Baby Arms

Hello, I'm Jen. Baby Arms and Colour Me Wednesday. West London, UK

[itsmebabyarms]

I’m back baby

Drag me to 2014, Tumblr reactivated. 

[lordworm]

Reblog to make it die faster

[chilewithcarnage]

[chaotic-hypnotic-erotic]

Like to charge, reblog to cast.

[epithalamia]

[utah-mountain-drifter-deactivat]

[little-bullheaded-shit]

[yourcourtmage]

[itsmebabyarms]

It haunts me

I’m sorry u lot but I can’t stop thinking about how on Radio 4 they asked why inflation exists (by design) and they said if we didn’t deliberately create inflation we might end up in deflation, meaning the money in people’s pockets would become progressively more valuable and they’d start saving instead of spending. People need to live with the fear that essentials like food etc. will always increase in price so they think: may as well spend rather than save. 

When people start saving rather than spending, companies and profits suffer. When people can’t afford to save, people suffer. 

They want people to suffer. That helps the economy. In case you thought otherwise. 

[ceevee5]

The UK in 2023 … like to charge, reblog to cast.

[davisbette]

The Red Shoes (1948) — dir. Emeric Pressburger, Michael Powell

[vitariesocks]

the dehumanization of high-risk people at almost year 3 of the pandemic is so enormously scary and painful.

“high risk people will protect themselves” how? did you think about that? are we able to go grocery shopping? are we able to see loved ones? are we able to access lifesaving medical appointments? no! you refuse to protect us!

“I think you’re taking covid too seriously” I don’t want to die! I don’t want to die! I’m a human, too, and I don’t want to die! Look at me — I’m a human!

[luntfontanne]

i keep seeing people reference that recent guardian article (which was citing a recently published research article in the journal sociology) about how in the uk only 8% of people in creative fields come from a working class background now, compared to 16% half a century ago, and it seems like the widespread takeaway from that at least here on tumblr is that there really was a golden age of opportunity for working class folks in the arts in the 60s/70s, but i feel like not a single person actually read that original journal article because the actual data in the article shows that while this absolute percentage has gone down, this is due to broader changes in the overall class structure in britain (i.e. fewer working class people overall), rather than indicating a recent change in the relative access working class people have to join creative fields:

In summary, in terms of relative social mobility, the odds of a person accessing core creative work are strongly associated with their class origin, even after qualifications are taken into account. This class advantage is in addition to the advantages in qualifications that this group also holds. There is also no evidence that this is a new phenomenon. The 1960s and 1970s were not in fact a ‘golden age’ of classless access to creative employment that has now come to an end.

the conclusion states:

In Britain there is a longstanding belief that cultural work is meritocratic; that is, it comprises a set of occupations that are recruited on the basis of talent, regardless of social origin. A recent focus on the employment profile of the cultural sector, which shows that those from more privileged backgrounds dominate, combined with political concerns that the UK is in the midst of a ‘mobility crisis’, has shaken this view. At the same time, leading practitioners who were upwardly mobile into creative jobs have lamented the loss of a ‘golden age’ of opportunities for working-class actors and artists that began in the 1960s with the rise to prominence of figures like Rita Tushingham, Michael Caine and David Hockney.

Our analysis in this article is the first to test the claim that social mobility into cultural occupations has worsened. It shows that, in fact, there has been no change in the underlying pattern of relative mobility into creative jobs. The chances of getting into creative work are profoundly unequal in class terms, but they are neither more nor less unequal than they ever have been. As across the rest of the economy, there was no ‘golden age’ of classless access to creative employment. We have also shown how issues of gender and ethnicity compound inequalities of access to the cultural sector, while the class gradient in recruitment persists net of education.

and in other interviews one of the co-authors specifically warns against romanticizing previous eras as a ‘golden age’ due to, you know, other intersectional factors:

“We do think it’s worth stressing that for all the talk of ‘golden ages,’ the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s were probably less of a golden age if you were a working-class woman, or a working-class person of color,” said Dave O’Brien, a University of Sheffield professor and one of the study’s co-authors. “Class and social mobility really needs to be seen through an intersectional lens.”

