#Child welfare reform | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

phantomfallacy · 6 months

Text

There’s not nearly enough analyses of Wriothesley and the panopticon that is Meropide.

Like, sure, the connection is there, but are your lines connecting to the right points? Because if you think Wriothesley’s office is the control tower and the Fortress is his all-knowing domain, I think you’re wrong.

Spoilers for his character quest and the Meropide world quest ahead, as well as various tidbits in mini quests:

The Unfinished Comedy reveals that there is a child who had been born in the prison, more or less a decade ago. More than enough time for Wriothesley to “discover” her. But he doesn’t. He is, without a doubt, an advocator of children, and would never allow her to stay in prison if he can help it. No matter what excuse there is, such as being busy with the reformation of the prison, the Fatui invasion, or the Wingalet construction, it doesn’t negate the fact that Wriothesley doesn’t know, or he would’ve acted.

The Beret Society as well, while coming under Wriothesley’s purview, has existed long enough to brainwash and break the spirits of the people who have joined. He had no evidence that Dougier had been breaking rules and infringing on human rights.

So no, Wriothesley, contrary to the Fortress of Meropide description, does not know everything that goes on in the Fortress, and he tells us so.

So then why does the description say otherwise?

The concept of the panopticon is that a single prison warden can maintain order because people will never be able to tell if his eyes are on them. As a result, they will behave, regardless of whether the warden is truly watching or not. Wriothesley tells us that he doesn’t have eyes and ears everywhere because we are not a prisoner. We do not need to be intimidated into behaving. Moreover, the Traveler seems to be an exception to everything like a harem protagonist so let’s discount “our” knowledge of Wriothesley’s claim.

What I think slaps the most though, is that his panopticon isn’t just the Fortress, but the Court of Fontaine as well.

It is mentioned that Wriothesley knows the ongoings of the overworld despite rarely coming up. The citizens of Fontaine see Meropide as this horrible place, even after Wriothesley’s reforms, and it’s not only because of prejudice (though that is most certainly the case), but because of his refusal to be perceived. He refuses Charlotte’s interviews, though being a Duke would most certainly put him in the eye of the public. This is a tentative maintenance of his public persona: that of a cruel and unfathomable man.

“The less people see of me, the happier they will be.”

If people understood that Meropide had welfare meals, stable work hours, and relatively accessible healthcare, why would they be incentivized to follow the law? Especially those of Fleuvre Cendre. But Meropide cannot possibly be that kind of haven. It is a prison, and forever should be—because it is not sustainable.

What humans cannot understand, they fear, and that works to keep the rest of Fontaine in check from committing crimes. No one wants to go to prison, no one wants to suffer, no one wants to see the Duke of Meropide. It’s embedded into the very society, so much that they have pop culture-like phrases for it.

The Duke’s office isn’t the control tower. The whole of Meropide Fortress is, and Fontaine is the “prison.”

There are other interpretations of course, such as the factor of more recent commentary on panopticons and how they bring up the topic of holding those in absolute power accountable. The warden at the center of the panopticon has absolute power, but how is he to be kept accountable?

It could be a hint about how Wriothesley isn’t as in control as he presents himself, and the way he rules is dependent on the people who keep him in check. After all, he says that as Duke, he must set an example of persecuting only after evidence has been found of a wrongdoing, otherwise he could have simply killed Dougier. However, that would certainly bring the Fortress down around him as people questioned his reputation as a fair ruler. (Cough bringing back my sword of Damocles bullshit here//shot).

Alternatively, Wriothesley himself could be a sword of Damocles upon Fontaine, evidenced by Neuvillette’s story quest, but I feel like that would be a Wriolette thread…

Without the source material confirming anything, we’re just playing with Schrödinger’s cat though. Just some food for thought.

Next time on Dragon Ball Z: my TED Talk on why the Fortress of Meropide is not called the Fortress of Atlantis because Wriothesley presents it as communism but it is totalitarian and why that works— (Kidding, I don’t wanna touch this with a ten foot pole pls don’t respond with political philosophies I will perish 🫠🫠🫠😵)

#wriothesley analysis #wriothesley #genshin impact #genshin analysis #fontaine #genshin

233 notes · View notes

lilacsupernova · 1 year

Text

Feminism

Feminism has fought no wars.

It has killed no opponents.

It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practised no cruelties.

Its battles have been for education, the vote, for better working conditions,

for safety in the streets, for child care, for social welfare, for rape crisis centres, women's refuges, reforms in the law.

If someone says, "Oh, I'm not a feminist,"

I ask, "Why? What's your problem?"

– Dale Spender: Man Made Language

#dale spender #feminism #male violence #woman power #sisterhood #man made language

491 notes · View notes

coochiequeens · 3 months

Text

‘100% feminist’: how Eleanor Rathbone invented child benefit – and changed women’s lives for ever

She was an MP and author with a formidable reputation, fighting for the rights of women and refugees, and opposing the appeasement of Hitler. Why isn’t she better known today?

Ladies please reblog to give her the recognition she deserves

By Susanna Rustin Thu 4 Jul 2024

My used copy of the first edition of The Disinherited Family arrives in the post from a secondhand bookseller in Lancashire. A dark blue hardback inscribed with the name of its first owner, Miss M Marshall, and the year of publication, 1924, it cost just £12.99. I am not a collector of old tomes but am thrilled to have this one. It has a case to be considered among the most important feminist economics books ever written.

