#socioeconomic reforms

[howdoesone]

How does one assess the impact of transitional justice mechanisms in post-genocide societies?

Transitional justice mechanisms play a crucial role in post-genocide societies by addressing past atrocities, promoting accountability, and fostering reconciliation. Assessing the impact of these mechanisms is essential to understand their effectiveness in healing divided communities and preventing future conflicts. This article explores how one can assess the impact of transitional justice…

[alwaysbewoke]

A new study by the education watchdog Available to All reveals that school attendance zones and selective admission policies in the U.S. often exclude students of color and low-income families from elite public schools, thereby reinstating levels of segregation reminiscent of 1968. The study criticizes the use of residential addresses for school assignments, which supports "educational redlining" that favors affluent families, leading to systemic inequalities in access to advanced educational programs. Available to All calls for legislative reforms to protect enrollment rights and recommends that school districts minimize the importance of geographical boundaries to combat segregation and improve school access for all. The resurgence of school segregation to levels seen in 1968 is a stark reminder of how deeply systemic inequality is entrenched in our education system. Policies that favor affluent families and perpetuate educational redlining deny many Black and low-income students the opportunity to access quality education.

but listen to the racists and coons, black people are just making shit up and "playing the victim/race card."

[tenth-sentence]

Until basic environmental conditions were equalized among all socioeconomic strata, reform eugenicists held, no one had any right to say that one stratum differed from another solely by the force of heredity.

"In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity" - Daniel J. Kevles

[alltingfinns]

This may be me reading too much into linguistic and cultural differences, along with a simplified view of history, but hear me out.

In Sweden during the 19th century, after the Napoleonic wars took away our continental holdings, the country had a period of social reforms. A bit of “me” time for the country sort of say. Although it was probably more motivated by how our already low population got decimated by a huge migration wave to the Americas, because of the poor conditions people were living in. Or maybe it was a side effect of the industrial revolution.

The point is that this is the time period where we started the progress that would eventually make us the meme of social welfare we kind of are today. Coupled with the 20th century being generally dominated by majority social democratic rule.

You know what insult fell completely out of favor during this time? One that is still highly favored in English speaking countries? Oäkting. Our word for bastard, someone born out of wedlock. In general, one of the more common cultural clashes I get consuming American and British media is whenever someone makes a big deal about whether their parents were married at the time of conception or not.

Maybe I have made this connection solely because a teacher specifically pointed out how much easier those early reforms made it for single mothers, thus breaking that social stigma a bit. Not entirely, you still have those kind of studies with similar results in this country. But overall we don’t react as negatively to the idea of someone having a single parent in the past. (Though I have still faced pushback for musing on the idea of getting myself a kid or two without getting myself a partner first.)

The implication of “bastard” as an insult is that of course you must have been raised out of wedlock to be such a terrible person. But if your mother had access to professional daycare facilities that took her income into consideration for the pricing, the possibility of applying to the government for additional help with income, then what?

"You shouldn't get divorced because kids from single parent homes have worse outcomes" or hear me out we can improve the resources available for single parents and get rid of the societal stigma against them. Because even if you fucking hate divorce for some weird reason kids with only one parent will always exist and they deserve better.

[reformthesystem]

WAYS TO INCREASE SUPPORT FOR THE GOVERNMENT

Hi, this is my blog post on the need for the government to significantly improve and strengthen the people's socioeconomic status, in order to gain more support. If you like my articles and want to support my work, please consider subscribing to my blog. Thanks.

[yetanotherlesbianonthiswebsite]

I am not enraged, just disappointed about the decisions that carry over. It does not matter who my Inquisitor romanced. It frankly does not matter if the Inquisition was disbanded or not; its political power is marginal at this point. And it does not matter what vow the Inquisitor took towards Solas; again, the power of the Inquisition is basically void at this point.

But we are going to go to Nevarra at this point. Orlais and Navarra share a border. Do you think it is unimportant if war hawk Gaspard rules Orlais or is dead? We are going to Weishaupt; do you think the binding legal decision to exile the Wardens from Southern Thedas backed by the major powers of the region matters not? Do you think the sweeping reforms ushered in by one Divine Victoria versus the regressive restorations of the status quo by Divine Cassandra do not have rippling effects that spread out across the schism lines? Do you think the socioeconomic position of Tevinter wouldn't be accelerated or decelerated towards its inevitable breaking point by the decisions in Southern Thedas? Do you think a ruling Briala would mean nothing to the Shadow Dragons when deciding where to send their freed elves? Orlais is the hegemon of Southern Thedas. Its civil war and its outcome do have consequences even a Magisterium and Black Divine have to consider and react to.

