Shortcuts make long delays...

Holy Hell!

First of all, I agree with this sentiment 100%. No one should shame anyone for ANY of their life choices, unless those choices are cruel and/or harmful to others. One of my best friends got married a few years back, and asked me to be a bridesmaid. I happily accepted. We’ve been friends for 20 years, and so she absolutely KNOWS my opinions and thoughts on a range of gender issues. My friend had a super-traditional wedding and took her husband’s last name. I imagine if she’d cared about my opinion on that matter, she would have asked for it. She didn’t, so I didn’t offer it. I’ve never offered it, and don’t imagine I ever will. What matters is that her husband is a lovely guy and they are absolutely equals as partners and parents.

I have another friend who cannot WAIT to be a stay-at-home mom. We’ve been friends for almost 10 years, and this has always been her dream. She adores the domestic arts and is good at them. She’s also great with kids. Her fiance makes enough money for them to live (modestly but comfortably) on one income, and she just told me they’re going to try for a pregnancy soon. I am so freaking excited for her—she’s going to get to do her dream job! What could be better than that?

So, yes. On an individual basis, we support each other and don’t try and impose the way that we want to live on others. That is a matter of basic good will and respect. But! Yes, there is a but. But this whole concept of “choice feminism” has a really dark side that I don’t think is talked about nearly enough. There is a reason why the practice of a woman automatically taking her husband’s last name bothers me as a general practice. There is a reason why the assumption that if one parent in a heterosexual pairing is going to stay home with the kids, it should be the mom. These opinions don’t exist in a vacuum, and on more than one occasion, I have felt pressured to abandon any and all critical thinking on social issues because choice.  

Personally, I think it is really fucked up that a woman taking her husband’s last name is still the default in this culture. That a man choosing to do the same would be considered bizarre at best and a proof that he was whipped at worst. That when women choose to keep their last names, their children often automatically get their husband’s last name anyway, making many women feel like their only choice is between being part of their own family or an outsider in it. That not automatically giving kids their father’s name is very rarely considered. That when a woman hyphenates, their husband often does not. That “it was really important to my husband” is considered a good enough reason for any and all of this. That men are never expected to make sacrifices for their relationships with women the way that women are expected to make sacrifices for their relationships with men. That we are all supposed to pretend that the convention of a woman surrendering her legal identity upon marriage has nothing to do with the fact that women are paid less, violated more, and generally considered less valuable and less human than men.

All I am really saying, I suppose, is that choice feminism should only, only only be about supporting individual human beings without being judgy jerks toward them. It should not be about shutting down the conversation on why certain practices have been—and continue to be— deeply disturbing. Because, unfortunately, I see that happening a lot. And that is nothing but a victory for a misogynistic system that seeks to silence us, confuse us, shut us down, and make us attack one another instead of looking at the real problem. I will never judge or criticize individuals for the choices that they make, even if I find them problematic. If, however, specific social issues and practices come up in conversation, I am sure as fuck going to continue to speak my mind.

i work at a restaurant. i make $12 an hour, plus tips. minimum wage where i live is relatively high for my country - the national minimum wage is $7.25/hr, and has not been raised since 2009. before taxes, working full time, my yearly income is about $22,000 a year. ($25,000 if you count tips)

at my job, we sell various dishes, with an average price of about $10-$15. we get printouts every week detailing how much money we made that week; in one week, our restaurant makes about $30,000. (one of our other locations actually makes this much on a daily basis!)

i’m not going to go into details, but after the costs of production (payroll for employees, rent for the building, maintenance, and wholesale food purchasing) are accounted for, the restaurant makes an estimated profit of $20,000 per week.

this profit goes directly to the owner, who does not work at this location. the owner of my restaurant has actually been on vacation for a few months, but still profits from the restaurant, because they own it. i have met the owner exactly twice in my year of working here.

to put this into perspective, the owner of this restaurant earns in 2 days what they pay me in one year. and that’s just from this single location - the owner has several other restaurants, all of which make more money than the one i work at. this ends up resulting in the owner having an estimated net worth of tens of millions of dollars, even after accounting for the payroll for every single worker in their employ.

now, i have to ask you: does the owner of my restaurant deserve this income? did they earn it? did their labor result in this value being created?

the naive answer would be “yes”; the owner purchased the location and arranged for the raw ingredients to be delivered, did they not?

the actual answer is “no”. the owner may have used their initial capital to start the location, but the profit is a result of my labor, and the labor of my co-workers.

the owner purchases rice at a very low bulk price of about 25 cents a pound. i cook the rice, and within a few minutes, that pound of rice is suddenly worth about $30. the owner did not create this value, i did. the owner simply provided the initial capital investment required to start the process.

what needs to be understood here is that capitalists do not create value. they use the labor of their employees to create value, and then take the excess profit and keep it.

what needs to be understood is that capitalists accrue income by already HAVING money. the owner of my restaurant was only able to get this far because they started off, from the very beginning, with enough money to purchase a building, purchase food in bulk, and hire hundreds of employees.

that is to say: the rich get richer, and they do so by exploiting the labor of the poor.

the owner of my restaurant could afford to triple the income of every single person in their employee if they felt like it, but this would mean that they were generating less profit for themselves, so they do not.

the owner of my restaurant pays me the current minimum wage of my area, because to them, i am not a person. i am an investment. i am an asset. i am a means to create more money. 

when you are paid minimum wage, the message your boss is sending you is this: “legally, if i could pay you less, i would.”

do you ever just have

that one class

that one freaking class

that just depresses you when you think about it because