ANYWAYS! it’s a more nuanced argument and not as black-and-white as romanticizing the past as some lost golden age but i think it’s important to like. actually read things and understand what they’re saying instead of taking away the literal exact opposite conclusion from what the authors specifically state in their paper lol

[luntfontanne]

i KEEP seeing references to this research in my notes by people who clearly did not read the actual research and i am just begging on my knees for people to understand that acknowledging how much things suck now SHOULD NOT LEAD TO romanticizing the past as a utopia and thinking if things had just Stayed That Way everything would be wonderful now

i have seen SO many people talking about how the plight of artists from working class backgrounds now is ENTIRELY the fault of thatcher in the uk and reagan in the us, and while their policies were undeniably catastrophic, the idea that “oh if they simply didn’t exist then everything would be perfect now and i would not have any trouble trying to get into the arts” (not exaggerating, i have seen this repeatedly on my activity page) is WILD considering, you know, what the ‘60s and ‘70s were like for people of color, for example. i’ve seen people in my notes citing the GI bill as a universal good that benefited everyone, even though in reality while it did benefit and allow for upward social mobility for some, it was also literally structured around jim crow and actually increased the racial wealth gap in some areas of the us.

like???? “the 60s was a golden era of opportunity” FOR WHOM???? “i wish we could go back!” DO YOU REALLY

[itsmebabyarms]

How are we measuring, or rather how does that study measure, who is working class?

It used to be that working class meant mostly manual labour. So of course, as we had more manual industry in the UK there were more manual labourers pre 1980s. Now we have call centre workers and self-employed tradespeople, service workers and even entertainers not being "counted" because precarious and underpaid work might not be considered working class. It's been noted in some studies that zero hours and self-employed workers' income is often misreported too, as the maximum it "could be" rather than a number that reflects the variability and instability of such an income.

"There are fewer working class people now" - no reliable study can truly claim that more people are middle-class or in a comfortable class than in the post-war era - so even if by some metric this were 'proven' it would be a meaningless statement.

Ok so, what about self-ID? When it comes to so called 'mobility' and aspiration, if poor people are constantly being told to aspire to Middle-class occupations and lifestyles, to be ashamed of being working-class and aim to 'get out' - there's going to be fewer people self-IDing as working class as well!

On the subject of 'mobility' - I really want everyone to question whether 'mobility' is a positive thing and how it is measured.

Why is it that when things are getting bleak, (even for the people with jobs or multiple jobs, the people who did everything they were "supposed to") we start hearing about how great 'mobility' is? It's an idea that is in direct opposition to a critique of capitalism. It doesn't say "no one should starve" or "resources should be divided more equally" it says "if you don't like being poor, work harder to move up this rickety ladder we've invented".

There are millions of working-class people in the arts. But thinking about this in terms of 'mobility' is deliberately misleading. Why should the arts be dangled as a get-out-of-poverty lottery to working class people? Why are we talking about working in the arts as a privilege in the first place? We are feeding into the idea of this mythological ladder and the idea that having it dangled in front of us is some kind of benevolent gesture!

[shortlesbian]

I need people obsessed with discourse and identity politics to understand that bigots don't ask for your label before they discriminate against you.

They don't say, "Oh hey woman holding hands with another woman, you're actually bisexual? My bad! I was going to call you a dyke but now that I know your actually bisexual I won't treat you badly."

They don't say, "Oh you're a cisgender woman who's a butch lesbian? I thought you were a transwoman and was going to call the cops, but I won't do that now that you've verified your identity."

They don't say, "Oh you're a transman? I was going to catcall and harass you but now that I know you're a man I'll respect you and leave you alone."

Like arguing and belittling and shitting on each other because some tumblr post or tweet convinced you your own community is the enemy....it does not matter to them. They will harass us all, beat us all, call the cops on us all, it does not fucking matter what our labels are. We're all suffering and we'll continue to suffer the more we let them divide us.

[itsmebabyarms]

I think a key thing here is also that most discrimination, stigma etc isn't face-to-face acts of abuse. It's systemic, so it's baked into our society's organisation; and it's internalised, so we feel stigma and devalue ourselves before any one person has told us we are worthless. These things affect us throughout our lives - I learnt that bisexuals were fickle and slutty before I knew what bisexuals were. I knew what mean things to think about women who dated women - and bisexuals were never an exception to that, why would they be?

