#Socioeconomic progress since independence

[talkstreetblog]

Celebrating Indian Independence: Stories, Achievements, and Reflections

celebrating-indian-independence-stories_-achievements_-and-reflections On the 15th of August each year, the nation of India comes alive with a spirited celebration that marks its hard-earned freedom from colonial rule. Indian Independence Day is a day of immense pride, unity, and remembrance of the sacrifices made by countless individuals in the pursuit of liberty. This blog delves into the…

[hamaripahchanngokanika]

"Empowering Women in India: Challenges, Initiatives, and Solutions" - by Kanika

"Empowering Women in India: Challenges, Initiatives, and Solutions" - by Kanika

**India and the World**

The world is divided between developed and developing countries, and India, as a developing country, has a history of colonialism until gaining independence in 1947. Since then, there has been significant progress in gender trends, but it's not comparable to the advancements made in human rights, gender issues, liberty, and equality by developed nations. They are far ahead of India in these areas, and to achieve similar levels of progress, India needs to work diligently on these issues. In developed nations, women are relatively empowered due to their access to basic rights, whereas in India, women do not have the same access to these fundamental rights. "Women in India suffer significantly." This sentiment is echoed in the words of Baba Saheb Ambedkar, who said, "I measure the progress of a community by the degree of progress which women have achieved, and the condition of women in India is dire."

**The Challenges Faced by Women in India**

1. **Female Foeticide and Gender Bias:** In India, the preference for male offspring persists from rural to urban areas and across all socioeconomic levels. Female foeticide is alarmingly common, stemming from the societal belief that a male child is more valuable. This cultural bias leads to the termination of female foetuses or the tragic killing of female infants soon after birth. Economic burdens, particularly related to education and marriage, fuel this mindset, as marrying outside one's caste is often perceived as a threat to family status.

2. **Societal Expectations and Sacrifices:** Indian society conditions women from a young age to be sacrificial and tolerant. Girls often sacrifice their education for household chores and caring for siblings. Even in educated households, the burden of domestic responsibilities is placed upon girls. This ingrained notion mandates that girls manage household chores before attending school, perpetuating the idea that these responsibilities primarily belong to females.

3. **Nutritional Challenges:** A significant portion of women in India lacks access to proper nutrition. The UN Women's recent report highlights that over 70% of women in India suffer from undernourishment, leading to health complications. Malnutrition affects their ability to study, engage in activities, and, in severe cases, results in early mortality. Poverty-stricken families, especially those discouraging female education, exacerbate this cycle of deprivation, leading to a lack of education, unemployment, inadequate nutrition, and ultimately, a lack of support for future generations of women.

4. **Limited Education Access:** When deprived of education, women lack awareness of their rights and suffer in arranged marriages, often regardless of the groom's age or suitability.

5. **Restricted Professional Lives:** Early marriages hinder women from pursuing professional careers. Their societal obligation to bear children significantly limits their professional growth and personal aspirations.

6. **Victims of Violence:** Women often endure physical and mental abuse from husbands and in-laws, adding to their already challenging lives.

7. **Menstrual Hygiene Concerns:** Menstrual hygiene remains a significantly under-discussed issue. Poor women, lacking access to sanitary pads, resort to unhygienic alternatives like cloth, risking infections. This lack of proper hygiene hampers their education and participation in society.

**Empowerment of Women**

1. **Education as Empowerment:** Education serves as a fundamental right rather than a privilege. It empowers women, altering societal mindsets and providing them with opportunities.

2. **Encouraging Love Marriages:** Encouraging love marriages over arranged unions grants women autonomy and a voice in their marital future, reducing the perception of being treated as property after marriage.

3. **Involvement in Extracurricular Activities:** Encouraging girls' participation in extracurricular and sports activities promotes physical fitness and broader skill development.

**Government Initiatives for Empowerment**

1. **Women's Reservation Bill:** The introduction of a 33% reservation for women in legislative bodies ensures women's voices in policy-making, addressing women-centric issues effectively.

2. **Free Services:** Free bus services, like those provided by the Delhi government, ensure greater female presence in public spaces, enhancing safety.

3. **Free Education and Nutritional Support:** Free education and mid-day meals fulfill educational and nutritional needs, particularly for underprivileged girls.

4. **Self-Defense Training:** Implementing self-defense training in educational institutions and across various platforms prepares women to handle diverse circumstances confidently.

5. **Ujjwala Yojana:** Providing LPG cylinders to households, primarily benefiting women who face health issues while cooking on traditional stoves.

6. **Access to Menstrual Hygiene Products:** Mandating the provision of free sanitary pads to all women, regardless of economic status, can greatly impact their health and participation in various activities.

7. **Job and Educational Reservations:** Instituting reservations for women in jobs and educational institutions could significantly contribute to their empowerment.

NGOs like "Hamari Pahchan" actively work to empower women through initiatives such as providing sanitary pads, education, legal aid, and imparting entrepreneurial skills, aiming for women's financial independence. This organization was founded post the Nirbhaya incident, dedicated to making public spaces safer for women.

[adabsizzerie]

Naziha Al-Dulaimi saw that women of all classes were oppressed by marriage, an institution that treated them like possessions, and that peasant women as a class bore a double burden, since they were victims of male and tribal domination as well as class oppression.

In addition, she linked the problems facing Iraqi women to Iraq’s lack of genuine independence under the monarchy. She believed that women’s liberation would follow the liberation of Iraq from the yoke of colonialism and that women’s subordination would come to an end once the socioeconomic order associated with imperialism was overthrown.

Al-Dulaimi opposed “gradual modernization,” which was advocated by women activists associated with the ruling elites in Iraq, and called for a radical change that would do away with the whole political system in Iraq and put the country on the path toward modernity, including political independence, social justice, women’s liberation, and technological progress.

Saleh, Zainab. Return to Ruin (p. 68). Stanford University Press. 

[pluralsword]

Even if that is the case it is still really, really stupid even from their own point of view to do this because at this point the opposition wants the centrists dead too. there's been a shift in american politics that has been in swing since the Southern Strategy and Barry Goldwater's coup of the old Republican party. Forty years ago, the idea of a Republican ex-President staging an insurrection among many other things and not dropping out after when exposed would have been considered preposterous what with Nixon having resigned after the Watergate scandal only a decade before. Fast forward to 2004 where the uncertainty of what to do with capitalism as it stumbled through making a mess in the 90s is replaced with all the awfulness of the Middle Eastern conflicts and the Patriot Act underway and you have a much higher uptick in irreverent nationalism among the Republican Party. There's significant concern about the Florida recount in Gore vs. Bush. The neoliberalism of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and the corporations behind them yars before has changed both parties for the worse, realigning a lot of political goals around the rot economy, and having long created a strong opposition towards the USA (and many other countries) becoming a social democracy (and in the case of many other countries as well, the atomization of their public institutions and community practices) as it was on course to be back in the 70s. Things are very bad. Moderate Republicans are starting to become frustrated with partisan gridlock.

The Great Recession forces some sort of reckoning between the Democrats and Republicans to have some sort of socioeconomic response, but it is not as broadly radical as the New Deal, thanks to neoliberalism/neoconservatism. American exceptionalism continues. The country is on it's way to recovery economically, and it turns out there's a small segment of the country who unsurprisingly cannot handle having a black man in office for President and they spout all sorts of conspiracy theories about him and his policies - and it is during his second term that most moderate Republicans in Congress who haven't switched to the Democrats do so, because they're so fed up with their party careening further to the far right.

I don't think we can give the DNC credit for trying to hold the country hostage with fascism that would kill them too. That's too many dimensions of chess (and certainly not go). The centrists still think the 'old rules' are in play when it comes to political losses. Even some people who vote for the neofascist candidate don't actually believe that he will obviously attempt to destroy democracy during his second term. If the DNC truly believed they were at risk, they would have had far more to say about the attacks on the democratic process much sooner than all the weird angles they chose far after worse things happened. We're not sure the centrists in it have really accepted reality. They're too insulated by their wealth and power for all the good it does them with how they use it.

There are veteran political operators for the Democrats who helped them win Presidencies such as e.g. for Bill Clinton in the past who are in shock at the Presidential debate the other week. Some think Biden should drop out.

What is going on with the ex-President since 2015 onwards is not how politics used to work. Even President Bush Jr., who as mentioned above, won on terms that are deeply contested because of how the recount was mishandled, did not have the same bombastic attitude that Trump does. Not even Teddy Roosevelt, the progressive conservative imperialist who was very much at the furthest extreme of the national level of the Republican Party over 100 years ago and tried and lost a third term bid as an independent, known for his bombastic demeanor and speeches including that infamous one about the American empire (in support of it) to the Navy, was not such a flagrantly sexually harassive misogynist and so openly corrupt as to leave boxes of classified documents everywhere.

What comes to mind is the racist Horton ad during the 1988 election by George H.W. Bush vs Michael Dukakis. The ex-Pres constantly spits out the level of awfulness that ad involved. Even H. W. Bush would have been a bit embarrassed for his own racism to go on and on like that openly instead of unsaid or only quietly said, simply done and carried out.

Honestly, this last eight years have felt like the re-emergence of the volatile era of early American politics in the first years after the Constitution when Congressional representatives would get into brawls in Congress. And we pity the fact that the DNC centrists can't grip that this is where we are.

Post that will get me labelled a psyop but honestly the moment that a party realizes that "you might not like us but you have no choice but to vote for us because otherwise the fascists win" is an effective way to rake in votes it practically ensures that they'll never take any actual meaningful action against the fascism problem. They gotta keep the fascists around bro they're their electoral strategy.

[truescholar9]

A Comprehensive Overview of How to Understand the Power of Digital Credential Solutions

The power of digital credential solutions is revolutionizing traditional methods of credentialing in the current digital era. These solutions give people a secure and verifiable means to display their abilities, expertise, and accomplishments, frequently in the form of digital badges or certificates. Let's investigate the thorough review of digital credential solutions and their potential for transformation.

Alternatives to traditional paper-based credentials include digital credential systems, which have many advantages. They first offer a transportable and easy means to display a person's credentials. Digital credentials can be conveniently maintained and shared on a variety of digital platforms, such social media profiles, business networking websites, or e-portfolios, in place of carrying around actual certificates or transcripts. Regardless of distance restrictions, this portability enables people to exhibit their credentials to employers, educational institutions, or clients with ease.

The verifiability of digital credentials is another important benefit. Blockchain technology or other cryptographic techniques are used by digital credential systems to guarantee the authenticity and integrity of the credentials. There is no need for manual verification procedures because each digital credential is individually connected to its issuer and can be independently validated by anyone. Employers, educational institutions, and certifying authorities can rely on digital credentials as a credible tool because of the verifiability that boosts trust and lowers the possibility of false claims.

Digital credential systems enable people to organize their educational experiences and achievements over their lifetimes. These options provide a thorough breakdown of a person's accomplishments, including formal schooling, professional certifications, workshops, and other skill-development activities. Individuals can provide a well-rounded profile that displays their ongoing learning and adaptability, boosting their chances of employment and career advancement, by exhibiting a comprehensive view of their abilities and accomplishments.

Digital credential solutions also make it easier to customise and target learning. The certifying bodies or educators provide individuals with insightful feedback as they gain digital certificates. This input can help people pinpoint their areas for development, establish learning objectives, and pursue additional educational possibilities. The ability to monitor and prove progress through digital credentials motivates people to pursue continuous professional development and lifetime learning, as well as to adopt a growth mindset.

Digital credential systems have more than just personal advantages. They also aid in creating a learning ecosystem that is more open and accessible. By removing financial, geographical, and temporal restrictions, digital credentials democratize education. They make it possible for people with various backgrounds, living in different places, or having different socioeconomic situations to be recognized for their abilities and achievements. This openness encourages social mobility and fair opportunity, as well as a more skilled and diversified labor force.

In conclusion, digital credential solutions are revolutionizing how people present their accomplishments and credentials. Digital credentials give people the power to take charge of their learning process and job growth since they are portable, verifiable, and enable customised learning experiences. Additionally, they support a learning ecology that is more accessible and inclusive. Their thorough analysis will only increase as digital credential solutions expand and become more widely accepted, furthering their ability to alter the fields of education, employment, and professional development.

[vvanite]

Art Deco and TAZ Graduation

- Episode 30 "Take your Firbolg to Work Day

I know Travis probably made his choice to have the H.O.G. headquarters be designed with Art Deco for aesthetic purposes and didn't think of its function to the world of Nua BUT his choice is a really great accidental component that adds onto the world building in Nua and to one of the core problems that Graduation addresses involving the systemic nature of Nua. In this essay, I-

(And then I proceed to actually write the essay hidden below. FAIR WARNING: This is extremely long. If you want to learn about Modern Art History and how it ties into Graduation, this is your lucky day.)

This analysis/essay is going to be meta in terms of using evidence from real world events but it is needed to explain the history behind Art Deco and help us relate to the themes of Graduation. I think it’s clear to see how the systems and people in power in Graduation are influenced from the way our governments are now so I don’t think these connections are distant, rather closer together than we think.

Also, before we continue, I want to direct you to this lovely post made by a dear user and friend, Michelle/ fitzroythecreator, LINK HERE

She explains what she believes to be a core theme of graduation that I agree with and have integrated into this essay. Check it out <3

Before I can explain how Art Deco is tied into Graduation's core theme, I need to lay out definitions and context to art movements in the early 20th century. Along the way, I will make connections to the world of Nua and how real-life events in the early 20th century actually can relate to Graduation and its worldbuilding.

Let’s address what is Art Deco. Art Deco started as an art and architecture movement during the early 20th century (1900s). Most people are familiar with its aesthetics of geometric designs and influence of industrialization because of the roaring 20s era and many media influenced by it. Do you wonder why it was popularized in the US? It’s because during the great depression in the US, public buildings, more importantly federal government buildings, were commissioned to have this aesthetic thus it would have more publicity and access to the public. The H.O.G. headquarters could easily be compared to this event because it shares similar attributes of being a public government building.