Its centenary has so far received little, if any, attention. Yet the arguments it sets out are the reason nearly all mothers in the UK receive child benefit from the government. Its author, Eleanor Rathbone, was one of the most influential women in politics in the first half of the 20th century. She led the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship (Nusec, the main suffragist organisation, also formerly known as the National Union of Women Suffrage Societies) from 1919, when Millicent Fawcett stood down, until the roughly five million women who were not enfranchised in 1918 gained the vote 10 years later. In 1929, aged 57, she became an MP, and remained in parliament until her death in 1946. While there, she built up a formidable reputation based on her advocacy for women’s rights, welfare reform and the rights of refugees, and her opposition to the appeasement of Hitler.

It would not be true to say that Eleanor Rathbone has been forgotten. Her portrait by James Gunn hangs in the National Portrait Gallery. Twenty years ago she was the subject of a fine biography and she is remembered at Somerville college, Oxford – where she studied in the 1890s and ran a society called the Associated Prigs. (While the name was a joke, Rathbone did have a priggish side – as well as being an original thinker, tremendous campaigner, and stubborn, sensitive personality.) She also features in Rachel Reeves’s book The Women Who Made Modern Economics, although Reeves – who hopes shortly to become the UK’s first female chancellor – pays more attention to her contemporary, Beatrice Webb.

A thrilling tome … The Disinherited Family by Eleanor Rathbone. Photograph: Alicia Canter/The Guardian

But Rathbone, who came from a wealthy dynasty of nonconformist merchants, does not have anything like the name-recognition of the Pankhursts or Millicent Fawcett, or of pioneering politicians including Nancy Astor and Ellen Wilkinson. Nor does she enjoy the cachet of writers such as Virginia Woolf, whose polemic about women’s opportunities, A Room of One’s Own, was published five years after Rathbone’s magnum opus.

There are many reasons for Rathbone’s relative obscurity. One is that she was the first woman elected to parliament as an independent (and one of a handful of men at the time). Thus there is no political party with an interest in turning her into an icon. Having spent the past three years writing a book about the British women’s movement, I am embarrassed to admit that when I started, I didn’t know who she was.

Rathbone was not the first person to propose state benefits paid to mothers. The endowment of motherhood or family allowances, as the policy was known, was written about by the Swedish feminist Ellen Key, and tried out as a project of the Fabian Women’s Group, who published their findings in a pamphlet in 1912. But Rathbone pushed the idea to the forefront. A first attempt to get Nusec to adopt it was knocked back in 1921, and she then spent three years conducting research. The title she gave the book she produced, The Disinherited Family, reflected her view that women and children were being deprived of their rightful share of the country’s wealth.

The problem, as she saw it, was one of distribution. While the wage system in industrialised countries treated all workers on a given pay grade the same, some households needed more money than others. While unions argued for higher wages across the board, Rathbone believed the state should supplement the incomes of larger families. She opened the book with an archly phrased rhetorical question: “Whether there is any subject in the world of equal importance that has received so little consideration as the economic status of the family?” She went on to accuse economists of behaving as if they were “self-propagating bachelors” – so little did the lives of mothers appear to interest them.

Rathbone’s twin aims were to end wives’ dependence on husbands and reward their domestic labour. Family allowances paid directly to them could either be spent on housekeeping or childcare, enabling them to go out to work. Ellen Wilkinson, the radical Labour MP for Middlesbrough (and future minister for education), was among early supporters. William Beveridge read the book when he was director of the London School of Economics, declared himself a convert and introduced one of the first schemes of family-linked payments for his staff.

But others were strongly opposed. Conservative objections to such a radical expansion of the state were predictable. But they were echoed by liberal feminists including Millicent Fawcett, who called the plan “a step in the direction of practical socialism”. Trade unions preferred to push for a living wage, while some male MPs thought the policy undermined the role of men as breadwinners. Labour and the Trades Union Congress (TUC) finally swung behind family allowances in 1942. As the war drew to a close, Rathbone led a backbench rebellion against ministers who wanted to pay the benefit to fathers instead.

Rathbone celebrates the Silver Jubilee of the Women’s Vote in London, 20 February 1943. Photograph: Picture Post/Getty Images

It is for this signature policy that she is most often remembered today. At a time when hundreds of thousands of children have been pushed into poverty by the two-child limit on benefit payments, Rathbone’s advocacy on behalf of larger families could hardly be more relevant. The limit, devised by George Osborne, applies to universal and child tax credits – and not child benefit itself. But Rishi Sunak’s government announced changes to the latter in this year’s budget. From 2026, eligibility will be assessed on a household rather than individual basis. This is intended to limit payments to better-off, dual-income families. But the UK Women’s Budget Group and others have objected on grounds that child benefit should retain its original purpose of directly remunerating primary carers (the vast majority of them mothers) for the work of rearing children. It remains to be seen whether this plan will be carried through by the next government.

Rathbone once told the House of Commons she was “100% feminist”, and few MPs have been as single-minded in their commitment to women’s causes. As president of Nusec (the law-abiding wing of the suffrage campaign), she played a vital role in finishing the job of winning votes for women.

The last few years have seen a resurgence of interest in women’s suffrage, partly due to the centenary of the first women’s suffrage act. Thanks to a brilliant campaign by Caroline Criado Perez, a statue of Millicent Fawcett, the nonmilitant suffragist leader, now stands in Westminster, a few minutes walk from the bronze memorial of Emmeline Pankhurst erected in 1930. Suffragette direct action has long been a source of fascination. What is less well known is that militants played little part in the movement after 1918. It was law-abiding constitutionalists – suffragists rather than suffragettes – who pushed through the 1920s to win votes for the younger and poorer women who did not yet have them. Rathbone helped lead this final phase of the campaign, along with Conservative MP Nancy Astor and others.

Rathbone was highly critical of the militants, and once claimed that they “came within an inch of wrecking the suffrage movement, perhaps for a generation”. Today, with climate groups including Just Stop Oil copying the suffragette tactic of vandalising paintings, it is worth remembering that many women’s suffrage campaigners opposed such methods.

