Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Devon Ashleigh Blake
46 followers -
I have a pulse, and it's got rhythm.
I have a pulse, and it's got rhythm.

46 followers
About
Devon Ashleigh's posts

Post has attachment
Haven't watched this yet, but in case anyone is interested: enjoy!

Post has attachment
reposting an email I just received:

Kickstarter is now a Benefit Corporation

Kickstarter Inc is no more. We’re now Kickstarter PBC — a Public Benefit Corporation. We’re thrilled to share this news, and we’d love to take a minute to tell you exactly what it means.

Until recently, the idea of a for-profit company pursuing social good at the expense of shareholder value had no clear protection under U.S. corporate law, and certainly no mandate. Companies that believe there are more important goals than maximizing shareholder value have been at odds with the expectation that for-profit companies must exist ultimately for profit above all.

Benefit Corporations are different. Benefit Corporations are for-profit companies that are obligated to consider the impact of their decisions on society, not only shareholders. Radically, positive impact on society becomes part of a Benefit Corporation’s legally defined goals.

Kickstarter is excited to join a growing list of forward-thinking organizations — like Patagonia and This American Life — that have taken the big step to become a Benefit Corporation. While only about .01% of all American businesses have done this, we believe that can and will change in the coming years. More and more voices are rejecting business as usual, and the pursuit of profit above all.

If you want to see what we think is important, you can find a link to our Benefit Corporation charter here. We’ve spelled out a specific list of values and commitments we’ll live by: We renew our longstanding commitment to arts and culture. We declare how we plan to conduct ourselves in situations that are often swayed by profit motives. And we newly commit to donate 5% of annual post-tax profits to arts education and organizations fighting inequality. Every year, we’ll release an assessment of how we’re performing on the commitments we’ve made.

There was not a single dissenting vote by a Kickstarter shareholder to re-incorporate as a Benefit Corporation. We’re once again grateful for the support and partnership we’ve had from this group of friends, investors, and current and former team members. Thank you all!

From Kickstarter’s inception, we’ve focused on serving artists, creators, and audiences to help bring creative projects to life. Our new status as a Benefit Corporation hard-codes that mission at the deepest level possible to guide us, and future leaders of Kickstarter.

To all the creators and backers who have helped make Kickstarter what it is today — we’re excited to keep working with you, and helping new creative projects come to life as Kickstarter PBC.

"Viola Davis became the first African-American woman to win an Emmy for best lead actress on a drama series, for her role as a defense lawyer on ABC’s How to Get Away With Murder."

:)

I watched a few episodes of the first season. It's a captivating show. Viola is spectacular in her role. The Emmy was well-deserved.

"Let me tell you something,” she said. “The only thing that separates women of color from anyone else is opportunity. You cannot win an Emmy for roles that are simply not there.” #truth

This is my problem with [America and] Hollywood - the lack of diversity, and sometimes even talent, in favor of conventional beauty. I believe one of the most beautiful and talented actresses is actually Angela Bassett who is nearly 60 years old and still radiant.

In British television, you see a greater diversity in age, color, and body types without using the typecasting found in Hollywood as a crutch. There is also tremendous talent depicting developed and relatable characters through strong scripting. Overall, these programs are far superior to what America offers, and in England, there is true racial integration, unlike here, but life imitates art. If we continue pushing the same stereotypes, we halt progress in unifying our nation.

At least How to Get Away With Murder hasn't fallen prey to the typecasting from what I've seen. The role wasn't specifically written for a black female. Viola won that role over other actresses who met the Hollywood standard. I appreciate the directors and writers for providing this opportunity where a door would normally be shut. However, if we were as progressive as we believe ourselves to be, I wouldn't need to appreciate anyone for giving a black actor a chance because this would be commonplace, and it should be.

Post has attachment
Misogyny in the tech community is very real.

I love tech (I LOVE TECH: especially computers), but have an intense dislike for the behavior of some of the males it attracts.

I don't know why anyone would devote so much energy to hate when there is so much in the world through which this level of passion could be channeled.

Being passionate about your hatred of women? How does that improve your life? 

