3 ms·

The comment you are replying to literally did not mention women or sex or gender at all. You brought that into it. It seems like you're the one assuming it'd b

The comment you are replying to literally did not mention women or sex or gender at all. You brought that into it. It seems like you're the one assuming it'd be a given that the woman didn't contribute. Nobody else said anything about them.

kyberias 9y ago
But OP wrote: "ex-spouse (who had no direct participation in the startup)" => woman didn't contribute. Even though she did.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  My interpretation of that was the more charitable “hey, this made me think about divorce generally”. I can see how it could be interpreted otherwise though.
- ClassyJacket 9y ago
  That's still you saying that an ex spouse that didn't contribute can only possibly be a woman.
  - tangus 9y ago
    Come on. The spouse in this case is a woman. Ok, OP already said s/he wasn't referring to this case, it "just made him/her think about divorce generally". Let's leave it already.
ubernostrum 9y ago
The comment saw a story in which the woman did contribute, and rather than discuss that jumped to a hypothetical in which a "spouse" did not contribute. It is valid to ask if this shift from talking about the actual story to talking about invented hypotheticals, and hinting at the danger a spouse might pose to one's company, would have been as quick or as easy or as likely had the spouse in question been male. And the reason that people always "bring gender into it" or in other cases always "bring race into it" is simple: although to you it may seem that these factors are completely unrelated, to other people the whole experience of their lives is of gender/race being forced on them as a factor. The lack of that experience on the part of a minority of the population (white men, mostly) is not equivalent to gender/race not already being "brought into it", but rather an indicator of the ways in which biases and double standards, once deeply-enough embedded into a society, cease to be seen as such and instead are assumed to just be the default neutral state of affairs.
- notzorbo3 9y ago
  > The comment saw a story in which the woman did contribute, and rather than discuss that Nobody is under any obligation to discuss that aspect of the story. It's not even what the story was about. > shift from talking about the actual story to talking about invented hypotheticals You're not the Discussion Police nor are you the arbiter of the actual topic of the story. This is starting to border on thought crime, and I think it's incredibly dangerous.

kyberias 9y ago

But OP wrote: "ex-spouse (who had no direct participation in the startup)" => woman didn't contribute. Even though she did.

matthewmacleod 9y ago
My interpretation of that was the more charitable “hey, this made me think about divorce generally”. I can see how it could be interpreted otherwise though.
ClassyJacket 9y ago
That's still you saying that an ex spouse that didn't contribute can only possibly be a woman.
- tangus 9y ago
  Come on. The spouse in this case is a woman. Ok, OP already said s/he wasn't referring to this case, it "just made him/her think about divorce generally". Let's leave it already.

ubernostrum 9y ago

The comment saw a story in which the woman did contribute, and rather than discuss that jumped to a hypothetical in which a "spouse" did not contribute. It is valid to ask if this shift from talking about the actual story to talking about invented hypotheticals, and hinting at the danger a spouse might pose to one's company, would have been as quick or as easy or as likely had the spouse in question been male. And the reason that people always "bring gender into it" or in other cases always "bring race into it" is simple: although to you it may seem that these factors are completely unrelated, to other people the whole experience of their lives is of gender/race being forced on them as a factor. The lack of that experience on the part of a minority of the population (white men, mostly) is not equivalent to gender/race not already being "brought into it", but rather an indicator of the ways in which biases and double standards, once deeply-enough embedded into a society, cease to be seen as such and instead are assumed to just be the default neutral state of affairs.

notzorbo3 9y ago
> The comment saw a story in which the woman did contribute, and rather than discuss that Nobody is under any obligation to discuss that aspect of the story. It's not even what the story was about. > shift from talking about the actual story to talking about invented hypotheticals You're not the Discussion Police nor are you the arbiter of the actual topic of the story. This is starting to border on thought crime, and I think it's incredibly dangerous.