4 ms·
>Women, on the other hand, haven't been given the same advertising on the American dream that men have There is a documentary, "Born Rich" [0]. It's interviews
by javajosh 5y ago
>Women, on the other hand, haven't been given the same advertising on the American dream that men have
There is a documentary, "Born Rich" [0]. It's interviews with the children of very rich people, done by one of their peers. I noticed that in the film there is stark difference between the girls and the boys: the girls were all well adjusted, enjoying their wealth, happy, satisfied, seemingly well-aware of their good fortune; but for ALL the boys wealth meant having a full-blown existential crisis.
This is oblique support for your claim: the classic American dream for women results in being taken care of by a wealthy man in a nice house, maybe with kids, where even house duties become negligible if he's really rich. But men and boys are supposed to work, first at learning then finding something you like then getting good at it. Your work defines you in a very profound way - a profundity that is reflected in our last names. If you're a rich boy, it's like you've been denied an identity. (I recall one of the young men who, to save his sanity, disavowed his inheritance to take a job as an oil field worker. And he seemed the best adjusted of the boys.).
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_Rich_(2003_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_Rich_(2003_film)
- vmception 5y agoWell thats depressing, I saw a similar documentary that didnt really have anything stark across gender lines, but did show how some private high school students in NYC had trouble reconciling their circumstance with the public housing across the street. The most apt similarity being how one boy took his life after pushing the school administration to lower admission costs for needy.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y agoIt's a uniquely American thing. I studied abroad for a semester in England, and in one of the classes I took there the (Australian) professor asked us what socioeconomic class we thought we belonged to. It was a good university, but most of the British kids answered "working class." When he asked "Why?" they answered, "Because our parents work." That always stuck with me. In England, the aristocracy is alive and well. They don't have to work, and they don't pretend to. They do live comfortably, but they're highly educated and reasonably well adjusted. They don't have to partake in the charade that they pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, and they generally don't blow their family's fortune over a debauched decade in Vegas like their American counterparts either.
- pcmoney 5y agoThey also haven’t invented or built anything meaningful in several hundred years…
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- nicbou 5y agoThe Royal Society would disagree
- barbecue_sauce 5y agoI think the Royal Society could probably be considered biased.
- bodge5000 5y agoThe English or rich kids? If the former, it might be worth remembering that ARM, which many consider the be the next big leap in computing (there was a thread saying it just yesterday) is an English company. Of course I could give many more examples, the technology you're using to post this comment for one, but I think I've made my point. If the latter, I imagine thats too generic a group to say
- pcmoney 5y agoThe aristocracy. The staleness at the top has made Europe globally weak and bordering on irrelevant. (Not that the US in its current trajectory is all that far behind)
- disgruntledphd2 5y agoExcept for the WWW, of course.
- biofox 5y agoWasn't Alan Turing English and middle class?
- Lammy 5y ago"A million one, a million two / A hundred more will never do" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XCQNpjWmRE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XCQNpjWmRE