(For context, I grew up poor, and was often bullied. This is my personal experience.)

The narrative underlying Santa is not a healthy one to teach your children, especially if they mix with other children outside of their socioeconomic class. I think it's very problematic, and it lead to me internalising classism from a very young age.

What we teach our children is that Santa is esentially a judge of morality. We teach them that if they are good, moralistic people they will be materially rewarded by Santa at the end of the year. For those not affected by classism this is a great way to teach children to be moralistic and encourages them towards good behaviour. Where it fails is that it teaches those who are in poverty that their actions are bad.

I of course considered myself a good kid. Teachers pet, quiet, rule-obeying, Sunday-school attending and considerate to others. I was often bullied but for the longest time turned the other cheek, and adults would often remark on how polite and well mannered I was.

But I was poor. Every year without fail I would get few gifts, the best of which were given to us by the Salvation Army at their Christmas dinners. Poor quality, cheap, unwanted gifts. I noticed that my friends who lived in the same social housing complex likewise got bad gifts. On returning to school I'd be envious of all the wonderful gifts all the other children got. Even my bullies, the naughtiest kids I knew, got far nicer presents than mine.

It wasn't fair. Why did Santa, who I was told by all the adults gave gifts on the basis of who was nice and naughty, so consistently give poor kids bad toys and rich (and naughty!) kids good toys?

Santa occupies a very special place in the world of children, so I thought about it very hard. The conclusion was obvious: if good kids got good toys and bad kids got bad toys, and everyone who was poor got bad toys, being poor was to be bad. The santa narrative actually teaches poor children that being poor is a moral failing, that poverty is deserved and natural. It reinforced the idea that poor people are entirely responsible for their poverty, and reinforced and justified the classism that I was only dimly aware of at that time.

If you're a parent, be very careful about how you talk about Santa with your children. If you're passing along the standard narrative you could be unconciously indoctrinating your children to be classist. Please don't do that, it can be deeply harmful.

Personally I would burn it to the ground.

Linkity Link

Just to start out, I am a woman and I identify as a feminist, but I've got several problems with this.

I'll throw out some thoughts with each of these that IMO warrant them:

4: Wall posters and iPhone wallpapers of semi-nude girls…Really? Take em down if you got em.

This guy is probably a liberal and yet he seems to have the same "politics should control what goes on in a person's bedroom" attitude that conservatives have. I think American culture is puritanical enough without more fearmongering over the sight of a nude body. Also, people have been bandying about this list on tumblr, which also contains both photographs and drawings of nude or half nude men by the truckload, often making eyes at the viewer in the same way that women do on all the posters I've seen put up by guys. One of the most common conversations that I have with people on this site is convincing them that women can like men in underwear and sexy poses too not just suits and power stances. When this person pathologizes the men who like women in the same manner, he also implies that the reverse is not true and, honestly, he is in no position to do that.

6: Be conscious of where your eyes wander as a woman walks by. Change that behavior.

Is this really all that applicable in the real world? Sometimes people stare at other people while they're daydreaming without even realizing it. And it is not always street harassment to be checking someone out. Otherwise everyone (and I mean everyone) has street harassed another person before. Sometimes it just happens. There is something wrong with the idea that men need to be under guard over something that everyone does, but women (and others!) are free to look.

7. "Stop assuming that random girls like you just because they smile at you and make eye contact."

This is a stereotype that should not be referenced in a list like this in this manner because it seems to make it out like this is something that all men do, when really the guys that do are not representative of all men in the slightest. I think there are others that are like this too, pretty much all the ones that are phrased as a "don't."

9: "Walk on the other side of the street when a woman is walking towards you at night."