With this information, it would be really interesting to imagine the timing of Graduation being set around the early 20th century. Art Deco gives us a time period to compare what kind of social events Nua could have faced similar to the real world. The modern period of the 1850s-1950s was a time when people were disinterested and scared of the changes that industrialism made in their daily lives. People were frustrated with the changes made in their lives and sought out ways to cope with the changes through escapism. In Graduation, I would argue that we see this skepticism and wariness in the characters about the changes Nua’s Socioeconomic systems made in their lives and society in general. A good example would be the student NPCs and their insistence that their hero and villain titles are just labels since they have been stripped from their original meanings. They still somewhat criticize the structure while upholding it. As the campaign progresses, we meet various characters who are very critical to Nua’s current orderly system such as Order and Gordie. In fact, despite their roles in society being vastly different, they both share the same opinions that the system is unjust as it hurts people thus there needs to be a push for change. I am not trying to label the time of Graduation to be around the 1900s, rather whatever year Graduation happens is in parallel to the events of the 1900s.

When I first heard Travis say, Art Deco, I was interested but disappointed it wasn’t Art Nouveau. My original thinking was because of Art Nouveau’s elitism of making the architecture more artistic and complex that only educated rich people can understand and less functional for the average citizen. A lot of the art displays during the art movement were held in house museums that were limited to rich eyes. I thought this reasoning made sense in terms of the H.O.G. headquarters being this elite building common people can’t comprehend. However, with continuous thought, it clicked. Art Deco fits so well.

Art Deco was meant to be a direct response to Art Nouveau and the Arts and Crafts movement. (And many more but for the sake of simplicity, sticking to these two major ones) Both movements share similarities of the desire to make total works of art.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For art Nouveau in architecture, that is more on its aesthetics of stylized curving forms, thus it creates uniqueness with the architecture. For the Arts and Crafts movement in Europe, they focused on the importance of the craftsmanship and quality. The thing about the movement is that it’s heavily influenced by socialist values and the distaste for industrialism. Both art movements were diverse in style and locations globally. Because both took place internationally, there was no determined manifesto or structures for artists to adhere to. Another thing is both movements had lots of ornamentation which takes great skill and time to put into the works. By doing this, it would make the works more unique aspects to its character, however more time consuming and difficult to replicate.

Art Deco takes response to this because critics felt like these movements were outdated for the growing industrialism happening during the early 20th century. Art Deco focuses on sleek geometric design meant to be reproduced easily thanks to industries and have more emphasis on its function rather than aesthetics. It’s meant to be functional to accommodate for the new technologies of the 20th century.

So, let’s recap, in the late 19th century, two movements, focused on the style which had no concrete structures to adhere to and had the goal to make total works of art that is reliant on itself, are then replaced by Art Deco, a movement focused on its aesthetic to be mass produced easily and have a stronger focus on the form of the architecture to serve its functions. Does Art Deco sound similar to a number of Socioeconomic systems placed in Nua?

One of the key ideals of Art Deco is Functionalism. Art Deco is one of the many architectural movements in the early 20th century that decided to focus on function rather than aesthetics. What is functionalism? It is the idea that everything works as an integrated whole and that all the different components of a larger system are designed to work together. It is orderly. Architecture in the early 20th century was designed to suit the needs of the space. For example, each element of an office buildings would be designed and organized to suit that place. This ideal is more emphasized after the Great Depression in America where architects shifted their focus on the Streamline Moderne, where they aimed to make structures practical to the demands of real life and remove the emotional aspects of expressionist art.

Travis’s little choice to pick Art Deco is tied to a core theme of Graduation of dismantling the standards and structures set in Nua. It’s so brilliant yet unintentional. I know Travis hasn’t read up on modern art history. I hope by reading through, you can spot Art Deco’s need for creating limitation to focus on the functions and how it benefits the whole system. It doesn’t allow for the emotional aspects that Art Nouveau and the Art and Crafts movements held. Nua’s system follow the same thing. Everyone has a function in the socioeconomic system that has limitations meant to exploit the work labor and functions of the individual. The system leaves no room for indivduals to have growth to create real change. That’s not a flaw of the system. The system is literally designed to be that way with its many rules and standards. It's impossible to break away from it without being punished by the system itself. You need to function within its rules and have practical skills to contribute to the system. Your independent nature is stripped away. By having Art Deco be a core aesthetic design for the H.O.G. Headquarters, Art Deco ITSELF is just another element in the architecture meant to serve its function of upholding the ideology of order that H.O.G. and the world of Nua has. This orderly system has replaced the wild world that Higglemas in episode 12 remembers.

“I remember... the world when it was wild. Not sophisticated and ordered and... bureaucratic, like it is now.”

[tanzmitmirsblog]

MAGICAL LECTURE

   How can a lecture include knowledge that is both entertaining or entertaining and attractive, as well as educational? Linguistics is a course that covers all of these characteristics, and we all know why. We comprehend how our language is formed, how strong speech may be generated with sentences built by words, and I am sure we are all curious about where these words or sentences originate from, how they are formed, and how they impact the meaning. When it comes to the structural and semantic components of this course, as well as its usefulness to the student, we can claim that it contributes a lot.

    First of all, it aims to explain to the student what linguistics and its sub-branches are. Then it continues with the same morphology with the formation and examination of the words at the bottom of the elements that make up the sentence. Afterwards, it examines the structure of compound words in English while dealing with where words come from in English. After the study of word formation, there are studies on the pronunciation of the word and it deals with the phonetic alphabet. It attempts to show you the vowels and consonants in the English alphabet, and also makes comparisons between letters in English and other languages. The phonology in English is as significant as the word order in this lesson because if we know the phonetics of the letters, we will pronounce the word properly. After the phonology, it examines the syllable structure and syllable types of these words and then investigates the pronunciation and structure of compound words in English. We can exemplify to the compound words such as toothbrush, headache, sailboat, sunflower, backbone, greenhouse, jellyfish, lighthouse, wholesale, and scapegoat.

     The journey that starts with the word expands with the sentence, thus, the sentence structure is examined along with the syntax. Looking into word order in English, this course also compares diversity among other languages. Eventually, a study is made on the basic elements of clauses and phrases in English. All of the previous researches are concerned with the structure of sentences and the words that comprise them. When we analyse at this lesson from a semantic perspective, we can see how it deals with language rather than sentences, words, or phonetics. Linguistics which deals with the various variations of the language examines the factors that change the variety in the language. These factors can be ethnic, social, regional, or socioeconomic. It focuses on languages that have multiple language features such as creole and pidgin, which are formed from the different uses of a language and the interaction of formations between other languages. While researching the history of language, it also investigates its existence in the world. As we know, some languages are in danger of extinction and some have already been removed to the dusty shelves of history and are no longer used today. It looks at closely why languages disappear and tell the measures to be taken to prevent them from disappearing.  

         In linguistics, the subject of meaning is divided into semantics (semantics) and pragmatics (pragmatics). Some definitions of semantics exclude context, claiming that it is exclusively concerned with the meaning of the phrase, word groups, and words independent of context. Language users, use situations, and objectives are not considered in these definitions. The link between the thing and its symbolic design is emphasized, as is the abstract development of meaning in the mind. Pragmatics, on the other hand, is viewed as meaning in context or usage, stressing that it is concerned with the meaning of language employed in a context. Syntax is concerned with the order relationship between signs; semantics is concerned with the connection between the sign and its meaning; and pragmatics is concerned with the connection between the sign and the one who sees and understands it. With this reasoning, it is evident that syntax deals with the order, order, and order of language symbols, semantics deals with the meanings of language symbols, and pragmatics deals with the connection of language symbols with users. While this viewpoint constantly correlates pragmatics with context and meaning in usage, it defines semantics by omitting context. The notions of semantics and pragmatics will be recast as context-centred in this study. Because semantics and pragmatics are both concerned with meaning, it may be a logical difficulty to use the term semantics, which may be the generic word for the semantic area, and the other with pragmatics.

       While being concerned with language in terms of semantics, it first examines the formation of meaning in the language in detail at the level of words and sentences, then deals with the elements that make expressions in languages meaningful and correct. Semantics is concerned with the transformation/transformation of things and activities into linguistic symbols as an abstract projection of natural regularities roughly reflecting/reflecting on brain syntax. Attempting to build a theory of meaning only from projections while neglecting the specific environment that generates such projections might be seen as a very problematic point of view. Context is the most basic requirement for communication to occur. The simplest setting has the fewest persons involved. Both sides have a rudimentary understanding of the factors in this situation. There may be personal factors in some cases. Semantic communication refers to the passing and rooting of information between at least two persons. In truth, a human possesses language and communication abilities. It implies he understands root context and post context information, linguistic and communicative symbols, symbol systems, and variables that are appropriate for them. Each language's indexes, semantics, and semantics are unique. These distinctions are much more pronounced among languages belonging to different language families. Languages can become too far apart due to historical, cultural, sociological, and geographical differences. Because not all meanings of a foreign language can be learnt, thresholds of knowledge and meaning skills can be established for semantic and progressive communication. The broad framework of in-class activities may be formed by commonly used root meanings and incremental meanings in daily life, as well as their root context and Artcontext narrative. While semantics and pragmatics are the two basic domains in which meaning is dealt with, context and user are often included in the latter. The first part contains an abstracted image of the user. Instead of semantics and pragmatics, semantics is used. Semantic and incremental lexemes appear to be more acceptable as sub-units of the main term. It may be more accurate to examine both semantics and pragmatics in context rather than only associating the use dimension to pragmatics. Concurrently, context may be handled from two angles: root context and post context. Contextual information may be introduced into foreign language training, giving communication a more unique and natural shape.

    In general, it does not stop counting the benefits for a student, especially for a language learner, because linguistics, which examines how a language is formed, how words are formed, and in which structures and what meanings the sentences give, clearly emphasizes everything that the student needs to learn briefly. Some researchers think that this course will force the student by highlighting the confusing aspects, but the more confusing the better, because to understand a language, it is necessary to analyse it, just like in mathematics, we encounter concepts, symbols, and even formulas, just as numbers dance and confuse in mathematics, linguistics words. If we understand the word, we understand the sentence, we understand the whole piece, and when we solve the whole piece, we can master that language. The student learns how to deal with a language since linguistics provides a lot of possibilities for this. For instance, they can understand how a word is formed and how it is pronounced. The student gains how the language is affected semantically and how the language is formed or whether it is in danger of extinction, they comprehend the relationship between language and actions; moreover, they attain the structure of the word and sentence structure, and studies the alphabet and phonetics of the language they would like to dominate. As a student, I got a lot out of this course because knowing a language so comprehensively was very useful for me, especially the pronunciation of words and seeing how some compound words were formed were effective in my speaking and I can say that I enjoyed doing comparative research with some languages. Studying sentence structure has helped me understand the whole piece, and now I can segment and understand sentences in my mind while reading some articles. Taking this fun and informative class made me feel lucky.

-Tanzmitmisblog

[go-redgirl]

Fact Checking Biden’s First Press Conference D'Angelo Gore  17 hrs ago

Neil Gorsuch Couldn’t Stop Complaining About the Rest of the Justices Today

 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: How ‘The Bachelor’ Went Off the Rails Dealing With Racism In his first press conference since being inaugurated 64 days ago, President Joe Biden got some facts wrong Biden claimed that former President Donald Trump “eliminated” over $700 million in aid that Biden helped get for Central American countries. 

That didn’t happen, but the Trump administration did reallocate some money and temporarily suspended other funding.

The president used the wrong statistics when saying that “nothing has changed” regarding “children” trying to enter the U.S. at the southern border. There was a significant 63% uptick in unaccompanied children being apprehended from January to February.

Biden said, “We’re sending back the vast majority of the families that are coming.” But in February, 41% of those in a family unit apprehended at the southern border were expelled.

The president said “over 50%” of Republican voters supported the American Rescue Plan Act. Some polls show that but others show a majority opposed the COVID-19 relief legislation.

He repeated two familiar talking points on taxes, including the misleading claim that “83%” of the benefits in the GOP’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are “going to the top 1%.” That only becomes the case in 2027 when most of the individual income tax cuts are set to expire but corporate tax cuts remain.

Biden got it wrong when he said there were five times as many cloture motions “last year alone” than there were “between 1917 and 1971.” There were twice as many motions filed last year than there were from 1917 through 1970.Biden took questions from reporters on March 25.Aid to Central America Biden falsely claimed that his predecessor “eliminated” and “didn’t use” more than $700 million in funding to address migration from Central American countries that Biden helped secure when he was vice president.

“They’re coming because of the circumstances in country, in country,” Biden said of the thousands of people who are illegally entering the U.S. through Mexico. “The way to deal with this problem, and I started to deal with it back when I was … vice president, putting together a bipartisan plan of over $700 million to do the root causes of why people are leaving. What did Trump do? He eliminated that funding. 

He didn’t use it. He didn’t do it. 

”Biden appeared to be referring to funding for the “U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America,” which was as high as $750 million during the Obama administration in fiscal year 2016. It’s true that the annual budget for that initiative declined significantly during Trump’s presidency, but it wasn’t completely “eliminated” or unspent, as Biden said. According to the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress, appropriations for the program declined to $685 million in FY 2017, $615 million in FY 2018, $528 million in FY 2019, $533 million in FY 2020 and $506 million in FY 2021.

Biden may have been referencing money that Congress authorized for use in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador that the Trump administration either reallocated to other initiatives or temporarily suspended in 2019.As a January CRS report said: “From FY2016 to FY2020, Congress appropriated more than $3.1 billion to improve security, governance, and socioeconomic conditions in Central America as part of a whole-of-government initiative to address the drivers of irregular migration.

