college student: biology major. 21. Connecticut, USA.
here there is:
bands (mostly rock and roll- black veil brides, my chemical romance, avenged sevenfold, foo fighters, panic! at the disco, U2, guns n roses, coldplay, metallica, green day, empires, taylor swift, etc), avengers, supernatural, doctor who, the office, daily show, colbert report, the west wing, harry potter, lord of the rings, firefly, merlin. also movies, politics, funny stuff, science, pretty things, whatever the fuck I want. little to no personal stuff.
Oh for fuck’s sake. I guarantee you, people on welfare are NOT comfortable.And most people DO use it to survive until their situation improves - the exceptions are the elderly, the disabled, and people with children (and I can vouch that a lot of the time, the children get benefits while the parents don’t).
Learn what the hell you’re talking about before you actually speak.
Even people with kids tend to get off it within 5 years unless they’re in areas where the economy is absolutely destroyed & unemployment is in the high teens or twenties. And yes, moving is an option if you’ve got the money to move, which people on assistance generally don’t have at least not for state to state moves. That’s before we get into child care concerns & community ties.
I’m gonna say this as a welfare worker.
The money folks get on welfare is BARELY enough for them to survive. If you have a family of 3, two-parents and a child and one of those parents is working more than 25 hours a week, you’re not gonna qualify for cash aid, even if you’re working a shitty minimum wage job that probably isn’t paying your rent.
You’d qualify for foodstamps, but the amount of benefits you’d get on foodstamps would be lowered than the standard amount because of the income you have coming in.
If you’re a household of 3, and you’re a mom with two kids and you’re working 25 hours a week at a shitty minimum wage job you STILL might not qualify for cash aid because the gross income limit is so low. You literally have to be living BELOW the poverty line in order to qualify for cash aid welfare benefits. Do you realize how hard that is?
Not only that but in most states, adults who receive aid for 48 months (not all at once mind you, just 48 months in your lifetime after you turn 18) cannot receive cash aid benefits anymore. Anywhere.
So I really need for people to stop acting like folks on Welfare are living the high life and damn sure aren’t comfortable. They’re not, they’re just barely surviving. Cases of serious welfare fraud are few and far between and the only time people make away with loads of money, are usually in cases like the one in Seattle where a RICH COUPLE WAS COMMITTING WELFARE FRAUD! So someone take this “people living easy on welfare” myth and shove it up your ass.
I’m pretty much at the point that if you haven’t had to live on some kind of welfare benefits in your life, I’m not even remotely interested in your opinion about it and the people who use it.
The vitriol against people who need food assistance and/or welfare is so ingrained in the populace, I’ve known people on benefits who still talked about welfare recipients like they’re scum and that poor people just game the system and their own situation was a special snowflake situation. But that’s how it is — people would sooner hold onto the lie than have to empathize with other people’s situations.
We do a much greater disservice to girls, because we raise them to cater to the fragile egos of men. We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller. We say to girls: ‘You can have ambition, but not too much. You should aim to be successful, but not too successful, otherwise you will threaten the man. If you are the breadwinner in your relationship with a man, you have to pretend that you’re not, especially in public otherwise you will ‘emasculate’ him.’
But what if we questioned the premise itself— why should a woman’s success be a threat to a man? What if we decide to simply dispose of that word? And I don’t think there’s an English word I despise more than ‘emasculation.’
"LYDEN: You commissioned a dozen studies on women in media from the Annenberg School at USC. Some of the figures just really boggled the imagination when you think that women are half of all moviegoers. If we didn’t go to the movies, maybe this would make more sense. But we turn out in droves.
DAVIS: I know. It really does boggle the mind. In family films and kids television shows, for every one female character, there are three male characters. But lest people think that it’s all bad news, we were able to see an increase in the percentage of female characters in family films, such that if we add female characters at the rate we have been for the past 20 years, we will achieve parity in 700 years.
DAVIS: And my institute, we have dedicated ourselves to cutting that in half. And we will not rest until it’s only 350 years.
LYDEN: Why is this the case?
DAVIS: My theory is that since all anybody has seen when they are growing up is this big imbalance that the movies that they’ve watched are about, let’s say, five-to-one as far as female presence is concerned. That’s what starts to look normal. And let’s think about in difference segments of society - 17 percent of cardiac surgeons are women, 17 percent of tenured professors are women. It just goes on and on. And isn’t that strange that that’s also the percentage of women in crowd scenes in movies? What if we’re actually training people to see that ratio as normal so that when you’re an adult, you don’t notice?
LYDEN: I wonder what the impact is of all of this lack of female representation.
DAVIS: We just heard a fascinating and disturbing study where they looked at the ratio of men and women in groups. And they found that if there’s 17 percent women, the men in the group think it’s 50-50. And if there’s 33 percent women, the men perceive that as there being more women in the room than men.
LYDEN: Oh, my goodness.
DAVIS: So is it possible that 17 percent women has become so comfortable and so normal that that’s just sort of unconsciously expected?
LYDEN: Why else, Geena Davis, do these kinds of disparities matter?
DAVIS: What we’re in effect doing is training children to see that women and girls are less important than men and boys. We’re training them to perceive that women take up only 17 percent of the space in the world. And if you add on top of that that so many female characters are sexualized, even in things that are aimed at little kids, that’s having an enormous impact as well."
— NPR, “Casting Call: Hollywood Needs More Women” [x] (via mswyrr)