Tag Archives: capitalism

dear future teachers

ace-gh0st:

classicalmonoblogue:

the-crunchyest-of-water:

imsurroundedbyidiots553:

northeast-artist98:

haleykinz:

panicatthequeerness:

haleykinz:

imaginecrowleyspn:

marksheppardischarming:

thekingsparty:

reclusive-lester:

iamdibandmothman:

bellerose1232:

myworldendedwithyou:

hallowdragonmaster:

DO NOT

FORCE SHY KIDS

TO TALK.

DO NOT

TELL SHY KIDS

THEY NEED TO PARTICIPATE MORE.

DO NOT

MAKE PARTICIPATION

A GRADE.

DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA

HOW HARD IT IS

FOR SOME STUDENTS

TO JUST RAISE THEIR HANDS?

FORCING THEM INTO GROUP PROJECTS

AND MAKING THEM TALK

DOES NOT “TEACH THEM TO BE SOCIAL AND DEVELOP INTO WELL-ROUNDED INDIVIDUALS” 

IT SCARED THE SHIT OUT OF THEM.

AND MAKES THEM HATE SCHOOL.

SERIOUSLY.

COLLEGES TOO.

THERE IS NO REASON TO REQUIRE A PARTICIPATION GRADE.

IF I’M MAKING 90′S ON ALL MY TESTS/QUIZZES

IT MEANS I KNOW THE DAMN MATERIAL YOU TAUGHT

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE SHOULD YOU LOWER MY GRADE 10% JUST BECAUSE I DIDN’T TALK ENOUGH.

I SWEAR IF I GET ANOTHER “B” IN A CLASS THAT I EXCELLED IN JUST BECAUSE I DIDNT FEEL LIKE RAISING MY HAND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS

I MIGHT ACTUALLY KILL U  

PREACH

I may not be shy but I agree with you 100% about the whole participation part !

*SLAMS REBLOG BUTTON*

SERIOUSLY THIS IS AN ACTUAL FUGKIBG PROBLEM

over here, in Germany, participation is 2/3 of the grade, everything you write only counts for 1/3. I’ve always had As in written exams, but teachers thought it fair to give me Cs and Ds, just because I didn’t raise my hand often enough. (I did reply tho when asked directly.)

And other students who *beeped* up written exams but blabbered all lesson long (not even IN topic) got better grades than me. 

This speaks to me on a spiritual level.

Also, don’t force the shy kid into a group project with the popular kids. They’ll only be humiliated by the popular kids, which will have the opposite effect of what you want.

AND I STG DO NOT

*popular kid is being loud and obnoxious*

*sits loud and obnoxious kid next to quiet and shy kid*

A) a shy person shouldn’t be a punishment

B) it’s more of a punishment for the shy kid than the loud mouth

C) how about you send the kid outside or put him alone rather than allowing a student to distract other students and make them feel uncomfortable

plus, FUCKING DO SOMETHING WHEN SOMEONE IS BULLIED!

^^^

*DEMOLISHES THE REBLOG BUTTON*

Please! I swear! Teachers, learn from this! My sister has selective mutism (which means if she doesn’t talk much in public. If she doesn’t talk to you, don’t get offended. She didn’t talk to our aunt until she was six. She says she wants to talk to people, but it feels like the words get stuck in her throat) and school got so bad, my mother took her out of public school and started homeschooling her. Teachers, please, do not force shy, quiet kids to talk. It makes their shyness/quietness worse. 

Can I just say though this is terrible during school it is an important skill to have in most careers because many employers may fire someone who does not interact with them at all

For those of you who aren’t shy and want to help:
As a natural chatterbox with zero problem talking in class, my method was to talk to the shy students one-on-one in the caf, around campus, wherever, and get a few comments and ideas from everyone I could, and then pepper them into my class discussions “I want to bring up X, because Jane mentioned in a discussion that Y, which ties into that thing John said the other day about Z…”
This will occasionally backfire and inspire the prof to ask John or Jane to expand on their idea, and you’ll have to smooth it over and divert the prof’s attention back off them, but 95% of the time it just gives the prof the vague sense that John and Jane were contributing. I initially started doing it for shy friends, and their participation scores shot up, so I expanded it.

“Can I just say though this is terrible during school it is an important skill to have in most careers because many employers may fire someone who does not interact with them at all”

Exactly. Capitalism is a pile of shit.

Link

leftclausewitz:

Neoliberalism is a widely used term today. However, it is often unclear what people refer to when they use it. In its most systematic usage it might refer to a theory, a set of ideas, a political strategy, or a historical period. Could you begin by explaining how you understand neoliberalism?

