For Our Own Good, or Their Own Ego?

Jacqueline S. Homan, author of Classism For Dimwits and Divine Right: The Truth is a Lie

It never ceases to amaze me how obtuse the beneficiaries of unearned privilege are about the plight of America’s poor, or to the depth of hatred aimed at the multitudes of their fellow citizens in poverty who have to use food stamps.

This is not solely the purview of conservatives who wear their contempt for poor women, children and the disabled on their sleeves; displaying their classism as proudly as if it were a Congressional Medal of Honor. It is rampant among middle class progressives as well — except they’re more duplicitous about it. They hide it within the matrix of pet liberal causes under false pretenses of promoting healthier eating habits among the poor.

They aim their malevolence at the poorest of the poor who rely on food stamps and unhealthy donated non-perishables from food pantries. Those foods are loaded with starch and carbohydrates, which causes Type II diabetes and obesity.

Rather than target “Big Ag” conglomerates who are heavily subsidized with “welfare handouts” twice — first by taxes, and second by taxpayers’ food purchases — middle class progressives and conservatives act in concert to push punitive policies to make the poor even more miserable. Punishing the poor is easier than promoting policies that would enable poor food stamp recipients to buy fresh produce from local farmers, whose prices are three times as high as the chemical and starch loaded foods from Big Ag conglomerates that you can buy at Wal-Mart’s.

Local farmers do not accept food stamps for their expensive “free range” chicken and eggs, and their organic produce that the poor can’t afford at prices which are three times as high as the less-healthy foods in the local Wal-Mart’s — not that the middle class ever cared about that.

But instead of addressing those issues, middle class liberals aim to punish the poor by further curtailing their already restricted food options, which are really a Hobson’s Choice. The time-honored middle class tradition of “let’s make the poor even more miserable” was openly embraced in Alternet’s recent article, “Should Food Stamps Be Used For Soda?” The gist of the article was that poor people on food stamps shouldn’t be allowed to buy any cheap snacks or beverages with the SNAP benefits. Poor people get nothing to enjoy as it is, but it’s OK to deprive them of even cheap beverages and snacks because “it’s for their own good.” Having any solace in the enjoyment of any small comforts is not.

Someone getting food stamps doesn’t get enough to be able to buy a month’s worth of groceries, even when stretching their food stamps by buying the 2-day old stale baked goods and 2-liter bottles of soda on sale at 3 for $5. The overwhelming response among Alternet’s largely middle/upper-middle class “progressive” posters was along the vein of “let the poor drink tap water if they can’t afford healthier and tastier beverages”, which is really nothing more than a polite form of Rush Limbaugh’s “let the poor learn how to dumpster dive if they’re hungry.” My all-time favorite is from South Carolina’s “pro-life” Lieutenant Governor, Andre Bauer, who proposed eliminating the school breakfast and lunch program for poor children in his state, saying that feeding the poor was like “feeding stray animals and encouraging them to breed.”

Those who hate the poor come in all political stripes, but are overwhelmingly from one socio-economic class: the middle and upper-middle classes who have unjustly benefited from a legacy of unearned privileges that are the hallmark of the capitalist paradigm, which was only successful because capitalism relies on a lot of slave labor and devalued work in society in order for it to be successful. Those whose work is the most devalued, who have provided the bulk of  “unimportant” work necessary for a capitalist society’s smooth functioning are women. The work women do is under-compensated precisely because it is women who do it. Everybody in society benefits from it, but takes it for granted while invalidating it. And giving moms a box of chocolates, flowers, and a card on one crummy day out of 365 designated as “Mothers’ Day” is an insultingly cheap kiss-off.

Yet, the taxes paid by poor women in this country — which poor women get the least benefit of — go towards disproportionately benefiting fascist militaristic police forces and military whose sole function is to protect capital and preserve this system of unearned privileges. And it is the middle and upper classes that benefit the most from this misogynistic command unit of the national security state which has always been used to brutally repress the poor here and abroad.

