to discuss news and stuff of the old world dying
the old elite rich versus the new elite rich will yield stupid wars, more surveillance coupled with more prisons, and more foreign intrusion.
we have over produced rich people. and they will destroy everything getting us fighting each other for them.
💯
and they will destroy everything getting us fighting each other for them.
And stupidly, more then enough of us do this willingly
🎵 Same as it ever was 🎵 - David Byrne.
We have over produced greedy and selfish people. Getting rich is just a by-product.
Yeah, what's the deal? Spoiler for Fallout TV series, and the Splinter Cell Firewall book but :::the rich also want to accelerate the destruction of the world to profit what remains of post-apocalyptic wasteland. Then the main antagonist in Splinter Cell Firewall also wants to do the same, and his affiliates think he's crazy, precisely because the bad guy is silver spooned, spoiled rich kid.:::
The theme of rich people being insane and wanting to destroy the world seems to be becoming prevalent in the mainstream media. Do writers know something behind the scenes about the rich elites that we don't?
About the sycophancies, I read an article of a financial CEO who turned around the fortunes of the Singaporean branch. Instead of wallowing in the showers of praises, he consciously avoids and minimise the applauses he is getting to prevent overconfidence. He's always looking for feedback, setting new goals and the benchmark higher to prevent the branch he is managing going under again. Only few rich and powerful people know how to stay humble and think sane.
Do writers know something behind the scenes about the rich elites that we don't?
I'm pretty sure we already know certain attributes significantly increase the likelihood of being insanely rich, and none of them make for good people.
the men who control the world
So the hundreds of women billionaires are off the hook? Why?
Look at Trump and his techbro social media cronies (Elon, Jeff, Tim Apple, etc). Those are the billionaires who control the world, or at least the West, and it's very clearly a he man woman haters boy's club. And I mean this literally. They are men who hate women, with Trump and Musk as exhibits A and B respectively.
I'm sure there are hundreds of women billionaires, but they're not the ones lining up to kiss Trump's ring and promising not to fact check his posts.
Even among the billionaires, the gender ratio and pay gap is still glaringly obvious. I remember seeing the list of billionaires by net worth, and there are fewer women and most of them are ranked somewhere between the middle or near the bottom of the list because they earn less. Billionaire men disproportionately have higher net worth and almost exclusively make the top list. So misogyny is still prevalent among the billionaire class.
there are fewer women and most of them are ranked somewhere between the middle or near the bottom of the list because they earn less.
Oh, so now it's considered "earned", lol.
Even when it comes to billionaires, who are by default considered to be exploitative financial predators, and around whom there is a narrative of it being literally impossible to become one without being a huge asshole, when it comes to comparing male and female billionaires, you won't even argue that the latter are the 'lesser evil'.
No, the misogyny narrative trumps even that—you truly and honestly think there's still a glass ceiling, all the way up there in billion-land? If you're a billionaire, you're clearly way past the point of being 'held down'.
Still, it was very interesting to see what came out ahead higher on the narrative priority list, in this rare 'matchup' between 'billionaires bad' and 'misogyny stifling womens' wealth'.
By the way, best I could calculate from the 2024 billionaire list, the median (much more useful for actually making a valid comparison) net worth difference between the sexes among billionaires is only $200 million, with an M. Really, not that much of a difference.
Billionaire men disproportionately have higher net worth and almost exclusively make the top list. So misogyny is still prevalent among the billionaire class.
"Black people are overrepresented in the NBA compared to the general population. So anti-white racism is still prevalent in the NBA."
This is the kind of assertion you're making. A disparity is not automatically proof of bias/prejudice/discrimination—disparities can exist for a myriad of reasons. This is also an infamous tactic of young-earth creationists, re evolution: the "god of the gaps" argument, which is a subcategory of good ol' confirmation bias (i.e. you want the reason for the disparity to be as simple as 'sexism is the cause of it all', so you assume that to be the primary/only cause).
For example, if you equalize everything else, it's a fact that full-time men work more hours on average per week than women do^["...among full-time workers (those usually working 35 hours or more per week), men worked longer than women—8.4 hours compared with 7.8 hours."]. That, all by itself, will create an earnings gap between men and women, when you compare what's brought home at the end of the year for each.
if you equalize everything else, it's a fact that full-time men work more hours on average per week than women do
I just skimmed read, didn't read the entire rant.
In my experience, men are held to higher expectations than women, that's where the glass ceiling for women is. I worked with various cultures, I noticed that more conservative cultures with traditional view on gender roles expect men to be Superman; working almost six days if they could. I had a classmate from Nigeria who has been married. He was working two jobs at the time even though his wife is getting frustrated because he goes home late and occasionally sees his wife. She even implored me to talk to his husband about it. I did and mentioned to him it is affecting their marriage. Maybe he didn't realise it because he is in that culture, but as an outsider with cosmopolitan background, misogyny/patriarchy are still to be blamed for holding men to extremely high expectations. And even if women meet the standards, biases from men (not all men) could impede them further. So, women keep working harder than men but their achievements receive fewer recognitions.
I'm lucky I am in a country where it is more or less equal. Men aren't really held to impossible standards, although of course, toxic masculinity still exists to some; internalised mysoginy in the case of some women.
Last time I checked, only 13% of women are billionaires across the world, despite half of population are women. Extrapolate that and downsize it, the gender ratio and pay gap is still skewed for many countries. Although, I might have to applaud the billionaire class for being racially diverse as a consolation.