 However, in March 2019 — less than two years into the initiative’s on-the-ground implementation — the Trump Administration suspended most foreign aid to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The Administration proceeded to reprogram approximately $396 million of aid appropriated for the Northern Triangle countries in FY2018, reallocating the funds to other foreign policy priorities within, and outside of, the Latin American and Caribbean region.

”The report indicated that the Trump administration “withheld most of the assistance Congress appropriated for Central America in FY2019 while it negotiated a series of agreements intended to stem the flow of migrants and asylum-seekers from the Northern Triangle to the United States.” As a result, the report said, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development were forced to close down or cancel some projects and planned activities.

But CRS also said that — amid criticism from members of Congress who argued the funding freeze was counterproductive — aid to the Northern Triangle countries that was previously held back began to be released late in 2019, and “all of the previously suspended assistance for the region” had been “programmed” by June 2020.Immigration: Unaccompanied Children

Biden used the wrong statistics when saying that “nothing has changed” regarding “children” trying to enter the U.S. at the southern border. To be sure, there have been spikes before in unaccompanied children arriving at the border, but the uptick in Biden’s first full month in office was significant.

Biden: Truth of the matter is nothing has changed. As many people came, 28% increase in children to the border in my administration. 31% in the last year of – in 2019, before the pandemic, in the Trump administration. It happens every single solitary year. There is a significant increase in the number of people coming to the border in the winter months of January, February, March.

Biden’s figures don’t pertain to an “increase in children to the border,” as he said. Instead, they pertain to the total number of apprehensions at the border — including single adults and family units. Those figures were cited in a Washington Post opinion piece by immigration experts who, similar to the president, said the rise in total apprehensions reflected “a pattern of seasonal changes,” in which immigrant apprehensions increase in the cooler months of the year.

We get slightly different figures using Customs and Border Protection data. There was a 29% increase in total apprehensions from January to February, when the level reached 96,974. In 2019, the January-to-February bump was 39%. As we’ve written, the recent increase in border apprehensions did begin prior to the election under then-President Donald Trump. 

But the spike in unaccompanied children in the first full month of Biden’s administration is noteworthy — and, with a backlog of processing those children out of border custody facilities, it’s the main aspect of border immigration that has garnered media and political attention. 

The number of unaccompanied children being apprehended at the border also began rising in October, before the election, but it spiked 63% from January to February, reaching 9,297 kids.

The Washington Post opinion piece noted that the apprehensions of unaccompanied children “appears to be more than just a seasonal pattern. ”CBP data show the fiscal year 2021 numbers of unaccompanied children apprehended are on track to rival or surpass a spike that occurred in 2019.Immigration: Families The president went on to say the “vast majority, the overwhelming majority of people coming to the border and crossing are being sent back,” mentioning “single people.” That’s correct. But then he added, “We’re sending back the vast majority of the families that are coming.” That’s not the case for the month of February, the most recent data from CBP.

The administration expelled 41% of family units in February. (See the figures for Title 42 expulsions.)Single adults, who make up the vast majority of those apprehended on the border, have been largely expelled under Title 42, a public health law. We asked the White House about Biden’s claim, but we haven’t received a response. Polling on American Rescue Plan  Act told Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Biden has gone too far left, the president responded by saying “over 50%” of Republican voters supported the American Rescue Plan Act.

But public polling offers a more mixed reaction among Republicans to the new law than the president lets on. Biden: I would like Republican, elected Republican support, but what I know I have now is, I have electoral support from Republican voters. Republican voters agree with what I’m doing. 

And so unless Mitch says the last thing I did, the last piece of legislation I did was so far left, well, then he ought to take a look at his party. Over 50% of them must be over that edge, as well because they support what I did. This has become a talking point for the president. He stated something similar on March 19, when he said “we didn’t get any help in the Senate or the House, but you have 55% of the Republicans in America supporting it,” referring to the COVID-19 relief bill. For sure, there are polls that show more than 50% of Republicans supported the bill earlier this month when it was before Congress.

A Morning Consult/Politico poll conducted from March 6 to March 8 found 59% of Republicans surveyed said they “strongly support” (29%) or “somewhat support” (30%) the COVID-19 aid package. Similarly, a Data for Progress poll conducted from March 5 to 7 found 54% of Republicans supported the bill. However, other polls found Republican support below 50% — not “over 50%,” as Biden said. A CNN poll from March 3 to 8 found only 26% of Republicans supported the bill (see Table 031).

A Pew Research Center survey from March 1 to 7 found that 41% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said they supported the bill. That poll showed a pronounced partisan divide in particular on the cost of the legislation — which was the primary reason for Republican opposition in Congress. Sixty-one percent of Republicans told Pew that the $1.9 trillion bill, which Biden signed into law on March 11, spends too much.

Lastly, we found a CBS News/YouGov poll taken from March 9 to 10 found 46% of Republicans supported the American Rescue Plan Act. “Among Republicans, there is more support for it among those with lower household incomes than among those with higher incomes,” CBS News wrote.

Taxes Comparing his tax priorities to those of Republicans, Biden revived two talking points from the campaign: the misleading claim that 83% of the tax cuts in the Republican tax law championed by Trump went to the top 1%; and the false claim that middle-income families pay a higher tax rate than “the average person making $1 billion a year. 

”Biden said he found it “kind of interesting that my Republican friends were worried” about “the cost” of tax cuts and relief checks in the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act. The law, he said, “puts money in people’s pockets. Ordinary people. 

”The law provides an average tax cut to middle-income earners of $3,720 this year, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center. The law also includes stimulus payments for most Americans, and extends unemployment compensation. Biden said he didn’t remember hearing Republicans express similar concerns about the cost of the Republican-backed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which is projected to add nearly $2 trillion to the deficit over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. “Did you hear them complain when they passed a close to $2 trillion Trump tax cut, 83% going to the top 1%?” 

Biden said. This is a well-worn but misleading claim. As we have written, in order for the legislation to be passed via reconciliation, most of the individual income tax provisions are set to expire by 2027, while the corporate tax cuts would remain, making the tax benefit distribution more lopsided for the top 1% than in earlier years. So, while the top 1% got 20.5% of the total tax benefits in 2018, and 25.3% of the tax benefits in 2025, the share of the total tax savings that accrues to the top 1% in 2027 is 82.8%, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center. Republicans say they expect a future Congress will extend the individual tax cuts, rather than allowing taxes for many to increase, but of course there is no assurance that will happen .Biden went on to claim Republicans “reduc[ed] taxes to a point that people who are making, you know if you are a husband and wife, school teacher and a cop, you’re paying at a higher rate than the average person making $1 billion a year is. Something’s wrong. ”Actually, that claim is wrong.  This is another version of a claim Biden made during the campaign, that the top 1% of taxpayers, on average, pay a lower effective tax rate than middle-income people.

In general, people in higher-income categories pay a higher tax rate. According to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, the top 0.1% — those making over $3,452,300 a year — paid an average federal tax rate of 31.3% in 2019. That’s a higher rate than any other income category below it. By comparison, for example, those in the middle 20% of earners — with an expanded cash income of $50,001 to $87,300 — paid an average federal tax rate of 12.4%, according to the TPC analysis.  Tax Policy Center did not break down its analysis for billionaires, but they would obviously be a fraction of those in the top 0.1%.“On average the top 0.1 percent of income pays more,” Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, told us via email. “Are there outliers? Sure. But would be very rare. ”As Gleckman told us back in 2019, “You can invest all your money in tax-exempt bonds and pay no federal income tax on the interest. Investors can avoid paying tax on capital gains by simply not selling the assets (but they’d also have no income). 

But in general, the federal tax system is very progressive. The more you make, the more you pay. 

”William McBride, vice president of federal tax and economic policy at the Tax Foundation, told us Biden may be referring to an analysis by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman of the University of California at Berkeley that concluded the average effective tax rate (for federal, state and local taxes) paid by the richest 400 families in the U.S. was 23%, slightly lower than the 24.2% rate paid by the bottom half of American households.

notes, however, that the Saez/Zucman data “excludes refundable tax credits so that the tax burden is overstated at the lower end of the income spectrum. When they are included, average effective tax rates for federal taxes go from 3.3% for the lowest quintile up to 30.3% for the top 0.1% (about 120,000 households).”McBride said the Saez/Zucman estimates for the top 400 households “rely on their assumptions about returns imputed from underlying wealth and income shares, which have been challenged by other economists like Gerald Auten and David Splinter. 

They find that the top 0.01 percent (a bit more than the top 400) paid an average combined tax rate of nearly 50 percent in 2018.”In a post challenging some of the methodology of the Saez/Zucman report, Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center said that while it is true that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act “cut the taxes of high earners by more on average than for low- and moderate-income households, as a share of after-tax income,” that doesn’t mean, as a Washington Post headline put it, that “billionaires paid a lower tax rate than the working class. ”Cloture Motions Even though he pulled a card out of his pocket to read aloud statistics on the rise in cloture motions, Biden got the numbers wrong.

 Biden: That it used to be that from between 1917 and 1971, the filibuster existed, there were a total of 58 motions to break a filibuster, that whole time. Last year alone, there were five times that many. So it’s being abused in a gigantic way. Cloture motions are filed to set a time limit on debate and bring a bill to the floor for a vote. The motion must receive 60 votes to pass — not a simple majority.

The Senate website lists all cloture motions since 1917, when the Senate first adopted the cloture rule. We counted a total of 58 from 1917 through 1970, the figure Biden cited. But last year alone there were 118 — which is more than double 58, not five times greater.

It appears that the president meant to say in the last Congress — not “last year alone.” In 2019 and 2020, which was the 116th Congress, there were 328 cloture motions filed — which is more than five times the motions filed from 1917 through 1970.But cloture motions aren’t necessarily filed “to break a filibuster,” as Biden said. That used to be the primary use, but not in modern times — a fact noted in a Congressional Research Service report on filibusters and cloture motions.

“In recent times, by contrast, Senate leadership has increasingly made use of cloture as a normal tool for managing the flow of business on the floor, even when no evident filibuster has yet occurred,” the CRS report said. “It would be erroneous to assume the presence or absence of cloture attempts is a reliable guide to the presence or absence of filibusters.

 ”Also, both parties are responsible for the escalating use of cloture motions. 

There were 504 filed in six years (2009-2014) when the Democrats were in control, and 657 in six years (2015-2020) when the Republicans were in charge.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

The post FactChecking Biden’s First Press Conference appeared first on FactCheck.org.

_______________________________________________________

OPINION:  Joe Biden need to be “Fact Checked every time he makes a Statement or comment about anything that he says!

[mikeo56]

Getting rid of Trump means taking seriously “shit-life syndrome”—and its resulting misery, which includes suicide, drug overdose death, and trauma for surviving communities.

My state of Ohio is home to many shit-life syndrome sufferers. In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton lost Ohio’s 18 electoral votes to Trump. She got clobbered by over 400,000 votes (more than 8%). She lost 80 of Ohio’s 88 counties. Trump won rural poorer counties, several by whopping margins. Trump got the shit-life syndrome vote.

Will Hutton in his 2018 Guardian piece, “The Bad News is We’re Dying Early in Britain – and It’s All Down to ‘Shit-Life Syndrome’” describes shit-life syndrome in both Britain and the United States: “Poor working-age Americans of all races are locked in a cycle of poverty and neglect, amid wider affluence. They are ill educated and ill trained. The jobs available are drudge work paying the minimum wage, with minimal or no job security.”

The Brookings Institution, in November 2019, reported: “53 million Americans between the ages of 18 to 64—accounting for 44% of all workers—qualify as ‘low-wage.’ Their median hourly wages are $10.22, and median annual earnings are about $18,000.”

For most of these low-wage workers, Hutton notes: “Finding meaning in life is close to impossible; the struggle to survive commands all intellectual and emotional resources. Yet turn on the TV or visit a middle-class shopping mall and a very different and unattainable world presents itself. Knowing that you are valueless, you resort to drugs, antidepressants and booze. You eat junk food and watch your ill-treated body balloon. It is not just poverty, but growing relative poverty in an era of rising inequality, with all its psychological side-effects, that is the killer.”

Shit-life syndrome is not another fictitious illness conjured up by the psychiatric-pharmaceutical industrial complex to sell psychotropic drugs. It is a reality created by corporatist rulers and their lackey politicians—pretending to care about their minimum-wage-slave constituents, who are trying to survive on 99¢ boxed macaroni and cheese prepared in carcinogenic water, courtesy of DuPont or some other such low-life leviathan.

The Cincinnati Enquirer, in November 2019, ran the story: “Suicide Rate Up 45% in Ohio in Last 11 Years, With a Sharper Spike among the Young.” In Ohio between 2007 and 2018, the rate of suicide among people 10 to 24 has risen by 56%. The Ohio Department of Health reported that suicide is the leading cause of death among Ohioans ages 10‐14 and the second leading cause of death among Ohioans ages 15‐34, with the suicide rate higher in poorer, rural counties.

Overall in the United States, “Suicides have increased most sharply in rural communities, where loss of farming and manufacturing jobs has led to economic declines over the past quarter century,” reports the American Psychological Association. The U.S. suicide rate has risen 33% from 1999 through 2017 (from 10.5 to 14 suicides per 100,000 people).

In addition to an increasing rate of suicide, drug overdose deaths rose in the United States from 16,849 in 1999 to 70,237 in 2017, more sharply increasing in recent years. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported that opioids—mainly synthetic opioids—were involved in 47,600 overdose deaths in 2017 (67.8% of all drug overdose deaths).

Among all states in 2017, Ohio had the second highest rate of drug overdose death (46.3 per 100,000). West Virginia had the highest rate (57.8 per 100,000).