Apple has the right to apply ad blocking to their devices so that they can compete using their own advertisement platform. I don't look at this as a matter of ethics.

Ad blockers have been utilized by web users long before Apple got into the game, and display advertising companies have been extorted to circumvent these blocks. This, I find unethical. But what Apple is doing is business strategy.

They dominate the mobile market and are leveraging their high iPhone adoption rate to push their own products. They have the right to do so. They have earned the right. This isn't a grey area, and of course, the ad blocking implementation by Apple doesn't affect Android users.

Now, the sad truth is that ads are a necessary evil, and we need to understand and respect this. So, although ad blocking has been applied to iOS, the strategy isn't to rid the internet of ads for the sake of the user, like so many think, but to force the adoption of their own advertising platform as the only solution to content publishers.

Free content is rarely free. Think of the time invested to create it and the costs of hosting and bandwidth. We are in an era where people feel entitled to receive things for FREE and on-demand.

Entitlement is an American disease spreading globally thanks to the web. And Apple isn't helping you. They are helping themselves. What's the common denominator here? Selfishness.

I remember when we dropped around 6k on a Dell PC in the 90's.
Wow, and only a couple decades later.......... 
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-Details.asp?EdpNo=9736689&sku=JOS-102954048&SRCCODE=WEM4652MH

Oh, and then there was that time I spent around 1.2k on a digital camera during my teens. It was 1MP with 10x optical zoom!! way ahead of its time, a digital-manual combo with shutter and aperture controls brought to you by Sony.

Post has attachment
Thank you, sir.

Post has attachment
Although light on insights, a fine read nonetheless.

-----

And while there are good investments, there are also failures, which are rarely discussed because the good ones overshadow the bad, but really, you only need one great investment if all options are approached and assessed consciously so that each decision is deliberate; aside from that, it's a matter of putting in the time and effort to make your investment a successful one, where you aren't just sitting back and hoping to win the lottery as a gambling man.

However, most tech startup investors will see a better return by starting their own company instead and devoting that same time and energy to make their project a success.

Ashton struck gold as a VC, but you probably won't. It's a high-risk game requiring a lot of capital and a lot of time, and then it's still just a roll of the dice -- getting in on the right product at the right time and having the best stakes. There are more failures than success stories for both VCs and startups.

Which do you consider more valuable: compassion or empathy?

Post has attachment
I am not a feminist, but I am an egalitarian. In general, the reason I am not a feminist is because I do not believe that women should receive special treatment. But in the same breath, my ideal would be that all people were courteous, rather than self-serving: for example, just as a man may have been taught to politely open the door for a woman, I've been opening doors for both males and females all my life. I offer assistance to individuals of either sex if they appear to be in a position that would benefit from my help. I also spend money on males, but granted, the closer I am to someone, the less likely I am to resist when they want to pick up the tab.

I think the perspective of this article is a bit skewed. First, as an egalitarian, I believe pay should be comparative for similar experience and performance (and time contributed) in the workplace, and in the U.S., I do not believe that women now receive equal or higher pay than men. We haven't reached equal pay, equal roles, equal treatment. The genders are not exactly the same as our motivations are different due to societal conditioning, but as we are all required to work to make ends meet, gender should not factor into salary.

And unlike the writer, I personally think women are motivated by money, but as society has conditioned the female to seek financial security through the longterm partnering with a man (leveraged by the historic male-female dynamic), common perspective may indicate that females care little about money (and more about interpersonal relationships), but if we care about financial security, we care about money, period. Women care about money. If we didn't, the conditioning wouldn't be there to seek a man with money (which is perpetuated by a cross-generational mindset, despite changes to the cultural lifestyle where in women are accepted in the workplace alongside men to make their own money).

The reason for our unhappiness was touched upon in the article, but somewhat disregarded with its true weight. As I mentioned earlier, I believe women and men are motivated by different things, which we developed through nurture and culture. Men seek money and power (which is the opposite side of the coin to how females are conditioned: women pursue successful men in the hopes of "securing" them and then being financially--and emotionally--secure, so a man is pressured to obtain money and power in order to be considered attractive to females and increase their selection pool). Women seek love and family.