I’ve always treated neoliberalism as a political project carried out by the corporate capitalist class as they felt intensely threatened both politically and economically towards the end of the 1960s into the 1970s. They desperately wanted to launch a political project that would curb the power of labor.

In many respects the project was a counterrevolutionary project. It would nip in the bud what, at that time, were revolutionary movements in much of the developing world — Mozambique, Angola, China etc. — but also a rising tide of communist influences in countries like Italy and France and, to a lesser degree, the threat of a revival of that in Spain.

Even in the United States, trade unions had produced a Democratic Congress that was quite radical in its intent. In the early 1970s they, along with other social movements, forced a slew of reforms and reformist initiatives which were anti-corporate: the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, consumer protections, and a whole set of things around empowering labor even more than it had been empowered before.

So in that situation there was, in effect, a global threat to the power of the corporate capitalist class and therefore the question was, “What to do?”. The ruling class wasn’t omniscient but they recognized that there were a number of fronts on which they had to struggle: the ideological front, the political front, and above all they had to struggle to curb the power of labor by whatever means possible. Out of this there emerged a political project which I would call neoliberalism.

for the peeps who dunno what neoliberalism is

Neoliberalism is a political project

skysquids:

many-worlds:

many-worlds:

skysquids:

drethelin:

skysquids:

drethelin:

rebellionkid:

skysquids:

someone with 8 million dollars owns almost 500 years of other people’s time at minimum wage. there is no fair way for that to happen. that person did not “earn” 500 years of someone else’s work.

Exactly why not? Lets take the easiest cases and work down:

Norman Borlaug saved over a billion lives with his work on wheat. If this made him 8 million in patent royalties then bloody hell has he earned that. If he made half of India his personal slave that would be a net gain for humanity.

Paul Müller invented DDT and wiped out malaria in America. It was rare already sure, and DDT has nasty side effects in some cases. But he saved enough lives to make the side effects worth it and then some.

Steve Jobs revolutionised the way we use phones, and the way we use personal computing generally. If you’re reading this on a phone he’s earnt just a little slice of your time. It’s saved countless hours of time, made countless other ours better much better. If all of that, over everyone in the rich world, doesn’t add up to 500 years I’ll eat my hat.

The guys who started uber didn’t do anything clever, didn’t work hard at a difficult problem, they just spotted a gap and filled it. But without them scores of thousands of people wouldn’t have a job. Without them many people would have to pay absurd prices for a taxi. Without them PoC in many places wouldn’t be able to get a taxi at all. They made the world better. Even if it never made their brows sweat they surely earned 500 years of people’s time.

I’m going to go ahead and say the guys at uber did in fact sweat and work hard and did clever things to solve a difficult problem and if you don’t think it’s difficult then you severely underestimate how hard coordination is.

so how many of other people’s lifetimes does that sweat entitle them to? as many as they can get?

you use ‘sweat’ figuratively here, forgetting that many low paying jobs require our physical sweat and do physical damage to our bodies for very little compensation. i think you under estimate how hard it is to produce all of the food and things you need to survive.

As much as they have, give or take. It’s not entitlement: it’s exchange. If people pay you for a product or service they are giving you of their sweat and work in exchange for it, and if you make something millions of people want to pay you for you will have millions of people’s worth of man hours.

you’re using ‘you’ interchangeably for both the workers and the management. this is called metonymy, it is not literally true that steve jobs made these things – he told workers to make them and he told marketers to sell them. this type of linguistic trick is part of the process by which labor is rendered invisible and thought of as no more than an extension of the owning class’ bodies. i think you are so steeped in capitalist ideology (as are we all) that you’re not even aware that you’re deploying these types of arguments.

Bam.

If he made half of India his personal slave that would be a net gain for humanity.
If he made half of India his personal slave that would be a net gain for humanity.
If he made half of India his personal slave that would be a net gain for humanity.
If he made half of India his personal slave that would be a net gain for humanity.

yeah, i think you have to be totally morally bankrupt to say or defend shit like that.

trashgender-garbabe-nova:

asciiheart:

The nuclear family is probably the greatest enabler of child abuse, ever.

Putting two people in complete control of another person (who is particularly vulnerable and has few legal rights) and then having no oversight for the whole arrangement is the absolute worst idea.

Families are garbage.

What is done for the efficiency of capital is hardly ever good for general humanity and almost never good for the vulnerable.

elodieunderglass:

f0r-arguments-sake:

elodieunderglass:

tabathagfitzgerald:

gustacos:

themodernmisandrist:

If men stopped working…the world would continue on.

If women stopped working, then things would get ugly.

