Comment

Comment on Women go from homeless to 'tiny home' owners with a once-in-a-lifetime deal

ShrimpCurler@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

I wish these kinds of services could target specific at risk groups, not a gender.

I would be happy if it was focused on homeless parents with young children, or homeless victims of family violence. With those things they might still end up getting only women, but at least they’d be selected based on their situation instead of bigotry.

source

Sort:hotnew top

jaek@aussie.zone ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
I really wish that these services were for people to build huge houses instead of tiny houses, and that the houses had big chicken legs and could run around like baba yaga

source
Ilandar@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
It’s not bigotry. They limited the scope to focus on the group they most wanted to help:

“We know there’s a housing crisis in Australia,” says Susan. “But the hidden sector are women. Women with children, women who’ve experienced family violence, women who’ve taken long periods out of the workforce, perhaps have had a marital separation.”

It was organised by two ordinary people who used their family inheritance to fund it. It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that such a small scale operation isn’t going be able to help everyone in Australia. If you’re so offended, maybe you can start something yourself instead of moaning about “muh men’s rights” on social media.

source
- ShrimpCurler@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  Maybe bigotry is the wrong word in this case, but maybe not. Either way it’s still discriminating based on an unchangeable characteristic of those people. I’d be equally annoyed if they targeted men or a specific race or an eye colour. I just think that when you try to help people, you should try to discriminate on circumstance, not things like race or gender. And we should be calling it out so people can do better in the future.
  
  I do know there is a lot of correlation between gender and circumstance, but I think it’s either lazy to use gender as a proxy or they really are bigoted.
  
  On the other hand I would still like to give them props for helping people in a significant way.
  
  source
  - Ilandar@lemmy.today ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    I do know there is a lot of correlation between gender and circumstance, but I think it’s either lazy to use gender as a proxy or they really are bigoted.
    
    What even is this opinion? You admit there is sense in what they’re doing, then double down and call them lazy/bigoted anyway. There are so, so many examples out there of charities and organisations taking a small target approach to solving the world’s problems. None of this is lazy or bigoted, it is about giving your time to an area you are passionate about and have the resources to address.
    
    Parents of a child who passed away due to a rare illness are not lazy or bigoted for starting a charity that only seeks to target that specific illness. Women who start an initiative to help other women in financial difficulty secure safe housing are not lazy or bigoted for not helping men too. All of these people are using their limited time on this planet to try to make a positive difference in whatever way they can, often at their own personal expense. What have you done?
    
    source
  - kudra@sh.itjust.works ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    They have “discriminated on circumstance”. Due to structural factors like losing superannuation and workplace advancement due to biology, women are disadvantaged as a group to start with. When it comes to housing, especially after a relationship breaks down, women are the ones who generally have much less resources to start over. This is a structural and societal problem, so if you want “equality” learn about the backpack of privilege and start acknowledging structural biases that discriminate against women.
    
    source