Origins was very viscerally about the cost of war, and the way a power vacuum in a monarchy implodes violently. DA2 was about how oppression and autocracy will encroach on your life no matter what. Inquisition was about how catholicism will absorb any opposition to it and how it will render the individual moot and broken. Veilguard is about... some guy and how much of a sob story his life is and how much you should want to fix him.

[loveamongdragons]

Don't you find it interesting that Yon Rha, a former commander of the Southern Raiders, presumably a relatively high position in the navy, was living a relatively poor life after he had retired? Now, it could be that his position wasn't as high as I imagine, but it also makes me think that the common people of the Fire nation don't see much of their country's supposed wealth and glory. That military service is not only a consequence of indoctrination and brain-washing, but also a way to escape poverty and experience socioeconomic security, at least for a while.

Which has interesting implications on internal Fire nation politics, the general perception of the regime, and the level of acceptance towards future reforms.

[ptseti]

MAURICE BISHOP’S MESSAGE TO AFRICANS IN THE UNITED STATES Today, the 13th of March, marks 45 years since the New JEWEL Movement ousted the corrupt dictatorship of Prime Minister Eric Gairy through a bloodless coup in Grenada. It is an excellent time to bring back the revolutionary prime minister, Maurice Bishop’s, address in New York about the danger Grenada’s revolution posed to the United States. The New JEWEL Movement—New Joint Endeavor for Welfare, Education and Liberation—swiftly established the People’s Revolutionary Government, ushering in a new era of socialist ideals. Under Bishop’s leadership, Grenada underwent a profound socioeconomic transformation marked by extensive reforms and initiatives to uplift the primarily poor population. By 1982, the following occurred: a literacy campaign, the construction of new schools, and the establishment of agricultural cooperatives that particularly benefitted unemployed youth in rural areas. Cuban aid bolstered these efforts, providing expertise in education, healthcare, and infrastructure development, notably constructing a modern international airport to replace the hazardous existing airstrip. Unemployment plummeted from 49 per cent to 14 per cent within four years. Symbolising the shift in priorities, vibrant billboards promoting education adorned the island, signalling a departure from those that had advertised cigarettes and alcohol. Grenada’s revolution sparked tangible social progress and economic development, leaving a lasting legacy of change and empowerment among its populace.

They HAD t o kill him ...SIGH #JewelMovement #Corrupt #Dictatorship #Grenada

[zvaigzdelasas]

At least three people have been killed in the worst unrest in New Caledonia in more than 30 years, as rioting continued and schools remained closed after France adopted controversial reforms to the Pacific territory’s voting rules.

French President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday convened a defence and national security council meeting to discuss the riots, cancelling a scheduled trip to a French region.[...]

Despite heavily armed security forces fanning out across the capital, Noumea, and the ordering of a night-time curfew, rioting continued overnight virtually unabated. The curfew has now been extended until Thursday night, said Butler.[...]

Anger has been simmering for weeks over plans in Paris to change the constitution to allow more people to vote in New Caledonia’s provincial elections.

Critics say the move would marginalise the Indigenous Kanak people, who make up about 40 percent of the population, by allowing more recent European arrivals to vote.[...]

Denise Fisher, a former Australian consul general in New Caledonia, said she was not surprised at the violence of the past few days and told Al Jazeera it showed “a real and fundamental breakdown in the way the territory is being managed”.The voting rules are part of the so-called Noumea Accord of 1998.

Under the deal, France agreed to cede the territory more political power and to limit voting in New Caledonia’s provincial and assembly elections to those who were residents of the island at the time.

About 40,000 French citizens have moved to New Caledonia since 1998, and the changes expand the electoral roll to include those who have lived in the territory for 10 years.[...]

On Wednesday, the main pro-independence Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS) urged calm and condemned the violence, calling in a statement for the rioters to return home.