What?

there has been an instance where this happened.
it was 1975 and icelandic women decided not to work for one day. 

working as in cooking, cleaning, taking care of the children, doing chores and so on, not only “not showing up to your workplace”. women did nothing that day, except showing up in reykjavik and protesting for gender equality, equal pay and equal representation in parliament, you know, cool stuff. 

you know what happened? havoc. men were left with food to cook and children they never took care of to pick up from kindergarden and entertain for the day. they went en masse to the food shops buying sausages because they could cook nothing else, they had to bond with children they never spent more than a couple hours a day with. they struggled combining their work day and the domestic tasks they had to sort out. and this just for one day.

iceland in 1975 stopped working and things indeed got ugly.
so ugly that women in the following decades became woke AF and soon it happened that women became president, took half of the seats in parliament and achieved one of the best living environments in the world.

is your astonishment solved now?

We already know what happens to countries when the majority of the male workforce is removed. It is called “war.”

If you want to read Highly Documented and Very Historical accounts of how countries function without internal male labor, you can start by diving in to World War 1 and World War 2! (I’m just gonna talk about the Allied forces because my English is best
and I know the most about them, but the Axis powers had similar
dynamics!)

See, when the warring civilizations threw every able-bodied man they could at war fronts all over the planet, this left enormous labor vacuums. Not only did the countries have to function without male labor, but they also had to funnel vast amounts of food, clothing, ammunition and weapons to the men in combat. By WW2, women were needed in every possible role that didn’t include active combat.

If you send millions of men to combat, then the resulting millions of empty, necessary, “male” jobs must be done by women. That’s just how it works.

This is an British WW1 poster from 1917. It says it succinctly – every woman who takes a “male” job in the military, frees up that man for active combat.

One thing that you can’t get enough of in war is bullets! With men spending bullets but not making them, the women need to do it. These WW1 posters from around 1918 are pretty cool – the woman “doing her bit” has shades of Art Nouveau, I think.

Here’s an American WW1 poster in which the women are dressed as mechanics, train drivers, military support, manufacturers, farmers and nurses. I like the cool Victorian shoes and the baggy trousers. Isn’t it funny to think that this happened between the Victorians and the flappers?

In WW1, you couldn’t even afford to spare able-bodied men to drive ambulances in warzones. Ambulance drivers on the Front were largely women. They picked up the wounded and dying men and took them to field hospitals staffed largely by women.

By WW2, the women of the Allied nations were SO ON TOP OF THIS.

Here is a Canadian lady from the 1940s. Women in Air Force support were vital – men were the fighter pilots, women were transport pilots – as well as doing the support roles like aircraft maintenance and preparation, parachute packing, communications and intelligence, managing the radar, plotting the weather, and, of course, doing the catering. The language on this poster shows that the woman does all of this necessary work to get the fighter pilots in the air. Every non-combat military job that a woman took meant one more fighter pilot and soldier in active combat.

Back at home, people functioned fairly well without men in WW2. Everyone’s seen this American WW2 poster, you know she’s encouraging women to get into the factories and make All The Stuff!

HEY WE STILL NEED LOTS OF FOOD TO EAT AND THERE ARE NO MEN TO MAKE THE FOOD, SHOULD WE STARVE?

NO WE SHOULD NOT

THIS AUSTRALIAN LADY IS GOING TO FARM ALL THE THINGS

Land Armies (staffed by Land Girls) were super necessary to feed everyone at home PLUS everyone at war. Land Girls were used in both WW1 and WW2. While farming was a “protected occupation” (male farmers wouldn’t be forcibly drafted into the military, because their jobs were too important to a functioning society) the majority male farmworkers decided to enlist voluntarily. This left  elderly or disabled male farmworkers to do intensive work. By WW2 they had some tractors to help, but most farming was still done by hand or with draft animals, especially since the steel and fuel for the tractors was more needed on the Front.

This American lady found a cool old-timey tractor, which is just as good as an ambulance…

But this British lady has to do her plowing with a draft horse! The weathered old farmer, too old for combat, is very grateful.

FOOD COMES FIRST!

okay but LOOK at some of these other Plushy Man Jobs, Necessary To Prevent the Downfall of Society, that American women needed to do RIGHT NOW TO BEAT THE NAZIS:

AMERICAN WOMEN! THESE ELEVATORS AREN’T GOING TO OPERATE THEMSELVES

I CAN KEEP GOING FOREVER

TAKE THE JOBS FROM MEN!! TAKE THEM!! SEIZE THEM!! DRILL THE THING

Oddly, even without men at work, “women’s work” still got done.
Children were still mostly looked after. Large communal childcare programs were set up (they were quickly closed after WW2, though.) Food was prepared. Households
ran. Single women stayed single. The countries functioned. The world still turned. MILLIONS OF MEN
were WIPED OFF THE PLANET but the world still turned.

