20-something Southern California native who enjoys chillin on the Interwebs. I try my best to be a friendly person, so feel free to message me about anything and everything.

 

ursulatheseabitchh:

This is not about personal preference. My feelings about the people on this list range from adoration to indifference to disgust. But none of these people had as positive reaction as Laverne Cox and Lupita Nyong’o did. In fact, many of them actually have a higher percentage of “no” than “yes”. With the exception of Benedict Cumberbatch, Laverne Cox received more reactions than anybody else, AND she has one of the highest “yes” percentages of anybody on the voting list.

So what is the point of voting, if the results of the voting don’t matter? We were told to vote for who we believed should be on the list, we did, and two of the people who received the most affirmative votes were not included.

So what was the point? Did you include them in the voting as some sort of kick-back, or an attempt to placate their fans, without any intention of including them? You included Megyn Kelly in a list entitled “pioneers”, and yet Laverne Cox has done more pioneering for the rights and interests of trans women than Megyn Kelly has ever done. You included two men who run dictatorships and commit human right violations routinely, people in media who haven’t really done anything spectacular within their fields, two politicians who had overwhelmingly negative reactions and…the Koch brothers?

Perhaps you had other criteria for the title “influential”. Perhaps a trans woman who campaigns for the rights and awareness of issues relating to trans women (one of the most denigrated groups in the world) didn’t meet that standard. Perhaps being awarded several humanitarian-related awards and being the key note speaker at several events wasn’t enough. Perhaps a woman who dares to speak out about these issues at the risk of her very identity being derided and attacked, because she wants to make her community better and she wants to help young girls just like her accept themselves and grow up in a better world just wasn’t influential enough for you.

And I guess a young actress who swept the awards season isn’t what you would call influential. I guess a woman who took on an emotionally trying role in a film that highlighted the atrocities on our nation’s past wasn’t good enough. A dark skinned woman who has just been deemed the most beautiful woman in the world, bringing hope and happiness to millions of black girls and women who are often insulted because of their skin—that just didn’t quite meet the same standards as being in a few films in one year. 

Or maybe, just maybe, the accomplishments of these two women challenge societal norms too much. Maybe what they have done and what they stand for is too uncomfortable for your readership and your editor. Maybe you just think the people the Koch brothers and Rand Paul influence are more important than the people Laverne and Lupita influence.

And that is a damn shame.

posttragicmulatto:

thepeoplesrecord:

