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.

[–] Mr_Blott@feddit.uk 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

[–] elekitty@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

thank you for likening me to the messiah but that's a bit much

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 11 points 3 weeks ago

Don't be so hard on yourself, no one's crucified you for treason yet.

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

stop blaming either of the two 50%s, it's the fault of the 0.1%

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

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 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] Mr_Blott@feddit.uk 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Not about time you changed your clothes sweetheart? 😂

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks 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 1 points 3 weeks 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.