Schismatic though it was, the suffrage movement at least had a shared goal. An even greater challenge for feminists in the 1920s was agreeing on future priorities. Equal pay, parental rights and an end to the sexual double standard were among demands that had broad support. After the arrival in the House of Commons of the first female MPs, legislative successes included the removal of the bar on women’s entry to the professions, new rights for mothers and widows’ pensions. But there were also fierce disagreements.

Tensions between class and sexual politics were longstanding, with some on the left regarding feminism as a distraction. The Labour MP Marion Phillips, for example, thought membership of single-sex groups placed women “in danger of getting their political opinions muddled”. There was also renewed conflict over protective legislation – the name given to employment laws that differentiated between men and women. While such measures included maternity leave and safety rules for pregnant women, many feminists believed their true purpose was to keep jobs for men – and prevent female workers from competing.

Underlying such arguments was the question of whether women, once enfranchised, should strive for equal treatment, or push for measures designed to address their specific needs. As the debate grew more heated, partisans on either side gave themselves the labels of “old” and “new” feminists. While the former, also called equalitarians, wanted to focus on the obstacles that prevented women from participating in public life on the same terms as men, the new feminists led by Rathbone sought to pioneer an innovative, woman-centred politics. Since this brought to the fore issues such as reproductive health and mothers’ poverty, it is known as “maternalist feminism”.

Rathbone and other Liverpool suffragettes campaigning in 1910. Photograph: Shawshots/Alamy

The faultline extended beyond Britain. But Rathbone and her foes had some of the angriest clashes. At one international convention, Lady Rhondda, a wealthy former suffragette, used a speech to deride rivals who chose to “putter away” at welfare work, instead of the issues she considered important.

The specific policy points at issue have, of course, changed over the past century. But arguments about how much emphasis feminists should place on biological differences between men and women carry on.

Eleanor Rathbone did not live long enough to see the welfare state, including child benefit paid to mothers, take root in postwar Britain. Her election to parliament coincided with the Depression, and the lengthening shadows of fascism and nazism meant that she, like her colleagues, became preoccupied with foreign affairs. In the general election of 1935, the number of female MPs fell from 15 to nine, meaning Rathbone’s was one of just a handful of women’s voices. She used hers to oppose the policy of appeasement, and support the rights of refugees, including those escaping Franco’s Spain. During the war she helped run an extra-parliamentary “woman-power committee”, which advocated for female workers.

She also became a supporter of Indian women’s rights, though her liberal imperialism led to tensions with Indian feminists. During the war she angered India’s most eminent writer, Rabindranath Tagore, and its future prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, when she attacked the Congress party’s policy of noncooperation with Britain’s war effort. Tagore criticised what he called the “sheer insolent self-complacency” of her demand that the anti-colonial struggle should be set aside while Britain fought Germany.

Rathbone turned down a damehood. After their first shared house in Westminster was bombed, she and her life partner, the Scottish social worker Elizabeth Macadam, moved around the corner to a flat on Tufton Street (Macadam destroyed their letters, meaning that Rathbone’s intimate life remains obscure, but historians believe the relationship was platonic). From there they moved to a larger, quieter house in Highgate. On 2 January 1946, Rathbone suddenly died.

Rathbone’s blue plaque at Tufton Court. Photograph: PjrPlaques/Alamy

A blue plaque on Tufton Street commemorates her as the “pioneer of family allowances” – providing an alternative claim on posterity for an address more commonly associated with the Brexit campaign, since a house a few doors down became its headquarters. She is remembered, too, in Liverpool, where her experience of dispersing welfare to desperately poor soldiers’ wives in the first world war changed the course of her life, and where one of her former homes is being restored by the university.

I don’t believe in ghosts. But walking in Westminster recently, I imagined her hastening across St James’s Park to one of her meetings at Nancy Astor’s house near the London Library. Today, suffragettes are celebrated for their innovative direct action. But Rathbone blazed a trail, too, with her dedication as a campaigner, writer, lobbyist and “100% feminist” parliamentarian.

Sexed: A History of British Feminism by Susanna Rustin is published by Polity Press (£20). To support the Guardian order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply

#Eleanor Rathbone #The Disinherited Family #Books by women #Books about women #Child benefit #National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship (Nusec)#Rachel Reeve #The Women Who Made Modern Economics #Women in politics #UK #Seed: A History of British Feminism #Susan Rustin

84 notes · View notes

decolonize-the-everything · 8 months

Note

I just found out about Jasmine Sherman and they look really cool. Like, the policies that they say they’re going to do? The fact that they have an audiobook option for people to listen to what the policies say on their platform? (If people don’t have JAWS or screen readers on their devices, JAWS for computers.) I really hope they get far enough in the presidential race.

vid source

It's time to actually put the people in America first. We do that by meeting everyone's basic human needs. This includes guaranteed housing, universal healthcare and education, UBI, and environmental/infrastructure reform. In doing this, we give people a fighting chance to create a more sustainable model for society that ensures the general welfare of people within our borders for generations to come.

