I remember my wife often saying how exhausting it was for her to have to tell me what to do all the time. It’s why the sexiest thing a man can say to his partner is “I got this,” and then take care of whatever needs taken care of.
I always reasoned: “If you just tell me what you want me to do, I’ll gladly do it.”
But she didn’t want to be my mother. She wanted to be my partner, and she wanted me to apply all of my intelligence and learning capabilities to the logistics of managing our lives and household.
She wanted me to figure out all of the things that need done, and devise my own method of task management.
I wish I could remember what seemed so unreasonable to me about that at the time.
It’s not just about equal division of labor. It’s also about, “this thing is important to her. If he ignores it, he’s saying that what she wants is irrelevant to him.”
And that’s a guy saying, “I’m only spending time with you because it’s pleasant for me.” He’s already decided what’s “really” important, and her input is not welcome.
If he won’t do the dishes and laundry, he’s looking for fun, not a partnership. And his “leftist” ideals will be the same–something he studies because it’s interesting to him; a form of activism that he thinks will bring him a better life. If he can’t do household tasks that matter to a person he loves, he sure as hell can’t support policies that help people whose struggles he doesn’t even acknowledge are real.
They actually have a well paid full time job and position for someone who tells others what to do and schedules their activities in corporate sector. They call it the manager.
(For more specific dating, most of these look 1820s with maaaaybe a few late 1810s or early 1830s scattered in there)
(You can tell because skirt volume is starting to increase from the 1800s-1810s “column” silhouette, that classic Regency look, and the waist is slowly descending back to almost its natural position. The later 1820s images also show the beginnings of 1830s Poofy Sleeves)
No one is fucking talking about it but another black man was killed by the same police department that killed George Floyd they killed him 9 seconds after entering his apartment. No knock warrants are fucking bullshit. He was wrapped in his blanket he was innocent they had the wrong address there is body can cottage you cannot fucking deny this bullshit.
This is being hushed up and covered up and I cannot believe it took me until TODAY, SIX DAYS AFTER IT HAPPENED to find out about it.
Everyone should be talking about this shit.
All the BLM protests and here we are again. We cannot let a single one of these slide because that’s how nothing changes and that’s how innocent people are being killed at the hands of assholes who are happy to pull the trigger without hesitation. I’m so fucking upset right now and so should you be.
EDIT: THE ORIGINAL POST SAID NINE MINUTES I MEANT TO SAY NINE SECONDS
Amir Locke was murdered on February 3rd of 2022, 7 DAYS AGO. He was 22 years old. The police did not have a warrant, and his name wasn’t on their search list.
What was his crime? Sleeping in his cousin’s house.
He was a licensed gun owner, and when the Minneapolis police stormed the house, he grabbed his gun in reaction to protect himself. The police immediately started firing, shooting three times and murdering Amir Locke.
“His crime” was fucking SLEEPING.
Reblog this shit. Tell your friends and family. Say his fucking name. It’s been two years since the murder of George Floyd, and the same fucking police department has killed another innocent Black man.
Will post updates after press conference tomorrow, been working on getting mass ethics complaints against our mayor who campaigned for reelection on the fact that he banned no-knock warrants. This was actually a LIE since MPD was able to demand from a judge that the original warrant be changed from standard to no-knock. He has also REPEATEDLY referred to Amir Locke as a suspect, DESPITE the fact that his name did not appear anywhere on the warrant, nor was he even a resident of the apartment they entered. ADDITIONALLY, it has now been a full week since Amir Locke was murdered, yet Mayor Jacob Frey has not taken ANY disciplinary action or fired the officer responsible. Amir’s family and attorneys have worked together to comb through the Minneapolis Code of Ethics for public officials, and the three points I outlined above are all direct violations of this code, which should result in disciplinary action being taken against Mayor Frey.
I guess it makes sense that people with an all or nothing viewpoint will see incremental change, no matter how significant, as no change at all.
Helping everyone 30% is pointless because 30 always rounds down to 0. Helping millions is pointless if tens of millions are affected.
The people who are hurt while we wait for the perfect solution, who wouldn’t be hurt if we solved the problem incrementally? Irrelevant, they’re not all the people, so they don’t count.
It doesn’t matter that we can save some lives and end some suffering, or that it’s easier to fix 70% of the problem after we fix 30% of it. 0% or 100% are the only options and if you accept anything less than 100% you are approving of the remaining people not being helped. Anything less than everything rounds down to nothing and it’s better to do nothing than to do less than everything.
I am reminded of the little girl throwing baby crabs into the sea before the birds could get to them. And adult comes up and tells her that there are too many crabs and too many birds, and she shouldn’t bother, because she won’t make a difference.
Little girl picks up a crab, throws it in the water.
“Made a difference to that one.”
The thing with accepting incremental change is understanding that it doesn’t stop after one increment. After the first is done, you push for the next, and the next, and the next.
Sure, there are always a few people who pay lip service to it, they push a little bit and then wipe their hands, job well done, time to go home. Those are the ones everyone thinks of when they assume that incremental change is as useless as no change at all. But for every person who puts in the minimum of work once, there are hundreds who push for more every day.
All Or Nothing is just a position that’s more satisfied with Nothing than it is willing to do the work for All.
I want to throw those guys in a pit with the Pareto principle (the 80/20 rule) that 80% of the change in our world is caused by 20% of our resources, efforts, power, etc.
Then throw in copies of the book 8 laws of change by Stephan Schwartz, which he wrote not prescriptively like a manifesto, but descriptively after observing and studying major historical changes– efforts that actually worked, and drawing the 8 common denominators.
Law#2 states: The individuals and the group may have goals, but they may not have cherished outcomes.
Law#3 states: The individuals in the group must accept that their goals may not be reached in their lifetimes and be okay with this.
2 of the hardest ones to accept tbh but once we manage to factor out the ego from our formula for desired change, and its attachment to specific results through specific means, we can possibly see that actual change is and has been taking place.