Socioeconomic marginalisation, land dispossession and disenfranchisement of the Kanaks have long been a source of violent civil unrest in New Caledonia.

15 May 24

[bogcreacher]

Hey! I’ve seen your posts, and I want to know more about Rorqual. What did she do to make Trench hate her? What does Nacre think of her, etc?

I’m curious.

Rorqual indirectly murder-killed Trench’s wife, Anura. This caused Trench to shift from ‘man the monarchy sucks but not much I can do about that :(‘ to ‘I Am Going To Kill That Bastard With My Bear Hands’, which of course then lead to Trench’s challenging her

Nacre and Rorqual have a toxic, should-be-divorced thing going on. Their marriage was 80% political and sorta soured not long after their wedding - Nacre disliked Rorqual because she dismissed Nacre’s attempts to establish herself in her court and present her ideas about a socioeconomic reform, and basically treated her like arm candy. 

Nowadays their relationship is…. Better? They know each other better than anyone else, and with that comes some semblance of love, sort of?? Still kinda unhealthy and embittered, but Nacre is literally the only dragon Rorqual trusts, so, that counts for something at least. hand in unloveable hand etc 

[chicago-geniza]

Nobody come to the bookstore today I need to research Cincinnati in the 1870s-1880s, the American dry goods trade, Reconstruction socioeconomic reform, women's fashion, and the history of Jewish immigration to the Midwest for a Downton Abbey fanfiction

[hadesoftheladies]

Hades' Personal Reflections on Separatism and Power XD

so here's my current definition of separatism:

any deliberate action that women take to divest from men that simultaneously transfers energy, resources and other forms of investment to female community. it must be an exercise of women's autonomy and power that deliberately excludes, de-centers and disadvantages men while promoting, centering and including women.

this definition would hence designate the following as not separatism:

-religious or non-religious sex segregation (this is not an exercise of women's autonomy)

-religious celibacy (this is not done for the sake of female community and also invests in male hegemony by focusing on male religion)

-girl's night out where the conversation is predominantly about relationships with men (even parasocial ones) XD

-domestic scenarios women are forced into where they find themselves able to talk to each other (i.e. women in the kitchen during a family reunion)

-sex segregation in general (because separatism is organized by the oppressed and segregation is organized by the oppressor)

this definition would include:

-exclusively female social groups (clubs, meetings, etc) where resources such as information and even financial aid are shared between women (like grandma's wednesday knitting club)

-women deliberately refusing to marry, date or befriend men (or all three at once)

-consuming only female products or intellectual property

Criticisms:

Some say separatism is better off being simply described as women physically separating from men. After all, who is the oppressor here? It is men that pose a threat to women and it is relationships to men that disadvantage and drain women while advantaging and reviving men. It seems silly to say that a woman who dates and lives with a man but reads only female authors is somehow radical or a separatist (and we must remember that separatism is an expression of radical feminism hence must be aimed toward radical reformation of patriarchal social structures). It's practically an insult to separatism by trivializing the very thing it exists to eradicate (unlike other forms of activism): male supremacy in the interpersonal sphere.

If we were to try distinguish between these forms and call celibacy "radical separatism" and reading exclusively female authors "quasi-separatism" none of these terms would make sense because separatism is (or must be) itself radical action and de-centering men while reading is still a form of male exclusion, divesting from male hegemony and financial/social investment in female community.

So we're at an impasse: because separatism must always be radical and yet, things that don't seem very radical still re-structure power on some scale (thus fulfilling the basic requirements of the end-goal of separatism which is to reclaim power as women in the interpersonal sphere by excluding male access to us). A woman who divorces her husband but keeps her son is divesting from male power in a socioeconomically impactful way on one end, but not on the other.

And there's the problem: she may disadvantage and separate from her ex husband (separatism) but is also investing in and raising her son (not separatism). So what we're really asking here is: "if not dating or marrying men was separatism and radical, does doing other non-radical things cancel out said radical action?"

I'd say no. Which is why I find the vegan metaphor unfitting for this discussion. I find it more useful to define separatism and radical action through the lens of power: who is getting it, who is losing it and to what extent they are empowered/disempowered.