Anyone who experiences racism knows this to be true. You don't need to be harassed on the street by A Racist to know you're devalued and disadvantaged by a whole society and by the systems you engage with every day, hope to engage with, don't dare to engage with etc.

[theinsaneum]

[quonunc]

The purpose of child hero stories is not "this universe is abusive toward children and no one has child age labor laws" it is that they are stories written for children so that they can see themselves overcoming challenges and defeating monsters.

[quonunc]

You're right and you should say it

[lifeofcynch]

stories like these have probably helped countless kids out there

[the-davest-of-uncles]

Since it is so likely that (children) will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker.

C.S. Lewis

[mornington-the-crescent]

“Fairy tales, then, are not responsible for producing in children fear, or any of the shapes of fear; fairy tales do not give the child the idea of the evil or the ugly; that is in the child already, because it is in the world already. Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon.”

G.K. Chesterton

[itsmebabyarms]

Some of this feels like a very contemporary form of historical revisionism. Many stories for children have a regulatory purpose rather than this quite modern idea of expanding children's horizons and sense of power. In fact a lot of the stories written for children seem to be in fear of the power of children - regulatory cautionary tales about what happens if children are given power and magic. It never quite works out for them.

Look at the Sorcerers Apprentice, which folktale theorist Zipes thinks is the blueprint for much children's fiction, including Harry Potter. There are a few versions of the Sorcerer's Apprentice but the most persistent one has the young apprentice reminded that playing with masters magic will lead to hazards. This might be in response to another version in which the apprentice overthrows his master. These ideas are in conflict within many wonder tales but I think it's clear the former is the dominant story.

Are you totally sure Harry Potter, for example, is an inspiring story about how kids can beat monsters, or are most of the books about a deeply unsafe magic system/school which children engage with at their own risk - while omniscient adults watch them take their comeuppance? It seems "inevitably, the magic has gone wrong and for this the children will pay" regulatory message for children is still present across those books and films.

[behbah-deactivated20230102]

leather jacket elaine in s7 tho

[rob-pattinson]

WINONA RYDER 2022 | Dan Martensen ph. for Harper’s Bazaar 

[basedandfatpilled-deactivated20]

[lesbiansandgayssupporttheminers]

I’ve been reading a bit of analysis of the autumn statement, and I’m deeply concerned.

The Tories, ideologically, are against government borrowing, and don’t want to increase it. Hunt effectively made up fiscal rules for the autumn statement, so he could say he met them and appease the markets (or try to). In order to meet these fiscal rules, he effectively needs to propose more cuts, and limit public sector pay and other spending.

But there’s a problem. He’s done nothing to bring down inflation, and nothing to bring down interest rates. For most UK household, their biggest cost is housing- high interest rates mean high housing costs. High inflation means the costs of energy, food and other necessities will continue to rise. The average household is expected to have increased costs of £4000 over the next 12 months, according to some estimates.

The Tories will protect pensioners, because that’s their voter base, and the very rich, ideologically.

They’ve also announced increases to national living wage and to benefits, which are in line with, or just below inflation. I genuinely think they’ve done this because the alternative would be mass scale theft, homelessness, starvation or food riots. It’s probably not going to be enough to keep people comfortable, but it’s just enough to put off national unrest.

But, here’s the issue- very roughly working people/households with incomes between 30%-70% aren’t going to get any sort of help/protection. They will have to absorb rising costs, and these are the households facing the £4000 (and remember, that’s just an average) in increased costs. The treasury hopes that people will dig into their savings in order to do this- but not all households in this income bracket have savings of any kind. Many, many people towards the bottom of this income bracket have no savings at all and live pay cheque to pay cheque. And savings are all well and good, but they don’t last forever.

So, what happens when savings run out? Well, people have to borrow. People will extend their mortgage terms, or use credit cards, or take out loans, or use finance to buy a new car when theirs packs up, and so on. And that’s shit- to ask ordinary working people to take on debt, so the government doesn’t have to.