"Classism For Dimwits" by Jacqueline S. Homan

The middle class never had a problem with repression and capitalism’s other social ills until it hit them upside the snot-locker and forced them to reduce their own standard of living. They never had a problem with all the repression, inequality and unearned privileges that previously secured their own comfortable seat in the architecture of aggression of capitalism. As long as the rich were throwing them enough bones to mollify them, they didn’t even pretend to care about the well-being of the poor. And middle class liberals are just as selfish, sanctimonious, and self-centered as middle class neocons.

Middle class neocons got laws passed that restrict poor women’s access to affordable reliable contraception and abortion and middle class liberals’ response was tepid at best. Middle class neocons punish poor pregnant women, poor mothers, and poor children with draconian budget cuts to Pell grants, food stamps, LIHEAP, and Medicaid and pushed for the passage of “At-Will” employment laws which serve as a backdoor pass for employers to get away with job discrimination; disproportionately hurting poor women without any economic support in post-Welfare Reform America. Middle class liberals have no problem with that, contrary to what they tell the poor to our faces.

Middle class progressives quietly benefit from their right-wing counterparts’ agenda of pulling the ladder up and out of reach for the poor, including compulsory maternity to ensure poor women are kept poor and enslaved as childbirth chattel. Keeping poor women marginalized and excluded means fewer female PhD’s and well-paid skilled tradesmen — works out nicely for those who don’t want any real merit-based competition for the good jobs.

Poor women without reproductive choice and economic opportunity also make an even more economically desperate pool of prime candidates for exploitation as cheap “rent-a-womb” service — an inconvenient truth illustrated by the New York Times November 28th 2008 article, “Her Body, My Baby” .

White heterosexual middle class couples whose chic, slim and trim latte-sipping “career women” are too posh to trash their bodies and suffer all the discomfort and risks inherent with pregnancy and endure hours of excruciating pain tearing up their own bodies from stem to stern giving birth, benefit from a large pool of poorer and more desperate women whose bodies, lives, and well-being can be sacrificed for a song as cheap under-compensated surrogate reproductive livestock.

Of course, those in the middle/upper classes benefiting from this arrangement deny that it’s all about the money even though they reap all the gain without suffering any of the pain. They convince themselves that they really did all the work of becoming a mother because it was their eggs that were used in the process, even though it wasn’t their bodies getting permanently ruined in the gestation and birth process, which is fraught with unexpected risks — perfectly healthy women with health insurance become permanently disabled or die from childbirth in the US.

Maybe that’s part of what’s behind the latest assault on food stamp recipients by the middle class who justify beating up on the poor by further depriving them of already sparse food choices with this latest push to prohibit food stamp usage for cheap snacks and beverages. Force a semi-healthy diet to ensure that economically desperate women are “fit” for exploitation as cheap childbirth chattel. Increasing the pool of semi-healthy candidates for “rent-a-womb” service drives down the already insultingly cheap going rates for the commodity of poor women’s bodies.

Another sinister purpose is also achieved by the faux concern for poor people’s health: healthier organs to be harvested that only benefit the middle class and the rich. In states like Arizona, the poor on Medicaid and Medicare have been removed from waiting lists for life-saving organ transplants. The poor got a death sentence by budget cuts. Where was the indignant outcry from the officious middle class about that if they’re so concerned about improving poor people’s health?

Maybe it’s time every working class/poor American revokes their organ donor status from their drivers’ licenses and non-driving state photo ID’s. If we’re not good enough to have a real fair fighting chance for anything in this country with a guaranteed right to an education and a living wage job and a guaranteed right to decent health care and access to healthy foods and decent homes, then we’re not good enough for the “haves” and “have-mores” to benefit from our body parts. Fuck ’em.

The middle class, regardless of political stripe, has never been an ally for the poor. They do not seek equality outside of their own class. They do not want a partnership with poor people. They do not respect poor people. They seek paternalistic control to satisfy their own craven egos, and they often desire to exploit the less fortunate for their own political agenda. They don’t care about whether the poor get a chance in life or not. As far as they’re concerned, the poor are nothing but “useless eaters” that don’t deserve to live, much less have any happiness. The middle class is not ignorant and oblivious to the suffering and misery they inflict on the poor. They’re an oppressor class — just like the rich whom they emulate and aspire to become.


