"In a paper published in April, a team of researchers from Carnegie Mellon University claim Google displays far fewer ads for high-paying executive jobs…
… if you’re a woman."
A couple via onyxlynx
"It would seem that for companies such as Apple, it is far easier to “ban” the Confederate Flag than it is to diversify one’s senior management and corporate leadership."http://www.chaunceydevega.com/2015/07/the-problem-with-racial-capitalism-and.html
"These moves are an example of what Professor Nancy Leong describes as “racial capitalism”, a practice that is based on the management of racial stagecraft and optics, neoliberal multiculturalism, and maximizing the superficial in the interest of profits. Racial capitalism has little to no substantive social justice component, and in many ways can work against meaningful social, economic, and political progress for people of color."
"For example, just as with racial capitalism in its worst moments, the retreat from the Confederate flag by Republicans obscures more than it reveals.
"Republican presidential candidates and other Right-wing elites are willing to sacrifice the Confederate flag because they do not want to talk about guns and Right-wing domestic terrorism in the aftermath of The Charleston Massacre.
"Removing the Confederate Flag does not restore the voting and civil rights protections—won in blood by the Civil Rights Movement—that were recently destroyed by the Republican Party, the Right-wing media, and the Supreme Court."
Although I am happy that all US couples who want to legally bind their relationships will now be able to do so, I don't trust legal marriage because it involves signing a contract with the government, and also because I don't think it provides the economic benefits that are supposed to accrue. And I think it would be better if all the rights that go with it were available generally to individuals and/or within whatever relationship configurations people want to choose. Here's one article that addresses some of that.
"The Marriage Opportunity Council, a spin-off of the Institute for American Values, hopes that by adding same-sex unions to the definition of marriage, they can unite progressives and conservatives in a cause to promote marriage generally. The basic premise of the essay and the broader campaign is that marriage provides economic as well as emotional security; that it’s good for children to grow up in two-parent families; and that a class gap has opened up in the incidence of marriage, which widens inequality and harms the poor, especially the children of the poor. A 'growing class-based marriage divide threatens all of us,' the several authors, led by longtime marriage advocate David Blankenhorn, write. 'It endangers the very foundations of a broadly middle-class society.http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/marriage-really-economic-cure-inequality-and-social-problems
...by emphasizing marriage per se, the writers ignore marriage-neutral measures that could really help children and parents, such as more supportive work-family policies, more comprehensive child care options, and higher earnings for working people. Progressives would do better to fight for policies that aid the broad spectrum of kids and families.
Forgot where I got this, sorry: In which is discussed Kirk & Spock and their effect on the modern understanding of queerness and fandom. It includes the claim that Roddenberry deliberately encouraged the notion that Kirk & Spock were lovers. It sounds like retconning to me, but I could be wrong. Either way, the argument in favor is interesting and includes several links to video clips that I hadn't thought about that way.
This entry was originally posted at http://firecat.dreamwidth.org/868796.html, where there are comments.