1) Housing- Decommodify housing and eliminate rent, mortgages and property taxes 2) Healthcare- 100% coverage including vision and dental 3) Education- universal education up to and including doctorate level studies 4) UBI-a monthly disbursement based on the cost of living in a resident's state 5) Environment/Infrastructure reform- Abating the damage caused by climate change through sustainable development and creating an infrastructure that fosters community

The Jasmine Sherman for President campaign envisions organizing through various strategies. They aim to leverage social media and technological advancements for rapid outreach to a wider audience. Direct action and mutual aid will be prioritized to attract like-minded individuals and build a strong support base. The campaign will also focus on nurturing relationships established through past coalition-building efforts, aiming to strengthen connections and amplify the campaign's impact. By combining these approaches, Jasmine Sherman's campaign aims to effectively engage, mobilize, and expand its reach in pursuit of its organizing goals

Source on ballotpedia

Their campaign site:

MISSION STATEMENT/ Political Views

Jasmine Sherman wants to help the at-risk and vulnerable communities by providing Guaranteed housing, Landback, Universal basic income, Free Education, and Universal healthcare, for all. They also believe in the rights of the child, the rights to gender affirming care, ending the disability restrictions, restorative justice, abolishing the police, abolishing prisons, triple bottom line accountability for corporations, reparations, a progressive tax, an index living wage, immigration policy reform, sustainable energy, decriminalizing all drugs and sex work, age caps and term limits for all elected officials, and rewriting the constitution.

••••

They seem like a very good candidate and I hadn't heard of them before, tysm for bringing them to my attention!

Looks like the Green Party has ballot access in 46 states as well! Additionally, The Green Party will host a primary debate on May 11th. Definitely something to pay attention to!

#asked #answered #jasmine sherman #usa election #2024 election #socialist candidates #presidential elections #presidential candidates #vote #voting #usa #usa politics #us election

223 notes · View notes

fosterwhat · 8 months

Text

There was the potential (again) that Henry would be placed with us. His current placement is done for very valid reasons. DCFS just does not communicate. So I’ve been wondering for the past 3 days if he was maybe going to show up. Finally got a message that they are “not inclined” to place with me and are working to persuade current foster family to keep him until reunification, so he doesn’t end up somewhere random. But he wouldn’t end up somewhere rabdom! He’d be here, which is exactly what the current placement requested alongside me…

The manipulation of those who are in system is appalling. Some day I will write a tell all book and name names. Because it’s specific individuals who are doing this out of spite, hiding behind the system. I am so mad.

There was just another child death reported because of their ineptitude, but they do nothing to change. DCFS was supposed to put a safe reunification system into place in 2019. Never happened. Now they plan to reunify Henry in a couple weeks, even though there have been recent police responses for the very reason he was removed. There is no system of protection for these kids. No way for foster parents to go higher-up and actually be heard. Everything is managed by DCFS, and they close ranks.

#this is foster care #foster care reform #baby henry #child death #dcfs #child welfare reform #child welfare

45 notes · View notes

fosteringinsc · 11 months

Text

Transforming the Foster Care System: The Biden Administration's Game-Changing Policies

Biden Administration’s Foster Care Reforms: Navigating the Pros and Cons for Child Welfare Transforming the Foster Care System: The Biden Administration’s Game-Changing Policies. The recent foster care system reforms by the Biden administration represent a pivotal shift in child welfare policy. These changes, aimed at bolstering support for kinship caregivers, safeguarding LGBTQ+ youth, and…

View On WordPress

#Biden administration child welfare #child welfare policy #child welfare services #foster care placement prevention #Foster care reform #Foster care resources #Foster care system #foster care system evaluation #Foster Parent Training #kinship caregivers support #legal services for families #LGBTQ+ youth protection

0 notes

iridescentalchemyst · 10 months

Text

Special Halloween Delivery

View On WordPress

#2 #CAPTA law #child welfare #cognitive bias #parental alienation #perjury #thought reform

0 notes

bookstribepost · 4 months

Text

"Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions, for safety in the streets, for child care, for social welfare, for rape crisis centres, women's refuges, reforms in the law. If someone says, 'Oh, I'm not a feminist', I ask, 'Why? What's your problem?' "

- Dale Spender, Man Made Language

#feminism #feminist blog #chaotic academia #cats and books #islamic teachings #tumblr #free gaza #feminist quotes #feminist literature #womens rights #equality #gender equality #feminist art #light academia

38 notes · View notes

sparksinthenight · 8 months

Text

Have a Heart Day 2024

This is a letter I wrote to the Canadian Government for Have a Heart Day 2024. I am asking the government to stop discriminating against First Nations children, to stop giving them inadequate services, education, and support, to stop treating them unequally compared to non-Indigenous children, and to stop taking them away from their loving families. I really hope that you read my letter and that you either copy paste it or write your own, and email the Canadian government yourself.

Hello. Our names are ____ and we are people from various parts of so-called Canada. We are writing to you to ask that you ensure the government stops discriminating against First Nations children, by signing a Final Settlement Agreement on Reform that meets and goes beyond the Agreement in Principle on Reform, and by following the Spirit Bear Plan and enshrining it into law.

First Nations children and families on reserves are being discriminated against in many ways. Most communities do not receive the same amount of and access to social services that non-Indigenous people receive. Most communities do not receive as good quality social services as non-Indigenous people. While there has been progress, Jordan's Principle, which is about meeting children's needs, is still not being properly applied. Most children don't have access to an equal quality of education as children off reserves, and many children receive very inadequate education services. And, very horrifyingly, children are being separated from families who love them and want to take care of them. This all needs to stop. We need to make, follow, and enforce laws that stop this discrimination.

First of all, let's talk about the fact that social services are inadequate on most reserves. As you know, the federal government funds services on reserves that the provincial or municipal governments fund elsewhere. The government generally funds services on reserves far less than services are funded off reserves. These include education, water infrastructure, housing, financial assistance, transportation, basic infrastructure, utilities, healthcare, mental healthcare, addiction support, job training, childcare, youth programs, cultural programs, recreation programs, libraries, child welfare, and more. These services are human rights and should be well-funded for everyone. It's not fair that non-Indigenous people have better services to better meet more of their fundamental human rights and basic needs while people on reserves don't.