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

17 Responses to “For Our Own Good, or Their Own Ego?”

  1. Michael J. McFadden Says:

    Very well written Ms. Homan! That quote from Andre Bauer is truly amazing. :/

    I’m not sure how I feel about the “rent-a-womb” thing you discuss though. It’s a very sad thing when people are driven to that sort of desperation for money, but if laws were passed against it it would probably continue to go on just about as much, but illegally, with less medical care/attention, and probably none of the protections that might currently be legally mandated in such arrangements if things do not go well with the pregnancy.


    • Jacqueline S. Homan Says:

      No Michael, the very sad thing is when upper-middle class women who are “too posh” to ruin their own bodies and sacrifice their precious yuppie social life to endure ALL the inherent risks, discomforts, and side effects of pregnancy and have their own pussies torn straight to their asshole in order to gain that coveted Motherhood badge pay a pittance for the privilege of using poor women’s bodies to get their brats gestated. They even require surrogate moms to have their own health insurance and foot their own medical bills for Chrissakes. And we won’t even get into the aspect of permanently ruined sex lives for reproductive surrogates whose genital tracts end up permanently maimed and fucked up from giving birth. Think $25K is really adequate and fair compensation for that loss?

      A measly $25K with no additional money for medical care costs, including recuperation costs for the pregnant woman during post-partum, is not exactly what I would call a good deal for the poor women whose bodies are viewed as cheap disposable commodities.

      How much is your body worth to you?

  2. epppie Says:

    It took me a long time to realize that the fundamental aspect of charity, which is really the bedrock of the liberal mentality/ideology, is not giving, but withholding. But once realized, how obvious this really is.

  3. Dave Blalock Says:

    Right On Jacqueline!! Thanks for these powerfull, but seldom heard, words that tell it like it truely is.

  4. Grady Lee Howard Says:

    One you’ve got some equity in your house, ill-constructed with illegal alien labor; and have made a few payments on your imported from Asia car; what is there to look forward to in this intellectually and politically capped existence? The type of structural sadism that is necessary to propel the perpetual war economy and keep the ethnic groups at odds is also useful in torturing the losers in this rigged game. You can force your kids to act out your thwarted ambitions vicariously for only so long before they crack. So the best thing to do is blame the worse off, and start using your well-conditioned and colonized intellect to impose your puny will on them. You’re sitting at the Arby’s window wondering which end of the cow you prefer, when suddenly it pops into your head that malnourished poor kids and their moms with rotten teeth are getting too much soda pop. So your brats in the back get corn oil shakes this trip and you consider buying your own carbonating fountain and syrup at Costco, to save three cents per 10 ounce aluminum can.
    Somebody’s gotta drink all that swill the commodities prospectors are dishing out. Genetically masturbated corn and soy and diseased eggs and chicken is the food we’ve got in a system where supply determines demand. People live a parallel life to the poultry, with only a small minority having the illusion of “free range.” The surrogate underling with the little stranger in the belly is not much different than the pickaninny at the wash tub and ironing board 50 years ago who piloted the apron strings until the tucking prayers of bedtime.

    Stupid Mofo’s. Soda ain’t an issue: SNAP and WIC ain’t an issue; and even the farce of Obamacare ain’t an issue. The overclass makes 500 times per person what even the fucked golem with a remaining union job takes in; and then the gaping hog at the top tells us his kind are not only worth hundred million dollar bonuses, but are too goddamned good to pay taxes. This system of crony capitalism takes the labor and resources we have and puts it into too few hands, and then those very same hands who benefit refuse to see that even if they owe their victims nothing, that they might owe the system that made them. That’s what has me so angry, that people don’t only tolerate but glorify systematic injustice, and that the obstinance of the rich and the ignorance of their admirers is undermining technology, science and labor efficiency at an increasing rate so that this entire complex system of production, on which we all depend, has been made toxic and is at the point of collapse.

  5. Lily H. Says:

    Thanks, Jacqueline, for another scathing article about the middle-classers! Yes, I read that and other articles regarding the controversy over allowing the poor to continue to buy soda and cheap snacks with food stamps. I keep wondering, NOW they care about our health and well-being? Why hadn’t they given a damn before? On one hand, I can see concern about families eating healthier, but completely disallowing families to purchase what they want with their benefits is just another mean-spirited attempt to control the lives of the poor via their food stamps.

