Some millennials aren’t saving for retirement because they don’t think capitalism will exist by then

From Salon:  https://www.salon.com/2018/03/18/some-millennials-arent-saving-for-retirement-because-they-do-not-think-capitalism-will-exist-by-then/

Given poor economic prospects, many millennials can’t save anyway — but their hope for the future is social change

Keith A. Spencer
03.18.2018

CNN reported last week that 66 percent of millennials aged 21 to 32 have nothing saved for retirement. And while their writer chalks up this inequity to student loans, “stagnant wages” and “high unemployment,” there may yet be a deeper cause: many millennials honestly don’t see a future for our economic system.

The aforementioned CNN article about millennials’ (lack of) retirement savings went semi-viral, partly because many saw humor in how it missed how many truly felt. “RT if socialism is your retirement plan,” Holly Wood, 32, a political organizer, wrote on Twitter.

The idea that we millennials’ only hope for retirement is the end of capitalism or the end of the world is actually quite common sentiment among the millennial left. Jokes about being unable to retire or anticipating utter social change by retirement age were ricocheting around the internet long before CNN’s article was published.

czernobro

 

 

 

 

 

 

my investing style is i give five bucks to chapo in the hope that their dumb asses will create socialism by the time i retire
— Frank Furtschool ☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭ (@kulturalmarx) August 4, 2017

My retirement plan is death
— Swan Snow (@Wan_Eyed_King) March 10, 2018

My retirement plan is death at 55: a millennial love story
— Lucretia Boredgia (@KelseyChapstick) September 30, 2017

Older generations, and even millennials who are better off and who have managed to achieve a sort of petit-bourgeois freedom, might find this sentiment unimaginable, even abhorrent. And yet, in studying the reaction to the CNN piece and reaching out to millennials who had responded to it, I was astounded not only at how many young people shared Wood’s feelings, but how frequently our expectations for the future aligned. Many millennials expressed to me their interest in creating self-sustaining communities as their only hope for survival in old age; a lack of faith that capitalism as we know it would exist by retirement age; and that alternating climate crises, concentrations of wealth, and privatization of social welfare programs would doom their chance at survival.

Continue reading at:  https://www.salon.com/2018/03/18/some-millennials-arent-saving-for-retirement-because-they-do-not-think-capitalism-will-exist-by-then/

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Some millennials aren’t saving for retirement because they don’t think capitalism will exist by then

Missing Shulamith and The Dialectic of #MeToo

Shulmith Firestone passed away a few years back, alone and mostly forgotten, after battling years of mental health issues.  But I remember her writings from nearly fifty years ago and the white hot heat of Second Wave Feminism, how much strength it provided me with when I was coming out.

From Tikkun Magazine:  https://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/missing-shulamith-and-the-dialectic-of-metoo

by Martha Sonnenberg
February 14, 2018

I was 24 years old in 1970, when I read Shulamith Firestone’s The Dialectic of Sex, a year younger than she was when she wrote the book. The book catapulted me from the limitations of the Left organization of which I was a member into the world of Women’s Liberation.  There was no going back once I saw and felt the chauvinism of the Left, how women’s issues were  seen as tangential to the more important priorities of  “real” radical politics, rather than seeing feminism as “central and directly radical in itself.” Women in my organization typically played a supportive role to the men, the theorists, the writers, the speakers—we made coffee, mimeographed pamphlets, passed out the pamphlets, sometimes we spoke at meetings, and even had a women’s caucus within the organization, but, as Firestone told us, we were still “in need of male approval, in this case anti-establishment male approval, to legitimate (ourselves) politically”.

When Shulamith Firestone died, at the age of 67, in 2013, ravaged by mental illness and forgotten by many, her sister, Rabbi Tirzah Firestone said in her eulogy, “She influenced thousands of women to have new thoughts, to lead new lives.  I am who I am, and a lot of women are who they are, because of Shulie.”  I was one of those women.