The fact that people don't have access to the services they need is part of why there are high levels of poverty on reserves. Ongoing and historical racism, trauma, and discrimination have caused a lot of people on reserves to be poor. And this lack of services is part of that discrimination that is causing people to be poor. If people had the healthcare, education, housing, childcare, mental healthcare, addiction support, cultural support, job training, basic food and water, disability support, and other things they needed, they would be able to have the peace of mind, mental strength, knowledge, support, and resources necessary to pull themselves and their communities out of poverty. Also, since there is so much poverty on reserves, these communities need even more services to help meet their basic needs and human rights.

Services delivered need to be good and effective for the communities they are delivered in. This means that services need to meet each community's different needs. Because each community has different needs due to different connectivity to the outside world, poverty levels, local prices, etc. Service providers need to first see what services people need and how to best deliver them, then work out how much money is needed. Money should be the last thing considered. What each person, family, and community needs should be the first thing considered. And of course, services must all be culturally sensitive and relevant.

And part of why services are so low quality, as well as part of why so much discrimination and cruelty happens, is because Indigenous Services Canada has biases in its systems and people, and must be reformed. Indigenous Services Canada doesn't listen to experts about what communities need and how things should be done. They don't try to do their actual job, which is ensuring good services are provided to Indigenous people. They need to be reformed and communities need to lead their own service provision.

The Spirit Bear plan must be properly implemented and properly followed. It must be enshrined in law and the law must be completely enforced. The Spirit Bear Plan is the following:

"Spirit Bear calls on:

CANADA to immediately comply with all rulings by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ordering it to immediately cease its discriminatory funding of First Nations child and family services. The order further requires Canada to fully and properly implement Jordan's Principle (www.jordansprinciple.ca).

PARLIAMENT to ask the Parliamentary Budget Officer to publicly cost out the shortfalls in all federally funded public services provided to First Nations children, youth and families (education, health, water, child welfare, etc.) and propose solutions to fix it.

GOVERNMENT to consult with First Nations to co-create a holistic Spirit Bear Plan to end all of the inequalities (with dates and confirmed investments) in a short period of time sensitive to children's best interests, development and distinct community needs.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS providing services to First Nations children and families to undergo a thorough and independent 360° evaluation to identify any ongoing discriminatory ideologies, policies or practices and address them. These evaluation must be publicly available.

ALL PUBLIC SERVANTS including those at a senior level, to receive mandatory training to identify and address government ideology, policies and practices that fetter the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Calls to Action." This information is from the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society.

Another huge factor contributing to the inequality faced by many First Nations children is the fact that Jordan's Principle isn't being properly implemented.

The federal government, not the provincial government, typically pays for the services on reserves. But many times disputes arise about who should pay for a service, and the children don't get the services non-Indigenous children would get as a matter of course. Jordan's Principle is named after Jordan River Anderson, a young disabled boy from Norway House Cree Nation who passed away in the hospital after the provincial government and the federal government couldn't decide which one should pay the costs of his healthcare. The Principle states that if a First Nations child needs something for their well-being, they need to be given that service first and payment disputes should get addressed later. This includes medical, psychological, educational, cultural, disability, and basic needs support. Non-Indigenous children get these supports without having to ask because they have access to many more and better services. These supports are human rights that everyone deserves, especially children going through generational and contemporary trauma.

Jordan's Principle is not being properly implemented, and this is hurting kids. Though there has been much progress, Jordan's Principle requests, which are for things children need, are often denied, which goes against children's rights. Indigenous Services Canada, which runs the Jordan's Principle approval process, doesn't have an adequate complaints mechanism to hold to account its provision of the Principle. The government isn't making data available on whether they're meeting children's needs. Many children have delays in getting help, including time-sensitive medical, psychological, educational, and development help.

The application process, though easier than before, is still difficult and many families don't have adequate help and guidance through it. As well, most doctors don't know which children are eligible for Jordan's Principle supports, 40% don't know which services are covered, and ⅓ don't know how to access funding through it.

Long term reform is needed. An Agreement in Principle on long term reform has been drafted by the government and First Nations advocates, and it looks promising. It talks about increasing funding for Jordan's Principle services and trying to root out prejudice in the system. But the Agreement in Principle is not legally binding. It's not something the government has to follow, or is following, but rather what they claim they might do eventually. Negotiations for the creation of a Final Settlement Agreement based on the Agreement in Principle were underway but have been on standstill for months. A Final Settlement Agreement would be legally binding and would if done right increase the chances of achieving change.

The school system is also horribly unfair. Many First Nations schools on reserves get less funding than schools off reserve, with an average of 30% less funding per school. They don't have adequate funding for computers, software, technology, sports equipment, field trips, labs, lab equipment, extracurriculars, cultural learning, job training, and the list goes on. They don't even have enough money to have adequate heating, good quality infrastructure, adequate and safe ventilation, enough textbooks, and reasonable class sizes. Many schools don't have a safe and appropriate learning environment. All children, including First Nations children, deserve good education.

There is no clear plan to eliminate education and employment gaps.

The government claims it's negotiating with Indigenous groups but there's no evidence that they're actually doing anything to lower inequality. They also claim that they're funding education on reserves equally but all the evidence says they're not. You need to actually, genuinely fund education on reserves adequately and equitably, and make sure that children on reserves are actually receiving a good and equal and equitable quality of education.

A lot of communities don't have self-determination over their own education systems, meaning they can't teach about the history of their people and other important cultural knowledge. First Nations children need and deserve to learn about their culture, about the ecosystems their people are connected to and how to interact with those ecosystems, their history, their language, their traditions. And if communities have self-determination over their own education systems, and they have adequate resources and funding from the government, they'll be able to teach these things so that children grow up proud of who they are.

And what is perhaps the most horrible thing is that so many children are being separated from families who love them. This is the most traumatic thing that can happen to a child, and all children deserve and need to be with the families who love them.