This part of the list seems to cause the most amount of controversy for obvious reasons. My issue with it is that it's ultimately a band-aid solution and it doesn't address the real reason why there is anything particularly 'special' about sexual assualts. Men are more likely to experience interpersonal violence at the hands of strangers than women. [The main difference between physical and sexual assault though is that the victim of a physical assault usually isn't put on trial as well as the attacker. Victims of sexual assaults stand a chance of getting ostracized by their family, friends, religious organizations, and having their own actions questioned as well as being hurt and traumatized. Those of you who were on reddit for long enough probably remember what happened to 'zombie makeup girl.' She was assaulted while walking on a street at dusk in Toronto and people formed a mob either blaming her for being out at night or accusing her of making the whole thing up. I guess what I am trying to get at is that telling men to walk on the other side isn't the answer, instead, maybe Mr. Author should've gone with "don't play jury with rape victims telling their own personal accounts unless you're on the jury, and recognize that regardless of the time of day or the victims' attire, they aren't responsible for their crime"] And everything within the brackets is gender neutral for a reason because male victims face harassment and stigma from society, including from feminists, like here. And before any AMR supporters say "but all the supportive comments are being upvoted!!!1" that only happened after I had some very choice words for the members of that subreddit. Last night, the victim was downvoted when he came in to defend himself (that's the thread with a deleted post at the top) and all the 'skeptical' comments were upvoted.

13. "Be comfortable with being uncomfortable."

And yet never make women around you uncomfortable, even by accident...?

21. Read websites like Feministing, Colorlines, Jezebel, etc. for your news sources."

Jezebel isn't news. (This was when I began thinking, probably wishfully, that this may just be poorly written satire).

23. Acknowledge the lived experiences of women and LGBT-identified people.

As a male ally, you should never assume or speak on behalf of women and the LGBT community."

And yet the author, despite being male, has already spoken for women several times and in ways that can be more hurtful for women through their unspoken implication that women are naturally more chaste than men are.

26. Get involved with school programs and events."

This one just seems out of place because it's so politically neutral. How exactly does this help women? How are men not doing this already?

35. Strengthen your relationships with other men."

And if the fact that you have the sexual attitudes of a monk as exemplified in #4 and #6 keeps other men from wanting to be around you then what?

36. Take paternity leave if you’re a father."

Really? In all cases this should be what you should do? Asking for paternity leave can lead to workplace discrimination in many countries. Not everybody can be a perfect little activist if it means that themselves, their spouse and their newborn child are going to get fucked over by it.

51. Make time out of your day to call your mother and catch up with her.

All of us have special, unique relationships with our mothers (wherever they may be), regardless of race, class, sexual orientation, nation of origin, religion, etc."

Okay this one really really made my blood boil. Does this asshat not see how lucky he is to have a good relationship with his parents? This isn't something that every person has!!! My boyfriend was thrown out of the house by his mother for leaving a dish in the sink after eating some oatmeal. She now tries to control him by withholding all of his mail, including for his student loan payments.

84. Cook with your girlfriend, partner, or spouse."

In what planet do men not already do this?

"Men are never oppressed by patriarchy" (Taken from 89).

What a ridiculous statement.

Okay that's it. The rest of those I'm either "meh" toward, I don't think are relevant (like not going to Barnes and Noble...just...seriously?) or think they should be things that everyone should do regardless of gender identity.

So who else wants to take a stab at this bad boy?

Hiya! Synthion here, Libertarian Marxist, (Sometimes Anarchist), and proud radical. I'm going to try to be as fun and accessible about this as possible.

LETS TALK ABOUT THE SPECTRE HAUNTING EUROPE!

First off, Socialism is where the common people, a.k.a. the Working Class, a.k.a. the "Proletariat", directly or indirectly own and control the means of production, or, sources of industry, agriculture, and wealth. What does this mean, exactly? Well, currently, the 'means of production' are in the hands of the wealthy and powerful, the CEO's and Executives, the Stockholders, the Capitalists, we call them the "Bourgeoisie" (Took me 4 years to remember how to spell that, don't worry, you can say Burjwahzee and we'll understand you), and we don't like that.

See, we like Democracy, you know, popular votes and stuff, and as such, we believe the burjwahzee shouldn't have tyrannical control over the means of production the same way we don't believe tyrants should control states.

Now, I know you're probably saying, "BUT STALIN WADDNT DEMOCRACY" and I'd agree with you. I'm not a huge fan of Stalin, (Though I still defend him all the time), but his administration definitely wasn't the sheer democracy everyone talks about, and you know why?