    When I had my two children under my care, I typically would shop for the necessities first, then if I felt I had enough to spare, then I’d hit the day-old (but still okay) bakery items and maybe one or two bottles of soda, and mind you, this was not an every shopping trip routine. I would usually buy cake or bread mixes, then make something at home that would sustain our yen for sweets for several days, or whip up a peach or cherry cobbler with canned fruits and a cheap flour/sugar/salt crust. Once in a while, a big bag of chips, usually the cheapest available might go into the cart, too.

    If anyone behind me in line noticed what I was buying, I was probably oblivious to their observances. I shopped at the same store weekly for years, and no one ever remarked on what I had in line. My store offered regular markdown merchandise, (not just dented cans) such as meats, sliced cheese and deli items, and leafy greens, so could add cheap snacks to my purchases without feeling as large a pinch. My complaint about soda was not that it wasn’t very nutritious, but it didn’t last very long. My solution was to buy bulk or tea-bags, and brew up batches of iced tea that my family could enjoy for probably the same cost as a couple liters of soda and get the feel that you could whip up another batch in short order.
    Of course, I needed to have good water, which necessitated filling up jugs at the local water machine, another feat in and of itself.

    I always felt if I had healthy things for the most part in my purchases, then no one needs to care about whatever above and beyond I buy. Your theory of “feeding the poor so they get healthy enough to become surrogates” is chilling but I can’t see TPTB waiting long enough to get the poor good and healthy so they can feed off of these supposed new bodies available. What about the poor who have medical disorders eating green won’t help? There must be many of those out there, I’m sure.

    Incidentally, I’d just read “Real Housewife of Beverly Hills”, Camille Grammer (soon-to-be ex of Kelsey Grammer) surrogated both of her own children not because she had any medical conditions, but because she didn’t want to wreck her figure. Case closed.

    When I was young, prior to becoming a mother, I used to muse at times, what would I do if I discovered I couldn’t or had trouble having children? After discussing the situation with my doctors, then examining the odds, if it appeared that I might need thousands of dollars of elective procedures, I would have declined. This, as I’d concluded, is one of those moments in life where/when you find you can’t get everything you want, and if God, or whatever force decides children are not in the future for you, then accept your fate and move on. Some folks out there just aren’t getting the message and they think their yuppie imperative will solve all their problems. Didn’t work too well for Mr. and Mrs. Grammer.

    I nearly forgot about this past incident, and as long as we’re discussing the middle-class views on the poor, I’ll share this here. When I was carrying my daughter 25 years ago, my son was a kindergartner enrolled in his first IEP program, and I had to be interviewed by a panel of school officials. I was about 6-7 months pregnant, married, but separated. One of the panelists (a male), asked me if this pregnancy was the same father as that of my son. I was bewildered, never having been asked that by anyone I’d seen, even doctors. I did a double-take, then answered to the affirmative, that being the case. I wondered if I were middle-class, would I have been asked that question? I think we all know the answer to that one.

    Your final paragraph exposes the middle-classers for what they truly are — a “protected class” who wishes to simply be left to their own devices, and not have to be trifled with worrying or doing anything to ensure that the poor, no matter who or how much potential they have, have to share their largesse. I can tell you firsthand, my Rethuglican brother harbors just that same pathology towards me, his full-blood sister, who wasn’t able to grab the brass ring of fortune by flirting with moneyed girlfriends in high school or had the audacity of using their good looks on them.

    In his view, I’m poor because I married a guy who failed to achieve his standards of middle-class, but did nothing to help even ME get a foothold on getting there, rather just left me to die on the vine of poverty. Somehow, I was supposed to miraculously climb out of homelessness into a middle-class career without so much as an iota of support from anyone I was connected to via DNA. And if I didn’t, it was (shrug) “Tough luck”.

