bad girls do it well Cristy, 23, New York City. Hong Kong-Chinese American womanist.
This blog is a collection of the personal, the pretty, and the sociopolitical.
Trigger warning for rape/sexual assault, trans/misogyny, racism, and anti-Blackness.
You can message me via my ask box.
NYC gives green light to the building of apartments with 'poor door'

vaganja:

latinosexuality:

ht jfs

'No one ever said that the goal was full integration of these populations,' David Von Spreckelsen, senior vice president at Toll Brothers, another developer specializing in luxury residencies, told The Real Deal in 2013. 'So now you have politicians talking about that, saying how horrible those back doors are. I think it’s unfair to expect very high-income homeowners who paid a fortune to live in their building to have to be in the same boat as low-income renters, who are very fortunate to live in a new building in a great neighborhood.'

^ Are you fucking kidding me?!

walkingsaladshooterfromheaven:

People say “professional”

when what they really mean is “not having visual/behavioral markers of being poor, disabled, or culturally ‘other’”

which effectively shuts out of professional careers the very people who are most likely to be in dire need of income

I see your bullshit

(via vivanlosancestros)

gjmueller:

The segregation of kindergartners — by the numbers

Here, from the non-profit Economic Policy Institute, is a snapshot of how segregated public schools are, starting in kindergarten. It was written by Elaine Weiss and Emma García. Weiss  has served as the national coordinator for the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education since 2011.  García, who joined the Economic Policy Institute in 2013, specializes in the economics of education and education policy.  EPI was created in 1986 to broaden the discussion about economic policy to include the interests of low- and middle-income workers.

gjmueller:

The segregation of kindergartners — by the numbers

Here, from the non-profit Economic Policy Institute, is a snapshot of how segregated public schools are, starting in kindergarten. It was written by Elaine Weiss and Emma García. Weiss  has served as the national coordinator for the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education since 2011. García, who joined the Economic Policy Institute in 2013, specializes in the economics of education and education policy.  EPI was created in 1986 to broaden the discussion about economic policy to include the interests of low- and middle-income workers.

(via rather-facile-deactivated201407)

Dollars Over Decency: School Kids Without Money Have Lunch Taken Away and Thrown Out | Addicting Info

randomactsofchaos:

ATTLEBORO — As many as 25 students at Coelho Middle School were denied meals or told to throw their lunches away Tuesday because they could not pay or their pre-paid accounts did not contain enough money, school officials said today.

Parents said some of the children cried after they were not allowed to eat or had to toss out their lunches.

School officials said an on-site employee from Whitson’s, the school system’s school lunch provider, apparently gave the order not to extend meals to students who could not pay or whose credit was already overextended. SOURCE

Imagine, for a second, the mindset required to force hungry children to throw food in the garbage? It’s not like the food was given to a child that could pay, it was just wasted. It’s the ultimate in conservative thought: I will gain nothing from this but the satisfaction of knowing you did not get a free meal.

This is why privatizing government functions is a bad idea is almost every circumstance but particularly in those that provide a direct service. Once a profit motive is introduced, it ceases to be about fulfilling a public need, now it becomes about making a profit by any means necessary. The idea of providing children a nutritious meal so they can grow and learn and contribute to society becomes a narrow and selfish pursuit of the bottom line. If children are left to go hungry, well, that’s capitalism for you!

It’s not as if they couldn’t feed them, the district has a policy where a student that can’t pay for the regular meal will be provided with a cheese sandwich and milk. It’s not the most appealing of meals but it will certainly keep a child fed. But instead, this privately run company decided that over twenty kids simply shouldn’t eat if it was going to cost the company money:

Parents said they were told by their children that some pupils in the cafeteria line had already picked up their lunch and were told at the checkout they had to throw it away.

Victoria Greaves, 11, a fifth grader at Coelho, said a cashier told her to throw away her lunch because there was not enough money in her account. She said she threw her meal away and got nothing to eat.

We’re left to wonder what the cashier planned on doing if the child refused to comply. Would they physically take the food away? Was the couple of dollars really that important?

The larger question that isn’t being asked yet is how did we come to a point where anyone can even think that depriving children of food is a moral thing to do? In the richest nation on Earth, are we so blinded by greed and the pursuit of the Holy Dollar that we don’t even consider that going out of our way to let a child go hungry to be the act of a sociopath? Would we rather throw food in the garbage than let someone eat it for free? Who thinks that way?

House Republicans recently proposed cuts to nutrition assistance that will kick 280,000 low-income children off automatic enrollment in the Free School Lunch and Breakfast Program. Those same kids and 1.5 million other people will also lose their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly food stamp benefits) that help them afford food at home.

Ah. Well, that explains that, doesn’t it?

