Our Shared Shelf discussion

Intersectional Feminism > Meagan Day: The Christmas Paradox

Comments Showing 1-14 of 14 (14 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Adam (new)

Adam Sowa | 227 comments https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/12/ch...

FTA: It’s perplexing to say the least. But many who give the most during the holiday season are guilty of more than inconsistency — the wealthiest among them actively engineer the conditions that generate poverty, and they relentlessly thwart attempts to alleviate economic hardship on an institutional scale. An extreme example is the Koch brothers, whose philanthropic network provides community holiday meals to poor people, while simultaneously organizing powerful friends around a brutally austere political program.

message 2: by Pam (new)

Pam | 1085 comments Mod
...tight regulation of corporations, and robust universal social programs won’t feel as compassionate or intimate to anybody in the moment. No one’s eyes will well with tears of gratitude, and there will be no admiring applause. Instead the relief will occur continuously, diffusely and cumulatively, on a mass scale. It will feel impersonal, and individual gratification will be deferred"

Exactly. No one gets to pat themselves on the back or gain some positive publicity be it an individual or company. It's why we like charities. We throw money at the problem without realizing what we really need is to throw dignity and humanity at it instead.

message 3: by Adam (new)

Adam Sowa | 227 comments Agree: We really need to focus on the structural rather than the "appeal to emotion".

that's it for now. not really in a chatty mood. like I ever am.

message 4: by Ross (new)

Ross | 1444 comments All true but a note of caution we have to start somewhere people getting aid don't care where it comes from as long as it arrives despite the problems people and countries donations are vital to relief efforts world wide.

message 5: by Pam (last edited Dec 29, 2017 12:12PM) (new)

Pam | 1085 comments Mod
Ross wrote: "All true but a note of caution we have to start somewhere people getting aid don't care where it comes from as long as it arrives despite the problems people and countries donations are vital to re..."

True. But that gives into the idea that aid is coming. The old " if it aint broken " argument. Institutions like these become institutions because we don't spend the time or energy to change them. We settle for the status quo because changing is hard and isnt a quick easy fix.

My example of this was when i stared out in non-profit running a donation center for the homeless. We asked for new or gently used goods and still were given unwashed clothing that were threadbare with holes. More than 2/3 of the goods we took in we had to turn away because i wouldn't dress my grandma in them. Or my favourite was when we would get broken chotchiks like a mantel clock. What do we do with that?

The person who donated got to pat themselves on their backs for helping out. But the people receiving didnt need or want what they were giving. The biggest challenge wasnt getting donations so much as it was helping to match the generosity to the need- educating people on how to give.

Same thing happens with mission trips or goodwill trips with young teenagers going to third world countries to help build schools or other buildings. It' s a nice gesture. But then you realize that the teenagers who built the structure had little to no exp. building buildings or holding a hammer. And then there is the concept that while those teenagers might not know a darn thing of construction beyond what their handler taught them, that the locals probably had experienced carpenters and electricians who could build it, but werent hired because free trumps expense anyday. So whats the point on gaining these skills if every summer a new class of teenagers comes down?

So while its worth it to have Jenny and Ryan and their group spend the money to see poverty first hand, their actions actually continue the cycle of poverty. So yeah, while donating used holey clothes is nice people, perpetuates the idea that individuals experiencing homelessness are filthy vagabonds who would do anythjng for scraps, and while these corporations continue to write checks, their policy only help their pockets, but does little for their employees.

message 6: by Adam (new)

Adam Sowa | 227 comments Pam:

Agree: This is such a complex problem, one that isn't going to be addressed or dealt with by random acts of "feel good".

Tonight's broadcast being a glaring example.

It's has to be consistent and striking at the root.

message 7: by Adam (new)

Adam Sowa | 227 comments Emma:

The Golden Globes.

Think of it this way: If, during the strikes of the early 20th century, the strikers only wore a shirt with strike printed on it and did nothing else.

Unless the powers that be are scared of losing power and or wealth, expect nothing to change.

message 8: by Adam (new)

Adam Sowa | 227 comments This has to be a constant and consistent effort.

Not flash in the pan PSA's

message 9: by Adam (new)

Adam Sowa | 227 comments Making the rounds at "shadow banned" area of Twitter:

Turns out that Natlie Woods said to several of her friends that she was raped by Kirk Douglas.

Douglas stating to her: "If you tell anyone, it will be the last thing you do"

Strike at the root, not enrich the soil.

message 10: by Adam (new)

Adam Sowa | 227 comments Reading what happened at the Golden Globes is reminding me of Jethro Tull: Thick as a Brick.

Come on ye childhood heroes!
Won't you rise up from the pages of your comic-books.
Your super crooks.
And show us all the way.

Well make your will and testament.
Won't you join your local government?
We'll have Superman for president.
Let Robin save the day.

message 11: by Ross (new)

Ross | 1444 comments GG was a shift in perception and protest that used to happen in award shows in the past. The points were well made. Yes reactions were mixed and a bit Hollywood for what of a better word.

But it is a step and activists inside and outside of movie business came together to start the process of change.

message 12: by Adam (last edited Jan 10, 2018 04:41PM) (new)

Adam Sowa | 227 comments ,Ross

There was an awful lot of chatter on Twitter.

Most, which would have been a heavier hit, were saying that they should not have showed at all.

Then we wouldn't have seen the activists.

So, I thought, why not just do as the labor organisers did back in US (If similar elsewhere: Chime in) during the the 1930's and have a sit down strike.

Announce the awards and winner, but instead of the recipient taking the stage for acceptance, bring up one of the accompanying activist and let them make a speech.

Don't accept the award.

And sit back down.

Rinse and repeat.

Do this at every awards show.

Including the Oscars.

message 13: by Adam (new)

Adam Sowa | 227 comments A thing that bugs me.

Rose McGowan pretty much kicked this off a couple of years ago:

1: Writing a article in a inside industry publication (can't locate it) about sexism in Hollywood.

2: Called out Adam Sandler's casting call stating "need to show cleavage"

She was let go by her agecey for doing this.

Though no one seems to mention her on the social media at all.

Things that make one go Hmm

message 14: by Adam (new)

Adam Sowa | 227 comments Emma.

Going to be a lot of rambling: Long week.

I'm always "over correcting" between hope and cynicism when in comes to anything celebrity.

Rose McGowan, in a Tweet, was critical of the Globes, referring to "Hollywood fakes". I have a strong tendency to agree with that: How we, as Humans, get into our bubbles and reject outside voices; even internal ones, like McGowan.

There needs to be risk taking, past the "let's run this past my publicist", in this endeavor. The actors should have let their companions, at the least, take the stage in lieu of an acceptance speech.

As to a argument on Twitter (has to be t here): Is it better to enrich the individual or is it better to enrich society?

We really need to be thinking about the long game.

back to top