    This completely reinforces my (and Jacqueline’s) view of what the middle-class really wants/thinks of the poor. If they didn’t want people to be poor to begin with, then why aren’t they pulling out all the stops they can to ensure that those close to them don’t suffer that fate? It’s not just because they don’t want to lose any resources (as many so claim), but more because they don’t want YOU to join their club. If they help you, YOU just might discover they are flawed, so they’d rather leave you alone to die than risk uncovering their true selves.

    I witnessed that dynamic when my daughter shared some interesting encounters with our soon-to-be aunt/cousin/sister-in-law; my brother’s third wife and her daughter, who was my daughter’s age. When my “poor” daughter offered to play with her future cousin, the girl withdrew into a depressive state, and remains that way into adulthood.
    Her mother, who became brainwashed by my brother, never communicates with us unless approved by her husband, and remains in her middle-class shell as if we don’t exist. They both are aware of my intelligence and abilities, but again, this has no effect on their attitude.

    Oh, but we are useful to the middle-class, all right…that is, when they’re lecturing to THEIR OWN children on how NOT to wind up, even if they themselves are party TO that same fate. Oddly enough, my nephew (from same brother) pretends to be a thug (what’s referred to as a “wigger”),
    but because he’s under the umbrella of Daddy’s middle-class privilege, he gets off relatively light compared to lesser-classed young men.

    Of course, they never think where they would be if it WEREN’T for the working-poor, making their lives possible in the first place. Where would they be if they didn’t have anyone around to clean their offices, watch their children or mow their lawns?

    One more thing: At one time, our county welfare department was experimenting with a new plan — give gym memberships to recipients under the ideal that it would aid them to become healthier, further enabling them to obtain and keep employment. All in all, not a bad idea (I would have loved it!), but it was only a brief time, apparently, it must have cost more than the county wanted to spend. I thought at the time, “Why don’t they make going to the gym a “work-related expense”? After all, if we’re supposed to be healthy, then help us stay that way!

    Before I became disabled, I used to go to my local “Y” after work on Saturdays, paying out of pocket for an afternoon at their pool. I should have gotten some kind of work credit/deduction for spending those weekly $5.00 a pop admission. And believe me, I didn’t just go just for the “fun of it”, I went because keeping up the pace of working two jobs six days a week was grueling to say the least. I needed to stay in shape just to keep up.

    Co-incidentally, I just attended a community “Peace Basaar”, an event held by our area’s local peacenik activists, much of them the liberal stripes Jacqueline describes. When I walked in the door, I was met by a booth shilling for donations for women in India to build brick homes in their villages. I, of course, was sympathetic, but I couldn’t help but wonder, “What were these folks doing for oppressed women right here in our own country?” Several years ago, attending a pre-Welfare Reform community forum, several members of this community showed up, but were shunned by County officials, telling them they weren’t able to further participate in future meetings. Looked to me the capitalists were threatened by anyone who appeared less-than-sympathetic to the company line.

    I say, “If we can’t stay home and take care of our OWN children, then stay the hell away from my womb and ovaries!” Buh-bye!

  6. Mari McAvenia Says:

    Brava, Jacqueline! I’ve been trying to convey similar opinions about the exploitation of poor women for decades. All it ever got me was punched-out, shunned and further disenfranchised.

    Even the most “liberal” men and women here in Massachusetts don’t want to hear about the dire straits of their next door neighbors and kin, preferring, instead, to shop at an imported do-gooder store like Ten Thousand Villages, then passing that off as a charitable donation.

    The middle class are petrified that if they see the poor in their own backyards it will rub off and somehow infect them, too. That’s why they like to throw crumbs at third-world countries while neglecting to drop a can in the local food pantry bin or offer a ride to a woman who clearly cannot afford to own a car. Well, it’s ONE of the reasons why they deliberately avert their oh-so-sensitive eyes.

    I think you make some very valid points about the desire to emulate their brainless celebrity avatars, too. The folks I run into are so quick to say, “You look good, have you lost weight?” yet they never ask, “How are you doing these days?” As if looking slim DOESN’T mean you’re so skinny because you can’t afford to buy enough food. In my case, that is the ugly truth. They will do anything to avoid hearing about the harsh reality of the enforced starvation and impoverishment of many women in today’s America.