For example, exercising is healthy but drinking heavily is unhealthy. Me exercising will always be a healthy action regardless of what I do after. Me drinking excessively will always be unhealthy. Does it make sense to then call someone who both exercises and drinks "only healthy" or "only unhealthy"? Or is it better to discuss which of their actions are healthy or unhealthy rather than attach an identity to it?

That seems to be the heart of this disagreement. Half of us think drinking heavily excludes you from being a healthy person period. I say that exercising is still meaningful action that counts as being "healthy" or contributing to health. Not because it's necessarily "more right" but because it seems more productive to me. Separatist action will always be separatist action. Non-separatist behaviour will be non-separatist. Does that make women practicing separatism in one form and not practicing separatism in another separatists or not separatists?

I think it's not that important. Separatism (exercise) is still good to practice and as many women as possible should engage with it however or whenever they can. Exercise will always be healthy (no matter who does it) the same way divesting from men and investing in women in any form will be a form of beneficial separatism that absolutely challenges the male status quo. Non-separatist action (drinking) will still never be empowering or radical the same way partnering with men will never challenge the male status quo. I find it more productive to ask how one can take more radical action rather than whether one is or is not radical.

Because to talk about being a separatist or radical feminist as something one is or is not rather than something one does (radical/separatist action) or does not is to inevitably limit it to ideology, which limits it to the realm of history and appeals to authority (feminist theorists and academics).

Note: I use my definition of separatism because I think anything that excludes males in order to empower women is best described as separatism rather than anything else. I don't think it makes sense to call these transferrals of power under these feminist goals "not separatism."

[radicalitch]

being anti-birth control and pro-natalism-at-any-cost is so wild and bizarre imo. and it’s almost always men that are OBSESSED with reproduction and ‘continuing blood lines’ like we’re all gonna go extinct tomorrow if the woman they’re talking to doesn’t have a kid ASAP. and that’s not even a compelling alike, if humans have come to the point where the vast majority of people (women) aren’t interested in reproducing than it’s probably time for us to go and reach our natural end. and I’ve seen SO many conversations that, repeatedly, almost verbatim, between men and women, go:

“god wants you to multiply.”

“I don’t believe in god.”

“ok well NATURE and BIOLOGY want you to multiply.”

“well if that was true I’d have an innate desire to reproduce which I don’t, so you telling me to reproduce in spite of my natural, biological inclination seems pretty anti nature.”

pro-birth men are INSANE. if you want more people (women) to have children, work on creating a world better suited to child rearing (speaking from a usamerican perspective here)! but no, let’s just force women to do it, because that’s much more ethical than, like, (again, in the US) improving healthcare, education, maternity/paternity leave, cost of living, birthing safety (esp. for women of color), so on and so forth. and i know these tactics wouldn’t make all of the babies these lunatics want, bc women aren’t reproducing at super high rates in countries with these things in place. but I do think that in the US it would lead to at least some more people having kids, because I can personally think of half a dozen people who WANT kids but are choosing not to have them for socioeconomic reasons.

but even encouraging more women to have kids wouldn’t be enough for these maniacs, I don’t think. for some reason, they think the human population needs to GROW, not just retain itself, so they have an endless supply of laborers and soldiers to exploit, and have the idea in their head that their numerous descendants will inherit the earth or whatever. sorry dude, your sperm is mediocre at best and there’s nothing special about you that deserves to live on through a child, especially at the expense of a woman.

like, you’d think all of my suggestions for birth control and social reform would really make sense if the goal was just to have more babies/prevent abortion, but it’s 100000% about male control over reproduction.

baby, if your ‘god’ wanted you to control that, I think ‘he’ would’ve built us a little differently.

[thatscarletflycatcher]

Here's the thing with Jane Austen-Elizabeth Gaskell comparisons:

I don't think the intuition that relates them in readers is wrong. Gaskell has read Austen and it shows. I'd even go as far as to say that Gaskell is writing within the same ethic-political framework as Austen -one that is concerned with human flourishing as stemming from an ideal of fulfilled humanity based on an assortment of intellectual and moral excellences, that is, a form of virtue ethics- and I am in fact attempting to write a dissertation on this! *clown shoes noises*.

