But I wasn’t born in 2014. I was a whole teacher, executive, policy person, speaker, arts and culture lover, reader, writer, woman of faith, fashion and more before 4 yrs ago 🤷🏾♀️
We should stop confusing what someone was doing when we became aware of them with all they are capable of, interested in, or ever hope to be
Let folks have their many talents, interests and gifts. Life is far more fun with variety, loves.
But I wasn’t born in 2014. I was a whole teacher, executive, policy person, speaker, arts and culture lover, reader, writer, woman of faith, fashion and more before 4 yrs ago 🤷🏾♀️
But we internalize and transfer our oppression daily. It’s a smog. We all breathe it in & act it out.
And then tell WoC “girl ain’t you supposed to be a _______? Why you doing ____?”
Can I live?
I’ve just been observing that behavior more and more lately. Especially when it comes to marginalized folks.
“Can’t knock the hustle” should be our anthem.
As long as someone isn’t bringing active and continual harm, why can’t they explore their many sides?
I am discovering that people want to keep you in the box they have for you because they’re too afraid to step out of their own.
Living outside your box will give other people permission to do the same.
And that’s freedom, too. Of the personal variety.
Being miserable on purpose takes entirely too much energy, anyway.
More from Society
This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?
My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.
But what if that wasn't true?
Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.
The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!
I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.
My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.
But what if that wasn't true?
Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.
The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!
I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.
I appreciate his intellectual curiosity and effort. I have quibbles. But my big disappointment is there was no mention of unintended consequences, which we discussed and which are kind of THE core conservative concern on this issue.
— \U0001d682\U0001d68c\U0001d698\U0001d69d\U0001d69d \U0001d686\U0001d692\U0001d697\U0001d69c\U0001d691\U0001d692\U0001d699 (@swinshi) February 18, 2021
Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause
I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.
I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views
I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.
I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause
How about Selina Todd, Kathleen Stock, Jo Phoenix, Rachel Ara, Sarah Honeychurch, Michele Moore, Nina Power, Joanna Williams, Jenny Murray, Julia Gasper ...
— Matt Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) February 17, 2021
Or is it only Eric you pop at?
Are they all making it up too Rob?
Are they "beyond parody"? https://t.co/drQssTD0OL
I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.
I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views
I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.
I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.