The 1% wants to ban sleeping in cars - it hurts their ‘quality of life’April 16, 2014
Across the United States, many local governments are responding to skyrocketing levels of inequality and the now decades-long crisis of homelessness among the very poor … by passing laws making it a crime to sleep in a parked car.
This happened most recently in Palo Alto, in California’s Silicon Valley, where new billionaires are seemingly minted every month – and where 92% of homeless people lack shelter of any kind. Dozens of cities have passed similar anti-homeless laws. The largest of them is Los Angeles, the longtime unofficial “homeless capital of America”, where lawyers are currently defending a similar vehicle-sleeping law before a skeptical federal appellate court. Laws against sleeping on sidewalks or in cars are called “quality of life” laws. But they certainly don’t protect the quality of life of the poor.
To be sure, people living in cars cannot be the best neighbors. Some people are able to acquire old and ugly – but still functioning – recreational vehicles with bathrooms; others do the best they can. These same cities have resisted efforts to provide more public toilet facilities, often on the grounds that this will make their city a “magnet” for homeless people from other cities. As a result, anti-homeless ordinances often spread to adjacent cities, leaving entire regions without public facilities of any kind.
Their hope, of course, is that homeless people will go elsewhere, despite the fact that the great majority of homeless people are trying to survive in the same communities in which they were last housed – and where they still maintain connections. Americans sleeping in their own cars literally have nowhere to go.
Indeed, nearly all homelessness in the US begins with a loss of income and an eviction for nonpayment of rent – a rent set entirely by market forces. The waiting lists are years long for the tiny fraction of housing with government subsidies. And rents have risen dramatically in the past two years, in part because long-time tenants must now compete with the millions of former homeowners who lost their homes in the Great Recession.
The paths from eviction to homelessness follow familiar patterns. For the completely destitute without family or friends able to help, that path leads more or less directly to the streets. For those slightly better off, unemployment and the exhaustion of meager savings – along with the good graces of family and friends – eventually leaves people with only two alternatives: a shelter cot or their old automobile.
However, in places like Los Angeles, the shelters are pretty much always full. Between 2011 and 2013, the number of unsheltered homeless people increased by 67%. In Palo Alto last year, there were 12 shelter beds for 157 homeless individuals. Homeless people in these cities do have choices: they can choose to sleep in a doorway, on a sidewalk, in a park, under a bridge or overpass, or – if they are relatively lucky – in a car. But these cities have ordinances that make all of those choices a criminal offense. The car is the best of bad options, now common enough that local bureaucrats have devised a new, if oxymoronic, term – the “vehicularly housed”.
People sleeping in cars try to find legal, nighttime parking places, where they will be less apparent and arouse the least hostility. But cities like Palo Alto and Los Angeles often forbid parking between 2am and 5am in commercial areas, where police write expensive tickets and arrest and impound the vehicles of repeat offenders. That leaves residential areas, where overnight street parking cannot, as a practical matter, be prohibited.
One finds the “vehicularly housed” in virtually every neighborhood, including my own. But the animus that drives anti-homeless laws seems to be greatest in the wealthiest cities, like Palo Alto, which has probably spawned more per-capita fortunes than any city on Earth, and in the more recently gentrified areas like Los Angeles’ Venice. These places are ruled by majorities of “liberals” who decry, with increasing fervor, the rapid rise in economic inequality. Nationally, 90% of Democrats (and 45% of Republicans) believe the government should act to reduce the rich-poor gap.
It is easy to be opposed to inequality in the abstract. So why are Los Angeles and Palo Alto spending virtually none of their budgets on efforts to provide housing for the very poor and homeless? When the most obvious evidence of inequality parks on their street, it appears, even liberals would rather just call the police. The word from the car: if you’re not going to do anything to help, please don’t make things worse.
Source

Jewel slept in her car because she didn’t want to go in to debt taking out loans to afford getting an apartment and all the stuff she needed to go with it. She is praised for it because she didn’t rack up all this debt. She was very lucky that no one reported her.

posttragicmulatto:

thepeoplesrecord:

The 1% wants to ban sleeping in cars - it hurts their ‘quality of life’
April 16, 2014

Across the United States, many local governments are responding to skyrocketing levels of inequality and the now decades-long crisis of homelessness among the very poor … by passing laws making it a crime to sleep in a parked car.

This happened most recently in Palo Alto, in California’s Silicon Valley, where new billionaires are seemingly minted every month – and where 92% of homeless people lack shelter of any kind. Dozens of cities have passed similar anti-homeless laws. The largest of them is Los Angeles, the longtime unofficial “homeless capital of America”, where lawyers are currently defending a similar vehicle-sleeping law before a skeptical federal appellate court. Laws against sleeping on sidewalks or in cars are called “quality of life” laws. But they certainly don’t protect the quality of life of the poor.

To be sure, people living in cars cannot be the best neighbors. Some people are able to acquire old and ugly – but still functioning – recreational vehicles with bathrooms; others do the best they can. These same cities have resisted efforts to provide more public toilet facilities, often on the grounds that this will make their city a “magnet” for homeless people from other cities. As a result, anti-homeless ordinances often spread to adjacent cities, leaving entire regions without public facilities of any kind.

Their hope, of course, is that homeless people will go elsewhere, despite the fact that the great majority of homeless people are trying to survive in the same communities in which they were last housed – and where they still maintain connections. Americans sleeping in their own cars literally have nowhere to go.

