Posts tagged capitalism
7:59 am - Thu, Jul 26, 2012
315 notes
What is really being sold in a pornographic film? It’s a conception of sexuality that Dworkin identified— it is not just sex on film. It is sex presented in the context of domination and subordination. Pornography does not just eroticize or sexualize male domination over women. It eroticizes racism. It eroticizes every power dynamic that you can imagine. Think of any power dynamic that you know where there is a hierarchy. I can guarantee you that there is a pornographic film that eroticizes that dynamic.

Robert Jensen (via blinko)

male/female, white/poc, employer/employee, parent/child, etc…it is a sick sick industry. 

i haven’t seen any sex-positive feminists defending racism as a valid “kink” yet (funny), but there’s still time.

(via discosherpa)

edit: i HAVE NOW. nazi kink, for real.

and i read a good argument for the concept of “full-time” “slavery/ownership” in BDSM being inherently racist.

(via discosherpa)

I have problems with Robert Jensen and they way he essentially speaks over those who are actively trying to change the status quo in porn. Are these problems in mainstream inherent? Damn right. But to go “and that’s why ALL PORN IS BAD,” completely overshadowing the number of people who are trying to make their money and be ethical about it is some bullshit. You cannot put Jiz Lee on the same level as something from Bang Bros. You just CAN’T.

(via sourcedumal)

[HUGE TRIGGER WARNINGS, ESPECIALLY FOR TRANSMISOGYNY, CISSEXISM, RACISM, CRIMINALIZATION… PLEASE SEE MY TAGS]

*Prepares self for a long discussion*. Robert Jensen and I have had many lovely— and by “lovely” I am completely sarcastic and I mean “horrendous”— interactions when I attended a day long discussion/presentation of his. He knows who I am personally and explicitly dislikes me, which is wonderful, because that means I succeeded in calling his shit out, over and over.

There are many legitimate arguments to make about the horrendous racism, sexism, cissexism, etc, in mainstream porn. (I’ll save my arguments for why the eroticizing of power dynamics by and for those oppressed by those power dynamics can be cathartic and positive for a different time.) Regardless of one’s views, I strongly recommend not quoting Robert Jensen to make any arguments.

Three of MANY reasons not to promote Robert Jensen in any form:

1. He is massively transmisogynistic and cissexist. One example is when he verbally attacked and misgendered a trans* woman who was, at the time, also an anti-pornography scholar. (She has since changed her views, but more importantly, this is her description of his transmisogyny in interacting with her.) In a public gathering, when confronted by myself and my friends (having read her post), Jensen OPENLY misgendered trans* women as a whole, tried to COMPLAIN ABOUT HER TO US, and tried to argue that trans* people are upholding patriarchy and gender oppression BY IDENTIFYING AS TRANS*

2. He promotes the criminalization of sex work of ALL FORMS, in ways that have been explicitly stated by sex workers (especially sex workers of color who are already targeted by police) to TANGIBLY INCREASE THE RISK OF HARM AND DEATH IN THEIR LIVES. (i.e. Although Jensen does not promote imprisonment of sex workers themselves, he promotes criminal punishments for johns and those who purchase sex, which sex workers articulate causes the industry to slip farther underground, with riskier, more violent clients the ones most likely to stick around.)

3. Robert Jensen is a rich, white, cis man who claims to know what is best for women, and/or people of color, and/or sex workers. When they disagree, he explicitly says they have a “false consciousness” and are being brainwashed. He literally said this in response to one of my discussion questions about what actual sex workers of color are saying they need. As defined by people who experience these oppressions, Jensen is sexist, racist, transmisogynistic, cissexist, and just plain harmful.

Bonus: Despite claiming to be anti-capitalist, he gets paid top dollar (I promise you, I saw the numbers… a lot of money) to talk about the oppression of women of color without including the perspectives women of color in his talks!

I could go on for hours, but I think that’s enough for now. Jensen’s role model, Andrea Dworkin, was unbelievably racist and cissexist, too, and Robert Jensen is worse.