    Very much like “ordinary, average” people once shunned those afflicted with cancer, and like most American whites STILL steer clear of blacks and other non-whites, the stigma of poverty has its roots in willful ignorance.

    Time for a wake-up call and a serious “teachable moment”, methinks.
    Thanks so much for your courage and eloquence, Jacqueline. Keep on writing, please.

  7. Yahsdhfk Says:

    Social policy economists, such as Culyer and Barr, have been critical of the role that council housing plays in attempts to help the poor. , bob newhart driving, [url=””] bob newhart driving[/url], bob newhart driving, %-[[[,

  8. Healthy eating on a budget handout | Obesity Says:

    […] For Our Own Good, or Their Own Ego? « Feminism — The Other "F" Word […]

  9. Carman Dagley Says:

    Hi thank you for an perceptive post, I actually found your blog by mistake while searching on Goole for something else nearly related, in any case before i ramble on too much i would just like to state how much I enjoyed your post, I have bookmarked your site and also taken your RSS feed, Once Again thank you very much for the blog post keep up the good work.

  10. Jolanda Beirise Says:

    I just needed to take a second and let you know that I’ve been relishing reading your posts over the last few weeks. I have a blog of my own, and would love to switch links with you. If you’re interested just leave me a comment on my page or send me an e-mail with your details.

  11. unundenrescex Says:


    I just signed up with
    I’m intending to check round a bit and come across fascinating men and women and learn a few alternate viewpoints.

    Hopefully this post doesn’t find itself in a bad area. I’m hoping you’ll forgive me if it does.


    Radio & TV Station Administrator

  12. Dan Hernando Says:

    Howdy there,I obtain that your website is extremely educational and helpful and we were curious if there is really a possibility of obtaining More articles like this on your web log. If you willing to support us out, we will be willing to compensate you…

  13. Iris Schimandle Says:

    Howdy there, just identified the Blog on google and i must say this blog is great.may I share some of the article found in this post to my local friends?i am not sure and what you think?anyway,Many thanks!

  14. Jay M Says:

    A well-written article. However, I have a few criticisms:

    1. With increased access to information comes increased awareness. If poor people knew that a bad diet correlated with uneven skin tone (and other skin conditions), obesity, diabetes, tooth decay, etc., then they would make better purchasing decisions. Corporations that manufacture fast food and unhealthy soft drinks give an implicit message that their products are desirable and use their fount of honor to take advantage of others’ ignorance. Just because a marketing team persuaded one to consume unhealthy food and drink doesn’t mean they should.

    2.”Wal-Mart’s” is a typo you should fix, as I don’t see “Wal-Mart” possessing anything. Also, “Keeping poor women marginalized and excluded means less PhD’s and less female skilled tradesmen” should be, “fewer PhD’s and fewer female skilled tradespeople.”

    3. Many poor and working class individuals of every race vote Republican because the candidates share their religious values. However, religion is the hook they use to persuade them to vote against their own interests.

    4. The middle and upper-middle class are two different socioeconomic strata. A teacher or salesperson who graduated from a more selective school is not in the same class a professor at a most selective private liberal arts college or lawyer at a prestigious law firm who graduated from a private highly or most selective college, preferably HYP or Oxbridge. If one cannot get into Harvard Princeton or Yale then Babson, Hampden-Sydney, Trinity College, etc. would do.

    5. I think that the poor and working class’ authenticity is why much of the middle-class despises the poor. Others because it undermines their security, as in they too could wind up in that milieu someday with no hope of recovery. Others still because many poor people cannot and will not converse beyond what happens either on television or their typical day-to-day lives. There is an entire world out there with innumerable concepts and a deep, rich, and diverse history. Whoever cares more about some random talk show than the ruins at Petra, Jordan; the Dubai Tower, Pearl of Qatar, postmodernist architecture, Kantian philosophy, etc., will be tiresome. Great misunderstandings between the two groups result in conflicts such as one group thinking the other is rude for being too loud, honest (sometimes even stupidly honest), not seeming to be able to contain their hand movements, etc.

    Many Episcopalian clergy care about the poor and many sermons encourage social justice.

