It’s not that I don’t like kids…
Actually, scratch that.
I really don’t like kids.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure yours is perfectly lovely and poops rainbows and even makes you breakfast in bed. I’m sure to many women motherhood is the best thing about life, and I’m sure that they’re right… for them.
I’m simply sick of being expected to procreate just because I have a uterus.
Here’s my reasoning. I’m a selfish woman who desperately understands how far she can push herself. I don’t mean selfish in a bad way either. I don’t think of selfishness in a negative way; a degree of selfishness is what keeps us alive. I’d just like to recognise my own selfishness and move on to the fact that I know I could not mentally and emotionally handle children. I need a large amount of space and time for myself in order to be happy. I cannot even deal with being around my partner’s young siblings for more than a couple hours before I need to be away from them. But that isn’t inherently their fault; it’s mine. I just can already recognise that having children would push me into a depression that I probably would not be able to emerge from for years to come. As a woman with depression and who has dealt with the subject of suicide in my teen years, I don’t take this lightly.
I give so much credit to carers for children because they do something that I cannot. But I don’t emulate them. I’m more than happy being the selfish introvert that I am.
I don’t want to be judged anymore for not wanting children. I don’t want people to expect me to have children. I’ll never be ready for that sort of selflessness. I would destroy myself.
- Are You Being Selfish? No? Why Not? (positivespinblog.com)
- Taking care of yourself sometimes means being selfish (kevinmd.com)
One evening a few months ago I was walking my usual route from my flat in Harrow (I tell you where it was because I don’t live there anymore) to the tube station. Normally about halfway through my walk down one road I cross to the other since I have to be on that side anyway; it became a habit, when it was clear I crossed. I started walking down one road and saw a person walking in my direction in front of me. In my conscious reasoning I figured I should cross the road since I do it anyway and that way I won’t get the whole awkward ‘which side should I go to when we cross paths’ moment. Therefore I proceeded to cross the street and go on my way, since the road was clear.
Then I heard it.
‘Black people won’t hurt you!’
‘What did I do wrong?’ I thought. ‘Asshole!’ I thought. How dare he. He didn’t know me. He didn’t know why I crossed the road. He just assumed something horrible about me: that I, as a mixed race woman who passes for white, am a racist. I was livid. I thought about it for most of the ride to my partner’s place.
Now, months later, I caught myself thinking about that incident. Was my crossing of the street really just about my usual convenience logic, or was there something subconscious going on? To this day I’m not sure. I would say what I did wasn’t racist, because I did that sort of thing all the time. I always cross the road a bit down it, whether or not there is someone approaching me. However, being raised in an inherently racist society, I no longer want to dismiss the idea that I have subconscious prejudices ingrained in me since birth. I start seeing things about myself after the fact. I sit down in a crowded train, and realise there were many seats near a Black man close by where I wouldn’t have been crowded. Is this just because I didn’t see it (I am quite bad at spotting things) or because my subconscious veered me away from sitting near him?
I am now constantly thinking about how my actions affect people around me. Whether or not my road-crossing incident was racist, the person interpreted it that way. That person felt like I was being racist against him. If he thought that enough to call me out on it in the middle of the street (whether or not I’m guilty of it), I’m left to wonder how many times he’s experienced that same thing. How fed up he is at people avoiding him, consciously or subconsciously. And then I realise how racist this world is.
But then I come to a weird dilemma: should I make deliberate efforts to sit near people of ethnic minorities simply because they are ethnic minorities, or should I just sit wherever I actually want to sit and acknowledge that some of my actions may or may not be influenced by deeply ingrained subconscious prejudices? How do I even figure out if my actions are prejudiced, and how do I change them if they are?