The unhappiness of women is not because we get paid more than we used to (though still less than we should earn), but because of the collapse in home. Things have changed. Women are less likely to achieve what they seek, especially as the passage of time--and how it relates to us--hasn't changed though our lifestyle has, while men continue to work toward their goals throughout life.

Women have a small window to settle down and start a family because society still upholds the perspective that younger females are more desirable. But because of inflation, both men and women have to work in order to get by in this day and age, and both genders are working hard toward attaining financial security once they set off on their own, which takes some females down the path of career growth rather than following love; this is progressive thinking and a logical decision given the economic climate, but society as a whole isn't ready for this. While a woman is working toward being a responsible adult in a fast-paced environment, making sure the bills are being paid, her window rapidly closes.

The problem is, the American ideal has changed, but we were brought up hearing the stories of our parents marrying shortly out of high school, even though we likely came from broken homes as divorce rates started to pick up over the last few decades. So, we still think about marriage, but were witness to the beginning of the end, where marriages were failing, and when we try to follow the traditional path toward marriage, pressured to achieve this early-on, just like our parents, we are less likely to have a successful partnership as we don't know what we are doing.

We are from broken homes where both of our parents probably needed to work (likely contributing to the pressures that led to divorce), and many of us were latch-key kids, receiving less nurture than our parents received in their generation when life wasn't as fast-paced. We don't understand how to express love and keep things together, so our marriages fail because we don't know what a successful one really looks like (outside of tv & movies) or how to nurture properly. We aren't as mature as our parents were at our age, but we are still under the same timeline to accomplish similar life goals.

Women still have to partner by 30, but as they are following the same pattern of starting families at a young age with eventual collapse in marriage, or with marriage often skipped altogether, while children are brought into the picture of relationships that are doomed to fail, more women are raising children as single mothers, often without the father present in the child's life at all, perhaps not even receiving support from the second parent, so the financial and emotional burden falls completely on the female to make the money necessary to take care of themselves and their family and find someone new, a relationship that will work, before they reach the age of 30.

Because the societal pressures do not match our needs in this era, our system is faulty and women are unable to be happy. As we age, our dissatisfaction increases, our hope decreases, while the opposite is true of men. Women cannot be happy because we need access to more money to be financially secure in order to lead a moderately comfortable life and are unlikely to be able to do this on our own; plus, we also need the emotional support from a loved one who will be by our side through these hardships, but relationships are fractured, unstable, and we are more likely to be stuck going through life alone with a revolving door of suitors, though the number available to us drastically decreases as we age.

Yes, most women do have the advantage (UP TO A CERTAIN AGE) of attracting men, but that doesn't mean the men have any intention of sticking around, or even want to settle down, and so the women are not in the position of power. There isn't even a sense of duty for a man to marry a woman he's knocked up anymore and abortion has gained greater acceptance as an alternative.

Men hold the cards and women tend to end up screwed because we do live longer: we spend more years alone; we spend more years responsible for the well-being of others; we spend more years craving love and support. We spend more years stressed and depressed because we lose hope. Society sets us up for failure. We are following old ideals in a new world where the path leads us straight into a brick wall.

Anyway, to the point of the title of the article, I do agree that Modern Feminism is Illogical, Unnecessary and EVIL, but modern feminism is actually not what was outlined in the article as it is currently more about sexual freedom in embracing female objectification and feeling empowered (by what is generally considered to be sexual degradation), rather than exploited--changing our perceptions about how we are treated and what we will allow by forcing us to question and push our own boundaries to meet the desires of men, emphasizing positivity in porn culture and encouraging its dominance in shaping our decisions. I think it's just cultish brainwashing that is setting us back 50 billion steps and contributing to our inability to form lasting, healthy relationships and provide a stable, nurturing environment for our children.

Most of us are unhappy, men and women alike, but at least men get to keep their hope as doors don't shut as quickly for them with age, usually more open. Our perception of men improve as they gain experience and wisdom; older men are considered more desirable because of the stability they can offer, though this tends to only be available to those women aged 30 or under.
Wait while more posts are being loaded