I recommend Emi Koyama, “a multi-issue social justice activist and writer synthesizing feminist, Asian, survivor, dyke, queer, sex worker, intersex, genderqueer, and crip politics,” for a nuanced, non-criminalizing analysis of the sex industry and intersectional oppressions within it. Her writing on this topic is available on her linked website.

(Edited to add: Forgot to mention, my own personal experience is that I literally had only sat down and introduced myself a minute before when Jensen 1) misgendered me, and 2) started commenting in detail about my physical appearance. This is someone who makes a living talking about objectification.)

(Via redhandsredribbons)

Oh, I remember how he tried to shut you down when he came to our school. He was on some severe bullshit.

(via sourcedumal)

(via karnythia)

6:52 pm - Fri, Nov 18, 2011
13 notes
brosephstalin:

Want to talk about inequality? Well this shows income and population distribution. 

brosephstalin:

Want to talk about inequality? Well this shows income and population distribution. 

(via brosephstalin-deactivated201212)

10:47 am - Mon, Nov 14, 2011
563 notes
motherjones:

Hey, look! Congressional staffers turn out to be really good at predicting the behavior of stocks that their bosses legislate. Outside Capitol Hill, we might call that “insider trading.” Except US insider trading laws don’t apply to Congress.
Angry yet?

motherjones:

Hey, look! Congressional staffers turn out to be really good at predicting the behavior of stocks that their bosses legislate. Outside Capitol Hill, we might call that “insider trading.” Except US insider trading laws don’t apply to Congress.

Angry yet?

11:30 pm - Tue, Nov 1, 2011
19 notes
12:01 pm - Fri, Oct 28, 2011
173 notes

brosephstalin:

occupywallstreet:

Citing the potential of “Occupy Wall Street” to become a “global brand,” a Long Island couple has filed to trademark the name of the amorphous organization responsible for the protests and encampments in lower Manhattan and other U.S. cities, The Smoking Gun has learned.

In a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) application, Robert and Diane Maresca are seeking to trademark the phrase “Occupy Wall St.” so that they can place it on a wide variety of goods, including bumper stickers, shirts, beach bags, footwear, umbrellas, and hobo bags.

Capitalist society has already perfected marketing revolution, whether that be putting peace signs on everything or American Apparel or whoever selling “Socialist” and “Capitalist” shirts.

Resist this at all fucking costs. This is the way the past movements in the US have died and are now seen as a novelty, not with a bang, but with the clink of a cash register.

I was really hoping they were doing it to keep it from being commercialized.  Instead they are being greedy douchebags - and I hope they get what’s coming to them.

(via brosephstalin-deactivated201212)

10:27 am - Sun, Oct 23, 2011
151 notes
These people down there, they’re not the counter-culture. They’re the culture. They don’t want free love. They want paid employment. They don’t hate capitalism. They hate what’s been done to it.

And they resent the Republican mantra that the market perfectly rewards the hard-working and punishes the lazy, and the poor are just jealous moochers who want a handout. Yeah, because if there’s one group of people who hate handouts, it’s Wall Street.

Bill Maher’s take on the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Well done.

(via cognitivedissonance)

(via cognitivedissonance)

9:21 am - Sun, Oct 16, 2011
2,141 notes
cognitivedissonance:

Or have you arrested for wanting to close your account…
9:17 am
49 notes
Living under Communism in China made me a fervent enthusiast of capitalism. I believe that over the last couple of centuries banks have enormously raised living standards in the West by allocating capital to more efficient uses. But anyone who believes in markets should be outraged that banks rig the system so that they enjoy profits in good years and bailouts in bad years.

The banks have gotten away with privatizing profits and socializing risks, and that’s just another form of bank robbery.

Nicholas Kristof, “America’s Primal Scream”

Kristof hits the mark in this column. In light of the mass arrests across the nation, let’s remember how this has grown since its beginning on September 17th. The Occupy movement has gone global in about a month.

September 17th was the beginning. October 15th is not an ending. It marks the commencement of occupying everywhere.

(via cognitivedissonance)

(via cognitivedissonance)

7:48 pm - Fri, Oct 7, 2011
125 notes

occupywallstreet:

It Doesn’t Matter That Ben & Jerry’s Claims To Support the Goals of ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Because They Can’t

chasewhiteside:

I wanted to take a moment to respond to my various friends on various social networks who are linking to the above Ben & Jerry’s announcement that the brand supports the Occupy Wall Street protests.