(via bad-dominicana)

http://arabellesicardi.com/post/90371144431/wllpwrwithwords-arabellesicardi-trishalow

arabellesicardi:

wllpwrwithwords:

wllpwrwithwords:

arabellesicardi:

trishalow:

arabellesicardi:

tacky is the most disgusting word in style vocabulary

but i really love “gauche” as a positive, no?

i love the word gauche. it’s thrilling and lush, it reminds me of a pink water bed with lots of money on top

I’m defending tacky, it’s a very exciting word to me. in a state of disrepair, in poor taste and sicking to everything. tar and feathers, broken windows. plus it has a good sound, the “ck-ie”

agree 100%

i think it is exciting to me partly because there’s no word in my language (swedish) that is “tacky”, to me it exists only in english, meaning there is an inherent distance in my using it becuase (to me) it’s so connected to british and north american culture. even though I think I’ve been somewhat aware of its violent use ever since I learned the word, it has still always been a word that comes with a powerful presence, it’s very attractive and enchanting. (which may or may not be part of said classism)

oh yeah that’s interesting! the space between words in languages is fascinating. i’d love a compilation of untranslatable words about class and fashion and identity, i bet there’s a lot in different languages. it peeks into the anxiety and priority of class visibility and clothes into each culture. if a word doesn’t exist does it mean it’s not as important? if there are twenty different kinds of ways to say an idea does it mean it’s always on the mind? i love words. 

there’s literally nothing stopping you [from doing this thing that costs money]

people with money. only people with money

travelling the world, “dropping everything” and moving to another city/state/country, majoring in your liberal arts interest of choice, applying/going to your dream college/university, buying your dream house, working at your dream job, cultivating/building/guiding your own dreams, dreaming. living.

(via farleysgranger)

(via biscochozorro)

third-personomniscient:

thinksquad-news:

A Michigan mother decided to give students at her son’s high school a Mother’s Day gift of sorts.

Amanda Keown’s son says school officials took his lunch away because he owed less than $5 on his school account.

Dominic Gant said, “It was really embarrassing, especially in front of the whole lunch room.”

She says the school told her that students who owe don’t get lunch, no matter how much they are behind.

That’s when she decided to pay the accounts of every student in the school.

Keown said, “I realize I didn’t have to do that but I don’t want another kid going through what my son went through.”

The total to pay off all of the students’ outstanding balances ended up being just under $100.

A short time later, the principal of Dowagiac Union High School said Dominic should not have been sent home hungry.

http://kfor.com/2014/05/10/mother-pays-off-every-students-overdue-lunch-bill-after-son-denied-food/

"The total ended up being just under $100"

That’s important. For a lot of people it ain’t much holdin em back but it’s holdin em back all the same.

(via third-personomniscient-deactiva)

ladybrun:

theweekmagazine:

SAT scores by family income, in one revealing chart

I hope what people take away from this is that rich people have access to better schools, tutors, educated parents. As well as money for sat prep courses. Whereas poorer people lack these resources and also are juggling work with school to help out their parents, and have poorer nutrition and more stress due to low income family problems.
Rather than thinking rich ppl.are smarter than poor ppl which is a popular belief and stereotype.

ladybrun:

theweekmagazine:

SAT scores by family income, in one revealing chart

I hope what people take away from this is that rich people have access to better schools, tutors, educated parents. As well as money for sat prep courses. Whereas poorer people lack these resources and also are juggling work with school to help out their parents, and have poorer nutrition and more stress due to low income family problems.

Rather than thinking rich ppl.are smarter than poor ppl which is a popular belief and stereotype.

(via ethiopienne)

Low-income people are often criticised for making ‘poor decisions’ in the eyes of observers who think they have a better understanding of how poor people should live their lives, prioritise their spending, and live within their own communities. Yet, these criticisms are often made with a lack of understanding about how income levels influence decisionmaking, and how certain habits can become ingrained even after years; if you have lived with insecurity at some point, you are likely to continue to retain habits that reflect the experience of financial insecurity, even if those habits are actually detrimental to saving money, developing more independence, and living securely.

The thing about being poor is that it requires a radically different approach to life, and one that often doesn’t involve a long-term view, because you can’t afford to take such a view. When poor people are criticised for ‘bad decisions,’ it’s often for things like not buying in bulk (the econopack problem rides again), not renting more affordable housing (yes, because people choose to live in expensive rentals), not buying things that are more expensive in the short term but pay off in the long term (‘why keep buying crappy $20 shoes when you could buy a $100 pair of long-lasting shoes?’). So many of these judgments involve how poor people use their money, and they betray a fundamental lack of understanding about some basic facts of being poor.