“In 2016, Donald Trump captured 68 percent of the vote in West Virginia, a state hit hard by opioid overdoses,” begins the 2018 NPR story: “Analysis Finds Geographic Overlap In Opioid Use And Trump Support In 2016.”

The NPR story was about a study published in JAMA Network Open titled “Association of Chronic Opioid Use With Presidential Voting Patterns in US Counties in 2016,” lead authored by physician James Goodwin. In counties with high rates of opioid use, Trump received 60% of the vote; but Trump received only 39% of the vote in counties with low opioid use. Opioid use is prevalent in poor rural counties, as Goodwin reports in his study: “Approximately two-thirds of the association between opioid rates and presidential voting was explained by socioeconomic variables.”

Goodwin told NPR: “It very well may be that if you’re in a county that is dissolving because of opioids, you’re looking around and you’re seeing ruin. That can lead to a sense of despair . . . . You want something different. You want radical change.”

Shit-life syndrome sufferers are looking for immediate change, and are receptive to unconventional  politicians.

In 2016, Trump understood that being unconventional, including unconventional obnoxiousness, can help ratings. So he began his campaign with unconventional serial humiliations of his fellow Republican candidates to get the nomination; and since then, his unconventionality has been limited only by his lack of creativity—relying mostly on the Roy Cohn modeled “Punch them harder than they punch you” for anyone who disagrees with him.

I talked to Trump voters in 2016, and many of them felt that Trump was not a nice person, even a jerk, but their fantasy was that he was one of those rich guys with a big ego who needed to be a hero. Progressives who merely mock this way of thinking rather than create a strategy to deal with it are going to get four more years of Trump.

The Dems’ problem in getting the shit-life syndrome vote in 2020 is that none of their potential nominees for president are unconventional. In 2016, Bernie Sanders achieved some degree of unconventionality. His young Sandernistas loved the idea of a curmudgeon grandfather/eccentric uncle who boldly proclaimed in Brooklynese that he was a “socialist,” and his fans marveled that he was no loser, having in fact charmed Vermonters into electing him to the U.S. Senate. Moreover, during the 2016 primaries, there were folks here in Ohio who ultimately voted for Trump but who told me that they liked Bernie—both Sanders and Trump appeared unconventional to them.

While Bernie still has fans in 2020, he has done major damage to his “unconventionality brand.” By backing Hillary Clinton in 2016, he resembled every other cowardly politician. I felt sorry for his Sandernistas, heartbroken after their hero Bernie—who for most of his political life had self-identified as an “independent” and a “socialist”—became a compliant team player for the corporatist Blue Team that he had spent a career claiming independence from. If Bernie was terrified in 2016 of risking Ralph Nader’s fate of ostracism for defying the corporatist Blue Team, would he really risk assassination for defying the rich bastards who own the United States?

So in 2020, this leaves realistic Dems with one strategy. While the Dems cannot provide a candidate who can viscerally connect with shit-life syndrome sufferers, the Dems can show these victims that they have been used and betrayed by Trump.

Here in Ohio in counties dominated by shit-life syndrome, the Dems would be wise not to focus on their candidate but instead pour money into negative advertising, shaming Trump for making promises that he knew he wouldn’t deliver on: Hillary has not been prosecuted; Mexico has paid for no wall; great manufacturing jobs are not going to Ohioans; and most importantly, in their communities, there are now even more suicides, drug overdose deaths, and grieving families.

You would think a Hollywood Dem could viscerally communicate in 30 seconds: “You fantasized that this braggart would be your hero, but you discovered he’s just another rich asshole politician out for himself.” This strategy will not necessarily get Dems the shit-life syndrome vote, but will increase the likelihood that these folks stay home on Election Day and not vote for Trump.

The question is just how clueless are the Dems? Will they convince themselves that shit-life syndrome sufferers give a shit about Trump’s impeachment? Will they convince themselves that Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg or Warren are so wonderful that shit-life syndrome sufferers will take them and their campaign promises seriously? Then Trump probably wins again, thanks to both shit-life syndrome and shit-Dems syndrome.

[lamejanejane-blog]

Module 3: Disaster Risk Reduction and Management

For this module, I am glad to have interviewed Kagawad Fed Marcelo, the head of the Disaster Risk Reduction and Management in the barangay. Below are his thoughts regarding Barangay Bagong Silangan’s hazard identification; vulnerability, elements and people at risk assessment; capacity and disaster management assessment; safest and hazardous areas, issues, practices and lifestyles in the community.

Barangay Bagong Silangan is located in District 2, Quezon City.

The barangay is composed of sub-communities, majority of which consists of informal settlers and those living in extreme poverty. Due to this, their houses are poorly furnished and their settlements are based on its availability: as long as there is free space without any titleholder, it is taken. The vulnerability of their houses then increases for they are prone to be destroyed easily no matter disaster may come. However, these areas are likely to be most affected by fire incidents since their houses are close to one another as well as their Meralco lines because its spread shall be easier. Additionally, their narrow streets also make it difficult for fire trucks to respond.

The geographical location of the barangay is also a factor to be considered since there are many low-lying areas which are the most hazardous during typhoons. According to the Kagawad Fed, the worst disaster to hit Bagong Silangan was Typhoon Ondoy in 2009 with its fatality at 150 people. Although he also noted that these areas are not really dangerous on a normal day since it is only a threat during rainfalls. In the event that the rainfalls become worse over time according to the forecast provided by the local and national government, the barangay immediately responds to this through preparing the evacuation centers and calling the people’s attention to evacuate immediately. I am proud to witness this firsthand since it was the day of my interview when they were conducting this. 

Furthermore, if its geography is to be discussed, being part of the West Valley Fault makes it a threat to the people especially during earthquakes which fortunately has not given much damage to the people in the mean time. 

Kagawad Fed did not specify as to where are the safest places within the community for he believes that it will always depend on the situation. Just as how he had classified the possible most dangerous areas according to the disasters which might affect us. 

He also stated that there are three issues which stand hinders the barangay’s progress. First, is the attitude of the people towards disasters. The lack of complacency makes it harder for the officials to get everyone into the evacuation center so as to save them even before the disasters would affect them. This was also measured during the trainings and drills conducted whose goal to challenge everyone to understand the barangay’s concern of saving the people’s lives as soon as the forecast would tell us. Another would be the budget because “it is only a figure” (Marcelo, 2019). The ratio and proportion is not enough to cover everyone’s needs and therefore, resulting into scarcity. Lastly, there was no decent urban planning especially the sub communities. Making them possibly the most vulnerable in disasters. 

Regarding the complacency and the people’s attitude, I would like to point it out through the picture below. Pictures may not be able to capture the unpleasant smell but it reeks of human urine although the barangay has provided a male urinal in the corner. This then could be considered to be a hazard. 

The aftermaths of these calamities affect the citizens differently due to its wide range of socioeconomic classes. Kagawad Fed said that it affects the poor dramatically for their cycle is different as compared to the privileged because of their vulnerability and that says a lot. These disasters bring great impact to the people for everything is disrupted regardless of what calamity may come: livelihood, civil services and destroyed infrastructures. 

To help the people get back on their own feet, the barangay provides various activities like baking, flower arranging, sewing and such as a way to diversify the livelihood and make them develop independently to which Kagawad Fed calls, “build back better”. These programs are the stimuli for their livelihood. Moreover, it does not end there because they are also monitored through their partnership with a NGO, Verlani. Of course, the infrastructures are also fixed so as to provide mobility to all. 

The four phases of DRRM is headed by the barangay captain and the council. The committee serves as the group which specializes on acting upon disasters and its casualties. 

I believe that these casualties continue to happen because of the citizens since as manifested in the picture above, they lack complacency and fail to see the barangay’s concern of protecting their welfare especially in times of disaster. Their cooperation is also needed because it is not solely the barangay officials who should work towards the development of the community. However, the barangay may sometimes lack in providing everyone’s necessities as a limitation of the budget since there are other political and social issues faced by the barangay that are yet to be resolved (corruption, etc.). 

It also saddens me to realize how much it affects the marginalized sector of the community. As a result of extreme poverty, they would like to prioritize their assets and their homes though disasters may come because it is their hard-earned money. They are left to choose to protect their prize-possessed materials for it will take them a long time before they could be able to afford them again.

Bagong Silangan’s budget only allocates 5% for the disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM) that makes it difficult to entirety of the barangay to ‘build back better’ and therefore could possibility exclude everyone. Though Kagawad Fed emphasizes on prioritizing the vulnerable and the unfortunate for they are the one which would need help the most. I believe that there is a need to increase the budget especially that they acknowledge that these disasters greatly affect them [the poor].

With this in mind, there is a need to address the issue of disasters in our country because our lives are at stake as well as the environment we are living in. Every single body in this world has a purpose which also makes them important though little as they seem. In addition to this, if we do not stress enough on protecting our environment, where would we live in? Science would say that it is only a matter of time before it is too late to counter the effects of climate change and if we do not do anything about it then where else would we find another earth? In my opinion, we should address it in such a way that people would be able to relate. We should start by looking further into our lifestyles and how does it affect the people around us and the environment we live in. Then we continue by analyzing how our daily lives contribute into the worsening conditions of the planet and what we should do about it because it affects everyone. It does not see the existing socioeconomic classes because when it hits, it hits. From their, I could only hope for the cooperation and unification of people as a result of these realizations and change destructive habits in order to make the world a better place. 

[pambradaza]

CacoPHONY

I am Pam.

Ako ay isang Filipino.

Bisaya kong dako.

Ten years ago, if I were tasked to answer the question “Who are you?”, I would’ve simply answered with my rough Bisaya accent that “I am Pam, 9 years old, from Butuan City and I am a pure Filipino.” Since then, however, many things have changed. I have met people who have changed my life and I have been through situations and experiences that have opened my eyes to realities that are far beyond my grasp.

Coming from a small city in Mindanao, some reasonable proficiency in academics and curriculars labels one as gifted or excellent. Thus, as a child, I have been secluded in spaces with children such as I who are pressured and looked up to as the brightest and most talented minds. Placed in “top sections”, I have conformed with the notion that I must do my best and live up to the expectations of others. I became a driven, academic-conscious student. However, entering Senior High School and immersing in the independence and liberation as I studied in Davao City, a bigger and livelier city than mine, I was exposed to activities and people who have changed my mindset and hobbies. From the stuck-up student in class, I became more free-thinking. It’s not that I was slacking in class. Still,I performed well when needed. It’s just that now, I am able to provide space and time for leisure, one which I have never prioritized when I was younger. Perhaps it was the spur of the moment or teenage angst that I fell prey to vices and my very first romance. Cliché as it is, I found myself conflicted with my goals as an honors student and my aspirations as an explorative youth. Though difficult it may be, I have found common ground for both. Of course, I have to prioritize my studies. However, I have stopped being obsessively fastidious whilst allowing myself to commit mistakes and learn from them. I have learned that there requires a balance between liberation and duty, especially if one wants to take part in a significant change in society. It is important that one acknowledges their responsibilities and must be sensitive to one’s environment. However, such innocence and enjoyment that one can only experience when young should not be completely forgotten or disregarded.

Being someone who vies to understand socioeconomic issues, especially those plaguing my country, I am continually conflicted by my traditional beliefs as a Filipino and as a Roman Catholic with the progressive views that the West brings. For instance, typical debate topics such as abortion have always been trivial. Although as a debater, I have developed my own moral codes and ethical standards. However, despite disagreeing within conservative views, I reminisce such times when I, too, was a blind follower to such norms and practices. Even today, although I do not find myself in strong faith with religion anymore, I still find myself practicing Catholic deeds such as praying and praising the Lord. I have not decided upon a label for myself yet, but I’ve settled with the term irreligious. I have somewhat distanced myself from the church. However, due to its deep roots in my past and identity, I remain respectful to it. I try my best to understand deeply traditional views. Although I do try to engage in discourse with people of contradicting beliefs from I as I take responsibility, I am raising awareness and educating others for the common good, I am still conscious of the pedestal that many religious people float on. Thus, I try my best to involve myself in civil conversations only, with the aim to learn and teach, not to fight.

Today, ten years later, faced with the question “Who are you?”, my answer would be “I am Pam. I am a proud Filipino who, in the same time, immerses herself in the culture of other nations as an interest. I find it my obligation to be politically and environmentally aware. I hail from the city of Butuan, and I may speak English Fluently and pass the looks of a Filipino-Chinese, but my blood courses the veins of my Bisaya ancestors.”

I am Pam,

and I am who society has shaped me to be.

[chrismalcolmhnd1d]

Decade

Project: Decade. #Decade

In the mid-1820s, Nicéphore Niépce first managed to fix an image that was captured with a camera, but at least eight hours or even several days of exposure in the camera were required and the earliest results were very crude. 

The First Cameras

“The basic concept of photography has been around since about the 5th century B.C.E. It wasn't until an Iraqi scientist developed something called the camera obscura in the 11th century that the art was born.

Even then, the camera did not actually record images, it simply projected them onto another surface. The images were also upside down, though they could be traced to create accurate drawings of real objects such as buildings.

The first camera obscura used a pinhole in a tent to project an image from outside the tent into the darkened area. It was not until the 17th century that the camera obscura became small enough to be portable. Basic lenses to focus the light were also introduced around this time.

The First Permanent Images

Photography, as we know it today, began in the late 1830s in France. Joseph Nicéphore Niépce used a portable camera obscura to expose a pewter plate coated with bitumen to light. This is the first recorded image that did not fade quickly.

Niépce's success led to a number of other experiments and photography progressed very rapidly. Daguerreotypes, emulsion plates, and wet plates were developed almost simultaneously in the mid- to late-1800s.”

Source: https://www.thesprucecrafts.com/brief-history-of-photography-2688527

Retouched version of the earliest surviving camera photograph, 1826 or 1827, known as View from the Window at Le Gras

Photography has long been influenced by painting and art.