Recently, I took my dog eared copy of The Dialectic of Sex down from my bookshelf as the #MeToo movement evolved, and was once again astounded by the incendiary brilliance of the book, now nearly 50 years old.  Shulamith Firestone was the first, and maybe the only, to probe the depths to which a misogynistic patriarchy permeated our society, developing a concept of a “sexual class system” which ran deeper than economic, racial, or social divisions.  With prescient analytical perspective, she placed the traditional family structure at the core of women’s oppression.  She wrote, “Unless revolution uproots the basic social organization, the biologic family—the vinculum through which the psychology of power can always be smuggled—the tapeworm of exploitation will never be annihilated.”  While the establishment press characterized her ideas as preposterous, many of her notions of how patriarchal social organization would be “uprooted” have come to realization—in vitro fertilization, how children are socialized, children’s rights,  gay rights and the legalization of  gay marriage, the whole LGBTQ movement, ending traditional marriage roles,  the freeing of gender identity from biologic destiny.  And it is within the context of these historical developments, upending the socio-economic buttress of traditional gender roles and identities that #MeToo has emerged. These factors have given #MeToo  a power and force that previous “waves” of women’s liberation lacked, not because previous issues or efforts were any less important, but because they were unable to reach women in all levels of society, transcending class, race, profession, and age. #MeToo , with its revelations of the ubiquity of abuse and violence against women,has reached all these women.  Importantly, too, it  is a movement that began not with “leaders”, but from grass roots in communities all across the country, and, in fact, all across the world.

The history of #MeToo has been obscured by the media frenzy that concurrently emerged.  Tarana Burke, an African American woman, created a non-profit organization called Me Too in 2006, to help women of color who had been sexually abused or assaulted. This was not about naming perpetrators or holding them accountable; it was only to give the affected women a voice. This, the media ignored.  But in 2017 two things happened which did get media attention:  The New York Times published revelations about Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse of Hollywood women, and following that, an actress, Alyssa Milano, who became aware of Tarana Burke’s work, wrote in social media, “If all the women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted wrote “Me Too” as a status, we might give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.”  What followed was the flooding of social media with stories of abuse and harassment, and a way for women to tell their experience and stand in solidarity with other abuse survivors. In the first 24 hours of Milano’s post, more than 12 million “MeToo” posts appeared.   All these aspects of #MeToo, its mass base and its revelation of the pervasive and perverse alignment of misogyny and power, make it dangerous to the established power structure.  Not surprisingly, that power structure has responded quickly in its attack on #MeToo.

Power and patriarchy defends itself

Efforts to maintain current power structures and cultures take multiple forms.  One of the most insidious forms of preserving the current power relationships lies with the established media.  While the “media” is not an autonomous entity, the individuals who contribute to it, the writers, the pundits, the “newsmakers”, promote in various ways the dominant culture of institutionalized sexism, and the undermining of #MeToo.  It does so in the following ways:

Continue reading at:  https://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/missing-shulamith-and-the-dialectic-of-metoo

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Missing Shulamith and The Dialectic of #MeToo

Feminists have slowly shifted power. There’s no going back

From The Guardian UK:  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/08/feminists-power-metoo-timesup-rebecca-solnit?CMP=fb_us

The #TimesUp and #MeToo movements are a revolution that could not have taken place without decades of quiet, painstaking groundwork


Thu 8 Mar 2018

This International Women’s Day comes five months after the revelations about Harvey Weinstein’s long campaign of misogynist punishments of women first broke, and with them more things broke. Excuses broke. Silence was broken. The respectable appearance of a lot of institutions broke. You could say a dam broke, and a wall of women’s stories came spilling forth – which has happened before, but never the way that this round has. This time around, women didn’t just tell the stories of being attacked and abused; they named names, and abusers and attackers lost jobs and reputations and businesses and careers. They named names, and it mattered; people listened; their testimony had consequences. Because there’s a big difference between being able to say something and having it heard and respected. Consequences are often the difference.

