I generally like and appreciate your comment, but I have one complaint that relates not just to your comment but basically every comment I have ever seen mentioning Virginia Woolf ’s book:
The five hundred pounds per year of passive income are not an equivalent of getting the same amount of money as a salary. They are not an example of equality; most people do not have a passive income. How is it even possible to look at “a woman suddenly started to live like an aristocrat” and conclude “this is what gender equality looks like”? Like, maybe within the subset of aristocrats… but then I think the true lesson is “it is great to be an aristocrat” and “with gender equality, it is also great to be a female aristocrat”.
If I had a passive income of (a modern equivalent of) five hundred pounds per year for ever, I would probably also get better at writing or whatever else I would choose to spend my extra 8+ hours a day on.
LOL, did I just expose myself as an unattractively bitter non-aristocrat by writing this?
But also, how much does this change your argument into “now that more minority boys are among the aristocracy, they are suddenly more attractive”?
I find it fascinating that you have basically succeeded to make a pseudo-PUA advice “don’t be born poor, guys; that will make you bitter and unattractive” sound feminist. :D :D :D
(No offense meant, I still appreciate your insight about the generational changes.)
I would also point out that, despite whatever she said in 1928 about her 1909 inheritance, Woolf committed suicide in 1941 after extensive mental health challenges which included “short periods in 1910, 1912, and 1913” in a kind of insane asylum, and then afterwards beginning her serious writing career (which WP describes as heavily motivated by her psychiatric problems as a refuge/self-therapy), so one can certainly question her own narrative of the benefits of her UBI or the reasons she began writing. (I will further note that the psychological & psychiatric benefits of UBI RCTs have not been impressive to date.)
The point of the OP is that having financial security has significant psychological benefits, and for that it’s not particularly relevant whether the income is active or passive, deserved or undeserved. Though in the historical context, it was comparatively challenging for women to have any income independent from their husband, who was the breadwinner of the household.
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 generally like and appreciate your comment, but I have one complaint that relates not just to your comment but basically every comment I have ever seen mentioning Virginia Woolf ’s book:
The five hundred pounds per year of passive income are not an equivalent of getting the same amount of money as a salary. They are not an example of equality; most people do not have a passive income. How is it even possible to look at “a woman suddenly started to live like an aristocrat” and conclude “this is what gender equality looks like”? Like, maybe within the subset of aristocrats… but then I think the true lesson is “it is great to be an aristocrat” and “with gender equality, it is also great to be a female aristocrat”.
If I had a passive income of (a modern equivalent of) five hundred pounds per year for ever, I would probably also get better at writing or whatever else I would choose to spend my extra 8+ hours a day on.
LOL, did I just expose myself as an unattractively bitter non-aristocrat by writing this?
But also, how much does this change your argument into “now that more minority boys are among the aristocracy, they are suddenly more attractive”?
I find it fascinating that you have basically succeeded to make a pseudo-PUA advice “don’t be born poor, guys; that will make you bitter and unattractive” sound feminist. :D :D :D
(No offense meant, I still appreciate your insight about the generational changes.)
I would also point out that, despite whatever she said in 1928 about her 1909 inheritance, Woolf committed suicide in 1941 after extensive mental health challenges which included “short periods in 1910, 1912, and 1913” in a kind of insane asylum, and then afterwards beginning her serious writing career (which WP describes as heavily motivated by her psychiatric problems as a refuge/self-therapy), so one can certainly question her own narrative of the benefits of her UBI or the reasons she began writing. (I will further note that the psychological & psychiatric benefits of UBI RCTs have not been impressive to date.)
The point of the OP is that having financial security has significant psychological benefits, and for that it’s not particularly relevant whether the income is active or passive, deserved or undeserved. Though in the historical context, it was comparatively challenging for women to have any income independent from their husband, who was the breadwinner of the household.
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.