“The relationship between painting and photography has extended the possibilities of image creation. When photography appeared on the scene, it was supposed to herald the democratization of portraiture (among other genres, like landscapes and still-lifes). Photography gave painting the freedom it needed to burst into the rich fountain of expression it is today. There are many classic and modern painters whom, thanks to their skills with lighting and conceptualization, can serve as valuable guides for today's photographers.”

Johannes Vermeer (1632 – 1675)

Source:https://www.lightstalking.com/8-painters-real-effect-todays-photography-photographers-influenced/

My Decade to research – the 1980’s

Timeline of 1980’s Events

Overview:

“The decade was great socioeconomic change due to advances in technology and a worldwide move away from planned economies and towards laissez-faire capitalism.

As economic deconstruction increased in the developed world, multiple multinational corporations associated with the manufacturing industry relocated into Thailand, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, and China. Japan and West Germany saw large economic growth during this decade. The AIDS epidemic became recognized in the 1980s and has since killed an estimated 39 million people (as of 2013).[1] Global warming became well known to the scientific and political community in the 1980s.

The United Kingdom and the United States moved closer to supply-side economic policies beginning a trend towards global instability of international trade that would pick up more steam in the following decade as the fall of the USSR made right wing economic policy more powerful.

The final decade of the Cold War opened with the US-Soviet confrontation continuing largely without any interruption. Superpower tensions escalated rapidly as President Reagan scrapped the policy of détente and adopted a new, much more aggressive stance on the Soviet Union. The world came perilously close to nuclear war for the first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis 20 years earlier, but the second half of the decade saw a dramatic easing of superpower tensions and ultimately the total collapse of Soviet communism.

Developing countries across the world faced economic and social difficulties as they suffered from multiple debt crises in the 1980s, requiring many of these countries to apply for financial assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Ethiopia witnessed widespread famine in the mid-1980s during the corrupt rule of Mengistu Haile Mariam, resulting in the country having to depend on foreign aid to provide food to its population and worldwide efforts to address and raise money to help Ethiopians, such as the Live Aid concert in 1985.”

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s

Timeline of major events: (from a very American perspective)

Photography and photographers in the 1980’s

Equipment:

The 80s were a peak time in photography. 35mm cameras were just starting to shift from predominantly mechanical devices into slightly more advanced machines. Having micro-electronic systems at the heart of a camera became the new normal and that made photography easier; new features progressed from more accurate shutter control to program full auto-exposure, to multi-segment light metering systems, to automatic reading of ASA/ISO codes, to integrated motors for advancing and rewinding, and finally AutoFocus (although AF didn’t truly come into its own until the next decade). The dominant manufacturers at the time are sometimes referred to as the ‘Big Five’: Canon, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus, and Pentax. These brands produced the majority of 80s cameras and are now classic models.

CANON AE-1 PROGRAM

MINOLTA X-700

NIKON FA

Olympus OMG

Pentax P3

Source: https://www.keh.com/blog/thats-so-80s-cameras-from-the-1980s/

Photographers:

An American perspective of 80′s photography...

“In the ’80s, new wave and hip hop exploded, graffitied subway cars and gritty nightclubs colored New York City, and John Hughes’s tales of teenage angst like Sixteen Candles (1984) and The Breakfast Club (1985) seized the big screen. Meanwhile, an energized, punk-infused youth culture developed within the context of the ongoing sexual liberation that began in the ’60s, the AIDS epidemic, and the conservative leadership of President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Below are eight photographers who captured the decade’s young people in all their vibrant individuality.”

Source: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-photographers-captured-rebellious-youth-80s

Richard Corman

Madonna, Polaroid 4, Milk Gallery

A very British perspective on 80′s street photography...

Rob Bremner, Liverpool

The 1980’s are widely regarded as Liverpool’s lowest ebb. A time when work in the city was scarce, alienation from the rest of the country was peaking, and newfangled drugs were tightening their grip on the city’s housing estates.

During this period Rob Bremner, 54 – then a shaggy-haired student from Wick, Scotland – was photographing the region’s inner-city wards, as they came to terms with a Conservative government whose policies appeared to deliberately degrade them.

Source: https://www.huckmag.com/art-and-culture/photography-2/back-in-the-day-photos-of-liverpool-in-the-80s/

The other end of the spectrum - high glamour fashion photography...

Stephanie,Cindy,Christy,Tatjana & Naomi photographed by Herb Ritts (1989)

“While some of the most creative fashion photography of the 1980s continued to be produced by 'old-timers' like Richard Avedon - see, for instance, his narrative advertising campaign "The Diors,"or his nude shot of Nastassja Kinski entwined with a snake - younger photographers also emerged into the limelight, including: Herb Ritts (1952-2002), best-known for his iconic shot of "Stephanie, Cindy, Christy, Tatjana, Naomi, Hollywood, 1989" which appeared in Rolling Stone Magazine; Bruce Weber (b.1946) who presented a new outlook on masculinity through his photo-shoots for Armani and Calvin Klein, as did Robert Mapplethorpe (1946-89) with his homoerotic shots; and Gian Paolo Barbieri (b.1938), noted for his work for fashion designers Armani, Versace, Dolce & Gabbana, Pomellato, and Giuseppe Zanotti. At the same time, women's independence was emphasized in various settings, by photographers like Denis Piel (b.1944) and Bert Stern (1929-2013).

Controversy, always a handy tool with which to boost flagging commercial fortunes, reared its head as a result of Benetton's fashion campaign, shot by Oliviero Toscani (b.1942). Images included one of a patient dying of AIDS in front of grieving relatives, while others incorporated references to racism, war, religion and the death penalty.

The leading supermodels of 1980s fashion photography included: Gia Marie Carangi, Ines de la Fressange, Cheryl Tiegs, Christie Brinkley, Paulina Porizkova, Brooke Shields, Heather Locklear, Carol Alt, and Elle Macpherson, among others. It was during this decade that supermodels stopped being seen as individuals and started to be regarded as images, just like movie stars. Witness the celebrity party shots taken by fashion photographer Roxanne Lowit (b.1965) of supermodels like Elle Macpherson, Naomi Campbell and others.”

Source: http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/photography/fashion.htm#eighties

Grace Jones, Jean-Paul Goude, New York (1981)

“I wanted to focus on Grace’s masculinity – to use what other people thought an embarrassment, and turn it around to her advantage. I wanted to create – with her, of course – a new character. It went beyond just a haircut, it was an attitude. It was new and strong and ambiguous. You didn’t know if it was a man trying to be a girl or a girl trying to be a man. It was a revolution. I remember the A&R guys at Island saying, “Are you fucking crazy? This is never going to work.” And of course it did.”

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/aug/01/jean-paul-goude-best-photograph-grace-jones-nightclubbing

[stretchjournalemerson]

Revisiting Buffy the Vampire Slayer : Intersectional Feminism in 2019

By Allison Hoag

Over twenty years after the series first premiered, Buffy the Vampire Slayer remains not only as a popular show in the public consciousness, but also as a hotly debated text in the academic sphere. What exactly is it about this demon-fighting, vampire-slaying, teenage girl that has captivated audiences for so long, and why has Buffy spawned so much controversy both publicly and academically? Most importantly, how should Buffy and its various implications about gender, race, and “otherness” be read in 2019?

It is undeniable that Buffy is a somewhat exclusionary narrative that directs our sympathies solely towards its overwhelmingly white and privileged characters. Any feminist inclinations this series espouses are emblematic of the equally exclusionary white feminism. However, even within these constraints—focusing only on feminism impactful to socioeconomically privileged white women—Buffy scholarship continually debates the extent of feminist messaging in the series. In 2019, surface-level white feminism alone is often not seen as enough to define a text as feminist. More and more, people are embracing Kimberle Crenshaw’s notions of intersectionality as a lens through which to evaluate texts. Crenshaw suggested that both feminist and anti-racist movements exclude black women, who face the most discrimination because of the intersection of their race and gender, arguing that “feminism must include an analysis of race if it hopes to express the aspirations of non-white women” (166). This term has since expanded to include class, ability, gender identity, and sexuality in feminist critiques.

Recently, the feminist debate over Buffy has been revisited after a somewhat shocking blog post by Buffy creator Joss Whedon’s ex-wife, Kai Cole, that suggested Whedon is not the “loveable geek-feminist” he presents himself as (Cole). Despite the flaws of its creator, is there still a way for Buffy to be viewed as a feminist show? Is this a matter of separating the artist from the art, or, because his intentions while making this art are being called into question, are the two inextricably linked? In light of these revelations, I intend to reexamine Buffy through Crenshaw’s intersectional lens, focusing less on surface-level feminist readings of this series, but instead shifting the focus onto specific storylines to explore how Whedon addresses topics of gender, race, love, and rape.

***

It is not without reason that critics and fans alike have showered Buffy with feminist praise since its debut in 1997. Not only does this series make Buffy the “subject of traditionally masculine storytelling tropes…, [but] she does it all as a tiny, blonde former cheerleader…the embodiment of the girl her genre usually kills first” (Grady). Buffy takes the idea of a “strong” woman quite literally and manifests a teenage girl with superhuman strength who “must stand against the vampires, demons, and forces of darkness,” as the introduction to each episode reminds us (Whedon). Buffy seems to be a show rife with positive female role models for the impressionable teen and pre-teen girls that make up its audience: Buffy is selfless and strong (physically and emotionally); Willow is kind, intelligent, and stands up for what she believes is right; Cordelia is bold and unafraid to go after what she wants; Tara is loving and is constantly helping and caring for her friends.

Buffy often addresses topics that many members of this teen audience may face, largely through its (sometimes heavy handed) metaphorical use of vampires and demons, as well as online predators (“I Robot…You, Jane”), drinking at parties (“Beer Bad”), and drug addiction (“Wrecked”). Seemingly less metaphorical, however, is its feminism. Throughout the series, Buffy repeatedly defends the whole of humanity against vampires, demons, and the like, maintains positive relationships with the other women in her life, is independent, and has (mostly) healthy romantic relationships. The overt “girl-power” theme of this show is quite clear. However, in its final season, Buffy “raises the explicit feminist stakes of the series considerably” (Pender). While in previous seasons, the metaphorical misogyny of the villains Buffy faces could be debated, season seven’s “big bad” is, “of all the show’s myriad manifestations of evil, the most recognizably misogynist” (Pender). Dubbed “Reverend-I-Hate-Women” by Xander (“Touched”), Caleb can only be defeated if Buffy teams up with and shares her power with all potential Slayers across the globe, an act that takes “female empowerment” quite literally in the series finale.

But how did Buffy get to this point? Buffy wasn’t even initially intended for the pre-teen and teenage girl demographic who would become its main audience. Knowing that this show was originally aimed at a male demographic, “it seems evident that producers did not intend to market a feminist show” (Riordan 292). Not only do some of the feminist statements in Buffy feel painfully forced, but upon deeper exploration, much of this show’s “feminism” is only surface-level and disregards Crenshaw’s notions of intersectionality.

Mary Magoulick, a folklorist and Professor of English, Interdisciplinary Studies, and Women’s Studies at Georgia College (“Mary Magoulick”), explores some of the downfalls of “feminist” shows that were primarily created by men for predominantly male audiences in her article, “Frustrating Female Heroism: Mixed Messages in Xena, Nikita, and Buffy.” Magoulick argues that female heroes like Buffy that are “conceived of and written mostly by men in a still male-dominated world…project the status quo more than they fulfill feminist hopes” (729). An integral part of Magoulick’s argument is the idea that “Buffy [is] less concerned with building or celebrating a world than surviving a hostile one” (745). Although Magoulick acknowledges that recognizing the hostility women face in the world is an important part of feminist conversations, Buffy is widely praised for its progressive presentation of women, not for “presenting the troubling reality women live in” (750). Buffy continually expresses her desire to escape from her responsibilities as the Slayer and lead an average life; yet, she continues fighting vampires and demons, largely due to the pressure from her Watcher, Giles. The idea that Buffy cannot escape her situation because of a social institution—the Watcher’s Council, dominated by men and put in place to control women—provides strong textual support for Magoulick’s claim that Buffy is “reflective of current social inequities and gender roles” (750).

Ultimately Buffy escapes her duties as Slayer, sacrificing herself in the season five finale, only for her friends to later resurrect her, bringing her back from what they believe to be a hell dimension. However, Buffy confesses to Spike, “I think I was in heaven. And now I'm not…this is hell” (“After Life”), making him promise to never tell her friends. After coming back to life, Buffy almost immediately returns to her predetermined social position and initially deals with being brought back into her personal version of hell alone, wanting to protect her friends from the truth. Not only does this arc present the feminist concept of emotional labor as something inherently expected of women, but it also more directly begs the question Magoulick poses regarding the entirety of the series: “Is survival in hell, albeit with occasional victories and humor, the best [women] can imagine?” (748).

***

Magoulick promotes an argument first raised by Elyce Rae Helford that “[Buffy] is laudable for allowing women unusual space to voice and act out anger” while also sending strong implications about what kind of women are allowed to express anger (733). Of the Slayers introduced throughout the series, Buffy is the only one who is allowed to act upon her anger, and most of the time this anger is expressed towards the vampires and demons she fights, not people in her personal life. However, Kendra—a Slayer who is also a woman of color—has her anger framed in a much more negative way. Despite the lack of people of color in Buffy—or possibly because of the show’s few characters played by people of color—race and racism have become prominent topics in Buffy scholarship. A closer examination of direct and indirect racist implications in Buffy reinforces the idea that any feminist tendencies in Buffy fall strictly into the category of white feminism, and the show cannot be considered an example of the intersectional feminism pushed for in 2019.

