I read it differently. That comment was talking about a level of financial security as high as “I will always have food and a house without any work or bosses”, and a level of confidence as high as “being at the top is my birthright”. Let’s be real, these things are the privilege of the top 1%, both now and historically. I’m all for giving more people these things, but that’s different from being only attracted to the top 1% - that’s just assholish, no matter the gender. People should give the 99% a goddamn chance.
That’s not at all what the OP (jenn) is saying. She’s claiming that immigrants from poor households used to display a certain insecurity that came from them being literally economically insecure, that this made them unattractive to her, and that this has been changing for the better as the living standards of new immigrants and second-gen immigrants rose.
None of the things you saw as being in that comment (“I will always have food and a house without any work or bosses” or “privilege of the top 1%”) are actually in the comment.
And separately, even if that were all in the comment, don’t prescribe dating preferences to other people. People are allowed to be (not) attracted to anyone they damn well please.
None of the things you saw as being in that comment (“I will always have food and a house without any work or bosses” or “privilege of the top 1%”) are actually in the comment.
They are, though.
“No force in the world can take from me my five hundred pounds. Food, house, and clothing are mine for ever. Therefore not merely do effort and labour cease...”
“by some luck and hard work made it to the top, but they had to hustle for it, and it did not come naturally to them; it was not their birthright”—which I described as “being at the top is my birthright”.
And separately, even if that were all in the comment, don’t prescribe dating preferences to other people. People are allowed to be (not) attracted to anyone they damn well please.
This is confusing. Prescription != proscription. I prescribe that people not be fat and sedentary. I don’t thereby think that people are “not allowed” to be fat and sedentary.
I read it differently. That comment was talking about a level of financial security as high as “I will always have food and a house without any work or bosses”, and a level of confidence as high as “being at the top is my birthright”. Let’s be real, these things are the privilege of the top 1%, both now and historically. I’m all for giving more people these things, but that’s different from being only attracted to the top 1% - that’s just assholish, no matter the gender. People should give the 99% a goddamn chance.
That’s not at all what the OP (jenn) is saying. She’s claiming that immigrants from poor households used to display a certain insecurity that came from them being literally economically insecure, that this made them unattractive to her, and that this has been changing for the better as the living standards of new immigrants and second-gen immigrants rose.
None of the things you saw as being in that comment (“I will always have food and a house without any work or bosses” or “privilege of the top 1%”) are actually in the comment.
And separately, even if that were all in the comment, don’t prescribe dating preferences to other people. People are allowed to be (not) attracted to anyone they damn well please.
They are, though.
“No force in the world can take from me my five hundred pounds. Food, house, and clothing are mine for ever. Therefore not merely do effort and labour cease...”
“by some luck and hard work made it to the top, but they had to hustle for it, and it did not come naturally to them; it was not their birthright”—which I described as “being at the top is my birthright”.
This is confusing. Prescription != proscription. I prescribe that people not be fat and sedentary. I don’t thereby think that people are “not allowed” to be fat and sedentary.