Moreover, a recent research study in North Carolina examined the way that slavery has been portrayed at 20 slave plantations that are tourist sites. Seven of the plantation websites do not even note the presence of slavery there, and only three of the 20 sites make serious efforts to present the oppressed experiences of those enslaved. The other 17 sites accent such things as house furnishings, gardens, and lives of the white families. Some try to play down the brutality of slavery and thus project images of “happy slaves.” The lead researcher, Derek Alderman, accents the point that “plantations were not just about their white owners. As we come to terms with the legacy of racism in the United States, we have to recognize…that there was brutality that happened in the Old South.”"
Joe Feagin (via wretchedoftheearth)

(via thisiswhitehistory)

politicsofmylund:

theviraltruth:

The First Amendment does not protect you from:

  • Criticism: If you’re a comedian who makes a bad rape joke, people are allowed to point out that you’re not funny as well as an asshole.
  • Shame: If you tweet something racist about President Obama on your public Twitter account that’s connected to your first and last name, people are allowed to say that is bad.
  • The Right to Anonymity: If you take creepy photos of women without their consent and post them on Reddit, people are allowed to try and figure out who you are and post your information on the internet. No one is entitled to anonymity. It’s up to you whether to make it easy for people to find you.
  • Mockery: If you put yourself out there that means your peers (and news outlets) have the right to LOL and comment.
  • Consequences: If you publicly express yourself in a manner that is offensive, hurtful, or just plain dumb, strangers might contact your friends/family/school/employer and tell them what you did. That is not infringing on your right to free speech; it’s pointing out how you choose to exercise that right. Like the rest of the federal constitution, the First Amendment protects us from the government, not from private companies, which may be able to fire or otherwise punish you for stuff you say, even if it’s outside of work. The laws protecting the free speech of private employees vary from state to state, aside from specifically protected speech like labor organizing. Here are some guidelines for public employees and students.

via An Idiot’s Guide to Free Speech

THANK YOU OMG

(via reclaimingthelatinatag)

View post...