You speak for all feminist? That is kinda patronizing.Feminism, contrary to what insecure MRAs have convinced you, is not about woman supremacy or any nonsense like that.
You speak for all feminist? That is kinda patronizing.Feminism, contrary to what insecure MRAs have convinced you, is not about woman supremacy or any nonsense like that.
Make a real objection.You speak for all feminist? That is kinda patronizing.
It's not my first language, but I've also learned to read the subtext of a message. Apologies if the assumption was wrong. Call it a trauma from Twitter lol.I'm going to assume English isn't your first language because I did not say you were a conservative, I said that pointing to people who are disenfranchised in a system as if the privilege they hold in other scenarios magically disappears because they're disenfranchised in one way is something conservatives do. It is also a very stupid thing to do.
The solutions offered are a good start, but then what do you say to people who are the result of generational inequalities and disenfranchisement that's been codified into law since the nation's inception? Black people haven't equal civil rights for even 100 years. There are people in this very thread who could have been alive at the time, that's how young our so-called equality is, and that's just for one group of people. We have a LONG fucking way to go beyond that. The elevation of various qualified people who are ignored in favor of in-group preferences that are culturally sourced is a good thing. It feels like virtue signalling to the psychotic right at this point when people say affirmative action is a bad thing from a "leftist" perspective.
Affirmative action is not the only solution I want, it's just one of many that I think are net positives for society as a whole in the long run.
In a perfect world the discernment between people that need aid and people that can give aid would be done on a personal level, and in fact that would be pretty easy to implement with nothing more than properly scaling taxes. MLK Jr advocated that the black people be given special treatment because those were the people he was speaking for, but he also wanted to get rid of all classes either way, for everyone.To answer your question: no it isn't. And yes that is a problem, and yes it's been going on for a very long time, especially in the US that loathes socialism.
In fact I agree with pretty much everything you said, save for the conclusion.
Suggesting correction through discrimination is not equality.
Let me give you an example. I have a friend who worked all his adult life at Walmart. He has no parents, no family to rely on.
Is he, or was he, at a personal level, "ahead of the curve". No of course not.
Yet the current politics would have you discriminate against him regardless, whether he's actually done something to deserve it.
Also comes the question: When will "enough" counter discrimination be "enough"? How long will the children have to pay the consequences for that? How many generations?
There are already more universalist answers to that if you look at most European countries. Someone who unfortunately has a more fragile health doesn't get to live in fear because we collectively handle the cost of healthcare. There are measures in place for all kids to access the same level of education to promote equality of chance to succeed in your studies and career. There are laws against inequalities of incomes, and companies that discriminate during the hiring process get severely punished, as it is (I believe?) the same in the US now.
The US are just so ridiculously behind when it comes to these questions, especially when it comes to healthcare and education, that I'm not surprised that more drastic solutions become more popular, but they aren't more just, they're just reversing the problem.
Intergenerational wealth is more than just inheritances, but in cases of freak accidents or freak occurrences like that different social programs should immediately kick in and provide a high quality safety net for everyone, it's just that this same safety net will likely more often be used with minorities due them statically being more susceptible to fall behind on the metric thanks to past systemic discrimination.Your entire argument works on the premise that wealth is guaranteed intergenerational.
Let's take your take your theoretical structure is in fact true. But now, let's say that the (white) man ends up with cancer and spends his life's fortune fighting it. Or, let's just say he's an asshole and decides to spend the family fortune living out the golden years. What advantage does the white child now have? In this scenario, nothing.
You could extrapolate this. What if the white family was never good with money in the first place? What if one of these white children are orphans whose parents never wanted them and left them no wealth?
The idea of affirmative action policies makes a preconceived notion that white (male) = wealth and non-white (woman) = poor. For the latter, if the white (male) comes from no wealth, he is now disenfranchised because he has to work against diversity metrics to get into a workforce where he needs the income because he is not privileged. The latter is also racist/sexism as it makes a prejudice that the vast majority of women and blacks are always poor and/or uneducated.
