“Minority” in this context does not mean having a smaller population. Minority means a group of people that have been historically oppressed or persecuted.
Women are a special kind of minority because even though they make up the majority of population worldwide, they’ve faced oppression for centuries.
Another example would be white people in South Africa—even though they are a minority as a percent, they still aren’t a minority because they don’t face oppression.
Women are undeniably a minority when it comes to being represented in politics/media in general. It’s only in recent history that women have had any meaningful presence in terms of representation in those regards.
They’re a minority in terms of representation because of said disenfranchisement.
Most of humanity has faced oppression for millennia. Most of humanity still does to varying degrees. All genders and ages and colours of people.
I don’t see how celebrating a literal English aristocrat - Ridley’s family are landed gentry, she was born in literal Westminster - is a victory against oppression or is righting any wrongs.
Building bridges through society and fixing actual problems instead of playing oppression olympics and labelling everyone six times over would go much further towards actual equity.
The ruling class isn’t interested in emancipating anyone, but they recognize that feminism and anti-racism are popular and can make money, which has resulted in what you’re talking about.
Building bridges through society would be fantastic, but I don’t think it’s possible without a revolution, because you would need to wield state power to force those bridges to be built over the course of several generations and all the power structures that currently exist would resist it.
“Minority” in this context does not mean having a smaller population. Minority means a group of people that have been historically oppressed or persecuted.
Women are a special kind of minority because even though they make up the majority of population worldwide, they’ve faced oppression for centuries.
Another example would be white people in South Africa—even though they are a minority as a percent, they still aren’t a minority because they don’t face oppression.
No, minority doesn’t mean that. The phrase you want is disenfranchised groups.
Merriam-Webster disagrees with you. People have referred to women as a political minority despite their numerical majority for a very long time.
Are “political minority” and “minority” somehow indistinguishable? Why pretend like one automatically means the other?
Women are undeniably a minority when it comes to being represented in politics/media in general. It’s only in recent history that women have had any meaningful presence in terms of representation in those regards.
They’re a minority in terms of representation because of said disenfranchisement.
Most of humanity has faced oppression for millennia. Most of humanity still does to varying degrees. All genders and ages and colours of people.
I don’t see how celebrating a literal English aristocrat - Ridley’s family are landed gentry, she was born in literal Westminster - is a victory against oppression or is righting any wrongs.
Building bridges through society and fixing actual problems instead of playing oppression olympics and labelling everyone six times over would go much further towards actual equity.
The ruling class isn’t interested in emancipating anyone, but they recognize that feminism and anti-racism are popular and can make money, which has resulted in what you’re talking about.
Building bridges through society would be fantastic, but I don’t think it’s possible without a revolution, because you would need to wield state power to force those bridges to be built over the course of several generations and all the power structures that currently exist would resist it.
deleted by creator