- Message To White Folks Who Call Me A Racist (curmilus.wordpress.com)
- I’m Not a Racist But … (blogcritics.org)
- What Makes You A Racist In Canada / Is It A Crime To be One / How Do We End It? (archemdis.wordpress.com)
- “Because… all Black people are n****s” (mosmalls.wordpress.com)
Last time I explained and gave brief opinion on Herman Cain‘s sexual harassment/assault allegations and his conduct in denying them. This time I’ll be talking about his 9-9-9 Plan and why it is not as much of a saviour as it seems.
At face value Herman Cain’s ‘bold’ tax reform plan does, in fact, seem very bold. A flat, easy to understand tax code could simplify our lives. Unfortunately this ‘bold’ 9-9-9 Plan is not as simple as Herman Cain makes it out to be. First of all, it doesn’t raise as much revenue as the current tax plan. Of course I’m sure most Republicans don’t mind that, because taxes are the bane of America’s existence (I always hear ‘let’s get back to Reagan!’, forgetting that Reagan’s tax plans were much more ‘socialist’ than anything on the table now. More on that in another post). Herman Cain does claim, however, that the revenue raised on ‘Nan Nan Nan’ would be the same as now.
Most importantly, Cain claims to be working for the normal Americans when 9-9-9 ends up increasing taxes for the middle and lower classes, while decreasing taxes for the rich. The average middle class household would see an increase in taxes of around $4,300 per year.
Furthermore 9-9-9 is not as business friendly as it seems. In the plan Cain eliminates most deductions which ends up hurting certain businesses. Firstly while Cain eliminates the 6.2% in payroll taxes, he does not exclude income meant for salaries from being taxed with the 9% corporate tax. There already we have a tax increase, which is not something that will stimulate jobs. The service industry which relies on many employees will be hit harder than businesses in which payroll does not make up as much of their spendings.
Not only will middle and lower-income Americans be paying more in taxes, but they will be paying more for their goods with the 9% national sales tax. In some states this could mean their federal plus local sales tax could be up to 18% (in NJ where I’m from, we’d be paying 16%). This will be a huge deterrent from spending too much in the shops.
I urge to you have a look at Stephen Gandal’s more in-depth analysis at his Time blog.
Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan will be hitting women the hardest. Although women make up 49% of the labour force, they make up 59% of low-wage workers. Cain seeks to eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, which will disproportionately affect women.
In these past two entries I’ve discussed both Herman Cain’s ruthless, possibly misogynist character as well as his flawed tax code. He does not know how to take criticism, which he will definitely get a lot of in presidency. Is this man ready to become one of the most powerful men in the world? I think not.
There has recently been a lot of buzz about Republican Presidential Candidate Herman Cain in the past couple weeks. When I first heard of his tax reform plan, while I had my initial doubts, I felt like it was a great step in the right direction: who wants complicated tax codes? However in the past few weeks we have found that it is not as simple as we thought (more on this in part 2).
Furthermore there seems to be some major drama around Cain’s character. I in no way want a sexual harasser and misogynist in presidency (there are way too many in Congress in the first place!). It was recently revealed that in the 90′s Herman Cain had settled out of court with a woman who accused him of sexual harassment. Then when asked about this settlement he initially denied these claims, and then affirmed them merely hours later.
Now more women have come forward with sexual harassment and sexual assault accusations, with Cain not just dismissing these claims, but actively attacking the accusing women. He not only released information about Sharon Bialek’s employment history, but has now released a website called CainTruth actively discrediting her and the unnamed accusers. He is turning the accusations onto her, implying that she has a sexual ‘history’. Of course this allegation of her possibly being a sexual predator is only known through ‘elevator talk’.
He is trying much too hard to discredit these women. A truly professional politician, when faced with charges such as this, would most effectively repudiate claims by simply denying them and then ignoring them. Whether he is guilty of these accusations is incredibly important, however his harshness in countering the claims needs to be addressed. I don’t want a president who cannot act in a dignified manner. I could more easily dismiss the claims if Cain was not so malicious in his denials (though as a feminist I don’t dismiss these sorts of claims).
Part Two will talk about Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan and why it is bad for people across the board.