But it gets worse- because some of these people won’t have access to the credit they need. If they rent, their housing costs will likely go up, and their wages won’t, and that will impact their ability to get credit. And at some point, for some of these people, their income will exceed their outgoings.

What the Tories hope is that this will happen slowly. They are, in effect, kicking the can down the road. Hoping they can hold out until the next election, before the shit really hits the fan. That things will somehow get better.

They also hope that they can push the blame onto individuals, if their lives go tits up. They shouldn’t have taken on a mortgage they couldn’t afford. They should have managed their spending better. They shouldn’t have gotten into debt. They should have known the cheap credit would run out… (you know the lines, you remember then from 2008).

It is very easy for governments to borrow money, to spend it, to improve the economy. (This is what Labour should be advocating, by the way). But the Tories won’t do it, because they are against it ideologically. So instead, they will ask ordinary working people to pick up the slack.

Over the next year or so, it’s very likely a lot of traditionally “middle class” professions will strike or take some form of industrial action. The media will say that these people are well paid, that they don’t need pay rises, that they’re just being greedy. But, among other issues, these people are now, effectively, being asked to take on debt so the government doesn’t have to.

Anyway, this country is really, seriously facing an economic crisis- and it’s clear that we need to do something as soon as possible to try and prevent it. OR look for a different way altogether.

[lesbiansandgayssupporttheminers]

To add to this, I feel like someone will say well these people should have savings, etc etc. And let’s be clear, I think if you wouldn’t criticize a benefits claimant for “poor budgeting”, you shouldn’t criticise someone on an average income for it either.

But just to give a random, specific example. Doctors. Doctors are all rich, right? Why shouldn’t a Doctor of, IDK, 30 have £4000 in savings?

Well, first of all, med school. There’s very limited help to get through med school, these days- it lasts 5 years (at a minimum) and in later years it’s often difficult to hold down a job due to placement. There’s an NHS bursary in the final years, but it doesn’t always cover all costs. You’re often having to travel to placement, so either you have to run a car or live in a city. If you parents can’t help you out, it’s very normal to turn to commercial debt, and many UK med students graduate having gone into their overdrafts, or with credit card debt.

The first few years as a junior doctor, you really don’t earn that much- the pay is comparable with the early years of teaching, but they have more deductions, and usually have to pay for parking at work too. Plus, for the first two years of being a doctor, you have to go through “rotations”, which can mean having to move every 6 months, or face a really long, difficult commute (usually whilst working nights and tired). So you might just about manage to pay off your debt (assuming no disasters like your car dying, or something), but you’d be unlikely to save much.

So, you’d now be about 26 or 27- in Northern Ireland or Wales, you might earning less than £34k, but at least you can live in one place and start to settle into your career. It might be a good time, if you have a stable partner and that way inclined you’re that way inclined, to think about having children- but that means a year of maternity pay, a year out of your training, so no pay progression, and then paying for childcare… All of that obviously hampers your ability to save.

So, you can see how this hypothetical person could get to, say, 30, and not really have any savings to speak of. And maybe they have a high enough salary now that they can absorb inflation about 10% and a big increase in their housing costs? What happens if they have an unexpected bill, or expense?

To be clear, I’m not asking you to feel sorry for this hypothetical person, but I am asking you to understand why they deserve your solidarity if they go on strike. Yes, even if they earn more money than you.

[itsmebabyarms]

The real money is in debt now. We see the language that rehabilitated and deregulated gambling being used to talk about taking on debt and micro-loans.

If you can't afford it now, I'm sure things will improve! Invest in yourself, if you can't afford it, just borrow. Smart people take risks, make bold choices.

A clue to the direction things are going in: There's billions of pounds in tracking the data of social media users and their financial position and habits. Why? To find the people willing to spend a huge chunk of disposable income? No. The most valuable data is from those who have very very little. They are the most likely to become vulnerable, desperate, and then take on high interest loans.

The tory government will have friends and family in these sectors. Knowing that the more desperate it gets, the more debt people will take on. Very lucrative up to a point. I don't fully understand these kinds of economics, but it seems that this kind of thing usually leads to a market crash - which can also be quite profitable to the right people as well!

If they can also blame and shame people for taking on debt, as mentioned above, win-win!

[turns-out-its-adhd]