So they say "Female Lives Matter" and you say "All Lives Matter".
If I learned anything from "Black Lives Matter", it is that this type of response is not acceptable and does a lot to diminish the original message.
If I learned anything from "Black Lives Matter", it is that this type of response is not acceptable and does a lot to diminish the original message.
There's a strong correlation between black and being poor, and perhaps the solution is not to create a divide by race, but rather by socioeconomic status. A lot of problems we have today, faced both by black people and poor people alike, can be solved by addressing the problems in poor neighbourhoods.
Of course that is not to say all black people are poor, that would be ridiculous. But in the mind of someone who thinks in a certain way, because a person is black it means that they are in fact more likely to be from a poorer family, may have received lesser education, etc. So I think socioeconomic status is a much more fair and less divisive way grouping people.
"All lives matter" is certainly reactionary, but I think there's truth to the idea the BLM isn't the correct way to solve the problem.
With regard to violence on women, as depicted here in the story, it's not from other women but by males and they also bear the brunt of the violence (2/3 of the cases). So I think it's fair to address this as a special case of violence needing added attention due to the disproportionality of where the violence comes from and who it impacts.
Mortality rates are still far worse for men than women though. But particularly, that poverty affects male mortality far more than poverty affects female mortality. E.g. Mortality rates for financially disadvantaged white males is still very significantly worse than for black women (where as black male mortality is still worse than for either - but dramatically less worse compared to white males than it was a couple of decades ago).
http://voxeu.org/article/mortality-inequality-good-news-coun...