4 ms·
I think you are underestimating how much being in an abusive relationship or even just poverty in general (poor people are more likely to be abused, so they're
by bjoli 2y ago
I think you are underestimating how much being in an abusive relationship or even just poverty in general (poor people are more likely to be abused, so they're double punished) reduces your options and opportunities.
This goes for everything. Place where you live. The food that is on offer. Work opportunities, and with that the ability to plan life. Even living large enough to have a private space, like offering your kids an undisturbed place to study or - like in the post - somewhere you can safely report abuse.
I have seen it more than once: if someone from a poor family grows up and does really well in school and in college and breaks with the life they had before that is usually not enough. Because when there is time to write a CV the kids from the middle class all had parents that made them do other things. Charity work. Play the trumpet with a youth orchestra that somehow got to play in Carnegie hall. Chemistry camp. Dancing with a youth ballet company at the met. The system is rigged from the start. True meritocracy was never a thing.
A feature like this takes a developer a short time to implement, and if it saves someones life or stops abuse it is worth it.
- labster 2y agoYour description is exactly meritocracy under the original definition. The second kid has earned all of the merits, and the ones possessing the most documents of merit get ahead.
- bjoli 2y agoFair point. But: the way the modern meritocracy is motivated is that it is a fair system. It is the whole idea of the American dream. Work hard and you can go anywhere. Except some people have to work a lot harder and be a lot smarter.
- int_19h 2y agoIt would be meritocracy if both kids had equal opportunity to earn those merits. If the ability to do so is itself gated, it's only meritocratic within the privileged group.
- labster 2y agoNo, equality of opportunity is specifically not needed for a meritocracy. It wasn’t in the original book[1], it didn’t happen in the old Chinese examination system, and it sure doesn’t happen now. Merits are measurements, and society adapts to make those measurements a target. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy
- bjoli 2y agoOh, but this is not how meritocracy is ever viewed in a liberal democracy. Equality of opportunity is the defence on an unequal society. For the inequality of outcome to be fair and just, there has to be at least some kind equality of opportunity in a meritocratic society.