The intersectional failings of Buffy are further explored by Kent A. Ono, a Professor and former Chair of the Department of Communication at the University of Utah who researches representations of race, gender, sexuality, class, and nation in print, film, and television media (“Kent A. Ono”). In his article, “To Be a Vampire on Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Race and (‘Other’) Socially Marginalizing Positions on Horror TV,” Ono argues that Buffy “conveys debilitating images of and ideas about people of color” (163), claiming that “the valorization and heroification [sic] of a white feminist protagonist is constructed through an associated villainization and demonization of people of color” (164). Here, Ono quite literally means demonization. Most of the vampires and demons that appear on this show are played by white actors, so it is not necessarily a question of casting people of color as villains, so much as it is a question of who these villains are intended to be.

As previously established, the writers of Buffy can be somewhat aggressive with their use of metaphor; therefore, it is inarguable that, on Buffy, a vampire isn’t just a vampire. Ono argues that “the marginalization of vampires on the show takes the place of racial marginalization in the world outside the show” (172). In contrast, Magoulick presents a non-racial reading of the teenage vampires as “representative of gangs” (745). Considering the show’s overarching plot, especially the first few seasons Magoulick references when Buffy is still in high school, both of these interpretations are equally valid, and both can be supported by textual evidence. Given the history of representation of people of color on television, it is particularly disturbing that two of the major metaphorical interpretations of vampires on this show are as people of color and as gang members. It is not unreasonable to believe that Whedon and his writers were familiar with racist representations on television that were prominent in the 60s and early 70s, especially because some of these representations still exist twenty years after the show was created. With this understanding, it could be argued that vampires were equally intended to represent people who were racially marginalized and gangs. Ono argues that because the villains of Buffy were the ones chosen to represent people of color, “Buffy…indirectly and directly shows violence by primarily white vigilante youths against people of color in the name of civilization” (168), evoking images of violent white supremacy that are present throughout American history and to the present day.

However, there is a reason Ono describes the “vigilante youths” as only primarily white (168). Kendra, the previously mentioned second Slayer portrayed by Bianca Lawson who is featured in three episodes over the course of Buffy’s second season, is a black woman. Although only appearing in three episodes, Kendra is credited as “offer[ing] the most complex development of a black female character in Buffy” (Edwards 95). While this is technically true, it is important to note that her arc was fairly straightforward, and any character development is as a result of a somewhat racist narrative of acceptance only after assimilation. However, because she is one of the few examples of a prominent character who is a person of color and essentially the only person of color who works with Buffy, I will be examining her in some detail.

Ono argues that because she takes the responsibility of being the Slayer far more seriously, Kendra is a threat to Buffy, causing Buffy’s own racism to emerge. Ono specifically cites “[Buffy’s] discomfort with Kendra’s language…When Buffy uses the word wiggy and Kendra asks what that means, Buffy responds with a racist comment…‘You know, no kicko, no fighto’” (174). However, Buffy’s comment is indicative of a much larger issue in the show’s production team. “By casting Bianca Lawson, a black actress, in the role of Kendra, the second Slayer, [Whedon] makes character a sign imbued with cultural meanings about gender, race, and race relations” (Edwards 87). Kendra is marked as other not only by her skin color, but also by her heavy Jamaican accent, and she is not accepted by Buffy and her friends until she begins to assimilate, sending the message that people of color are responsible for changing themselves if they want to be accepted by white America.

It is important to note that Bianca Lawson’s casting wasn’t accidental. The script specifically delineates Kendra as an “ethnic young woman” (Edwards 91). Whedon has admitted that he did not make any efforts to hire people of color behind the scenes (Busis), so there is a possibility that the overwhelmingly white writers’ room and crew did not detect the racist treatment of Kendra. However, that in itself poses a major issue, not only socially, but also with how we’re supposed to understand the treatment of the few people of color and the metaphorical “people of color”/vampires throughout the series. The absence of people of color behind the scenes could also at least partially account for the Ono’s observation that “no person of color acknowledged as such on the series has been able to remain a significant character. All characters of color…have either died or have failed to reappear” (177).

Although she was killed off after only three episodes, as a black woman, Kendra represents the black women facing discrimination based on both race and gender that Crenshaw advocated for in developing her theory of intersectional feminism. Kendra’s treatment in Buffy is indicative of both the white feminism that will often ignore racist representations in a text because of its slight feminist messaging, and the necessity of including intersectionality in the evaluation and creation of feminist texts.

***

Buffy is filled with incredibly disturbing scenes. We watch Willow get skinned alive by a demon (“Same Time, Same Place”), Buffy’s own mother attempt to burn her at the stake (“Gingerbread”), and a demon stalk and murder sickly children in their hospital beds (“Killed by Death”). However, “Seeing Red” (2002) remains one of Buffy’s most upsetting episodes. Spike corners an injured Buffy in her bathroom and violently attempts to rape her until she is finally able to fight him off. In a recent interview, James Marsters (Spike) described his opposition to the scene, inadvertently pinpointing the reason this scene is so difficult to watch: “My argument was that, actually, when anyone is watching Buffy, they are Buffy…the audience, especially the female audience, they are not superheroes, but they are Buffy” (Marsters). This scene is particularly upsetting not only because of the content, but also because it presents many women’s worst fears—if an injured Buffy, who is still exponentially stronger than an average woman, can barely fight off Spike, what hope do they have of fighting off their attacker? Additionally, Spike is not presented as a violent vampire here: he is presented as human, making this scene more realistic and horrifying.

Wendy Fall, a doctoral candidate at Marquette University and editor of Marquette’s Gothic Archive (“Graduate Research”), discusses this scene at length in her article “Spike Is Forgiven: The Sympathetic Vampire's Resonance with Rape Culture.” She suggests that because James Malcolm Rymer’s Varney the Vampire (1845) is the first English-language vampire narrative that conflates an attack and rape scene, it established a “three-part strategy [gaslighting, silencing the victim, and emphasizing the assailant’s goodness] which encouraged readers to overlook Varney’s sexual violence, and thereby increased their sympathy for him” (Fall 76). She argues that although Spike’s attempted rape technically avoids Rymer’s narrative because he does not attempt to bite Buffy and is never even seen as a vampire, “The more problematic nature of this attack…is in what happens next, when the show adopts similar narrative schemes to Rymer’s to reinforce sympathy for Spike after his attempted sexual assault” (Fall 76).

Fall points out that there are only three more episodes in season six following Spike’s attempted rape, followed by a four-month gap between seasons, prompting the audience to forget how violent and serious it was (77). Not only are Spike and Buffy not seen together for the rest of the season, but they are separated because attempting to rape Buffy acts as a catalyst for Spike’s quest to get his soul back. This gives the audience time to develop sympathy for Spike as they watch him go through painful trials as he tries to recover his soul, while diminishing the severity of the attempted rape in their minds—because, surely, someone willing to go to this extent to obtain their soul and be a better person would never have acted as violently as he did.

Fall argues that Buffy also follows Varney’s narrative strategy of silencing the victim because “the show’s writers seem unwilling to allow the characters to have further discussion on the topic; Buffy never tells anyone the full story, and after this scene, she rarely mentions it again” (78). Fall further claims that “they had access to a strong female character and the opportunity to address her experience of trauma, but they opt not to pursue it” (78). Surely, at least part of the reason we never see Buffy attempting to deal with the emotional aftermath of someone she trusted trying to rape her is because the larger narrative suggests a degree of victim blaming that cannot coexist with holding Spike accountable for his actions. Prior to this scene, Buffy and Spike had been having a consensual sexual relationship, and Buffy attributes the start of this relationship to her “bad kissing decisions” (“Smashed”), so “when Spike attempts to rape her, it seems like an inevitable consequence of her poor decisions” (Nichol).

Finally, Fall suggests that Buffy completes this pattern when it “adopts a narrative strategy that redirects attention away from sexual violence by emphasizing the assailant’s positive contributions” (80). Not only does the rest of season six focus on Spike’s attempt to regain a soul, but the early episodes of season seven also show Spike as psychologically damaged as he comes to terms with the harm he caused as a vampire, putting Buffy and the audience in a position to want to pity Spike when we next see Spike and Buffy interact. Fall suggests that this plotline goes further than simply asking the audience to excuse the fact that this character tried to rape someone. She argues that “the vampire narrative’s memory-altering strategies are also deployed to reinforce rape culture, mostly in the cases of assailants who have sufficient financial power to reframe their own narratives to emphasize their better deeds” (Fall 83). This narrative is everywhere, especially after it became widely acceptable, even expected, to report on the #MeToo movement. It’s unfortunate that this supposedly feminist show perpetuates and validates this narrative that has successfully allowed so many rapists to escape legal scrutiny; Brock Turner’s swimming career comes to mind as a relatively recent example. While Fall ends her article on a relatively hopeful note, providing research stating that articles—like hers—that challenge rape myths can make people more likely to believe survivors than assailants (83), arguments for forgiving Spike still abound.

In 2017, Alyssa Rosenberg, an opinion writer for the Washington Post who covers culture and politics (“Alyssa Rosenberg”), made a case for why both Buffy and the audience should have a more forgiving view of Spike. In her article, “On ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” we fell for the Slayer along with Angel, Riley and Spike," Rosenberg specifically addresses this scene as a “horrifying…illustration that Spike’s gestures are not the same as moral reform” (Rosenberg); however, she identifies it as “the catalyst for a quest that ends with Spike…earning back his soul and sacrificing himself to save the world” (Rosenberg). Rosenberg’s argument falls flat in a way many rapist-apology narratives do. She directly acknowledges the horror of the narrative, both literally in the scene and also in the audience’s minds as they grapple with the fact that this character who is supposedly trying to reform himself can still do something this violent; yet, she quickly glosses over it. Rosenberg immediately dives into how trying to rape Buffy influenced Spike to become a better person, without addressing how it affected Buffy—the actual victim. She highlights that Whedon’s integration of the narrative tactics Rymer introduced to get the audience to want to forgive Spike were effective.

Rosenberg argues that although Spike “commits some of the show’s cruelest acts…he sacrifices the most in an attempt to atone for his sins” (Rosenberg). She additionally characterizes his arc following his attempted rape of Buffy as “a journey that encourages us to think about the conditions under which even someone guilty of heinous acts can perform genuine penance and achieve real redemption” (Rosenberg). Interestingly, her choice of the word “penance” invokes a religious underscoring that implies that once he has performed this penance, Buffy, and by extension, the audience who identifies with her, have no choice but to forgive him. Additionally, none of the “penance” Rosenberg describes is directed towards Buffy. Spike undoubtedly goes through physically and emotionally painful trials as he attempts to regain his soul; however, this is not so much penance as it is a self-centered act. Spike believes that getting a soul might make Buffy finally love him, eventually “becom[ing] a legitimate romantic interest after the near-rape incident” (Nichol).

Rosenberg claims that Buffy “explored where evil and misogyny come from and urged us to fight them,” while simultaneously “ask[ing] those of us who loved Buffy and identified with her to contemplate grace and forgiveness” (Rosenberg). She technically is not wrong here, Whedon absolutely positions us to want to forgive Spike. However, I would venture to argue that the question up for debate is not so much the question Rosenberg poses of are we put in a position to forgive him, as it is, should we be put in a position to forgive him. Buffy is intended to be a role model for the pre-teen and teenage girls who watch the series. Yet, here, it sends a very damaging message: if you have a consensual sexual relationship with someone without loving them, you’re responsible if they attempt to rape you; but even if someone tries to rape you, you should easily forgive them and possibly begin a romantic relationship with them because they may change.

***

In the past few years, the public feminist conversation has shifted towards embracing Crenshaw’s idea of intersectionality. This has therefore influenced the ways we read all texts, even texts such as Buffy that were created after Crenshaw’s paper was first published but before intersectionality was a major concern of the feminist movement. Additionally, the #MeToo movement has revealed the prevalence of the abuse of power by men in all sectors, but notably in Hollywood. Joss Whedon admittedly “didn’t make a point of hiring female directors…[or] people of color’” (Busis); explicitly equated a woman unable to have children with the Hulk—yes, that Hulk (Yang); and, as recently as 2015, refused to call himself a feminist (Busis). The combination of these two public paradigm shifts, closer examinations of Whedon both personally and as a creator, as well as Kai Cole’s disturbing essay about her ex-husband has many people questioning what Whedon’s work can add to the cultural conversation surrounding feminism in 2019. Is the problematic nature of Joss Whedon a matter of separating the artist from the art, or, because his intentions while making this art are being called into question, are the two inextricably linked?

Joss Whedon has made his name creating and writing shows featuring strong female characters. However, he does not seem to understand that “having a girl beat up guys is not equivalent to a strong female character when they always, constantly depend on men” (Simons). Yet, he has still managed to create a career and profit off of television’s lack of actual strong female characters, catering to a largely underserved audience who hoped to see any sort of feminist ideas in fictional television. “Whedon’s openly feminist agenda, frequently mentioned in interviews, has provided an interpretive framework for much Buffy scholarship” (Berridge 478). Whedon pushes this narrative and the public’s perception of him as a well-meaning feminist, while refusing to be labeled as such “because suddenly that’s the litmus test for everything you do…if you don’t live up to the litmus test of feminism in this one instance, then you’re a misogynist” (Busis). It’s upsetting for fans of Buffy to realize that its creator feels that unless he is overtly espousing feminist ideas, his writing will be seen as misogynistic—which, it has been, he’s been criticized for both his Avengers: Age of Ultron script (Yang) and his rejected Wonder Woman script (White).

Although his public persona is that of a feminist, a closer look at his work and his personal life tells a very different story. In a commentary DVD extra for the second season of Buffy, Whedon discusses writing the script for the initial confrontation between Buffy and Angelus, saying “It felt icky that I could make him say these things. It felt icky and kind of powerful. It was very uncomfortable and very exciting for me to do it” (Nichol). This short piece of commentary is a perfect metaphor for Whedon’s career. He’s trying to be seen as “more” of a feminist by claiming he had no idea how he could write a scene where his heroine is eviscerated by her (newly-evil) boyfriend after having sex with him. However, he’s actually taking what could’ve been a moment to discuss the prevalence of slut shaming in our culture and refocusing it on himself.