At the height of residential schools, many children were separated from their families. Currently, 3 times as many children are in foster care, away from their families. One tenth of First Nations children have been in foster care. Children in foster care experience higher rates of physical and sexual abuse and do not get as much cultural immersion. Not to mention, even in the best circumstances, they're away from their families.

Most Indigenous children in foster care have loving families that try their best to take care of them, who they want and need deeply. But their families are poor or mentally ill or disabled, or have other factors that make it hard for them to meet their children's needs. Preventative support like financial, housing, health, and mental health aid could keep many families together. If child and family service agencies have the resources and the empathy to help families with what they need so that families stay together, that would be a great relief. Child and family service agencies need adequate money, infrastructure, and personnel to give families real help instead of taking children away. Most agencies do not have these. Programs that help the wider community such as healthcare, financial aid, housing services, mental healthcare, parenting classes, food support, community programs, youth programs, cultural programs, pregnancy support, and others would greatly decrease the number of children taken from their homes. Most communities do not have adequate levels of these programs.

Child and family service agencies need to be completely reformed, and should be led by First Nations communities themselves. Most child and family service agencies are not. This is especially important since there is bias against First Nations people in many agencies. Some communities are getting the opportunities to start their own child and family service agencies, but most communities do not have this opportunity. Canada needs binding laws to ensure child and family service agencies are led by First Nations communities and are based in the unique culture of each community, which they often aren't. Each community has unique needs depending on local prices, remoteness, poverty levels, and other factors. The way child and family services should be funded is by first seeing what services the children truly need, then seeing how to best deliver them, then determining how much money will be needed.

There is a promising Agreement in Principle on Reform, created by the government and First Nations advocates. It discusses increasing funding for child welfare services and trying to root out prejudice in the system. However this is not a legally binding agreement that the government has to follow. It's just something that they claim they'll maybe do in the future. A Final Settlement Agreement based on the Agreement in Principle would be legally binding. It would, if done right, enact more funding and reform. But negotiations for this have been on pause for months. Canada needs to implement evidence-based solutions to keep kids with their families. This means creating a legally binding and well-enforced Final Settlement Agreement on Reform that meets and goes beyond the Agreement in Principle on Reform.

Some communities are trying a new funding model for child and family services that may give more funding, allowing them to do more preventative services instead of taking children away. However, the results of this new funding model are not clear yet, and most communities do not have the opportunity to be funded by it. And there is no guarantee that the new funding model will be applied to all communities if it indeed does work. There is no guarantee that enough funding for prevention services will be given to all communities, whether or not the new funding model works.

The government often promises to create reform or adequately fund things, but they don't follow through on those promises. If the government does make progress, safeguards need to be in place to stop them from backsliding.

So here are our asks for you:

-Implement the Spirit Bear plan and adequately fund all social services on reserves.

-Make sure all services are available de facto just like they are off reserve.

-Fund cultural services and make sure all services are culturally-rooted.

-Eliminate all discrimination and bias in service providers.

-Listen to experts such as doctors and teachers, the community, and community-led service providers.

-Allow and help First Nations communities to lead their own social services rooted in their own cultural values.

-Keep funding flexible and adaptable to changing needs.

-Have adequate accountability measures for all service providers.

-Make a binding law to adequately fund all social services and have communities lead social service provision.

-Create a binding law to ensure that once you start adequately funding social services you don't stop.

-In a reasonable timeframe, reach a Final Settlement Agreement on Long-Term Reform that meets and goes beyond the Agreement in Principle.

-Make sure all Jordan's Principle requests in the best interests of children are accepted.

-Give presumptive approval for Jordan's Principle requests under $250.

-Support organizations and communities already providing Jordan's Principle services.

-Accept urgent requests within 12 hours and non urgent requests within 48 hours.

-Don't require more than one document from a professional or elder for making requests.

-Make data available on Jordan's Principle provision effectiveness.

-Make sure all supports are given in a timely manner without delays.

-Make it easy and convenient for families and professionals to make Jordan's Principle requests.

-Fund schools on reserves as much as schools off reserve. This includes funding for computers, libraries, software, teacher training, special education, education research, language programs, cultural programs, mental health support, support for kids with special needs, extracurriculars, ventilation, heating, mold removal, vocation training for students, and more.

-Make sure all schools have the resources, funding, and support necessary to teach culture.

-Make a clear joint strategy to eliminate the education and employment gap.

-Make sure all school staff are non-discriminatory.

-Make sure communities have self-determination to create culturally rooted education.

-Adequately fund child and family services on reserves, and make sure they can hire enough people and have good infrastructure.

-Stop discrimination within child and family service agencies.

-Allow and help all First Nations communities to lead and run their own child and family service agencies that are based on their cultural values.

-Enact evidence based solutions to keep families together.

-Don't take children from families that love them.

-Have and fund adequate preventative services so families can take care of their children and no child is taken away.

-Keep funding for child and family services flexible and responsive to each community's needs, and listen to communities to learn what their needs are.

-Have adequate accountability in child and family services so that any underfunding, discrimination, or failure is stopped and remedied.

-Family support needs to start at or even before pregnancy.

-Fund culturally-based healing of people who have been harmed and are being harmed by the government's discrimination.

———

Find your MP here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/en/members

justin.trudeau(at)parl.gc.ca- Prime Minister Trudeau

chrystia.freeland(at)parl.gc.ca- Deputy Prime Minister Freeland

patty.hajdu(at)parl.gc.ca- Minister of Indigenous Services

gary.anand(at)parl.gc.ca - Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations

53 notes · View notes

thestrangestthing89 · 1 year

Text

There are thankfully only a handful of people who swear this is a conservative, Christian show but it's interesting to me considering how negatively the show depicts religion.

