I will say, I’m glad folks are talking about the issues of global exploitation and the way the small-creator-merch production pipeline has a fucked up role in it, I think it’s a conversation that absolutely needs to happen…
But I feel like y'all need to find a way to actually organize a campaign to materially do something about it instead of letting it devolve into a guilt-stick people bludgeon others over the head with without doing anything.
Like, for clarity’s sake I’m the last person who should actually head such an org, and I’m saying this from a perspective of hypothesis, but I do at least have a list of questions you should ask yourself if you do want to start an org/movement.
Like, for the general ones:
What are your end-goals? both short-term and long term? What is a good immediately-achievable goal to work towards at the start to recruit?
What levers of power are available to use to get your goals done? What could you do to expand those levers of power?
What forces stand against you? What pillars support their power? How can you undermine those pillars?
Where is an adversarial framing avoidable? How do you build solidarity in that context? Where is adversarial framing unavoidable? How do you go forward then? How do you tell when that framing is avoidable and unavoidable?
How do you get people onboard? How do you get them to stay? How do you get them to actively work on this?
And for the ones specific to this:
What is your immediate goals for the production of these luxury goods? For it to cease because it is logistically impossible to do ethically? For it to be done with a fair wage by unionized workers if that is possible? For creatives to diversify and divest into smaller, more ethically producible merch? A combination?
How would you establish contact with those overseas workers to address their needs? Who would you ask amongst them, and how would you center their input? What would acting as a representative of your organization to speak with them entail?
What would more ethical small artists merch production entail? What methods are logistically possible? What barriers might prevent small artists from engaging in those methods? How does one deal with the problem of a consumer base that might not buy that ethical merch from said artists?
How do you propose dealing with the potential loss of income from this production for those artists who potentially cannot afford to lose it? Are there any other things causing artistic poverty or mitigations of the problem that can be addressed by this campaign as potential means to fill in that gap? Are there any orgs working on those you could potentially ally with?
What can be done to create solidarity between global north artists and global south workers rather than the current adversarial arrangement? Is that even possible? If so, what goals would achieve that in the immediate term, short term, long term?
Note I mean none of this as a bad faith rhetorical-question “gotcha,” but rather, as the first steps to thinking about how one might go about this, because we need an org for this because it’s an important issue we need to address as both creatives and as a larger society.
And like, while org-building is easier said than done, if this remains just in the realm of “vagueposting and scolding on social media,” well…
…I ain’t gonna stop you, but have fun being politically irrelevant.
I will say, at least in the US context, I think the key challenge for leftists is not to convince people that things are currently shit; that’s the easy part; rather it’s to convince people that leftists can change things for the better before they fucking die.
Like, I am convinced that thing suck and electoral politics is a screaming nightmare vortex. You do not have to convince me any further to get me on board with your political program.
I am not convinced that any of you will do anything to make anything better until me or the friends I care about are either in the ground or for it to be too late for it to help any of us, the hopes and dreams it could have saved shattered to pieces.
“White flight is a term that describes how white people move out of neighborhoods when more people of color move in.
White flight is especially common when minority populations become the majority. That neighborhood then declines in value.
Male flight describes a similar phenomenon when large numbers of females enter a profession, group, hobby or industry—the men leave. That industry is then devalued.
Take veterinary school for example:
In 1969 almost all veterinary students were male at 89%.
By 1987, male enrollment was equal to female at 50%.
By 2009, male enrollment in veterinary schools had plummeted to 22.4%
A sociologist studying gender in veterinary schools, Dr. Anne Lincoln says that in an attempt to describe this drastic drop in male enrollment, many keep pointing to financial reasons like the debt-to-income ratio or the high cost of schooling.
But Lincoln’s research found that “men and women are equally affected by tuition and salaries.”
Her research shows that the reason fewer men are enrolling in veterinary school boils down to one factor: the number of women in the classroom.
For every 1% increase in the proportion of women in the student body, 1.7 fewer men applied.