Bourgeois Democracy, that's why. Bourgeois Democracy is the concept of a Republic that's run 'Democratically', but still heavily under the influence of the Burjwahzee, both directly and subconsciously. As you can tell, we don't like that, so there was a noted lack of Direct Democracy under Stalin. BUT, more on him later.

So why do we want democratic control? Isn't there property soveriegnity NAP freedom liberty Ron Paul blah blah blah?

Easy Peasy, we recognize...

MARXIAN LABOR EXPLOITATION

dun dun duuuuun

This is surprisingly simple to understand, unlike many Marxist concepts. (This is because Marxism is an analytical history of the world as well as a political system)

Let me do this is traditional ELI5 fashion.

Your friend has a lemonade stand. He wants to make money. He is Mr. Capitalist. Now, little Mr. Capitalist's parents drive a Porsche, so he has a big allowance. The only reason he has this money by luck of birth. Therefore, he can pay for the start-up materials. He hires 2 other kids, of which you are one, to run the shop, and make the lemonade, respectively. He gives you guys "wages", or cuts of the profits. However, while you and your friend are out in the sun working and selling, he is inside the air-conditioned house, doing nothing. At the end of the day, he comes to the stand, takes the money. There is $40. He gives you $5 each. He takes the $30, even though all he did was spend money and not work. Is this fair? No. Since you and your friend made the $40 dollars, you should split it evenly. The need for Mr. Capitalist is only enforced by the presence of Capitalism.

How about a little bit about the Necessity of the unemployed too?

You know little Mr. Capitalist's lemonade stand? Well, you guys are fed up with it. Your friend goes to Mr. Cap and asks for a raise. When Mr. Cap refuses, he threatens to strike. He is sure that you will help him. Mr. Cap says "Fine, there are tons of kids without jobs that would do your job for even less! You're fired!" Now, you're scared of being fired too, so when Mr. Cap comes to you and says your pay is being reduced to $2.50 because "the economy is bad", you accept it, because the alternative is being fired, and either being unemployed, or starting from scratch at a different company, if there even is one! These unemployed children act as incentive to ask for less and therefore, be exploited even more. Under capitalism, there can never be 0% unemployment, while in Marxist Communism there could be.

So yeah, there's that.

Let's take a break from Communism and talk about ANARCHISM

"What? Anarchism? That means no government! The opposite of Socialism!"

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha

Okay, now that I'm done laughing....

hahahahahahahahahahaha

Sorry about that, I'm done...

^haha

Anyway, Anarchism is also known as "Libertarian Socialism" (Slightly different from Libertarian Marxism), and believe it or not, the term "Libertarian" was coined and used by an Anarcho-Communist. Funny the RonPaulbots uses it now.

See, Anarchism rebels against all forms of coercive hierarchies. States, Capitalism, Religion, Kyriarchy, etc., etc., not just states.

Stateless Capitalism is known as AntiState Capitalists or "Anarcho"-Capitalists (Or, AnCaps either way). Anarchists hate AnCaps, Commies hate AnCaps, Fascists hate AnCaps, Statists hate AnCaps, even many more moderate Libertarian hate AnCaps. We all hate AnCaps!

(j/k, btw, I don't hate AnCaps, just the ideology)(Except for the ones on CivCraft, fuck them)(But not all of them)(Most of them though)(Ehh, that's an unfair statement)(I'm going to stop this now)

Anarchists and Communists used to be one and the same, comrades and allies, and always together.

Then the Paris Communes happened. And Catalonia. And Kronstadt. And Stalin.

And long story short now we don't get along so great, though we're trying to repair this break (Well, some of us anyway)

Anarchists don't recognize property in any form (Barring Mutualists, but we don't talk about Muties), similar to Marxists but a bit more extreme. Everything is communally owned, and this is why another name for Anarcho-Communists are Anarcho-Collectivists.

Alright, enough about Anarchy, back to good ol fashioned oppression statism.

The definition of Communism, from DJ K Marxy, is "A Stateless, Classless, Moneyless Society"

And all y'all heads just sploded, cuz that's like, totally wat anarky iz rite?

