So I saw this article recently: Amazon creating a place for hundreds of homeless on its shiny new Seattle campus

Now, I have to be honest, my first thought was that this is probably not a good idea and won't end well, because all it may take is one bad apple among the homeless that are served there and suddenly you've got a problem at your company headquarters. But that's just the pessimist in me, I can't fault a company for trying to help their community.

However, as I read the article, I saw that the non-profit is called 'Mary's Place'. Then I thought, well, maybe the name means it is affiliated with a church and has nothing to do with who/what types of homeless they serve. But as I read about it, it became more clear (but not 100% confirmed) that the non-profit will house single women, or families with children. If you are a single man (which is the majority of the homeless in Seattle area), you won't directly benefit from this philanthropy (although, indirectly, it may free up spaces in other homeless shelters). This non-profit originally was set up for single women but later expanded to women with children as well as men with children. However, the majority of the homeless in Seattle are single individuals, and the majority of them are men, outnumbering single women by about a 5 to 1 to 6 to 1 ratio. Source: One Night Count.

Note: Many of the homeless could not be identified by gender, but my guess is the ratio would be the same if not greater than what was found for those they did identify.

One of the things about 'white privilege' and 'male privilege' that I don't agree with is that when it is often discussed, it seems like a vast majority of the benefactors of said privilege are in the top 1% or 10% since wealth and income is a common metric to compare inequities between groups. This may be a valid approach to measure the macro effect of white or male privilege, but it will be hard to get support from an unemployed white male coal minor, for example.

Now what does that have to do with this post? Well, my point is that for those that are homeless, that is one of the lowest states a person can be in (in the U.S. and the industrialized West) outside maybe having some terminal illness. Yes, single homeless men, if they are put back on their feet, could possible benefit from the Patriarchy and white privilege (if they are White) - but that means nothing until they do get back on their feet! Therefore, I see no argument for excluding them completely or serving them disproportionately.

I do hear the argument that since woman are disproportionately victims of domestic violence, they need specific shelters devoted to them. I would buy this argument, if the shelters were for women fleeing a residence, and other homeless women were directed to homeless shelters serving men and women.

So what are your thoughts on this?

edit: spelling