S1 - There aren't any direct references to religion but subtle hints. It's implied Hawkins is a typical middle class suburban neighborhood. It's 1983, Reagan was president, and there are hints of the towns Christianity through the bullies. When Will goes missing there are several comments that make it clear that the people in this town aren't surprised. The middle school bully makes a comment that he got "killed by some other queer" and says his father was talking about it. Parents in the town talk about Will being gay. We see Steve's friends - the high school bullies - also making homophobic comments about Jonathan and his brother. The bad guys are homophobic. They also all lose fights this season. The show takes an anti-bullying stance and you are supposed to feel for Will and his friends here. He's a child that's gone missing and the people in the town don't seem to care much or act surprised by it.

There are a few exceptions to this - Joyce mentions to Hopper that Lonnie called Will gay slurs because she is also worried he got killed because he's gay. Hopper takes this seriously during a time when absolutely no one would have criticized him for ignoring this situation. Plenty of people were ignoring gay people dying during this time. No one would have batted an eye at a cop acting like this didn't matter. But Hopper pays attention and puts together a search team. So there are a few people in town who do care - Scott Clarke being one of them. And obviously the rest of our main cast doesn't care what people say about Will because they help to look for him all season. The good guys aren't homophobic. The good guys care about Will. And this includes all of our main characters - the people the audience are supposed to root for go against homophobia and bullying.

(Edit: I forgot to include a conversation between Joyce and Lonnie. When Will's fake body is found Lonnie wants Joyce to see a pastor and Joyce says no. Lonnie is trying to convince her she is crazy. He's the bad guy, and the first thing he wants to do to "fix" the situation is to get Joyce to talk to a pastor. It's another negative association with religion. Joyce is right here. She isn't crazy. And Lonnie isn't being comforting when he says this. He's being controlling and dismissing her feelings. It's clear from what we see of Lonnie that he's an asshole. He abused Will and Jonathan (and likely Joyce as well), he tried to turn Jonathan against his mother when Will went missing, he exploited an opportunity for money. He's not a person we are supposed to be rooting for.)

S2 - This season has a more direct reference to Christianity and it's the Reagan signs on some of the front lawns in Hawkins. This isn't surprising considering again, it's a middle class suburb. Reagan was a popular president at the time and got elected by popular vote twice despite his mishandling of the AIDS crisis and a number of other issues. His name is synonymous with the Christian right. During his time in office, the pro-life movement started to take hold, and he cut back on welfare reform and disability rights to name a few of the problematic things he did. Basically, anyone who wasn't an able-bodied, straight, white, middle class Christian male was struggling and yet he won twice. These days, his name is often compared to Trumps - they openly hated the same groups of people.

This sets the stage in a subtle way for what's going on with the main characters. Because our characters are all outcasts - gay, black, disabled, poor, etc - they are struggling to fit in to mainstream society (which makes it so ironic this show is mainstream). Even Hopper who is your typical straight, white, leading man struggles to fit in - his daughter died and he is coping with depression and substance abuse issues. Things no one discussed openly at the time and were viewed as shameful.

So we have the Reagan sign on the Wheelers front lawn. This tells me that at least Ted is a Reagan supporter which makes sense given this is an upper middle class white family. I am skeptical of Karen (or anyone else in this family) being conservative but I will get to that in S3. Dustins house has a Mondale sign so they are democrats which makes sense - Dustin has a disability and his mother is a single parent. Reagans policies would have hurt them. We don't see the politics of the other boys families but I think it's a safe bet to assume they are democrats. Will's family is poor and his mother is also a single mother. Not to mention that there are hints both Joyce and Jonathan suspect he is gay and they love Will so much, there is no way they would have ever voted for someone like Reagan. And even though the Sinclair's are also an upper middle class family they are black and while no group of people votes in the exact same way, Reagans policies were incredibly racist. Lucas mentions struggles to fit into Hawkins because he's black in the book Lucas on the Line. His family wouldn't have fit into this town even though they are financially well off. It's a mostly white town and that would have absolutely resulted in them being on the receiving end of racism on a regular basis. So even though their family technically conforms, people would not have accepted them.

So we know that our main characters don't fit in and we know Reagan represents all things Christianity and conformity. One of the main themes of the show is "forced conformity is killing the kids" a line directly stated by Eddie in S3 so more on this in a bit.

Something else happens this season that isn't a direct reference to religion but an adjacent theme and it's the conversation Nancy and Jonathan have with Murray. They are trying to figure out how to take down Hawkins lab and get people to believe them. Nancy doesn't understand at first why presenting the evidence they have won't work. And Murray says - people don't want to see whats behind the curtain. It's comforting. They like the curtain. - So they water down the story so the town will understand it in a way that they won't resist. This, I believe, is essentially what the writers are doing with this show. They are watering down that this has been a show that is anti-conformity from the beginning and there are signs of it in S1. But they know if they come right out and say that a main storyline is a queer coming-of-age story, a lot of their mainstream audience isn't going to watch. So up until now anyway, they have been subtle about it. But the audience is starting to notice something is off, especially with Mike in S4 because things aren't adding up.

S3 - It is now the summer of '85 and while there aren't direct references to Christianity, we still get some hints of conservatism. The only reference to religion is a passing comment that Dustin's new girlfriend Suzie is a Mormon. There is also a passing comment made by Max in S2 that there were Mormons at the door when Billy questions her. It was Lucas and she is trying to hide him from her racist brother, so she lies and says she was talking to Mormons. These comments are pretty neutral even though Dustin mentions Suzie's father wouldn't approve of him because he isn't Mormon himself. At the time we are seeing this moment, it's hard to tell if Dustin is telling the truth (everyone thinks he's making up his girlfriend this season.) But we see more of this in S4.

