The nonsense: characterizing affordable housing as a feminist issue.
The implication of gendering poverty is elevated importance: homelessness is a problem, but female homelessness is a catastrophe.
Characterizing affordable housing as a feminist issue because impoverished women can’t escape domestic abuse is nakedly partisan.
Is affordable housing also a men’s rights issue because 90% of homeless people are men? No.
Poverty has consequences. Those consequences affect the sexes differently because men and women are completely different from each other. Men tend to be homeless. Women stay in bad relationships because female homelessness is a nonstarter.
Invoking social justice labels for poverty’s consequences to only one sex is, ironically, completely sexist. And sinister, because it implies that female poverty is a greater public sin than the male variety.
In other words: all women deserve a home (first). You homeless men are on your own.
Viewing the housing crisis through the lens of intersectionalism’s moral hierarchy skews the allocation of affordable housing. Such gendered homeless nonsense forces housing authorities to assign the few affordable housing spots that exist to the poor based on how female they are, not their proportional level of need.
And that’s the opposite of moral.
1. Affordable housing is not a feminist issue simply because homelessness affects women.
2. Poverty’s consequences affect women differently than men because men and women are different.
3. Labeling housing as a feminist issue risks unjust affordable housing allocation.
4. Society must allocate public wealth by individual need, not chromosome count.