Indeed, nearly all homelessness in the US begins with a loss of income and an eviction for nonpayment of rent – a rent set entirely by market forces. The waiting lists are years long for the tiny fraction of housing with government subsidies. And rents have risen dramatically in the past two years, in part because long-time tenants must now compete with the millions of former homeowners who lost their homes in the Great Recession.

The paths from eviction to homelessness follow familiar patterns. For the completely destitute without family or friends able to help, that path leads more or less directly to the streets. For those slightly better off, unemployment and the exhaustion of meager savings – along with the good graces of family and friends – eventually leaves people with only two alternatives: a shelter cot or their old automobile.

However, in places like Los Angeles, the shelters are pretty much always full. Between 2011 and 2013, the number of unsheltered homeless people increased by 67%. In Palo Alto last year, there were 12 shelter beds for 157 homeless individuals. Homeless people in these cities do have choices: they can choose to sleep in a doorway, on a sidewalk, in a park, under a bridge or overpass, or – if they are relatively lucky – in a car. But these cities have ordinances that make all of those choices a criminal offense. The car is the best of bad options, now common enough that local bureaucrats have devised a new, if oxymoronic, term – the “vehicularly housed”.

People sleeping in cars try to find legal, nighttime parking places, where they will be less apparent and arouse the least hostility. But cities like Palo Alto and Los Angeles often forbid parking between 2am and 5am in commercial areas, where police write expensive tickets and arrest and impound the vehicles of repeat offenders. That leaves residential areas, where overnight street parking cannot, as a practical matter, be prohibited.

One finds the “vehicularly housed” in virtually every neighborhood, including my own. But the animus that drives anti-homeless laws seems to be greatest in the wealthiest cities, like Palo Alto, which has probably spawned more per-capita fortunes than any city on Earth, and in the more recently gentrified areas like Los Angeles’ Venice. These places are ruled by majorities of “liberals” who decry, with increasing fervor, the rapid rise in economic inequality. Nationally, 90% of Democrats (and 45% of Republicans) believe the government should act to reduce the rich-poor gap.

It is easy to be opposed to inequality in the abstract. So why are Los Angeles and Palo Alto spending virtually none of their budgets on efforts to provide housing for the very poor and homeless? When the most obvious evidence of inequality parks on their street, it appears, even liberals would rather just call the police. The word from the car: if you’re not going to do anything to help, please don’t make things worse.

Source

Jewel slept in her car because she didn’t want to go in to debt taking out loans to afford getting an apartment and all the stuff she needed to go with it. She is praised for it because she didn’t rack up all this debt. She was very lucky that no one reported her.

asriels:

12 people have unfollowed me in the last 5 minutes really if you think john green or benedict cumberbatch deserve to be on times most influential people list more than laverne cox or lupita nyong’o i wish you’d never followed me in the first place

fuckyeahethnicwomen:

Racebending House Stark

Sayeed Shahidi as Rickon, Niles Fitch as Bran, Gabriella Crump as Arya, Michael Michele as Catelyn, Blair Underwood as Ned, Sabina Karlsson as Sansa, Jermaine Crawford as Jon, Michael B. Jordan as Robb

LAST FANDOM CASTING FOR TODAY, OKAY. I promise.

(Source: metalgender)

marialuisa-pr:

gynocraticgrrl:

Jessica Rey presents the history of the evolution of the swimsuit including the origins of its design, how it has changed overtime and the post-feminist association of the bikini symbolizing female empowerment. She refers to neuro-scientific studies revealing how male brains react to images of scantily clad women versus images of women deemed modest and what the implications of the results are for women in society.

(Note: As the OP, I disagree with Rey’s approach to putting the onus on women to alter ourselves rather than to alter the male perception of women – brain wiring has plenty to do with socialization and if we worked against the culture that fuels men’s objectification of women, women’s clothing choices would matter far less in terms of how men perceive us and determine how to interact with us).

Jessica Rey - The Evolution of the Swim Suit

bolding mine