Something had shifted. What’s often overlooked is that it had shifted beforehand so that this could happen. Something invisible had made it possible for these highly visible upheavals and transformations. People often position revolution and incrementalism as opposites, but if a revolution is something that changes things suddenly, incrementalism often lays the groundwork that makes it possible. Something happens suddenly, and that’s mistaken for something happening out of the blue. But out of the blue usually means out of the things that most people were not paying attention to, out of the slow work done by somebody or many somebodies out of the limelight for months or years or decades.

Same-sex marriage arrived suddenly in the US when the supreme court legalised it nationwide, except that many states had already legalised it, and that came about as the result of the valiant work of countless non-straight people and their allies, making visible that not everyone is straight, making it important that everyone get rights, making queer people themselves believe they deserved and could win those rights. And it happened because the test case in California went before what appeared to be a conservative judge – federal judge Vaughn Walker, appointed by George Herbert Walker Bush – who had been in the closet himself at the time of his appointment, but was gay, and whose own attitudes toward his orientation must have evolved as the culture around him evolved. He found in favour of marriage equality and set up the case to be clear and thorough when it reached the supreme court. When judges rule on what seems self-evident common sense – be it Brown versus Board of Education or marriage equality – it often seems that way because of slow incremental changes in societal norms and beliefs. The judge gets the public finale, but the shift comes from the cumulative effect of tiny gestures and shifts.

This #TimesUp/#MeToo moment is no different; it is a revolt for which we have been preparing for decades, or perhaps it’s the point at which a long, slow, mostly quiet process suddenly became fast and loud. Part of the work was done over the past five years, more of it over the past 50. We have had a tremendous upheaval over the past few years – at the end of 2014, I wrote in these pages: “I have been waiting all my life for what this year has brought.” What this wave brought is recognition that each act of gender violence is part of an epidemic. It’s brought a (partial) end to treating these acts as isolated incidents, as the victim’s fault, as the result of mental illness or other aberrations. It’s meant a more widespread willingness to recognise that such violence is extraordinarily common and has an enormous impact, and arises from values, privileges and attitudes built into the culture.

It’s a shift that’s often happened before, for other rights issues, as something long tolerated is finally recognised as intolerable, which means that the people for whom it was not a problem finally recognise the suffering of those for whom it was. This shift from tolerated to intolerable is often the result of a power shift in who decides, or a shift in what stories dominate, or in whose story gets told, or believed. It’s a subtle shift in who matters that precedes dramatic change.

Continue reading at:  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/08/feminists-power-metoo-timesup-rebecca-solnit?CMP=fb_us

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Feminists have slowly shifted power. There’s no going back

The anti-Semite who’s haunting the left

From The Washington Post:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/03/07/louis-farrakhan-is-haunting-the-left/


March 7, 2018

President Trump is a friend to anti-Semites. As it turns out, so are his enemies.

The latest round of left-infighting has focused on a man who some might be surprised to discover is still declaiming: Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Hatred for the “satanic Jew” has long been a theme of Farrakhan’s rhetoric, and since his popularity peaked with 1995’s Million Man March he has drifted toward the edges of the public consciousness. Now, though, he’s back — because organizers of the Women’s March movement brought him there.

Farrakhan gave a speech on the Nation of Islam’s Saviours’ Day in Chicago last week saying that “the powerful Jews are my enemy” and announcing to them “your time is up, your world is through.” This would have been just another day, had Farrakhan not shouted out the Women’s March’s Tamika Mallory, who attended the event. And had Mallory not initially refused to denounce his anti-Semitism when the Web took notice, responding instead that “If your leader does not have the same enemies as Jesus, they may not be THE leader!” And had other Women’s March bigwigs such as Linda Sarsour and Carmen Perez not defended Farrakhan in the past.

On Tuesday, after days of silence, the Women’s March finally released a statement acknowledging that Farrakhan’s views were “not aligned with the Women’s March Unity Principles, which were created by women of color leaders and are grounded in Kingian nonviolence” — but not outright denouncing him, and not apologizing for promoting him. The same day, a Jewish GOP group called for the resignation of seven Democratic representatives from Congress because of their ostensible ties to Farrakhan.