Not only has his work contained misogynistic and offensive language toward women, but according to his ex-wife, Kai Cole’s, guest blog on The Wrap, he has also had several inappropriate affairs “with his actresses, co-workers, fans, and friends” (Cole). Aside from cheating on his wife, as creator and producer of several prominent series—at least in terms of his actresses, co-workers, and fans—it could be argued that he objectively had more power in these situations. This begs the question of exactly how consensual these affairs were and how much, if any, (possibly unintentional) coercion may have been involved. Furthermore, Cole says he wrote her a letter trying to excuse these affairs, explaining that he “was surrounded by beautiful, needy, aggressive young women” (Cole), and blaming them, rather than taking responsibility for his actions. This pattern of blame is unsettlingly close to the blame Buffy endures for her relationship with Spike.

***

Despite the shortcomings of both this show and its creator, Buffy was, and remains, a prominent series in the lives of many of the pre-teen and teenage girls who have watched and grown with Buffy and her friends since its 1997 premiere—this author included. However, as we become more educated on certain cultural topics, we—especially those of us in positions of power and privilege—are often forced to reconcile our love of certain texts with their more problematic aspects.

I began this essay with a very different conception of Buffy than I have now. Admittedly, I bought into the allure of this series’ surface-level feminism and girl power when I was watching it for the first time. Sure, it was sometimes overtly problematic, but the positive aspects seemed to outweigh the negatives. I thought that this essay would reveal the surface-level feminism of Buffy ran much deeper than I originally realized—not the opposite. A closer examination of Buffy has revealed that the issues with this series are far more serious than its creator’s personal failings. Reading Buffy as a cultural text exposes a series of disturbing messages. Moreover, even when it does put forth feminist ideas, they often fall under the more exclusionary sect of white feminism, completely ignoring Crenshaw’s proposed intersectionality, which had been published nearly a decade before Buffy’s premiere.

The question of how Buffy should be read in 2019 is a question that has been repeated a lot recently: Can the Harvey Weinstein’s films still be appreciated? What about The Cosby Show? Or shows affiliated with Fox Broadcasting, and, therefore, Roger Ailes? While some argue that these men and any texts or media associated with them should be “cancelled,” others call for a separation between the artist and the art. However, I would argue that, at least for Buffy, it is not so much about separating the artist from the art as it is about recognizing the art for what it is—its limits included.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my mom for proofreading all 4,500-odd words of this and catching the many mistakes I missed. I would also like to profusely thank Mary Kovaleski Byrnes for her support, guidance, and the much-needed periodic confidence boosts.

Works Cited

“After Life.” Buffy the Vampire Slayer, season 6, episode 3, UPN, 9 Oct. 2001. Hulu, www.hulu.com/watch/70c15619-2955-499f-b1ca-48bb650ad68f.

"Alyssa Rosenberg." The Washington Post, The Washington Post, www.washingtonpost.com/people/alyssa-rosenberg/?utm_term=.29211618cb7b. Accessed 30 Mar. 2019.

“Beer Bad.” Buffy the Vampire Slayer, season 4, episode 5, The WB, 2 Nov. 1999. Hulu,www.hulu.com/watch/6ce16885-24ba-48b0-b729-b01c3b52213d.

Berridge, Susan. "Teen heroine TV: narrative complexity and sexual violence in female-fronted teen drama series." New Review of Film & Television Studies, vol. 11, no. 4, Dec. 2013, pp. 477-96. ESCOhost, doi:10.1080/17400309.2013.809565.

“Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered.” Buffy the Vampire Slayer, season 2, episode 16, The WB, 10 Feb. 1998. Hulu, www.hulu.com/watch/4569c5ed-aebc-4cea-86ce-8e05f2fbef4f.

Busis, Hillary. "Joss Whedon Declares Himself a "Woke Bae"." Vanity Fair, 10 Mar. 2017, www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/03/joss-whedon-woke-bae-feminism-buffy-the-vampire-slayer.

Crenshaw, Kimberle. "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist

Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics." University of Chicago Legal Forum, vol. 1989, no. 1, 1989, pp. 139-67, chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8.

Cole, Kai. "Joss Whedon Is a ‘Hypocrite Preaching Feminist Ideals,’ Ex-Wife Kai Cole Says (Guest Blog)." The Wrap, Aug. 2017, www.thewrap.com/joss-whedon-feminist-hypocrite-infidelity-affairs-ex-wife-kai-cole-says/.

Edwards, Lynne. “Slaying in Black and White: Kendra as Tragic Mulatta in Buffy.” Fighting the Forces: What's at Stake in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, edited by Rhonda V. Wilcox and

David Lavery, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002, pp. 85–97.

Elison, Meg. "The Non-Toxic Masculinity of Rupert Giles." Syfy Wire, 17 June 2018, www.syfy.com/syfywire/the-non-toxic-masculinity-of-rupert-giles.

Fall, Wendy. "Spike Is Forgiven: The Sympathetic Vampire's Resonance with Rape Culture." Slayage, vol. 48, Summer/Fall 2018, pp. 68-86. EBSCOhost, proxy.emerson.edu/login?url=search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f3h&AN=133526410&site=eds-live.

“Gingerbread.” Buffy the Vampire Slayer, season 3, episode 11, The WB, 12 Jan. 1999. Hulu,www.hulu.com/watch/666ff3b9-c7d6-4f5f-adaf-3483ce8add76.

"Graduate Research." Marquette University, Marquette University, 2018, www.marquette.edu/english/research-graduate.php. Accessed 30 Mar. 2019.

Grady, Constane. "Buffy the Vampire Slayer's feminism is still subversive, 20 years later." Vox, 10 Mar. 2017, www.vox.com/culture/2017/3/10/14868588/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-feminism-20th-anniversary.

“I Robot…You, Jane.” Buffy the Vampire Slayer, season 1, episode 8, The WB, 28 Apr. 1997. Hulu, www.hulu.com/watch/6232c153-896e-4d99-b152-9feed2f99fd1.

"Kent A. Ono." University of Utah Profiles, University of Utah, faculty.utah.edu/u0849982-Kent_A._Ono/hm/index.hml.

“Killed by Death.” Buffy the Vampire Slayer, season 2, episode 18, The WB, 3 Mar. 1998. Hulu, www.hulu.com/watch/75cb8a45-13ec-4b44-91a3-920d85cc6908.

Luria, Rachel. “Nothing Left but Skin and Cartilage: The Body and Toxic Masculinity.” Sexual Rhetoric in the Works of Joss Whedon: New Essays, edited by Erin B. Waggoner,

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2010, pp. 185-193.

Magoulick, Mary. "Frustrating female heroism: Mixed messages in Xena. Nikita, and Buffy." Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 39, no. 5, Oct. 2006, pp. 729-55. EBSCOhost, proxy.emerson.edu/login?url=search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgao& AN=edsgcl.153778141&site=eds-live.

Marsters, James. “Buffy’s James Marsters on the hardest day of his professional life.” The A.V. Club, 9 Mar. 2017, https://tv.avclub.com/buffy-s-james-marsters-on-the-hardest-day-of-his-profes-1798258915.

"Mary Macgoulick." Folklore Connections, Georgia College & State University, 1 Apr. 2001, faculty.gcsu.edu/custom-website/mary-magoulick/.

Nicol, Rhonda. “When You Kiss Me, I Want to Die”: Arrested Feminism in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the Twilight Series. Gale, Cengage Learning. EBSCOhost, proxy.emerson.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e dsglr&AN=edsgcl.H1100110197&site=eds-live.

Ono, Kent A. “To Be a Vampire on Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Race and (‘Other’) Socially Marginalizing Positions on Horror TV.” Fantasy Girls: Gender in the New Universe of Science Fiction and Fantasy Television, edited by Elyce Rae Helford, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000, pp. 163–186.

Pender, Patricia. "Buffy Summers: Third-Wave Feminist Icon." The Atlantic, 31 July 2016, www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/07/how-buffy-became-a-third-wave-feminist-icon/493154/.

Riordan, Ellen. "Commodified agents and empowered girls: consuming and producing feminism." Journal of Communication Inquiry, vol. 25, no. 3, July 2001, pp. 279-97. EBSCOhost, proxy.emerson.edu/login?url=search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx direct=true&db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.78260548&site=eds-live.

Rosenberg, Alyssa. "On ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer,’ we fell for the Slayer along with Angel,Riley and Spike." Editorial. The Washington Post, 10 Mar. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2017/03/10/on-buffy-the-vampire-slayer-we-fell-for-the-slayer-along-with-angel-riley-and-spike/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.90b458f0de94.

“Same Time, Same Place.” Buffy the Vampire Slayer, season 7, episode 3, UPN, 8 Oct. 2002. Hulu, www.hulu.com/watch/f9a3b884-b72b-4bef-81e4-bcd95b002608.

Simons, Natasha. "Reconsidering the Feminism of Joss Whedon." The Mary Sue, edited by Kaila

Hale-Stern and Dan Van Winkle, Dan Abrams, 10 Apr. 2011, www.themarysue.com/ reconsidering-the-feminism-of-joss-whedon/.

“Smashed.” Buffy the Vampire Slayer, season 6, episode 9, UPN, 20 Nov. 2001. Hulu, www.hulu.com/watch/7728e9d5-e05d-4be3-ac93-d8792a018e54.

“Touched.” Buffy the Vampire Slayer, season 7, episode 20, UPN, 6 May 2003. Hulu,www.hulu.com/watch/ba2c6e7c-b015-47d2-8c62-4f16be64c579.

Whedon, Joss. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The WB and UPN, 1997-2003.

White, Adam. "Five time Joss Whedon, self-proclaimed 'woke bae', blew his feminist credentials." The Telegraph, edited by Martin Chilton, The Daily Telegraph, 21 Aug. 2017, www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/joss-whedon-5-times-blew-feminist-credentials/.

“Wrecked.” Buffy the Vampire Slayer, season 6, episode 10, UPN, 27 Nov. 2001. Hulu, www.hulu.com/watch/661f80ab-5cdc-426f-a494-283b03cf2ca6.

Yang, Jeff. "Is Joss Whedon a feminist?" Editorial. CNN Wire, 8 May 2015. EBSCOhost, www.cnn.com/2015/05/08/opinions/yang-joss-whedon-feminism/index.html.

[pjbehindthesun]

Character Profile: Cora

Hey hi hello. When I asked you how you wanted to celebrate the latest reader milestone, you voted to see Cora's character profile in full. Here it is! Or, here it is, current as of chapter 23 (I had to take some stuff out, you know how it is). So if you're not through chapter 23 yet, there may be some undesired spoilers. And if you’re current up through chapter 23, then maybe some mild desired spoilers, who knows. Enjoy!

Name: Cora Lane Shaw

Age: 22 when the story starts. She’ll be 40 when it ends. (I told you guys, we got a whiiiiile yet to go…)

Nationality: American, with mostly Scottish and Irish ancestry.

Socioeconomic level as a child: Very poor early on, but became more solidly middle class once her mother remarried.

Socioeconomic level as an adult: At the start of the story, she’s able to make ends meet, but she’s pretty much living paycheck to paycheck and sharing living expenses with Alex.

Hometown: The general Asheville, NC area is all she’s ever told anyone. She has not told anyone the actual name of her hometown yet. She’s kind of embarrassed by it.

Current residence: At the beginning of the fic, she lives in Seattle WA.

Occupation: PhD student at UW College of Forest Resources, also a part-time waitress at Cyclops cafe. Her career will obviously change over the course of the fic.

Income: She gets a small stipend from working as a teaching assistant in her department, and picks up a little extra money waitressing.

Talents/Skills: Her biggest skill is being extremely book smart. She has decent wilderness skills. She had to learn some basic thriftiness skills like knitting and sewing, although she hates all that stuff. She does like to cook and bake but only because it appeals to her inner scientist. She also plays guitar (badly) and mandolin (worse).

Birth order: Oldest of two.

Siblings (describe relationship): She has one younger brother, Patrick, who she calls Patch and who is four years younger than her. Patch is 18 at the start of the fic. The two are extremely close, although nothing alike, and Cora is very protective of him. But she also relies heavily on his opinion.

Parents (describe relationship): Her biological parents are Shirley and Paul. Paul left when Cora was 8 years old and she has not seen or heard from him since. She has fond (albeit childlike) memories of him, but of course, his departure had a deep impact on her ability to trust people and her view of what commitment means. She has a terrible relationship with her mother, which has more to do with John, the man her mother remarried, than anything else. Whenever she has to go back to North Carolina, she stays with her childhood best friend's parents instead of her own.

Grandparents (describe relationship): She doesn't know her dad's parents or anything about them. Her mom's father died when her mom was very young, and her maternal grandmother is in a nursing home with dementia after having suffered a stroke a few years ago.

Significant others (describe relationship): At the beginning of the fic, she is dating Alex Henderson. Alex is a year older than her but they were the same year in college and met during the first month of freshman year. They used to have a very relaxed, fun-loving, easy relationship in which neither of them expected much from the other. But moving across the country together has exposed some of the fault lines that they hadn't noticed before. They do not share many worldviews or hobbies, and they never developed good communication skills as a couple. Their sex life used to be great but has dwindled to essentially nothing at all. They don't really fight, they just fall into cycles of ignoring/dismissing one another until one of them feels compelled to put more effort into the relationship to keep it going. Alex is the first boyfriend she’s ever had. She will have other relationships as the story progresses.