In doing this, it only serves to create a generation of white (male)s that will become disenfranchised and struggle to get ahead (unless you believe being white is just SO amazing it'll somehow work itself out through the cosmos) -- and arguably, you create a generation of white families that now arguably suffer the same intergenerational wealth disenfranchisement that you argue blacks/women continue to suffer from.
What a load of rubbish. This bit especially, "the resume of a woman is more literate than that of a man. They have a better way to articulate their thoughts". I don't think you have much life experience at all if you think that's the case. I think today's youth are pretty dense compared to their predecessors, more than likely because education now has woke socialist types that have difficulty with even the basic concepts and find it difficult to identify what a woman and a man actually are and the differences between them.It seems to me that this is a misleading statistic. Yes, indeed, women are more likely to respond to their resumes for several reasons. The main one is that the employer wants to see a beautiful woman who is pleasant to look at and the second is that the resume of a woman is more literate than that of a man. They have a better way to articulate their thoughts. But men can also compete with women's resumes and sop writing consultants can help. You can write the same literate and beautiful resume. Then your new employers will want to see you in their company.
I bet a feminist would say something about this IF the GBAtemp community wasn't comprised of 99% of men.https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/marley_finley.senior_essay.pdf
I wonder what are the feminists going to say about this.
Imagine working your ass off and then getting turned down because you don't have a vagigia.
Also i think City was banned... like a few months agoI bet a feminist would say something about this IF the GBAtemp community wasn't comprised of 99% of men.
Imma give an example: me and my girl friend (a friend who is a girl lol) both worked on bars. I would rarely receive tips, but it would always be holeheartly, like "nice work kid". This friend of mine would receive more often, most of the times by men and, most of them, usual clients, and they would always hit on her, sometimes in front of their wives - yes they were years older than her. She would just do her job and be gentle and motherfuckers would think that they had a thing going on, sometimes they would tip her willing to have sex with her.
This article you put on seems to me like the HR or boss idfk was like "Hmmm lotta dudes i have these alread-- AWOOOGA look at this BABE damn, i could be staring at those fresh pair of milkers and thick legs AND pay her less! Win win situation"
Edit: damn this is old already
Good, there's other dudes here that i would be happy if they got bannedAlso i think City was banned... like a few months ago
LOL??? What the fuck did I miss? Did he go nuclear again?Also i think City was banned... like a few months ago
yea city is banned, try to get on his profile. dead.LOL??? What the fuck did I miss? Did he go nuclear again?
Hm, maybe, but then there are plenty of 'anti-woke' types who struggle with basic concepts like vaccination and a spherical Earth. The problem is partly that the younger generations are bombarded with ""alternative facts"" to the degree where they can't actually separate tested truth with wild ignorant speculation. "A wealth of information creates a poverty of attention", as Herbert Simon said. This is true irrespective of any political spectrum.What a load of rubbish. This bit especially, "the resume of a woman is more literate than that of a man. They have a better way to articulate their thoughts". I don't think you have much life experience at all if you think that's the case. I think today's youth are pretty dense compared to their predecessors, more than likely because education now has woke socialist types that have difficulty with even the basic concepts and find it difficult to identify what a woman and a man actually are and the differences between them.
Yes I agree, there are lots of idiots on the planet. There's a lot of people not blessed with common sense and need spoonfed their news/information and told what to think even as adults. You only need to look at a vast percentage of the worlds western population to see that humans are doomed as a species. Luckily there's some people on the planet blessed with fully working brains to keep those less fortunate alive for now, however once the robots and AI take over, those same people will become surplus to requirements and be nothing but a drain on the planets natural resources. These types will most likely die off in the next few generations, and the world will keep on spinning.Hm, maybe, but then there are plenty of 'anti-woke' types who struggle with basic concepts like vaccination and a spherical Earth.