This has set off a string of back-and-forths between those furious at some left-wingers’ hesitance to condemn Farrakhan and anyone who associates with him, and those frustrated at conservatives, centrists and even other liberals for focusing on a fringe figure when there’s a white nationalist-lite in the Oval Office.

It’s true that the Farrakhan frenzy looks overblown compared to the collective reaction to the rise of the alt-right. Sure, Trump’s praise for the “very fine people on both sides” of the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally riled people up, and sure, they pay attention again every time a publication prints a profile of a neo-Nazi. But few conservatives have disavowed the Trump administration for its part in priming the pump of prejudice, or fought to expunge that hatred from GOP politics. Indeed, Republicans seem far more exercised about tariffs than about white supremacy. And considering the president’s position of power, the alt-right resurgence poses a greater on-the-ground threat to Jews (not to mention other minorities) than the rantings of a marginalized religious leader.

But just because the right has failed to confront anti-Semitism within its ranks doesn’t mean the left should fail, too. The Women’s March organizers should understand this better than anyone. It’s a poor look for those who call themselves activists, and who say they’re concerned with inclusivity and intersectionality, to defend someone who has crusaded against both of those ideas. Some may see Farrkhan as a truth-teller when it comes to race relations, but his record reaches beyond that. He’s an anti-Semite, he’s a homophobe and he’s a misogynist. Spearheading a movement that’s about building a better world for women of all colors and creeds means opposing advocacy that attacks women of any color or creed.

Continue reading at:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/03/07/louis-farrakhan-is-haunting-the-left/

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on The anti-Semite who’s haunting the left

US appeals court says civil rights law covers transgender workers

From Raw Story:  https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/us-appeals-court-says-civil-rights-law-covers-transgender-workers/

Reuters
March 7, 2018

A federal law banning sex bias in the workplace prohibits discrimination against transgender workers, a U.S. appeals court said on Wednesday, ruling in favor of a funeral director who was fired after telling her boss she planned to transition to female from male.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes Inc in Detroit unlawfully discriminated against Aimee Stephens, formerly known as Anthony Stephens, based on her sex.

The court also said the funeral home failed to establish that the federal workplace law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, substantially burdened the ability of funeral home owner Thomas Rost, a devout Christian, to exercise his religious rights in his treatment of Stephens.

Several federal appeals courts have said that discriminating against transgender workers is a form of unlawful sex bias. But the 6th Circuit was the first to consider a religious defense in such a case.

The court decided a lawsuit that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed on behalf of Stephens in 2014.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group that represents the funeral home, said the decision allowed the government to “strong-arm” religious employers.

In a statement, Stephens’ lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union called the decision an important victory for transgender workers.

Rost had claimed that he viewed his work as a religious service for grieving families, and that employing a transgender woman would distract customers.

Rost said he could not be held liable for discriminating against Stephens under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which bars the government from burdening an individual’s religious practice.

But Circuit Judge Karen Nelson Moore, writing for the court on Wednesday, said Rost could not use his customers’ “presumed biases” as an excuse for firing Stephens.

Continue reading at:  https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/us-appeals-court-says-civil-rights-law-covers-transgender-workers/

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on US appeals court says civil rights law covers transgender workers

The far right hates vaginas. Why doesn’t this anger the left more?

From The Guardian UK:  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/08/vaginas-far-right-progressives-identity-politics?CMP=fb_gu

Identity politics ought to unite the left, not divide us. No progressive should be at ease while macho misogyny thrives


Thu 8 Mar 2018

From Donald Trump’s “locker-room banter” about grabbing women by the pussy, to the instructions of the Philippines president to shoot female guerrilla fighters in the genitals, a clear target of contemporary fascistic and “alt-right” politics seems to be vaginas. This isn’t a case of hidden patriarchal structures supporting gender inequality. It’s explicit and unashamed references that identify women either as the enemy or the subhuman other, subordinate to the pleasure of macho men. And it’s a trend that’s spanning the globe.