  15. Jacqueline S. Homan Says:

    Check your classism, Jay M.

    RE: #1: “Just because a marketing team persuaded one to consume unhealthy food and drink doesn’t mean they should.”

    Poor people on food stamps buy the foods they CAN AFFORD from places that accept food stamps. Marketing has nothing to do with it: people with money have choices. People with no money get no choice at all.

    RE: #4: “The middle and upper-middle class are two different socioeconomic strata.”

    Both the middle and upper-middle classes (most whom are white males) were ferried up the social escalator to comfort, privileges and a certain degree of power over those stuck at the very bottom in deep poverty, who have been totally disenfranchised and disempowered.

    Middle and upper-middle classes falsely assume that everyone starts out at the same point with the same life chances and opportunities and also the same luck. That same escalator that carried the middle and upper-middle classes to comfort and privilege is often broken for the poor — especially for poor women — and when it DOES work, it usually runs in reverse. And the middle and upper-middle classes have both ensured that that escalator rarely, if ever, works for the poorest and most downtrodden; while having the moxy to crow about how they “worked for everything they’ve got and did it all on their own.”

    Did it on their own my ass.

    They’ve stolen from the poor through a legacy of unearned privileges accruing from centuries of institutionalized discrimination and oppression from colonialism/capitalism/fascism/imperialism. Then they cry about “their hard-earned money” being “stolen” by some “undeserving Other” because they’re expected to pay an itty-little bit in taxes that support some meager, stingy anti-starvation program to keep their victims from starving to death or dying prematurely and senselessly from some other poverty-caused malady.

    Slitting hairs over the differences between middle and upper-middle classes when BOTH are vicious oppressors of the poor is a moot point. Both got what they got from a boatload of unearned privileges (white male privilege being the biggie) that came as a direct result of brutal oppression and ongoing discrimination against others and by keeping the poor from ever having a chance — while calling it “free market competition.”

    Compared to all the poor Americans lacking decent housing, healthcare, adequate food, hot water and winter heating utilities, (you know, the “basics” that the middle class takes for granted) and access to an education, even a middle class “sales person” or a “school teacher” is rich.

    Those in the middle class and above strive to keep the poor beaten down and “in their place” — debating which faction of the middle class has it better is merely a matter of semantics, and it detracts from the injustice, the violence, and the crime against humanity that poverty really is.

    RE #5: “I think that the poor and working class’ authenticity is why much of the middle-class despises the poor. Others because it undermines their security, as in they too could wind up in that milieu someday with no hope of recovery. Others still because many poor people cannot and will not converse beyond what happens either on television or their typical day-to-day lives.”

    Poor people are hated because their very existence is an uncomfortable reproach to those who have unjustly benefited from a ton of unearned privileges that required others’ suffering, oppression, and deprivation of basic human rights.

    Any dialogue along the lines of “it’s the defective poor that need to be fixed and taught how to get with the middle class program” is a poorly argued excuse for sociopathic greed and continuing the oppression against the poor by attempting to legitimize it through an esoteric maze of logical fallacies (slothful induction, ad hoc escapism, post hoc ergo proptor hoc, etc.).

    Thank you for proving my case about the greedy, self-centered, back-stabbing, victim-blaming (not to mention vacuous) middle class.

    PS. For the record, there’s also a wealth of rich cultures right here in North America. Those cultures were nearly annihilated by racialized genocide legitimized by Christian bigotry, misogyny, and colonialism. But a remnant of survivors managed against all odds to keep many of those cultures alive today. They are far more interesting than any glittering jewel that is representative of an architecture of aggression, no matter how elegant.

  16. Jacqueline S. Homan Says:

    Also, in regard to #2 (“”Wal-Mart’s” is a typo you should fix, as I don’t see “Wal-Mart” possessing anything.”): apparently you didn’t get the memo. Per recent US Supreme Court interpretation of the US Constitution, corporations are now defined as “citizens” and as “persons” entitled to equal rights as “persons” (while women are NOT), and therefore they DO possess things (entire markets in some cases). So, unless you have not read the annul 10-K report filed with the SEC, rest assured that Wal-Mart does indeed possess a lot of things. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: