Yes, I would much rather be a rich woman than a poor man. But I'd rather be a poor man than a poor woman. I'd rather be a poor white man than a poor black man. I'd rather be a poor black man than a poor black woman.
I don't think it helps to have a contest about which forms of discrimination are more impactful, because they all add up.
Gender, race, social class, within which nation's borders one is born... they all add up, and it gets worse if you "lose" in more than one category.
But there are cases when the comparison should be made, and I hint at it in my first sentence. We do spend more effort on gender equality than racial equality because, frankly, white women have more power and value in our society than black men or women. For example the #MeToo movement was triggered and driven by the injustices done to powerful, privileged white women.
Sadly, social justice is driven too often by self-serving interests rather than social justice itself.
>I don't think it helps to have a contest about which forms of discrimination are more impactful, because they all add up.
But it often seems like some are easily overlooked.
When I was born into a poor working family in Poland, my father's monthly salary was worth 15$.
When I was studying I had to carefully plan things like bread in my budget, and I was eating with homeless people regularly.
Yet, I have preserved, got a job as a programmer and life has been relatively easy from that point.
On the grand scale of things I consider myself lucky.
But it's tilting when I hear German doctor raised in upper middle class loudly complaining about how underprivilaged she is compared to me because I'm a man.
Intersectionality a soooo american because it's like your whole society is so much about fighthing for you own class / race / gender AGAINST the other that someone had to make a new word recently to explain what European nations have defined by "universality" in their constitutions for centuries.
For example in france there was a real movement to make school accessible for "every citizen regarding of race, gender and class" during the 3rd republic. But still the new trend now in america is to promote "black-only school". WTF.
Sorry for trolling especially since we don't disagree but sometimes reading american forums is a constant facepalms i just cant' help.
This is a conversation and people are allowed to bring their knowledge, experience and opinions to the table. This thread started from a map showing the apparent locations of famous persons' birthplaces. I don't see how its any less relevant to steer the conversation towards economic inequality than it is towards gender inequality.
If you'd rather talk about "children in trailer parks", then go ahead - it's the same point.
No, "boys in trailer parks" is decidedly not the same point as women being ignored.
The fact that they are both equally relevant makes it utterly stupid that they are being talked about in the same place. If a separate top level comment were made about how poor people aren't on the map then I wouldn't be arguing that. But as a reply to a point about how women aren't on the map, you aren't doing much other than making it about men, by talking about how some men aren't on the map either. It's some "all lives matter" bullshit and should be recognized as such.
> If a separate top level comment were made about how poor people aren't on the map then I wouldn't be arguing that.
Well that's precisely one of the point I was making: that people only care more about VISIBLE inequalities (the gender) which are, in my opinion which you can disagree with, a lower factor of actual inequalities in societies.
At the end of the day I'm not the one who brought "inequalities for women" about a cool map which had a priori no political message. Everyone is free to make their own point of discussion, and you didn't jump out of your seat when this first point about women was made to say it was out of context as you are doing now.
And as a french person it's insane that your culture is so confrontational and tribal that "all lives matters" has to be a divisive statement. Hope you guys will heal at some point.
>a lower factor of actual inequalities in societies.
You can't, and shouldn't compare independent circumstances. You can be poor and a man, you can be rich and a woman.
>and you didn't jump out of your seat when this first point about women
Imagine being a girl on HN. You see this cool map and see wow, not a lot of women I can look up to it seems. And you go to the comments and see someone agrees with you. OK cool, maybe people would start replying with some important women who should be more famous.
Nope. Turns out it doesn't matter, because there are poor people who aren't famous either. You're actually priveleged to want to look up to women when there are poor people you could look up to.
>And as a french person it's insane that your culture is so confrontational and tribal that "all lives matters"
As a French person you don't know the context and therefore the depth of the idiocy of what you just wrote.
There is a concept, you know, of cultural difference. Where if I say something and you react differently than I would, it makes sense because what I said means something different to you. Obviously "all lives matter" doesn't literally mean "all lives matter" in this context. People started saying that in the US because others were saying "black lives matter". But you know who gets disproportionately killed in police confrontations? Not "all people", but black people. So the meaning of "all lives matter" really is "I need to make this about me as well"/"You're talking about something I don't like, so I'm going to make it about something else."
Sure it's tribal. One tribe wants the other to shut up about how people are getting murdered for no reason.
As the person responding to you said, this is a conversation. It's not here for you to dictate the proper direction of. It's for people who are curious to share ideas back and forth. I personally find the responses significantly more interesting that your insults. If you are only interested in shutting down conversations that don't fit your preferred narrative, perhaps you are the problem.
Imagine being a girl on HN. You see this cool map and see wow, not a lot of women I can look up to it seems. And you go to the comments and see someone agrees with you. OK cool, maybe people would start replying with some important women who should be more famous.
Nope. Turns out it doesn't matter, because there are poor people who aren't famous either. You're actually priveleged to want to look up to women when there are poor people you could look up to.
>I personally find the responses significantly more interesting that your insults.
Have you considered that I'm not responding for the benefit of the enjoyment of some disinterested reader?
>If you are only interested in shutting down conversations that don't fit your preferred narrative, perhaps you are the problem.
And isn't this in and of itself shutting down a narrative? Aren't you just admitting that you would prefer if there wasn't all this unpleasantry, and that I'm a problem for not fitting that preference?
I'm not a moderator. I can't "dictate" anything. What I did was point out the problem inherent in a statement. If you got so offended by that and equate it to shutting down conversation, maybe you should examine your biases.
Don't worry Ill allow you to replace "boys in trailer parks" by "humans in trailer parks" in my argument if you want to go make the EXACT SAME POINT somewhere else.
How many potential geniuses ended up herding yaks, or becoming chemical process workers, or died in some pointless war as cannon fodder, or in some hospital due to substandard care?
Potential is cheap and abundant. Using it is what changes the world.
> I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.
Einstein had to flee his country to save his life. From the "Encyclopedia Britannica":
> In December 1932 Einstein decided to leave Germany forever (he would never go back). It became obvious to Einstein that his life was in danger. A Nazi organization published a magazine with Einstein's picture and the caption “Not Yet Hanged” on the cover. There was even a price on his head.
He certainly had an uphill struggle and wasn't simply handed everything because of some innate privilege.
But without the enticement of membership in the elite, with a greater share of society's wealth, power and privileges, no one would bother working hard to become doctors, lawyers, software developers and CEOs. We need a stratified society to have all these things the modern world gives us. It is only the desire to escape the cotton fields and sweatshops that spurs people to work. It is the only reason that our world has seen amazing advancements in science, technology and business. Capitalism depends on inequality, and we depend on capitalism.
This is logic of capitalism. This is our society's justification for incredible differences in pay and wealth.
> It is only the desire to escape the cotton fields and sweatshops that spurs people to work.
Why do rich people work?
They don't need to escape the cotton fields and sweatshops.
Slaves worked the American cotton fields - why did they work with no chance of membership in the elite?
I'm pretty sure people in 1860 justified slavery with the same argument "It is the only reason that our world has seen amazing advancements in science, technology and business."
If you look at the list for the most famous people of all time, and especially for men[1], a large majority seem to have originated (and even remained all their life) outside what most people would consider the "privileged elite". Notably absent are some of the wealthiest individuals of all time, Crassus, Jakob Fugger, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller.
Of course, it doesn't disprove being born in favourable circumstances can and will affect your quality of life. But this list seems largely indifferent to how much money or power daddy has.
