That is an issue. I wish we spent more money on education in general honestly.
But, culture needs to be addressed too. You can have the best teachers and facilities, but without the backing at home championing education the cycle will continue.
Just look at Chicago - they spend more money than anyone per child on education and routinely have the poorest test scores.
Education usually directly reflects the parental involvement with a young child and the importance put on that. Public schools in many cases have become a glorified daycare and free meals for parents.
well, I absolutely agree with this. I know that support at home is the MOST important thing.
And Texas has changed. The āprogramsā that segregated the schools I went to have since been removed, and there is actual integration in the schools, from what Iāve seen. My sonās classrooms look much different from the ones I grew up in. I brought it up in the first place, though, specifically because lordgains suggested that black people have āprivilegesā that are greater than white men. That is patently false in Texas. The 40 year old black women and men in my area grew up in a pretty fucked up system of being treated as āless thanā in a very systematic way. I know that this isnāt the case everywhere in the US, but itās probably more prevalent than a lot of people believe. This was a pretty decent-sized city (Garland), not some ābackwardsā, isolated town in the middle of nowhere, ya know?
I donāt have data to support this, but intuitively I think that using BMI as an indicator of unhealthy obesity is more unfriendly to men than to women. Men naturally have larger frames even adjusted for height and are more likely to be carrying extra muscle.
A person who is 5ā8" is classified as overweight if he or she is over 165 and obese above 200lbs. Those seem like reasonable benchmarks if you havenāt built much muscle. The fraction of women that have built enough muscle to push themselves into those categories while still being lean is actually very small. The fraction of guys who are around that height and get above 165 without getting fat is significant.
More to the topic, men who arenāt in good shape are just more able to compensate with other things (social skills, money, connections). Fat women struggle to compensate.
An interesting thought experiment is to consider a mismatched couple. That is, you see a couple where the difference in physical attractiveness is extreme. If the woman is beautiful and the man fat and ugly, I think the assumption is usually that he has other things going for him. In the reverse situation (good looking man with a fat woman), I think the assumption is that the man has deficiencies that his good looks canāt overcome. In short, when you see a mismatched couple, you assume the status of the couple based on the womanās looks. If she is good looking, they are probably high status regardless of what he looks like. If she is ugly, they are probably low status, regardless of how she looks.
Of course, there are exceptions. In particular, this breaks down for couples that have been married for decades and physical appearances have changed.
I really donāt see what privileges white men have these days honestly. More whites by numbers grow up in poverty. More whites have single parent homes.
These days it is about those with money and those without - race is irrelevant.
Not that historically things have not been much worse for black people, but not in todayās world.
This is true because whites make up a large percentage of the population. There are more poor whites because there are more whites in general. But blacks are still more likely to be poor.
That said, I think your conclusion is correct. Inequality in the modern US can basically all be traced to money. There is little reason to break things down by race because the correlation is weaker. There are rich black people who do well and poor white people that have all the same problems as poor black people. I see no reason that we should care about race.
1 percent of the worldās billionaires are black. Thatās not in line with the black population as a whole. Are you saying race isnāt related to this statistic?
EDIT: Iām also not sure how youāre coming up with āmore whites grow up in povertyā. Unless youāre really just saying there are more white people than black people in the US? Percentage-wise, thatās not a true statement. Poverty Rates for Blacks and Hispanics Reached Historic Lows in 2019 Poverty RATE among black Americans is still more than double that of white Americans. Do you have a different rate comparison? This one comes from census.gov
I think the issue comes down to whether or not race is a useful metric for addressing inequality. Wealth disparities explain practically all other inequalities.
Even though black people are more likely to be poor, most poor people in the US are white (simply because there are more white people total). Focusing on race means that you are focusing on helping only a minority of the disadvantaged people (and possibly helping people that arenāt disadvantaged at all since there still are a significant number of rich black people). Why would you then focus on race rather than just focus on generational wealth inequality?
I said by numbers. I know the statistics percentage wise.
In the US over half of the violent crimes are also committed by black males which make up what 6-7% of the population?, which leads to much higher rates of incarceration and poverty.
Of course it isnāt about race or anything defective about being black - it is culture and poverty which both lead to higher rates of crime and other unsavory things that hurt the race and society as a whole.
Africa holds the majority of black people. How many billionaires are there in Africa? I really donāt know.
I guess Iām just wondering why the raw numbers would matter at allā¦ Iām not sure why that would be your go-to stat, the percentages seem far more important.
This is a silly thing to bring up, but fine. Letās just confine the topic to the US, for ease of discussionā¦
1% of billionaires in the US are black. Same percentage. So, letās use that as a starting point instead.
Why? I think the opposite is obvious. It doesnāt make sense to focus on helping a minority of the affected population. All the poor people are disadvantaged. Most of those poor people are white. Why would you then prioritize helping the black poor people. And that is not even considering that focusing the help on black people instead of poor people means helping rich black people instead of poor white people.
I think actual numbers of people is more important, if you want to affect the most possible. If I have 100/100000 white houses in disrepair and 10/1000 black houses in disrepair, I think it is important to look at total numbers and not base things off percentages.
I think it is a silly thing to bring up in general honestly. How much money some people have is irrelevant completely.
Since I donāt want to write text walls again, Iām just giving you some links that you can go through.
The research is pretty clear that nature as well as nurture are involved but as a person above stated, nature or genes are not decisive. It is the nurture which makes the impact as to what one prefers in his mind.
Thereās also a myriad of animal studies showing effects of prenatal hormones, population density and other factors. I may find the time to link some tomorrow. You could also dismiss all of it as just correlation, but the sample sizes are large enough to make it unlikely. For twin studies thereās a high proportion of identical twins raised by different families being gay 52% with 48% being heterosexual-homosexual twins. Making it fairly clear that both factors are involved.
I have a (partly) hypothetical for you. It has been shown that in utero exposure to some sex hormones during a defined time span in animals leads to homosexual behavior. This was partly confirmed in humans.
Now the hypothetical: If it would be found out that the cause of homosexuality is 100% of the time a disturbance of specific hormones at a specific time-point during pregnancy and that this could be treated by giving the pregnant woman the specific antagonistic hormones/blockers for a week (similar to what we do for other pregnancy/baby problems), would you be for a general action in that direction?