One more woman applying was a greater deterrent than $1000 in extra tuition! (…)
Since males had dominated these professions for centuries, you would think they would leave slowly, hesitantly or maybe linger at 40%, 35%, 30%, but that’s not what happens.
Once the tipping point reaches majority female- the men flee. And boy do they flee!
It’s a slippery slope. When the number of women hits 60% the men who are there make a swift exit and other men stop joining.
Morty Schapiro, economist and former president of Northwestern University has noticed this trend when studying college enrollment numbers across universities:
“There’s a cliff you fall off once you become 60/40 female/male. It then becomes exponentially more difficult to recruit men.”
Now we’ve reached that 60% point of no return for colleges.
As we’ve seen with teachers, nurses and interior design, once an institution is majority female, the public perception of its value plummets.
Scanning through Reddit and Quora threads, many men seem to be in agreement - college is stupid and unnecessary.
A waste of time and money. You’re much better off going into the trades, a tech boot camp or becoming an entrepreneur. No need for college. (…)
When mostly men went to college? Prestigious. Aspirational. Important.
Now that mostly women go to college? Unnecessary. De-valued. A bad choice. (…)
School is now feminine. College is feminine. And rule #1 if you want to safely navigate this world as a man? Avoid the feminine.
Decided to read the article. I absolutely believe that what the author calls “male flight” has some validity to it, but it doesn’t seem to be a reason men have given themselves, and it seems reductive to put the decline of men pursuing education solely on misogyny. Not to say that misogyny isn’t a factor, because I agree that the article’s thesis lines up with historical trends of devaluing anything seen as “feminine” work, and I know enough sexist men to know that many do have an aversion to being in anything they consider women’s spaces. I’m not sure that I fully agree that the main reason men aren’t pursuing education is the kind of direct misogyny described in the article, but I also don’t have any evidence to the contrary lined up, and it’s certainly within the realm of possibility.
Early in the article, the author lists out other reasons that have been cited to partially explain the decline in men’s enrollment:
[Image Transcript: Other reasons I came across while researching for this article include:
– Men can make more money without a college degree than women can, so women need college more.
– Higher rates of alcohol, drug use, gangs and prison for boys negate college as a viable option.
– Colleges are usually left-leaning, so right-leaning students increasingly don’t feel comfortable there. And more men than women lean right.
– Men join the military more than women.
– A man will sometimes have to provide for wife/kids before he can finish college. /End transcript.]
Unfortunately, the author did not give citations for any of those claims, nor did she spend much time explaining why she thought these reasons weren’t major factors – or not as notable as the reason she gives: the rise of women in higher education. It would have been nice to see where that information was coming from. Particularly the point about higher drug and prison rates would be nice to have some context for. To be fair, there is a section just before the part that I cited that does give some sources for some of the other reasons people have attributed to the decline of male enrollment.
And, actually, to be extra fair, I’m gonna post that part as well, because it might be helpful. So this is the part directly before the passage I just cited:
[Image transcript: The Pew Research Center has found that boys are more likely to think they don’t need a degree for the jobs they want, and when they do enroll in college, work opportunities lure them away.
Ruth Simmons, president of A&M University thinks “the problem is the way we treat our boys in k-12. They turn away from school because of the negative messages they get at school… Behavior that is rewarded for boys doesn’t fit well with good student behavior.”
Another college president, Donald Ruff believes it boils down to money. “Honestly I think it’s the sticker shock. To see $100,000 that’s daunting.” /End transcript.]
I have little to add about this passage, I just thought it would be helpful to include.
The author also does not seem to consider race in her argument beyond drawing parallels between white flight and male flight. As far as I could tell, this article gives few statistics about the races involved. Is the influx of women predominantly white or predominantly non-white? When we talk about men not enrolling, is there any racial element being considered – are non-white men enrolling at higher or lower rates than they used to? Are we talking primarily white men not enrolling, or is this male flight evenly distributed across racial demographics? How do these demographics play out? Because, to me, it seems like misogyny and racism could both be at play here. If more black women than ever are going to college, it is likely that male flight is in tandem with white flight, but to actually make that claim with any amount of credibility, we would need more information, which the article does not provide/is not focused on.