When you are poor, you do not have savings, money in reserve, or a safety cushion in your bank account. It’s not that you’re being cheap and refusing to buy those $100 shoes, it’s that you have $35 in your bank account until next pay day, and your child needs shoes today. You don’t have access to credit, and if you did and chose to put those better shoes on a credit card, you wouldn’t be able to pay them off anyway, because most of your next paycheque is already allocated to expenses like rent and utilities that must be paid immediately (and in some cases are overdue).

When you are poor, there is no safety net, and this is something many middle class people do not understand. They confuse broke and poor, and don’t understand the genuine difference between their way of life and that of others. Those who retain cushions of hundreds or thousands of dollars start getting nervous about ‘not having enough money’ when they still have more in their accounts than poor people make in a month—and while one might argue that savings and maintaining such cushions is an example of good financial planning and a good idea, it’s only accessible to people who make enough money to do it.

And who have trained themselves to have the habit of doing it. One of the facts of poverty is that you become accustomed to spending money when you have it, and it becomes hard to check your spending habits in the unlikely event you do start making more money; consequently, it becomes very hard to save money, or to use your funds on practical things. Thus, a poor person might buy something like a television instead of bulk foods for the pantry, attracting disdain from critics, simply because she wants a television, and she has the money. Next month, when her income fluctuates and an emergency eats up her extra cash, she’s right back where she started, but at least she still has that television (for now, until she’s forced to sell it to pay the water bill three months in the future).

Decision making is complicated when you’re poor, and you have a very different rubric for decisions that other members of society do. Being poor isn’t mysterious and noble, but it’s not the fault of people who are poor, either; and it’s not necessarily something that people can magic their way out of just by making ‘the right choices’ as deemed by other members of society.

Decision making while poor can involve being forced to choose between two important expenses with the knowledge that you can only cover one. Food or electricity? Rent or garbage bill? Water or phone? Copay for the doctor’s office or transit pass so you can get to work? Car insurance or parking tickets? While many people are familiar with constant demands on their finances, people in the middle classes can generally handle these needs routinely as they come up; pay it off, move forward, maybe shift the budget around a little to accommodate unexpected expenses. When you are poor, even five dollars more or less can make a huge difference in your life.

The role that poverty plays as a looming shadow in the lives of many people is often discounted. To be poor is to make decisions solely on the basis of money, sometimes in the active knowledge that they are bad decisions but that they are also the only choice; this raises questions about the nature of whether they are truly decisions, or could be more accurately termed forced sacrificial moves. And to have been poor is to fear poverty again, to attempt to pull yourself out of harmful set habits that you recognise, but don’t necessarily know how to address, because you’ve never known anything but finance-induced decision making.

Is the money there? Spend it, quickly, before it slips away. Address immediate needs as they arise, because everything is a right-now crisis, and try not to think about the future. If the car breaks down, hope that it’s an easy fix, because the thought of buying a new one is insurmountable right now. If you can’t fix it, buy another old clunker even though you know it’ll break down too, because it’s all you can afford. Or search for a new job that will let you take transit, and hope that you don’t end up short on bus far at the end of the month in that awkward period when all the money’s gone out and nothing has come in yet.


S.E Smith (via belcanta)

(via biscochozorro)

vdubboogie:

This is systematic, meaning primary to scholarly!

vdubboogie:

This is systematic, meaning primary to scholarly!

(via unapologetically-yellow)

silverlullabies:

justabrowncoatedwench:

unwinona:

kitsparrow:

cartoongoblin:

jadelyn:

sinbadism:

teslaarmor:

cobra-23:

So stop working at mcdonalds and do something with your life.

Sure! I’ll just reach into my ass and pull out a job! Or, how about I go down to jobland, where jobs grow on jobbies!

Strap on your job helmet and get in the job cannon

…if everyone “stopped working at mcdonalds and did something with their life”, you do realize the entire fast food industry would collapse, right? And if we extend that premise out to other low-wage/low-prestige jobs, society itself would pretty much grind to a halt.
You love to talk shit about retail and food service workers, but who makes your burger and sells you your clothes? Go ahead. Try doing without any labor from someone employed in a low-wage/low-prestige service industry job for a few days. I’ll wait. Good luck.

NEW RULE: If you think working minimum wage jobs is “not doing something with your life” and you look down on the people working those jobs, you’re not allowed to patronize those jobs ANYMORE. No fast food for you! No retail, no coffee shops!

No theaters and no amusement parks either!

Say goodbye to your morning cup of coffee bitches

No places that require the use of a janitorial staff.
That means no school, no public shopping place of any kind, no universities, no airports or train or bus stations.

