• 🅷🆈🅿🆄🆁🆁🅻🅸🅽🅺@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      17 days ago

      I see no mention of it so why don’t you enlighten us with the facts instead of guesses.

      and I get your silly little point. But there is such a thing as internalised prejudices and internalised discrimination; so your “clever” little point does nothing to take away from the fact that the scrutiny was greater on women than the men-presenting anchors. lol.

    • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      Wanna guess if it was men or women who profit the most from the relentless consumption machine? Wanna guess if it was men or women who controlled women’s livelihoods based on their conformance to their standards of femininity, until, like, one generation ago? Lol

        • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          17 days ago

          Who’s in the 0.1%?

          Sex & gender discrimination is a way, one of the most important ways, in which we are divided in order to make class oppression possible.

          So I agree, blame the 0.1%, but the only way you can actually do anything about that is by healing the gender divide, and you’re not going to do that by pretending everything is fine and equal when it’s not.

          The 0.1% are the reason why women are oppressed, sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

          • tabarnaski@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            17 days ago

            I might be mistaken, but I’m pretty sure about half of this 0.1% are women. The ultra rich aren’t single and they have kids.

            I agree with you that gender discrimination is one of the many ways to divide the people, but I don’t see how healing the gender divide will end the growing wealth inequality.

            • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              17 days ago

              You agree that it’s a way to divide people, but you don’t think more united people will help against wealth inequality?

                • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  17 days ago

                  This is such a non-sequitur that I’m really not sure what it means. Care to enlighten? Is the “joke” that I am a woman and therefore must change my clothes often? Not your best work

            • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              16 days ago

              You are mistaken. It’s wrong to think that just because they’re married their wives have meaningful control of any finances. It’s easy to see, for example, when they separate. Gates and Bezos’ former spouses took about 10% of their respective fortunes. Musk is single, lol. Putin is also single, but do you really imagine he ever let his wife make a decision?

              Those are cherry picked examples, sure, but you can go down the list of billionaires and see that they are divorced much more often than you think, and their wealth doesn’t change much in the divorce.

              More basically, the men are the ones on the list, aren’t they.

              Their children also don’t have that kind of power until their parents die or at least get old enough to start succession planning, and they certainly don’t have control of the money.