[JacobDotVI]

>Hello Sunshine was founded by Witherspoon in 2016 to create content focused on female voices. ... "Kevin and Tom and our partners at Blackstone see what we see – women’s stories matter, and we have economic power as consumers, creators and business leaders. Their commitment enables us to double-down on our mission and our ambitious growth agenda,” Harden said in a release.

Reese Witherspoon’s Hello Sunshine to be sold to Blackstone-backed media company for $900 million: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/02/reese-witherspoons-hello-sun...

[chemeng]

Yes, it’s very interesting that “X for Women” seems non-controversial to most people, but “X for [underserved group]” brings out the trolls en masse.

[dcow]

I think it’s because gender plays an important roll in society whereas race ~~does~~ should not. Society doesn't benefit from segregating and victimizing. Society does benefit, generally, from a strong female population.

[tekromancr]

Race plays an incredibly powerful role in society. Every aspect of your lived experience is shaped by it, in fact.

From what resources you are likely to have available to you in childhood; how you are treated by the justice system; what jobs are available to you; your ability to get a mortgage despite having good credit.

[dcow]

I mean ideally, in a western liberal society of humans, race shouldn't matter in comparison to sex which has biological meaning and social function. Culture matters, but culture isn't race (at least not in a western liberal society).

[crooked-v]

"Race shouldn't matter" is a fine thing to say, but is a really unhelpful principle for those people for whom it can't not matter.

Or to put it another way, with an example: I'm sure there are plenty of non-religiously-observant American Jews who would be happy to treat race as a non-entity, but that's not much of an option for them when anti-Jewish slander and violence is an ongoing part of society.

[dcow]

So if all subgroups are subject to slander directed at their subgroup, then why is the answer to further segregate subgroups and create segregated services that only cater to certain subgroups?

[dragonwriter]

> Culture matters, but culture isn't race (at least not in a western liberal society).

“Race” is, in origin, a mythology drawn around culture; it is either an actual ethnicity that is an in-group or an imaginary one ascribed on the basis of external appearance as an out-group. And the mere act of creating that distinction by an in-power group can create a shared experience reifying the ascribed ethnicity into a real one over time.

But, no, race is not apart from culture, but a product and aspect of it.

[dcow]

Sure, I agree. So why do we need a Netflix for black people? How does that help? Why can't e.g. the existing Netflix simply air culturally black content if people are craving more of it? Why does the service itself need to be exclusive and segregated?

[ptr2voidStar]

Alas, we don't live in an ideal world - in fact, I'll go as far as saying that we live in a very *unideal* world.

It is easy to overlook this unpleasant fact though.

[ptr2voidStar]

> Society doesn't benefit from segregating ...

You might want to reevaluate what you wrote. The last 500 years or so (of American especially, but also most Western European - Spain, France, UK etc.) history wouldn't exist if your statement was remotely true.

[mkw2000]

Huh?

[pseudalopex]

X for women is controversial on HN too.

[brownerd]

Perhaps if you tried to approach people with different views from you with an open mind and genuinely listened instead of calling them "trolls" you'd learn more interesting things.

If you study the history of the world, "tribalism" in some sense is a common theme throughout all cultures, many wars and many injustices. It might have been "Protestant vs Catholic" or "Sunni vs Shiite" or "Serb vs Croat" or whichever tribal, ethnic, religious or language grouping was relevant to the area.

In every single case, if the groups remained separated and saw one another as "othered" the problems spanned years and generations and the societies remained fractured and insecure. Only in the societies where people dropped the labels that separated them and merged into one identity did they thrive and improve conditions for all people. In short- the best way to help Black people in America isn't to perpetuate our separate identity, but to remove the power and significance of racial identifiers entirely.

[rhcom2]

This argument for a "colorblind" world view has been criticized extensively. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness_(racial_classi...

[chemeng]

My point was more a question/observation as to why this is contentious, but "X for Women" is not seen as contentious.

While I don't appreciate your condescending tone. I agree with you that "tribalism" is generally problematic. However, you'll also find that "tribalism" has also been essential throughout history for the persistence of marginalized people and their cultures. There is an inherent tension in many places and times throughout history between identity and assimilation.

> but to remove the power and significance of racial identifiers entirely.

The issue is not the power of the identifier, but the difference in societal treatment, amassed wealth and political power that flows along racial and socioeconomic lines.

Which brings me back to my original point, why do we not see the same ire when talking about resources directly aimed at specific underserved needs of women?

[dragonwriter]

> why this is contentious, but "X for Women" is not seen as contentious.

“X for Women” is seen as contentious. In fact, “X for Women" articles on HN often have all the same arguments, with gender in place of race, as this thread, with very slight changes, with focus on serving the unmet needs of women with regard to X painted as sexist and equivalent to external regulation based on gender role stereotypes just as this is compared to state-mandated segregated services.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

Being black, but not a woman, it's difficult for me to validate the premise that people aren't as much in arms about "women's issues" as they are about "racial issues."

However, while tribalism is definitely a thing, women are generally seen as being included in the tribe. Perhaps that's why you see it as being less contentious.

I'll also point out that this "the difference in societal treatment, amassed wealth and political power that flows along racial and socioeconomic lines" is exactly what results from the power of the identifier.

[raclage]

> In short- the best way to help Black people in America isn't to perpetuate our separate identity, but to remove the power and significance of racial identifiers entirely.

And you think the source of this power and significance is...media streaming companies?