I am the Kat that Walks By Itself

Y'know, I don't want to teach kids the worth of money.
I'd rather teach them the worthlessness of money.

Proposition: racism is a form of classism. Why? Because in Europe, Spaniards are considered to be "white", while in America, they are considered to be "coloured". Therefore it has nothing really to do with skin colour; rather the skin colour is a "class marker". Class markers are superficial characteristics which mark someone as being in a particular class, a way of lumping all those people together very quickly and with little effort. Other class markers are things like accent and clothing -- things that can be taken in at a glance, or as soon as someone opens their mouth. And they are often things which are difficult or impossible to change.

The thing about classism is that it isn't just lumping people together in a group, and it isn't just lumping people together in a group and being prejudiced against that group. The added thing with classism is that it is a hierarchy where the people lower on the totem pole are a threat, and they must be pushed down and "kept in their place", because otherwise they threaten the pecking order.

There is NOTHING inherently superior or inferior about any class. There is merely power, and the lack of it. Those with power use it to their advantage, and tell themselves that they are "naturally superior". We all know that's rubbish.

There is classism, which is a superior/inferior divide, but that isn't the only type of group-prejudice around. I'm thinking of the ally/enemy dichotomy too. That's where we get things like the "evil Hun" stereotype, and the "all Muslims are extremists" stereotype etc. I class this one differently because the threat is more explicit, and it isn't necessarily a superior/inferior thing... I'm not sure whether, in demonizing enemies, whether they are considered to be equals or not, or whether it is an attempt to make them seem inferior as well. But no, because the demonized enemies are not considered to be stupid or lazy, they are considered to be evil: equal in cunning, but inferior in morality. Enemies, after all, have equal power, or you wouldn't be fighting them, you'd be crushing them under your heel (or being crushed under their heel, depending). Less powerful enemies are either rebels (if they are within your sphere) or barbarians (if they are not).

Immigrants (as distinct from conquerors) tend to have less power, and are often seen as a threat, especially when they come in large numbers in a short time. A threat to the prosperity of their equals because they are rivals for the same resources, and a resource for the most powerful, if they can be oppressed and exploited from the get-go. (Gee, I'm being really cynical here, aren't I?) Because they are new-come, they are seen as "not-we", and therefore threatening in that way also. If said immigrants have some clear marker which distinguishes them from the locals, then there you have a recipe for racism in the making - with a socio-economic basis.

All that being said, I'm probably talking through my hat, because IANAS (I Am Not A Sociologist).

Douglas Adams had this to say about war:

Three stages in the history of warfare:
RETRIBUTION: I'm going to kill you because you killed my brother.

ANTICIPATION: I'm going to kill you because I killed your brother.

DIPLOMACY: I'm going to kill my brother and then kill you, on the pretext that your brother did it.

(The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

If he'd been alive today, he might have added another one.

TERRORISM: My brother will martyr himself killing your sister, so that you will martyr his family, so that my cousins will kill you and I'll run away laughing.

After looking at the "Design" category on Pinterest...

* Clothes design: the more avante-garde, the uglier and more uncomfortable it is
* Interior design: everyone has enormous rooms with no sign that anyone lives there
* Furniture design: I wonder how these pieces even stay up, or why anyone would want to sit on them

So, the US Supreme Court has ruled that gay marriage is legal. Many people are celebrating. Others are gnashing their teeth. Me, I am doing neither.

I haven't posted on this issue before, because it would have just been asking for trouble. There have been things I've said repeatedly in person, but I haven't discussed this in depth with anyone; sometimes because I couldn't get that far, sometimes because the person made assumptions they couldn't get past (either that I agreed with them, or that I disagreed with them), or because there were things I just couldn't unpack fully. I'm not sure that I can untangle it all in a well-ordered way, so I'll just touch on points, bit by bit, in no particular sequence, and hope that some sort of order will emerge.

( Read more... )
(Note, because this is a contentious issue, I am screening comments except those on my flist. I trust y'all to be nice to each other.)

Stumbled across this in my websurfing: "I'm not telling you it's going to be easy. I'm telling you it's going to be worth it."

My first thought was "if it was easy, it would eventually be boring". We actually do like challenges. When we have enough energy and have rested enough from our stress, we do stuff. Human beings are kind of crazy when you think about it: we do difficult things for fun! We are so needy for mental stimulation that we invented these things called "games" which make us think hard when we don't have to!

Weird.

With the death of Robin Williams, depression has become a very topical topic.

Some good links:
* Hyperbole-and-a-half: Adventures in Depression and Depression (part 2)
* I had a black dog, his name was depression
* Ten Lies Depression Tells You
* Erika Moen: I want to live

( but I have more to say )

I just don't get it. All these songs that say "don't take my man" or "don't steal my woman"... I mean, do they think the object of their affections is like a piece of china with no will of their own? I mean "don't tempt my man", sure, that does make sense. Or "don't stalk my man". (Or "don't kidnap my man", but that has different connotations that don't fit this situation.)

I mean, doesn't the Man in question have any say in this? Affection isn't something that can be stolen, as if it were a piece of candy. Affection can only ever be given as a gift, by the will and choice of the person giving it.

So, yeah, fair enough to say "stop bothering my man", but if he's Your Man and he chooses to be unfaithful, that's his fault. Yes, partly the fault of the tempter, but mainly his fault. Because he could always have said "No".

It just occurred to me that the Judgement of Solomon didn't necessarily discover which of the two women was the real mother of the child... instead, it discovered which of the two women was worthy to be the mother of the child. Which would have been the best outcome for the child anyway. Yes, it's more likely that the worthy mother was the real mother, but it is faintly possible that the real mother was suffering from, say, post-natal depression and thus behaving irrationally.

Just thinkin'.

In other news, I STILL HAVEN'T PACKED! I was so exhausted last night I was crying over songs, so I figured it would be better if I simply went to bed. So I did. Feeling better now.

Empty Vessels

It screams at us "Go out and buy"
Until our goods will reach the sky
We never even wonder why
Or where our money went;
The song of discontent.

It swears ambition is the best
And only competition's blessed
And you must rise above the rest
Spend all in your ascent;
The song of discontent.

Relaxation's always lazy
Satisfaction must be crazy
We must never take it easy
For rest is time misspent;
The song of discontent.

It looks at a half-empty glass
Says over there is greener grass
Insists our gold is only brass
And we must now lament;
The song of discontent.

---

(Because I am sick of feeling defensive about my lack of ambition.)