In fact, the Allies won both WW1 and WW2.

And the resulting power/gender/employment vacuums shaped the gender dynamics of most of Tumblr’s parents and grandparents.

How quickly did everyone forget all that?

I just wanted to add a bit because something about this bugged me but I couldn’t quite get what it was.

I found it difficult to find the numbers on all of this, so do check my sources and everything because I may have made a mistake.

In 1939 the UK population was 47,760,000 (x,x). I was unable to find the distribution of men and women at that time so I used the modern one, which is 97 men for every 100 women (x). So I divided the population up to get 23,516,345 men and 24,243,655 women.

There were 3.5 million people who served in the British Army at some point during the war (x), for the purposes of this I’m going to presume they were all men and were all serving at the same time. That means that 6.7% of the male population were away at war.

So to me it doesn’t look like the second world war was an example of how the UK functioned without men, I do think that a lot of women joined the workforce and had to step up to replace the men that weren’t there, and I also think they did a brilliant job, and were really essential to the working of the country. But yeah, that’s my addition, the numbers are approximations and I may have made mistakes in calculation, if so please do point them out.

Reblogging for lovely stats!

I think if we start talking about numbers in this way (and we totally should) we have to start talking about what “men” are. Are “men” of working age? Must they be able-bodied or able to “work”? Because your “6.7% of the male population being away at war” literally counts newborns on the tit and elderly men in wheelchairs as combat fighters, which certainly includes the element of surprise.

Are we talking literally all the male humans, who are about half the population, but who include newborn babies/young boys/disabled/terminally ill/elderly men? Because in that case, most of them don’t work because they just don’t. And I’m talking about male labor and the male workforce, not the literal existence of All Men Ever.

See, I think the OP, when saying “If men stopped working…” meant “working men,” i.e. the men of the labor force, who are not the entire population. I don’t think OP was saying “if two-year-old boy children, young students, retired men, and men who cannot work, stopped working…” because those men do not “work” in the capitalist labor-for-money sense of the word. If OP was, then I misunderstood and am happy to take responsibility, though that would change EVERYTHING, because all men do not work.

Right now the population of the UK is roughly 60 million, of which about 38 million is the working population, of which more than half are likely to be men (as men’s working age is higher) so we’d have to go find those numbers for the years of WW2 to find out how many “working men” there were.

The minimum wage should not be a living wage

bittersnurr:

littlealiengirl:

sucymemebabaran:

socialistguineapigs:

theconcealedweapon:

annatar-the-lord-of-gifts:

Minimum wage is meant as a stepping stone to earning more later on in life.

I see minimum wage for teens, undergraduate students, elderly, and those living with a disability.

“Minimum wage is for people with a disability. It should not be a living wage.”

In other words, disabled people don’t have the right to live?

Hahaha what the fuck

the genesis of the minimum wage was literally for the express purpose of guaranteeing a living wage

I’m used to people thinking we should die, so that part isn’t even shocking.

What confuses me is that the idea that a “stepping stone to earning more later on in life” wouldn’t be enough to live on? The “more (money) later on in life” would logically be more than enough to live off of with more luxuries.

Even if you see no issues with capitalism, the math of “enough to live” + “enough for more nice things” makes a fuck ton more sense than “cannot survive without assistance on top of work income” + “well now you’ve earned the right to earn enough money to live on your own.”

yeah if you aren’t making enough to live you likely don’t have savings (oh and protip? disabled people aren’t allowed savings if they are on disability and have higher living costs then abled people due to health expenses, even minimum wage might be “too much” money and have them pull your insurance etc.)

Minimum wage not being living wage means living with your abusive family trying to earn money (and lots of them will be taking it from you) and not being able to move out, well into adulthood a lot of the time due to the inability to support yourself.

It means not making a dent in your college loans because you can’t earn enough money even working full time + full time school (which is required if you want financial aid) and destroying yourself working the equivalent of 2 full time jobs for what amounts to negative money.

It means elderly and disabled people, who obviously CANNOT work full time due to health having no possible way to support themselves on that money and also often being stuck in abusive situations that can’t be left because the alternative if homelessness.

Unless you want to raise social security and fix disability so it’s easier to get on and there is no income/asset limits, make college free, and provide more resources for teenagers trying to start their lives, this wouldn’t work at ALL. You would have to have the goverment subsidize this.

You want your taxes raised or do you want corporations to actually pay people for their work? Because with the current situation your suggesting people in these groups just starve because their labor is valued less.