In a relationship: She throws herself entirely into everything she does, relationships included. Recently, things with Alex have gotten more distant and complicated, but generally, her relationship style is to be very loving and loyal and committed. She tends to develop huge blind spots, and she has terrible communication skills, preferring to hide from uncomfortable truths and lashing out when she’s called on it. But she’s good at using her sense of humor to diffuse bad situations and get things back to normal. Despite a heavy-handed religious upbringing, she enjoys sex and is... not particularly repressed about it.

Height: 5’3 if she stands up straight

Weight: 125 lbs

Race: Caucasian

Eye color: Very dark brown

Hair color: Bright red

Glasses or contact lenses? She wears glasses when she reads sometimes but not routinely.

Skin color: Very pale, very freckled.

Shape of face: Oval

How does she dress? She’s definitely a tomboy. She wears a lot of jeans and grandpa sweaters. (One pair of jeans in particular has a bunch of raggedy holes from a literal acid wash thanks to a lab accident.) She owns three skirts and zero dresses (with the exception of the Day-Glo orange bridesmaid’s dress). Footwear of choice is either Converse or Doc Martens.

Habits: (smoking, drinking etc.) She will smoke occasionally but only socially, not as a habit. She does drink a lot of bourbon, like, way too much bourbon. Can be a bit of a pothead, although not as much in grad school.

Health: She’s pretty healthy, but it’s almost by accident. She’s a vegetarian, and she likes to ride her bike more than drive (or she did, before she gave away her bike...), but those habits have to do with her environmental convictions, not being a fitness nut. She does not generally sleep well or take great care of herself outside of those activities, although she does periodically go for a run to clear her head.

Hobbies: Reading, running/biking/hiking/anything that gets her outside, cooking and baking. And sometimes playing guitar. Again, badly.

Speech patterns: She speaks very quickly and moves her hands a lot when she talks. She has a faint NC accent despite having tried hard to shed it. Her favorite swears are religious, like “sweet merciful zombie Jesus.”

Greatest flaw: Perfectionism in the unhealthiest way. This applies to her standards for herself (personally and professionally) as well as a rigidity in how she navigates her life. She also has a short temper.

Best quality: Her idealism drives her to make the world better. Not just in her planned career, but in how she deals with other people as well. She’s not an optimist but she wants to make a difference.

Short-term goals in life: On the immediate horizon, pass her prelim exams, get a fellowship, and publish her first paper from her research. In the initial months of the fic, her other primary short-term goal was to keep her relationship with Alex thriving, although she has become less committed to that idea recently.

Long-term goals in life: Finish her PhD, get a tenure-track job at a research university, and use evidence to impact people's decisions for the greater good. She’s always seen that happening through a career in scientific research. She doesn’t have distinct personal goals like “get married, have kids,” because she prizes her independence and has misgivings about some of those life choices, at least as she understands them right now.

How does she see herself? She second-guesses herself constantly, both personally and professionally. She doesn’t have a very high opinion of her looks, but she doesn’t get bent out of shape about it either. She finds other things to have low self-esteem about, like her foot-in-mouth tendencies or her perfectionism in school or her worry of hurting other people.

What would most embarrass her? She hates it when she puts her foot in her mouth and says something rude to a person she really cares about. She would also be very embarrassed to be seen as vulnerable in any way.

Strengths and weaknesses: Strengths are intelligence, altruism, humor, stubbornness, and generosity. Weaknesses are emotional fragility, stubbornness, short temper, inflexibility, anxiety. 

Introvert or Extrovert? Introvert

How does she deal with anger? Her temper flares. She's not good with it at all. 

With loss? Not well. She internalizes it and it sometimes causes her to hold on to people she probably shouldn't. 

What makes her happy? Being in nature, being with her (very few) loved ones, and scientific discovery. 

Rude or polite? Rude for sure.

What motivates her? Fear of failure and loss. Altruism and ideals.

Is she ruled by emotion or logic or some combination thereof? Almost always logic, although there are certain circumstances where she can be swept up in a moment.

Does she believe in God? Absolutely not. She was raised Catholic and still carries a lot of Catholic guilt around in her personality, but she’s pretty dismissive of spirituality in general.

Relationships with others:

1. Alex: They start out dating. They met when she was still a very naive 17 year old, and he’s been her whole world ever since. She’s starting to lose patience with him and doubt how truthful he’s being. And of course, she’s keeping a secret from him too.

2. Lucy: Best friend. Lives downstairs. You haven’t heard how they met yet but it’s a good story and you’ll hear it eventually from one of them. Suffice it to say they hit it off immediately.

3. Chris: Chris is the first member of the “Seattle scene” she met, out on their hike in an undisclosed location in the Northern Cascades. They have a deep friendship but they don’t see each other very often due to their respective schedules.

4. Jeff: Neighbors. They formally meet for the first time at the Off Ramp and don't really hit it off right away. He is annoyed by her sense of humor. Gradually he warms up to her as he understands her relationship with Lucy better. But they are always a little at odds.

4. Stone: She meets Stone at the Off Ramp at the same time as Jeff. They form a friendship very quickly, although Stone has feelings for her from the very start. She realizes slowly that she has feelings for him as well. Then... some things happen. It gets complicated, and not complicated.

4. Eddie: It takes a while for Eddie to stop being “that new guy” to anyone, including Cora. But she initially strikes up a conversation with him because she feels bad for how lonely he looks, and they hit it off well. They have a habit of oversharing with one another.

5. Patch: Little brother. Adores him, thinks the world of him, needs his validation for everything she does, is extremely protective of him.

How she is different at the end of the novel from when the novel began: Obviously much older, and much more flexible in her ideas.

[tattooed-alchemist]

The US civil rights movement is one of the most important episodes in the pacifist history. Across the world, people see it as an example of nonviolent victory. But, like the other examples discussed here, it was neither a victory nor nonviolent. The movement was successful in ending de jure segregation and expanding the minuscule black petty bourgeoisie, but these were not the only demands of the majority of movement participants.[13]They wanted full political and economic equality, and many also wanted black liberation in the form of black nationalism, black inter-communalism, or some other independence from white imperialism. None of these demands were met — not equality, and certainly not liberation.

People of color still have lower average incomes, poorer access to housing and health care, and poorer health than white people. De facto segregation still exists.[14] Political equality is also lacking. Millions of voters, most of them black, are disenfranchised when it is convenient to ruling interests, and only four black senators have served since Reconstruction.[15] Other races have also been missed by the mythical fruits of civil rights. Latino and Asian immigrants are especially vulnerable to abuse, deportation, denial of social services they pay taxes for, and toxic and backbreaking labor in sweatshops or as migrant agricultural laborers. Muslims and Arabs are taking the brunt of the post-September 11 repression, while a society that has anointed itself “color-blind” evinces nary a twinge of hypocrisy. Native peoples are kept so low on the socioeconomic ladder as to remain invisible, except for the occasional symbolic manifestation of US multiculturalism — the stereotyped sporting mascot or hula-girl doll that obscures the reality of actual indigenous people.

The common projection (primarily by white progressives, pacifists, educators, historians, and government officials) is that the movement against racial oppression in the United States was primarily nonviolent. On the contrary, though pacifist groups such as Martin Luther King Jr.‘s Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) had considerable power and influence, popular support within the movement, especially among poor black people, increasingly gravitated toward militant revolutionary groups such as the Black Panther Party.[16] According to a 1970 Harris poll, 66 percent of African Americans said the activities of the Black Panther Party gave them pride, and 43 percent said the party represented their own views.[17] In fact, militant struggle had long been a part of black people’s resistance to white supremacy. Mumia Abu-Jamal boldly documents this history in his 2004 book, We Want Freedom. He writes, “The roots of armed resistance run deep in African American history. Only those who ignore this fact see the Black Panther Party as somehow foreign to our common historical inheritance.”[18] In reality, the nonviolent segments cannot be distilled and separated from the revolutionary parts of the movement (though alienation and bad blood, encouraged by the state, often existed between them). Pacifist, middle-class black activists, including King, got much of their power from the specter of black resistance and the presence of armed black revolutionaries.[19]

In the spring of 1963, Martin Luther King Jr.‘s Birmingham campaign was looking like it would be a repeat of the dismally failed action in Albany, Georgia (where a 9 month civil disobedience campaign in 1961 demonstrated the powerlessness of nonviolent protesters against a government with seemingly bottomless jails, and where, on July 24, 1962, rioting youth took over whole blocks for a night and forced the police to retreat from the ghetto, demonstrating that a year after the nonviolent campaign, black people in Albany still struggled against racism, but they had lost their preference for nonviolence). Then, on May 7 in Birmingham, after continued police violence, three thousand black people began fighting back, pelting the police with rocks and bottles. Just two days later, Birmingham — up until then an inflexible bastion of segregation — agreed to desegregate downtown stores, and President Kennedy backed the agreement with federal guarantees. The next day, after local white supremacists bombed a black home and a black business, thousands of black people rioted again, seizing a 9 block area, destroying police cars, injuring several cops (including the chief inspector), and burning white businesses. A month and a day later, President Kennedy was calling for Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act, ending several years of a strategy to stall the civil rights movement.[20] Perhaps the largest of the limited, if not hollow, victories of the civil rights movement came when black people demonstrated they would not remain peaceful forever. Faced with the two alternatives, the white power structure chose to negotiate with the pacifists, and we have seen the results.

[thebeardynerd]

Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Amendment Act, 2021 (India)

Since the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act was passed in 1971, abortion has been permitted in India under a variety of conditions. In order to make safe and legal abortion services more accessible to women, the Act was revised in 2003. Ten women each day die from unsafe abortions, which are the third-leading cause of maternal mortality, and countless more suffer from morbidities.

As part of reproductive freedom and gender justice, the Union Cabinet amended this Act in the early months of 2020 to permit women to get abortions. The change elevates India to the top tier of nations that support women who want to make independent decisions based on their circumstances and viewpoints.

The change increased the maximum MTP period for women, including rape survivors, incest victims, women with disabilities, and juveniles, from 20 to 24 weeks. The failure of contraception is also acknowledged, and the earlier provision that said that this Act applies only to “married women or their husbands” has been replaced with “any woman or her partner.” The new law is progressive, sympathetic, and presents a human face to a very delicate topic.

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971

The MTP Act outlines who may terminate a pregnancy, when that termination may occur, and where that termination may occur. The MTP Rules and Regulations, 2003 offer reporting and documentation criteria for safe and legal termination of pregnancy, as well as the training and certification specifications for a provider and facility.

Who May Terminate a Pregnancy?

According to the MTP Act, only a registered medical practitioner (RMP) who satisfies the following criteria may terminate a pregnancy:

possesses a medical degree that is recognized by the Indian Medical Council Act

2. whose name is listed in the State Medical Register

3. who, in accordance with the MTP Rules, has the requisite training or experience in obstetrics and gynecology

In which circumstances are the provisions of the MTP Act available?

The legal framework of this Act enforces the need to provide efficient and safe procedures and services for a woman who decides on getting an abortion if she finds herself in the following situation(s) :

when a pregnant woman’s life is in danger or when carrying the pregnancy out could seriously harm her physical or mental health;

when there is a significant chance that the baby may be born or die with severe physical or mental defects;

When rape results in pregnancy (which is seen to seriously harm the lady’s mental health);

When a married woman or her husband fails to use contraception as prescribed; and

when a couple has between two and three children and their socioeconomic situation would not permit them to afford another baby.

Consent Required :

As per the provisions of the MTP Act, only the consent of the woman whose pregnancy is being terminated is required. However, in the case of a minor i.e. below the age of 18 years, or a woman with mental illness, consent of a guardian (MTP Act defines a guardian as someone who has the care of the minor.

Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 was amended on March 16th, 2021, by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021. The changes are intended to widen the range of safe abortion services that are available to women and to safeguard their rights to justice, autonomy, and dignity when it comes to ending their pregnancies.

Long story short, the 2021 Amendment to the MTP Act stands significant owing to the following key changes :

It raised the maximum gestation period for specific groups of women from 20 to 24 weeks. These groups would include rape survivors, incest victims, and other vulnerable women (such as women with disabilities and minors), among others.

A doctor’s opinion is necessary if the abortion is carried out within 12 weeks of conception; if it is carried out between 12 and 20 weeks, two doctors’ opinions are necessary.

For certain groups of women, the bill permits abortion on the advice of one doctor up to 20 weeks and two doctors between 20 and 24 weeks.

Additionally, if it’s essential to end the pregnancy at any point in order to save the woman’s life, it is legal to do so.

The other provisions of this Amendment:

The Act permits pregnant women to end their pregnancies in certain circumstances. Notably, the Transgender Persons (Protections and Rights) Act, 2019, in India acknowledges transgender as a distinct gender.

According to several medical studies, transgender people (who are not necessarily women) who transition from being female to male may become pregnant after undergoing hormone therapy, necessitating the use of termination services. Because only women’s pregnancies are covered by the Bill, it is uncertain if transgender people will be safeguarded.

By the incorporation of a few new clauses under separate sections, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, has improved the access to comprehensive abortion care under stringent guidelines and raised the upper gestational limit for termination of pregnancy under certain circumstances. This is done without compromising on the service or quality of safe abortion.

Despite these encouraging developments for women’s reproductive rights in the nation, abortion has long been the subject of contentious moral, ethical, political, and legal debates.

Abortion is no more only a medical issue because it is at the center of a much larger ideological debate where the fundamental definitions of the family, the state, motherhood, and women’s sexuality are at stake.

Conclusion

While it is commendable that the Central Government has taken such a courageous stance while maintaining a balance with the various cultures, traditions, and schools of thought that our nation upholds, the amendment still leaves women with a number of conditions, many of which become barriers to accessing safe abortion.

The government must make sure that all clinical standards and regulations are followed nationwide in hospitals and other healthcare facilities in order to allow abortions. For the same, there needs to be a strong balance between human rights and technological growth.

One can be confident that the nation is making progress because it has now been made into an act and is tackling women’s issues more vehemently than before.

Source links — Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Amendment Act, 2021 (India)