goldenpuma84 said:The idea is to qualify people based on their collective traits. But tell me, what if that Jewish woman happens to be married to some wealthy banker, while that white guy in his thirties is struggling just to make ends meet? Specifically, even though he belongs to the "privileged" group on paper, in reality, he’s the one who's deprived. What happens then? As a man, I've felt that discrimination firsthand... out of maybe thirty applications, I think I only landed two jobs as a guy. And I've had people tell me straight to my face that if I don't start pushing harder in the private sector, I should just aim for a judgeship instead...
Even if that Jewish woman is married to a rich banker, she isn't magically exempt from how society treats her. Her status doesn't change the fact that she might still face discrimination based on her faith or gender.
The whole conversation started about balance. If a white guy is part of a minority subgroup, he could always find work elsewhere if certain companies are actively favoring women or specific religious groups. But if a white man is being marginalized simply because of his race—and he's also broke—while a Jewish woman is doing fine financially... isn't that just the same reality we'd see if you swapped the labels around? At that point, does any of the "identity politics" stuff even matter anymore?