To be clear, I do not have the answers to those questions. I am merely speculating. This is one of those cases where I’d need to spend more time looking at other sources to get a broader view of the issue, including the sources the author included, the ones she used to support her claims, and the Freakonomics episode she mentions.
On that note, there’s this interesting passage, which comes off as sorta… idk… I don’t have the exact words for it. Undermining her own point a little? I’ll analyze this feeling I have more after the image transcript. (Also, the “they” that is mentioned at the beginning of this passage is referring to the Freakonomics podcast.)
[Image transcript: They mentioned that there is one subset of men who out-enroll women. Which subset might that be?
Gay men.
While only 36 percent of US adults have bachelor’s degrees, 52% of gay men do.
“If America’s gay men formed their own country, it would be the world’s most highly educated by far.” - Joel Mittleman
At the Joel Mittleman quote in the podcast, I leaned forward…yes… surely now we will wonder why only straight men aren’t attending college… yes? /End transcript]
I feel like this passage gives a passing glance at intersectionality and then just hand waves it away to prove something about straight men. It just strikes me as something that should be explored more if the argument you’re making is that men are leaving for misogynistic reasons. Because we should all know by now that gay men are perfectly capable of being misogynistic and that there are definitely gay men who don’t want to share spaces with women. Is it that gay men overall tend to be more in touch with or comfortable with femininity, and are therefore less deterred by the presence of women in the classroom? I guess I’m honestly just confused as to how gay men factor into this conversation and why this deviance from the overall trend is not explored. It seems extremely relevant to the conversation?
Also, the article up to this point has been saying that men – as a general category – are choosing not to go to college. Is it true that the article is talking about straight men only, as this portion seems to imply? Are we considering gay men as somehow not men or unaffiliated with the rates that men are choosing college? Does the presence of more gay men in academia also mean that this "male flight” is also in part due to homophobia, or is homophobia not being considered as a factor the same way race doesn’t seem to have been factored in?
Finally, how do trans men factor into this conversation? Were they counted as women or men? Were they considered at all? If they were, that certainly is not represented here.
So, I guess my overall impression is that this is an interesting and compelling thesis, but the specifics are missing in a way that makes the author’s argument fall flat. I think this article would really benefit from a more intersectional approach. I also believe, as with all social issues like this, that the problem is never just one thing, but a combination of things, all of which need to be considered to address the underlying systemic issues that get us to this point. I absolutely believe the author is on to a big part of the problem, but I think her scope is limited and she needs a more solid foundation of information to build her argument on.
She schedules “spiritual sessions” on her website etc. Some of the research she cites is interesting but like. More work needs to be done on this and not by her.
A very good addition.
Critical Analysis 101: Always know who is behind the thesis and what lens they are viewing the issue from.
It was clear to me as I was reading the article that this was not an academic endeavor – or, if it was intended to be, it falls short of being a credible source for the claims it’s making.
We all need to do a little looking into things that make bold and uncomplicated assertions like this one, because if you don’t look into the way the message is being delivered or who is delivering that message, you run the risk of misrepresenting the truth and/or spreading misinformation.
I saw this post on my dash at 1k without any rebuttals, so I’m glad to see it at 6k with some actual critiques.
But also, if they’re gonna tack on vet school as an example, it’s super important to include intersectionality bc you can’t ignore that over 90% of US graduates are white. But then, you also have to break that down further. Whose going into agriculture? Exotics? Research? Small animal?
It seems to broadsweeping and lazy to pin an issue like this solely on misogyny.
Oh this is incredibly good information!
Yeah, I think it would be foolish to adopt this idea that men are enrolling at lower rates solely because of misogyny into your belief system based on this article. There’s much more that needs to be considered before we have a full picture of the issue.
