It's a bit like asking why there isn't a Straight Pride Month, really. Men in science haven't really been categorically underrepresented/excluded from science the way women ever have.
Representation is irrelevant, it has 0 value, and it is a silly game anyway, because you can just pick another arbitrary category. For example: blonde people are underrepresented, and so on. Is it interesting? No. Is it relevant? Not really.
Women and blacks are not "systemically discriminated against through laws" in most countries. I will emphasize that US and UK are not the countries in which they are.
And as to broad cultural values: I should have brought up gingers then, because I am sure you can agree to it that they are. Plus, you really cannot claim anything about the relevant people's cultural values and if they really have been a major influence on the decision of putting people in the footnotes, and that it was due to this people's biological sex. Why do you so want it to be the case? Why cannot it be something else, like something related to the contribution itself? That would definitely make more sense and would be more likely than some random, arbitrary attribute.
>Women and blacks are not "systemically discriminated against through laws" in most countries. I will emphasize that US and UK are not the countries in which they are.
>A 2017 study by Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago economists found that the practice of redlining—the practice whereby banks discriminated against the inhabitants of certain neighborhoods—had a persistent adverse impact on the neighborhoods, with redlining affecting homeownership rates, home values and credit scores in 2010.
>According to U.S. Sentencing Commission figures, no class of drug is as racially skewed as crack in terms of numbers of offenses. According to the commission, 79 percent of 5,669 sentenced crack offenders in 2009 were black, versus 10 percent who were white and 10 percent who were Hispanic. The figures for the 6,020 powder cocaine cases are far less skewed: 17 percent of these offenders were white, 28 percent were black, and 53 percent were Hispanic. Combined with a 115-month average imprisonment for crack offenses versus an average of 87 months for cocaine offenses, this makes for more African-Americans spending more time in the prison system.
>Blacks were more than twice as likely as whites to be searched after traffic stops, even though they proved to be 26 percent less likely to be in possession of illegal drugs or weapons.
>The results show significant discrimination against African-American names: White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. We also find that race affects the benefits of a better resume. For White names, a higher quality resume elicits 30 percent more callbacks whereas for African Americans, it elicits a far smaller increase.
You're talking about telling people to "go to college" when food security is a daily problem they have to deal with, never mind affording SAT/ACT test prep/exam fees, and I'm not going to even bother with AP/SAT Subject Tests, probably things you took part in. And some of these people do go to college, but I very much doubt that the subset of colleges they applied to had much overlap with yours.
Fairly reductive to pin their success on just these things and not more structural issues that even you would probably acknowledge exist. Obviously some succeed despite that, but that's not really the point of the article or your own comment, and you seem to have arrived at this conclusion before even considering the deeper reasons for why this happens.
Sure, there's a deeper conversation to be had. This ain't it:
"""
Upper middle-class parents obviously have more money to spend on their children, but there is also a social fracture. Class is not only defined in dollars, but by education, attitude, and zip code, by its way of life. America, warns Robert Putnam in Our Kids, faces “an incipient class apartheid.”
The typical child born and raised in the American upper middle class is raised in a stable home by well-educated, married parents, lives in a great neighborhood, and attends the area’s best schools. They develop a wide range of skills and gain an impressive array of credentials. Upper middle-class children luck out right from the start, even though this country was founded on antihereditary principles.
As part of the process of naturalization, I had to sign part 12, question 4 of Form N-400, which reads as follows: “Are you willing to give up any inherited title(s) or order(s) of nobility that you have in a foreign country?” I had none to give up, sadly, but very much enjoyed this question. Inheriting a particular position is un-American, after all. But while the inheritance of titles or positions remains forbidden, the persistence of class status across generations in the United States is very strong. Too strong, in fact, for a society that prides itself on social mobility.
"""
(emphasis mine). I mean, c'mon, this isn't very insightful.
How is your idea, i. e. „Poor people should work harder“, more insightful than this quote, which points out the (rather uncontroversial) fact that being able to send your kids to the right prep school is a significant, and unearned, factor in success?
you're looking at this from a strictly Western perspective, this story was fairly similar something my mother went through when my grandfather in Shanghai had a heart attack, and anybody with a similar background can tell you this is something they've either personally felt or seen in a close family member.