In Britain, the victim of this emerging culture was the MP Jo Cox. Some will argue that Thomas Mair, her murderer, was an isolated case, a disturbed Nazi sympathiser from whom we cannot generalise. But before we dismiss his crime as a one-off we should remember that gender identity, specifically masculine identity, is at the centre of fascistic discourse. Crime – against women or ethnic minorities – is often a resource for those who feel their masculinity is threatened. It is a way to be “male” again.

In Russia, the bare-chested Putin is endlessly pictured plunging into icy lakes or riding horses. It’s all designed to promote a particular type of masculinity but also a particular type of political ideal: of macho, authoritarian leadership, strong and ruthless towards its enemies. The enemies in question are often women who question the patriarchal status quo (Pussy Riot being a prime example). But other religious or ethnic groups are feminised too.

As the professor and activist Cynthia Enloe has argued, it is high time to rethink this relationship between leaders’ macho posturing and the type of politics they are likely to advocate. The personal is political because men in leadership positions with misogynistic attitudes are probably going to promote policies reinforcing intolerance. There can be no truly progressive politics while such misogyny is allowed to continue. Similarly, when an industry tolerates harassment and violence against women, that says a lot about the type of product it creates. The Harvey Weinstein scandal comes to mind here: how progressive can his movies be when he treats women as objects?

And to push it even further: how progressive can a country be if it permits this industry to go on unreformed? The micro paves the way for the macro.

Too often on the left these calls have fallen upon the deaf ears of a movement that is unable to recognise any struggle as important if it isn’t centred around class. Identity politics have been wilfully misinterpreted by parts of the left as an explanation for the advance of the far right – it’s political correctness driving them to it. This is done in the hope of promoting class politics, but it demonstrates that the left is sometimes stuck in an orthodox past, before the big “identity” movements, from the suffragettes to civil rights, took place. Across the world, it is the left that is struggling to articulate something meaningful while the far right is advancing.

Eric Hobsbawm, writing in 1996, contrasted the narrowness of identity politics with the universality of the working-class movement, which demands equality and justice for everyone.

Complete article at:  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/08/vaginas-far-right-progressives-identity-politics?CMP=fb_gu

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on The far right hates vaginas. Why doesn’t this anger the left more?

How to Counter the Circus of Pseudoscience

From The New York Times:  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/opinion/doctors-naturopaths-health-science.html


Jan. 5, 2018

Maybe one day, once I have decades of experience as a doctor and further training in my area of specialization, I will be able to speak about health matters with the tone of authority of the average naturopath.

That was the thought that crossed my mind recently while I waded through the online world of alternative-health practitioners, wellness bloggers, whole-food chefs and Gwyneth Paltrow.

I did not seek it out at first; it came to me through a social-media algorithm. Facebook offered up a video advertisement from a “female hormonal health specialist” with her own “practice.” Not an endocrinologist but a naturopath. She lectured with confidence on thyroid testing, though much of what she said was wrong. And down the internet rabbit hole I went.

One traditional view of the medical profession is that doctors are commanding and authoritarian, even arrogant. Though some individuals fit that description, in fact, the profession is built on doubt.

Most doctors, especially the good ones, are acutely aware of the limits of their knowledge. I have learned from those much more experienced and qualified than me that humility is something to be cultivated over time, not lost.

Our field is built around trying to prove ourselves wrong. In hospitals we hold morbidity and mortality meetings trying to show where we have failed, what we need to change, how we can do better. Our hospital work is audited to identify where we fell short of our ideals. Through scientific research we try to disprove the effectiveness of treatments. Our failings are exposed from the inside.

The nature of evidence-based health care is that practices change as new evidence emerges.

That is also the case for other health professionals whose practice is based on science, like qualified dietitians, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and psychologists. Guidelines are revised, advice is reversed — on blood pressure, diet, hormone replacement, opioid prescribing. This can be immensely frustrating for patients, even though it is what we must do to provide the best possible treatment.

Continue reading at:  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/opinion/doctors-naturopaths-health-science.html