Also your tags:
100% true. Also as a millennial, I have often felt like my college degree and the massive debt that came with it was predatory. The idea that an 18-year-old should be deciding what they want to do for the rest of their life is WILD, especially when it comes with a bill that you’ll spend half your life drowning in. I enjoyed my college experience, and I’m grateful that I got a higher education, but I wish I had a better grasp on myself and on the world before I went. I think we can’t dismiss the fact that millennials are drowning in debt as a natural deterrent from college.
As much as I want to support ethical farming practices I will be buying the cheapest bag of frozen chicken thighs as much as the next frugal/poor person which is why animal welfare needs to be legislated, not left up to the invisible hand of the free market or some bullshit. Invisible hand of the free market finds itself around a lot of throats.
Deeply, deeply aggravating when people stumble upon an ethical justification to hate something they already loathe for different reasons and get just insufferably smug about it.
Like shut up about how much water AI art uses. You never cared about water use in data centres before and assuredly never will again if it doesn’t help you win some dumb internet argument.
This example specifically annoys me because every single case people point to where the water use is gravely excessive reflects an existing problem with government corruption or lax water rights or reckless squandering of resources that didn’t appear when AI showed up and won’t go away if it disappears. The methods you’d use to ensure that high-intensity datacentres don’t permanently destroy the water table are the same methods you use to ensure that nobody else with a pile of money does that, and if those methods aren’t in place then that’s the actual problem!
and while we’re on the subject of luigi mangione, FREE NATHAN MAHONEY (who stabbed his company’s CEO during a meeting)! the reason you may not have heard this name is because the police clearly do not want to make the same mistake they did with Mangione by allowing him to become a symbol. let’s show our support for Nathan Mahoney, who looks exactly how he should in his mugshot— proud of himself
Nathan Mahoney ALLEGEDLY stabbed the CEO of Anderson Express Inc, a manufacturing company that produces parts for military vehicles, 1 week after being hired by the company. (Unfortunately the ceo has not died)
You ever think of how Ultraman, and by extention a huge portion of TV tokusatsu, descends from what’s basically Japan’s version of The Outer Limits (Ultra Q)?
You ever think about how different US TV would be if things had gone that way with our version of The Outer Limits?
Or that, there’s even a very specific episode that would’ve been perfect to spin off in that way, which is “Demon with a Glass Hand” for the record?
The challenge is simple: Make a character design, any way you can, within the timeframe before January 1st ends, with a quick piece of microfiction around 500 words or less (or a bit more) showing what kind of character they are, and post it on here with a CC0 license.
I post it now to give folks plenty of lead time to come up with ideas, subject is anything you like (Tho I may try themed ones another time), and please @ me when y'all do it, I’d love to see what you make!
So, start thinking, drawing, imagining, you name it, see y'all on January 1st!
…Since I’m making this Public Domain Month now, I would like to announce, this challenge has now been extended to the whole of January.
Stupid OC Idea: Transformer who turns into the Down With Cis bus.
The stupid part comes in when, while she is transfemme, that isn’t all that big a deal on Cybertron after they got rid of the Functionist Council, she’s just really concerned about Nucleon poisoning.
Also the stupid part is, she’d probably never be able to get a toy, because a goofy concept like her’d probably only be feasible as a redeco, and for some god-forsaken reason Transformers has never had a bus-based Transformer in its 4 decades of existence.
Which is really weird if you think about it. Tho @therobotmonster attributes it to potential parents complaining about that specific sort of civillian vehicle being used in a line of “war toys” so…
…You ever think about how fucking bleak it is that a man, by the name of Aaron Bushnell, fucking burned himself alive to protest the Palestinian genocide, and it fucking changed nothing, and we all kinda forgot about it even though it hasn’t even been a year?
I mean, I try to keep up hope, but Jesus fucking Christ. At the very least, we could try to remember his name…
had to look hard to find Cole’s old (these are like relics) seven short stories about drones (they actually show up pretty quick, no clue why I couldn’t find them for a long time:) these were all originally individual tweets, I believe he did them as off the dome as any tweet is—-