I just skimmed read, didn’t read the entire rant.
Nothing that I wrote there can fairly be called a "rant", and I think you know that, and are just trying to give yourself a reason to not pay attention to it—it's easier to rationalize dismissing it if it's a "rant".
I worked with various cultures, I noticed that more conservative cultures with traditional view on gender roles expect men to be Superman; working almost six days if they could.
This is why I compared men and women in similar positions, instead of just looking at the whole sex top-down. What you describe here can explain why women are more likely to work part-time, for example, but I'm comparing full-timer women to full-timer men. Even when it comes to women and men in the exact same job position, men work more hours on average, that's the simple fact of the matter.
Last time I checked, only 13% of women are billionaires across the world, despite half of population are women.
Only 20% of librarians are men, despite half the population being men. So, using the above logic, that has to be because the library 'industry' is heavily sexist toward men. Right?
The notion that men and women want and pursue the same things professionally at the exact same rates is demonstrably nonsense, but it's the premise required to draw conclusions about sexism based solely on the sex ratio in any professional demographic being anything other than exactly 50/50.
Even when it comes to women and men in the exact same job position, men work more hours on average, that's the simple fact of the matter.
Only 20% of librarians are men](https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/librarian/demographics/), despite half the population being men. So, using the above logic, that has to be because the library 'industry' is heavily sexist toward men. Right?
The notion that men and women want and pursue the same things professionally at the exact same rates is demonstrably nonsense
Because sexism still exist? Like I mentioned, misogyny and internalised mysoginy still exist to varying degrees. In my home country, there was a taboo on men working as nurse, but overtime it went away and now you would see as many male nurses as female ones. Then I moved to the West, for a culture supposedly more egalitarian, there are still fewer male nurses; it's mainly people from my home country and maybe Indian men who work as male nurses. I had a male friend mocked for wanting to do nursing when we were in school. The same sexism exists on other roles with fewer women. Of course, there are still some innate differences between a man and a woman and some jobs might require utilising the difference; like men tend to be stronger so more men work in construction. But in jobs where the differences don't make any, well, differences, perception of traditional gender roles is obsolete.
With all that said, you are telling me that somehow only few women want to be CEOs and become billionaires? There are plenty of competitive women and choose to focus on their careers. There is no fundamental biological reason for women not to pursue becoming CEO, aside from socially imposed traditional gender roles. If you are still not convinced, there are countries with higher shares of female CEOs 1 2. In South East Asia, where I am from originally, there is higher concentration of female CEOs compared to others, in spite of the broad conservative values and there are reasons for that which is too long to mention in this post.
Perhaps men work longer, because there is still either conscious or unconscious bias they are expected to be the breadwinners and "suck it up" when it comes to working longer; while women are still expected to provide more caregiving roles and thus they are expected to give up their careers to take care of children. As we speak, there is also still taboo on the idea of stay at home dad because the role is "for women", like there is taboo on men being nurses.
I have seen all the of talking points on the gender debate so I can kinda expect what the other person might say. All I can say on the topic is that people are missing the forest for the tree. That being said, and sorry for trying to sound like I know better, but it helps to have a more cosmopolitan view.
Because sexism still exist?
No. Sexism could be a reason that one is prevented from doing what they want, but I'm talking about the desire itself, one step before that. Men and women don't want the same things at the same rates, in the first place.
All the way from infancy, there are well-established average differences in preferences, long before the age where "sexism" has any meaning to them. The notion that there is no difference between the sexes until societal pressures push them one way or the other is, in a word, bunk.
It's also been found that significant gender skews like 'most engineers are men' and 'most nurses are women' are only more steeply tilted in countries where there is more societal gender equality, e.g. Scandinavian countries compared to the US. In other words, the more men and women are truly free to pursue their choice of profession, the more likely they are to choose to be engineers/nurses (for example), respectively. It's literally known as the 'gender equality paradox', because the researchers who discovered this were baffled by the results, having fully assumed that the more equality there is, the lesser the skew would be. But, the simply misunderstand that men and women, on average, simply prefer different things, professionally.
you are telling me that somehow only few women want to be CEOs and become billionaires? There are plenty of competitive women and choose to focus on their careers.
Yes, there are plenty. But there are plenty more men who do. That's just the fact of the matter. When it comes to the entirety of the (very small, compared to the general population, by the way) demographic of hyper-ambitious workaholics that want to get to the top of their field more than anything else, the fact is that the large majority of that demographic, is male. So it makes perfect sense that the majority of those who succeed in those aspirations will also be male.
It's exactly the same reason as why most librarians are women. That's not because men are bullied out of it or anything—a small minority of people who even choose to begin going down that path, by majoring in Library Science in college, are men. They just don't want to do that for a living at the same rate that women do, similar to how far more men than women want to be mechanical/electrical engineers. So, absent of any sexism, there will still be a large disparity.
And that's just one example of how large sex disparities can exist with sexism having nothing to do with it. It's never correct to assume any deviation from a 50/50 ratio in any professional aspect is caused solely or primarily by sexism or societal pressure, especially when it's been shown that those skews tend to increase when there is more gender equality, as mentioned re the 'paradox' above.
And you just purposefully ignored what I said of countries where there are just as many women as men doing the same job, like women CEOs and male nurses in South East Asia.
You're missing the forest for trees.