It doesn’t really matter what Ben & Jerry’s board of directors supports as they are merely a division of consumer products conglomerate Unilever, the third largest food company behind Nestle and Kraft. Don’t be fooled by a shallow marketing ploy.

This is one of the problems with global corporations—they can have no obligation besides profit. The pleasant statements from a small brand within an enormous conglomerate do not reflect what your dollars support when you buy their products. Short of a Unilever announcement of support—followed by a fundamental restructuring of the company—we shouldn’t take the B&J statement seriously.

Ben & Jerry’s concerns don’t mesh with their parent company—you know, the people who pocket your money when you scarf down a pint of Schweddy Balls ice cream.

The B&J statement lists the following concerns they claim to share with the protestors:

  • The inequity that exists between classes in our country is simply immoral.
  • Many workers who have jobs have to work 2 or 3 of them just to scrape by.

When Unilever CEO Niall Fitzgerald left Unilever in 2004, he received more than $20-million in salary, bonus, and benefits. Current CEO Paul Polman has made it a priority to close factories, eliminate jobs, freeze wages, and raise the cost of their products. His starting pay package was around $4-million. By contrast, starting wages at Ben & Jerry’s are $8/hour. No wonder workers need 2 or 3 jobs just to scrape by.

  • We are in an unemployment crisis. Almost 14 million people are unemployed. Nearly 20% of African American men are unemployed. Over 25% of our nation’s youth are unemployed.

Unilever has laid off more than half its global workforce since 2000, despite increases in profits and productivity alongside rising executive pay packets. A 2010 report from FNV organization of unions found that Unilever has denied workers their legal rights, refused to recognize trade unions as representatives of the work-force, intimidated workers and replaced permanent workers with casual, temporary labourers who have fewer rights. It also estimated that around half of Unilever’s global workforce (approximately 150,000 people) is now outsourced. This means that all these people are not recognised as employees and Unilever does not pay them the wages and benefits that unions have successfully fought for and negotiated.

Unilever is concerned with racial inequality in employment. The company’s solution? Their very own skin-lightening cream.

Unilever’s proper concern for racial inequality in employment is ironic considering the company’s India division sells a skin-lightening cream (Fair & Lovely) that is promoted in commercials depicting depressed, dark-skinned women who are ignored by their employers until they use the cream, suddenly finding glamorous careers and happiness. Watch, it’s crazy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIUQ5hbRHXk 

And, why not, child labor, too:

The page goes on to list B&J’s myriad, mostly benign lobbying efforts, but this caught my eye:

  • Support for the Youth PROMISE Act, which funds proven youth violence prevention programs.

It’s good that they oppose child violence. But a report from Indian researcher Dr. D. Venkateswarlu for the Indian Committee of the Netherlands estimated that 25,000 children, mostly girls, work an average of ten to thirteen hours a day in cottonseed production for Hindustan Lever, a division of Unilever.

Okay, that’s all.

2:37 pm - Tue, Sep 6, 2011
74 notes

occupywallstreet:

Market Watch: Occupy Wall Street will lay siege to U.S. greed Commentary: 20,000 or more set Sept. 17 as start of ‘American Fall’

On Sept. 17, the Arab Spring becomes the new American Fall, with 20,000 revolutionaries in a tent city. Plus “solidarity” occupations in major financial centers worldwide, all ready for a long siege, vowing not to leave till they get their “one simple demand.” […]

Their allies have names like “CultureJammers,” “USDayofRage.org,” “People of the NYC General Assembly,” “TaketheSquare.net,” and recently they were joined by the noted civil disobedience anarchists, “Anonymous” and many others worldwide. This movement reminds us of the historic rag-tag armies General Washington commanded from 13 Colonies for the first American Revolution. […]

Warning: Ignore this rebellion at your peril. Reading their materials reveals a deeply frustrated, angry, fed up army of revolutionaries. Like their “Arab Spring” brothers,

The new American revolutionaries are no longer interested in talk. They want action.

Wishwishwish I could be there in person

Install Headline