Wild Feed
A catch-all world journalism community for news, reports, blogs, editorials, and whatever.
-
Be cool to each other. Instance rules apply.
-
All posts should link to a *current, *good quality blog, article, editorial, listicle, research paper, or something that can be considered "journalism."
-
Post title should be the article headline.
-
No misinformation or bigotry.
-
For paywalled media, please provide an archived link in the text body of the post.
-
Commenters who don't read the posted article may receive temporary bans. This is a community for informed discussion.
Tag if needed:
[NSFW] and [Content Warning - x] — At your discretion.
[D/M/Y] — If the publication is older than a month. You can just tag the year if the article is more than a year old.
[Month and/or year] — For old but relevant articles. Use your best judgement.
[Conspiracy Tuesday] — Conspiracy theories/occult themes/cryptids/pseudoscience. On Tuesdays.
[E-mail required] — If an e-mail is needed to sign in.
[Archive link in post] — For paywalls and account sign-ins, link the main article in the URL, paste the archive link in the text body.
*Current means the article contains the most up to date publically available information on the subject, within reason. Older publications are welcome as long as they include a date tag.
*Good quality means the source has a good reputation for accurate journalism with a reasonably clean fact checking record.
Check out !Independent_Media@lemmy.today for independent news from around the world or !indy_news_canada@sh.itjust.works for Canadian independent publications.
All communities were created with the goal of increasing media literacy and media pluralism.
Sources posted here include:
https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/
apnews.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/international
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/us
Icon image by z0r0z on pixabay, depicting a silhouette of a world map on a paint-splattered background.
Banner image by Lucentius on pixabay, depicting crumpled newpapers.
view the rest of the comments
What are the qualification for SNAP and TANF related to gender? I thought it was about having kids, which men are free to take care of; though combining incomes and households is kind of a bad idea if you're trying to qualify for benefits.
It's because of dependents. More women have dependents than men.
TANF requires a dependent minor child or a pregnant individual.
SNAP only covers 3 months for able-bodied adults without dependents.
EBT/SNAP benefits are supposed to be available for everyone. Unfortunately/ fortunately* the states control who is eligible and what means testing they are going to use. GOP controlled states have decided that if you're male and working age that you have to spend a fuckton of money up front to get doctors appointments, that if your case survives the decades long process of automated denials and eventually a judge maybe overturning all the illegal denials, despite crippling disabilities, that will maybe say that you are entitled to the benefits that you already paid for with your taxes.
Fortunately* right now because the purple states and blue states ignored the federal EOs that said they needed to do these ridiculous and expensive means testing to determine who gets benefits that, again, you already paid for. All this shit is literally just trying to kill the poor so that the psychologically sick hoarders at the top are able to maintain their disease.
The one nice part about the military, until recently, was that it forced one to learn about other places and people. Yes many of the enlisted never really learned the lesson, but until the current administration, those of us in the officers cadre were able to temper and shape the view of the enlisted that refused to learn. Unfortunately, most of us either retired from the military years ago, or got fired by the current administration.
Currently your concerns are somewhat valid. The only bit of hope I can give you is that if those of us who are level headed and left leaning were still in charge, this current pointless war would have gone very differently because we wouldn't have wasted all our munitions trying to look "tough." Thankfully the current administration has all but depleted our offensive capabilities, so we do have some hope that they will realize just how wrong they were. If they don't, believe me us veterans are organizing and not talking much about it. November may end up being extremely violent and one of the most interesting times to be alive if the rich refuse to back down.
Even the US doesn't have the nuclear stockpile, that is working, that it claims to have, though ours is probably in the best condition of any Cold War state.
It's still pretty sexist against men
Agreed. This leaves them in much more dire situations and having to rely on others. I wish we had stronger social safety nets for everyone.
other things like in college they receive way more help through various means to get ready for job market, and grad school than men too(lab volunteering preferences over men, scholarships other things). gen z and youngest millennials but not older women dont get this advantage though, usually same boat as men.
The programs are for adults caring for children. How is it sexist against men?
It's awarded less to men than women in equal circumstances. Or so I read a while ago, it may have changed 🤷
they get enhanced snap, and medicaid benefits for having 1 or more children. its still not easy because they have achildren to take care of.
I think all people that need help should get help. Maybe it’s not inherently sexist, but it ends up disproportionately affecting men.