You can’t call 911 because the operator makes minimum wage. Also sucks to be you if you’re drowning because life guards are minimum wage workers too. 

silverlullabies:

justabrowncoatedwench:

unwinona:

kitsparrow:

cartoongoblin:

jadelyn:

sinbadism:

teslaarmor:

cobra-23:

So stop working at mcdonalds and do something with your life.

Sure! I’ll just reach into my ass and pull out a job! Or, how about I go down to jobland, where jobs grow on jobbies!

Strap on your job helmet and get in the job cannon

…if everyone “stopped working at mcdonalds and did something with their life”, you do realize the entire fast food industry would collapse, right? And if we extend that premise out to other low-wage/low-prestige jobs, society itself would pretty much grind to a halt.

You love to talk shit about retail and food service workers, but who makes your burger and sells you your clothes? Go ahead. Try doing without any labor from someone employed in a low-wage/low-prestige service industry job for a few days. I’ll wait. Good luck.

NEW RULE: If you think working minimum wage jobs is “not doing something with your life” and you look down on the people working those jobs, you’re not allowed to patronize those jobs ANYMORE. No fast food for you! No retail, no coffee shops!

No theaters and no amusement parks either!

Say goodbye to your morning cup of coffee bitches

No places that require the use of a janitorial staff.

That means no school, no public shopping place of any kind, no universities, no airports or train or bus stations.

You can’t call 911 because the operator makes minimum wage. Also sucks to be you if you’re drowning because life guards are minimum wage workers too. 

(Source: fuckyeahmarxismleninism, via biscochozorro)

After 40 years of impoverished black men getting prison time for selling weed, white men are planning to get rich doing the same things. So that’s why I think we have to start talking about reparations for the war on drugs. How do we repair the harms caused?

Michelle Alexander  (via lugardepiedras)

Always reblog, because I’ve noticed the media salivating over all these *white* weed entrepreneurs for being so “ingenious” and “savvy businessmen”, while ignoring the the mostly Black, Brown and poor victims and survivors of Amerikkka’s “War On Drugs”, and the ongoing racist and classist injustices that keep locking away Black, Brown and poor people in masses while giving white people who commit the same offenses less or no jail time at all.

(via the-uncensored-she)

(via solaceames)

Ratchet is a racialized term. So is ghetto. So is thug. So is welfare queen. Someone does not have to EXPLICITLY say the word “black” in order for something to be racist against black people. Speaking in flagrantly racist terms is one of the least sophisticated manifestations of racism today.
TemperedFury on Philip DeFranco’s, creator of the YouTube channel Philly D, use of racialized language.  (via knowledgeequalsblackpower)

(Source: america-wakiewakie, via biscochozorro)

sociolab:

Do you ever think about the fact that the US has created and legitimized a system of institutionalized inequality by funding schools through property taxes?  That basically a child’s education is only as good as the value of the property in their neighborhood.  Funny how education is so often viewed as an equalizing factor when there is nothing equal about it.

(via salviprince)

Lower income for all women, particularly those of color, means less money to support their families with necessities such as housing, food, education, and health care. Closing the pay gap is even more important for women of color who are more likely than their white counterparts to be breadwinners.

The long-term wage gap hurts families of color tremendously, forcing families to choose between putting food on the table or saving for a college education and retirement. On average, an African American woman working full time loses the equivalent of 118 weeks of food each year due to the wage gap. A Latina loses 154 weeks’ worth of food. The stubbornly persistent gender-based wage gap adds up substantially over the lifetime of a woman’s career. For women of color the loss of savings over a 30-hour-a-week to a 40-hour-a-week work lifespan is significant. A woman of color will have to live on one-third to 45 percent less than a white man based on the average benefits that are afforded through Social Security and pension plans. Research shows that a woman’s average lifetime earnings are more than $434,000 less than a comparable male counterpart over a 35-year working life.

Analysis done in 2012 by the Center for American Progress illustrates that the money lost over the course of a working woman’s lifetime could do one of the following:

—Feed a family of four for 37 years
—Pay for seven four-year degrees at a public university
—Buy two homes
—Purchase 14 new cars

Simply be saved for retirement and used to boost her quality of life when she leaves the workforce

Lifetime earnings are even lower for women of color because they face higher levels of unemployment and poverty rates. In March 2013 unemployment rates of black [women] and Latinas were significantly higher than their white counterparts at 12.2 percent and 9.3 percent respectively compared to white women at 6.1 percent. According to the National Women’s Law Center, poverty rates among women, particularly women of color, remain historically high and unchanged in the last year. The poverty rate among women was 14.6 percent in 2011—the highest in the last 18 years. For black women and Latinas that same year, the poverty rate was 25.9 percent and 23.9 percent, respectively.


Sophia Kerby, “How Pay Inequity Hurts Women of Color,” Black Politics on the Web 4/9/13 (via racialicious)

(via bad-dominicana)