And then there is the comment by Karen Wheeler about Margaret Thatcher. She's on the phone with someone and says "I don't know Cath, maybe if I was Margaret Thatcher that'd be an another story." (this is in episode 5 by the way). A lot of people take this comment to mean Karen is conservative but I feel like it's so vague. We have absolutely no idea what the context of this conversation is or even who she is talking to (presumably one of the mothers from the pool). It's unclear if she was saying something positive or negative. We don't know what she is talking about, all we hear is her say Thatcher's name. So I feel like it's a leap to assume it was a conservative statement she was making.

I have a hard time believing that Karen is conservative (or at least not ultra conservative like a lot of Reagan supporters) for a few reasons. One of which is the contempt she has for Ted. She is frequently rolling her eyes at him or annoyed in some way and we know in canon he is the guy who represents conformity. However, Karen doesn't. This season especially she is shown to not be happy with her life. She is supposed to be a conservative housewife, but she almost has an affair and makes a few interesting comments. One of which was during her conversation with Nancy about her job. Nancy is discussing her misogynistic bosses and Karen gives her helpful and supportive advice about not fitting in. It seems personal, and from what we know about her, this sticks out. Because she seems like she is a typical housewife. I always felt like there was more to her backstory, but she seems to relate personally to Nancy's story of being an outcast at her job.

There is also her relationship with Mike. In S1, we see her trying to connect with him emotionally and get him to talk about his feelings about Will going missing. Karen is clearly someone who her kids can talk to, even if they resist sometimes. And her kids don't exactly fit in or represent conformity. She has been shown to be worried about her their safety repeatedly, Mike in particular, and we never see her trying to force them to conform in any way. And this is a thing that someone in her position would have absolutely been teaching her kids - conservative, Christian values. But we don't see anything like this or any hint of this. So I don't buy the 'she's conservative' theory. I don't think we've seen enough evidence of that. And while the Wheelers are probably a family that goes to church on Sundays, I don't get the impression this is a major influence in their lives. There is no religious paraphernalia around the house and this would have been a very common thing for a family that was pro-Reagan to do. I feel like they are passively conservative. It's the popular, normal choice and Karen and Ted are the epitome of doing things because they think they are supposed to. But this hardly makes them die hard believers.

S4 - This is where religion becomes more direct. Eddie is reading a Newsweek article about the dangers of D&D. During this time Satanic Panic was spreading. People feared for the moral values of the US during a time of extreme conservatism. Eddie clearly thinks this article is a joke. He's mocking anyone who conforms and it's clear Dustin and Mike agree. They are outcasts and they know D&D isn't dangerous. Eddie makes them feel like being different is ok.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have Jason. He's your typical straight, white, christian male and fits in perfectly. He's the star of the basketball team and has the perfect cheerleader girlfriend (at least on the surface). He's the opposite of Eddie. And he is the villain in this story. THE GUY WHO CONFORMS PERFECTLY IS THE VILLAIN. He gets progressively more insane as the season progresses. He's charismatic and he quotes the Bible to rile the town up to hunt Eddie and Hellfire club down. They are all in a panic about the murders that are happening and the cops aren't doing a great job containing things (they also don't have all the information to be fair). But by the end of the season, Jason is completely unhinged and holds Lucas up at gunpoint. He's also part of the reason why Max ended up dying. It's Satanic Panic that drives this attitude forward. People are panicking over the loss of morals and blaming that for the reason why bad things are happening. Which I think will make for an interesting lead-in next season with regard to a more openly gay storyline.

On top of this display of religious fundamentalism, we see Suzie and her family. They are Mormons and we know her father is strict with regard to religion. However the family we see is chaotic. Suzie's sister Eden mocks Suzie for basically being a goody two shoes. Eden also has no hesitation about getting high and clearly is not abiding by Mormon values. Suzie doesn't always either. If there is a cause she believes in - like helping Dustin - she only has a little bit of guilt about going against her father and her religion. Her father is pretty much a joke. He's a fumbling idiot the kids need to outsmart in order to get the information they need. It's not exactly a positive representation of religion. Suzie shows that even though her religion is important to her, she is capable of thinking for herself. She hacks Dustins school computer and a government computer (although she doesn't know all the info about what she is doing here) with little hesitation. Her religious morals aren't exactly stopping her from doing something illegal or unethical. She's a hacker above all else.

At the end of the season we see Ted - the dude who represents all things common - reacting negatively to the news about what's going on in Hawkins. The guy who represents conformity is questioning the "propaganda" the news is coming out with to describe the situation in Hawkins. He is questioning the status quo. This is meant to show how even Ted is noticing something isn't adding up about the "normal" explanation of things. Something, at this point, that the audience should be questioning especially with regard to Mike. Because if even Ted can see something is going on here, then surely the audience can too.

The series has gotten progressively more direct about its anti-conformity theme which is why it makes no sense for them to suddenly forget this in S5. This show has always been about and for outcasts. The Wheeler family is a cautionary tale that Nancy said in season 1 was so depressing. She wants the opposite of this, which is why her and Steve and their 6 kids is never going to work (there are a lot of reasons why this is never going to work). And it's also why Mike and El aren't going to be endgame. Those relationships are there to represent conformity and none of the characters in those relationships are happy. They are the expected, normal relationships. If they wanted the audience to like these relationships they would have been written more positively.

So it's funny to me when people say the show is never going to go against the status quo because they have literally been doing this from the start. It's what the entire show is about. All of the characters are outcasts. All of them. So if people are claiming to like and support them, then they need to get behind the anti-conformity theme. And if they can't do that - this show is simply not for those people and it never was.

#byler #anti mileven #mike wheeler #gay mike wheeler #will byers #stranger things #jancy #anti stancy

163 notes · View notes