The problem is when influence and fundamental agreement is treated or understood as imitation, or worse, pastiche. "North and South is Pride and Prejudice + [insert Victorian element here]" is a fun joke, because comedy so often relies on exaggeration, but as an actual description it isn't quite right. North and South pays its homage to P&P with some elements, but it is not an AU retelling. The themes, character arcs and motivations are very different. There is a referentiality, but it is the referentiality of conversation.

Gaskell says "I see Darcy, and I see the ideal Darcy represents in the context of his community of practice (rural, pre-industrial England), as The Gentleman. He has power and he has authority. But how do we make sense of a similar figure of power and authority, but dissimilar in everything else in the context of his own community of practice (urban, industrial England)? What constitutes the ideal of The Man?" It isn't Thornton's points of coincidence with Darcy but their points of drastic contrast that motivate the socio-psycho-moral study of the character. And so on and so forth for other elements of the narrative.

Something similar happens with Wives and Daughters and Mansfield Park. Gaskell says "I understand the point about how a bad early education can fix a character in such a way as to make moral growth or reform impossible through example or exhortation. But what do we do when that person remains intimately connected to us?" Cynthia resembles Mary Crawford, but the angle of approach is different because the question is different (and the environment of transplant is different as well).

There are of course other works of Gaskell where the conversation is tenuous or completely absent. There's no romance plot in Cranford, but we do kind of see in the Cranford amazons the gossips of Highbury. There's no Emma here, no Mr Knightley, no magnanimous rich neighbor to help. The question is how do they manage to live the same virtues of generosity, patience, forgiveness, etc, between themselves.

Austen's novels are mostly occupied with the directly moral: it is about the concrete individuals and their close connections in society, and how virtues and vices in this or that person affect themselves and those around them. The communities of practice, and therefore the ideals of fulfilled humanity remain more or less the same (with some variations, of course). In Gaskell the scope is political, if anything because of Gaskell's unfamiliarity with Austen's socioeconomic environment, and familiarity with completely different ones. So she's taking Austen's general framework, and investigating in which ways the differences in the communities make for different ideals of human flourishing that still relate to the same core virtues.

[thesirencult]

THE PLUTO IN CAPRICORN GENERATION'S ATTITUDE IS THE PROOF THAT WE ARE GOING THROUGH A PARADIGM SHIFT

The average 4 year old spends more than 3 hours each day in front of a screen. Isolated, with no human interaction and their ability to read human emotions and perform complex cognitive functions declining constantly.

The Pluto in Capricorn generation holds a direct mirror to our socioeconomic and technological structures.

Pluto = breaking, transforming, war, power games, death, metamorphosis

Capricorn = socio-economic structures and organization, careers, institutions

After the 2008 crisis and COVID-19 AND the current silent depression we are moving through, looking at the way children of that generation behave, shows us where our societal constructions failed. So here are some observations :

- Many Pluto in Capricorn kids want to pursue a career path out of the norm. They want to be influencers or own online businesses. Very few of them are interested in traditional paths of wealth like banking and finance.

- They don't have respect for school and education because they feel like it doesn't teach them enough. Most of the kids also went through 2 years of online school and they missed out on the social perks the schooling experience provides.

- Violence. This generation is mad at the system. They quiet quit. They hate supervisors and "gurus" and they are also looking for extremely masculine figures, like Andrew Tate. A few days ago I stumbled upon the Candace Owens talk with Andrew Tate and he appeared a bit "reformed". Guess what? The young men in the comment section did not like his slightly changed views on marriage and women.

- This kids consider Facebook and Instagram "old". They like crypto and decentralised platforms. They are simultaneously very street smart but not that interested in formal education.

- It feels like these kids had to grow up very fast in a world that seems unforgiving and harsh. They may be more unemotional and less empathetic, especially if personal placements support that.

[tequilazaku]

See, i think its important that heroes amd villains match each others energy, because anime has this problem where one show will have the interaction of.

Villain A" i must structure socioeconomic reforms around the new aristocracy to avert the corruption inherent in a decentralised govenment"

Hero A "I will kill you for being the joker"

And then the next show will go;

Villain B " Im da joker baby, we should just kill all orphans"

Hero B "Argh, hes making a good point, how can we ever know wether killing all orphans is bad or good"

*10 minutes of debate and waffling later*

" I had to do him in, but we may never truly know who was on the right side of history..."