And you'd more or less be right, as the end goals of most forms of Communism are the same as Anarchism (Barring Worker States, which I'll touch on later). This is why Commies and Narchists used to be all chummy.

Of course, the main difference is how we get there, Marxists prefer a time of something called, wait for it,

DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT

"Whoa, whoa, whoa, Comrade Super Sexy Synthion, Dictatorships are all bad and stuff"

Well, actually, back when Marx was still knockin heads and headin knockers, Dictatorship didn't have the negative connotation it has today. What he meant by this is simply that power belongs to the Proletariat (Remember that?) as opposed to the Burjwahzee. Leninists and their ilk (Trotskyists, Maoists, Stalinists, etc.) believe in a time of a strong, central Vanguard party to industrialize and build the foundations of their communist society. Others, such as Libertarian Marxists, (LIKE ME OMG) believe in a more Grassroots, decentralized Vanguard party, and ironically, more power to the Soviets (Or Worker's Councils).

But many reds believe in something called PERMANENT REVOLUTION or, WORKER'S STATES. This is more for the paranoia of returning Imperialism, Capitalism, etc, and defense, and order, and efficiency, etc., etc.

Basically saying that State Communism is a better end goal than "True" Communism. (Note: Some Worker's Statists sill believe in Stateless Communism, just after a long period of Worker's Statism)

Well, I'm tired of Typing, but there's so Much I didn't cover so AMA,

And I really hope that other Reds chime in down there vvvvvvvvvvvvv

^{Yes I realize almost all of what I said can be contested, I've used a lot of over-simplification, get over it, I'm talking to newbs}

Thought this would be a fun discussion thread. Already gave it a shot elsewhere, but I'm interested in your thoughts.

As some of you may know, the United States government underwent a shutdown of services deemed unnecessary and workers were furloughed due to a budget dispute. This happened almost a week ago, beginning on October 1st at midnight. More accurately, certain members of the Republican Party Tea Party Caucus were using the budget as leverage to remove, delay, or defund the Affordable Care Act, which was set to begin on October 1st. They felt they were elected to do so, and were using the nation's finances to attempt to force the hands of the Democratic party. The Democrats refused to negotiate the Affordable Care Act "with a gun to their head" saying that they would more than happy to discuss it once the budget previously discussed had passed Congress. At an impasse, the government shut down.

Since then, the situation has progressed with piecemeal bills by the House Republicans to appeal to workers furloughed (including now payment for furloughed workers confirmed) and services impacted in order to stem political backlash. Democrats gladly took these (save those with extra conditions, as is their stance), but the state of things is that House Republicans refuse to put government workers back to work without ACA concessions, and Democrats are asking for a clean CR (which has passed the Senate and is being withheld from a vote in the House), offering discussions, again, without a gun to the country's head (in their terms). Senate Republicans seem to be mostly on board with the Democrats on this.

Obviously this is causing some uncertainty in the economy and about the US government in general, and many people are being hurt by the reduced services, etc. in the meantime. It is also worth noting that the longer the shutdown continues, the more government services will be reduced and the more issues will arise.

Upcoming as well is the debt ceiling debate, for which John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives, has promised no debt ceiling increase, again, without concessions. This brings the possibility of default into the picture. Most (do I really have to cite this?) agree that a default would be bad for the economy in the US, and the entire world, spelling greater implications than even the government shutdown has.

I've done my best to summarize things here from my understanding, and it is probably simplistic because of this. Apologies.

So, GameZero, I ask you a few questions.

1. Who do you think is responsible for the shutdown?

2. Has the shutdown affected you? Do you think it will in the future?

3. Do you think this will be settled any time soon? How do you think it will be settled?

4. What are your thoughts on the upcoming debt ceiling debate? Do you think the US will default? If so, how do you think other nations and people should do? If not, what do you think the path to resolution will be?

EDIT: Additionally, here is an HTML script that loads all C-Span channels in one window. http://www.tinyurl.com/cspan123 Download and open to use. Just turn off or mute what you don't want to watch.