5 ms·

No sex or gender was implied by the word spouse?

by ev1 5y ago

monopoledance 5y ago
"technically, ..." Yeah, I know. That's why I said likely. C'mon, don't play stupid.
- UnFleshedOne 5y ago
  Well, but is it wrong? Even you knew which gender is less likely to like bare baseboard with chips sticking out. Do you expect people to actively disregard their lived experience?
  - monopoledance 5y ago
    > Well, but is it wrong? Even you knew which gender is less likely to like bare baseboard with chips sticking out. Do you expect people to actively disregard their lived experience Thanks, for confirming it. Ridiculous, how everyone is trying to bend interpretation.
    - GekkePrutser 5y ago
      But you're the one who called it sexist. Even though it is merely a statistical likelihood. As others have pointed out it is really a serious consideration for a lot of people so I don't think it's an unnecessary remark, and the OP went out of their way to make it not sexist.
      - monopoledance 5y ago
        Thanks, for not over-reacting and seeking actual debate. So, why do you think the others have tried hard to reframe the statement as meaning something unspecific? Why didn't they just point out the "statistical likelihood"? Because, they know (deep down) the spouse/wife talk is very much following a certain tradition. An argument about the "nature of women", or as you said "statistical likelihood" (who's statistic?) is exactly what has been used to justify why women shouldn't be considered for access to certain parts of society and is normative. Do I really have to explain why publicly maintaining such stereotypes is influencing behavior in other parts of life? Wouldn't mansplaining tech to women just be "effective", as they are "statistically unlikely" to know their way around it? Don't you think, this "the wife, eh" in this context creates an implicit "me and the boys" atmosphere? Do you think this actually invites participation for wives, or women in general? C'mon. How about me only suggesting this as sexism (not even the original comment, but the follow-up appraisal) immediately getting downvoted and killed (happened before I got defensive myself) supports anything but a "boys club" interpretation? > Philosopher Kate Manne defines sexism as one branch of a patriarchal order. In her definition, sexism rationalizes and justifies patriarchal norms, in contrast with misogyny, the branch which polices and enforces patriarchal norms. Manne says that sexism often attempts to make patriarchal social arrangements seem natural, good, or inevitable* so that there appears to be no reason to resist them*. >... > Gender stereotypes are widely held beliefs about the characteristics and behavior of women and men.[78] Empirical studies have found widely shared cultural beliefs that men are more socially valued and more competent than women in a number of activities.[79][80] Dustin B. Thoman and others (2008) hypothesize that "[t]he socio-cultural salience of ability versus other components of the gender-math stereotype may impact women pursuing math". Through the experiment comparing the math outcomes of women under two various gender-math stereotype components, which are the ability of math and the effort on math respectively, Thoman and others found that women's math performance is more likely to be affected by the negative ability stereotype, which is influenced by sociocultural beliefs in the United States, rather than the effort component. As a result of this experiment and the sociocultural beliefs in the United States, Thoman and others concluded that individuals' academic outcomes can be affected by the gender-math stereotype component that is influenced by the sociocultural beliefs.[81] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism
- illumanaughty 5y ago
  What makes it likely when nothing about sex/gender is mentioned? Seems like you're the one that has a gender bias and you're projecting lol
  - monopoledance 5y ago
    Sure. Must be me projecting, because sexism in tech does not exist. > Spouse acceptance factor is an underrated engineering constraint So, tell me, how could this be interpreted without implicit gender assumptions? Get creative, you got this!
- simondotau 5y ago
  Can you explain why it would be sexist, even if we applied mid-20th century framing to it? Why is it degrading to describe someone as having a different threshold of tolerance for aesthetics?
  - monopoledance 5y ago
    > having a different threshold of tolerance for aesthetics Lol. How you all trying hard to reframe it, to make it sound innocent. I am not going to explain shit. Look how y'all got triggered, totally normal reaction... The original post flagged... If you don't see the generalized "women/wives don't like nerdy/tech stuff", there is no point to this.

No sex or gender was implied by the word spouse?

by ev1 5y ago

No sex or gender was implied by the word spouse?

monopoledance 5y ago

"technically, ..." Yeah, I know. That's why I said likely. C'mon, don't play stupid.

UnFleshedOne 5y ago
Well, but is it wrong? Even you knew which gender is less likely to like bare baseboard with chips sticking out. Do you expect people to actively disregard their lived experience?
- monopoledance 5y ago
  > Well, but is it wrong? Even you knew which gender is less likely to like bare baseboard with chips sticking out. Do you expect people to actively disregard their lived experience Thanks, for confirming it. Ridiculous, how everyone is trying to bend interpretation.
  - GekkePrutser 5y ago
    But you're the one who called it sexist. Even though it is merely a statistical likelihood. As others have pointed out it is really a serious consideration for a lot of people so I don't think it's an unnecessary remark, and the OP went out of their way to make it not sexist.
    - monopoledance 5y ago
      Thanks, for not over-reacting and seeking actual debate. So, why do you think the others have tried hard to reframe the statement as meaning something unspecific? Why didn't they just point out the "statistical likelihood"? Because, they know (deep down) the spouse/wife talk is very much following a certain tradition. An argument about the "nature of women", or as you said "statistical likelihood" (who's statistic?) is exactly what has been used to justify why women shouldn't be considered for access to certain parts of society and is normative. Do I really have to explain why publicly maintaining such stereotypes is influencing behavior in other parts of life? Wouldn't mansplaining tech to women just be "effective", as they are "statistically unlikely" to know their way around it? Don't you think, this "the wife, eh" in this context creates an implicit "me and the boys" atmosphere? Do you think this actually invites participation for wives, or women in general? C'mon. How about me only suggesting this as sexism (not even the original comment, but the follow-up appraisal) immediately getting downvoted and killed (happened before I got defensive myself) supports anything but a "boys club" interpretation? > Philosopher Kate Manne defines sexism as one branch of a patriarchal order. In her definition, sexism rationalizes and justifies patriarchal norms, in contrast with misogyny, the branch which polices and enforces patriarchal norms. Manne says that sexism often attempts to make patriarchal social arrangements seem natural, good, or inevitable* so that there appears to be no reason to resist them*. >... > Gender stereotypes are widely held beliefs about the characteristics and behavior of women and men.[78] Empirical studies have found widely shared cultural beliefs that men are more socially valued and more competent than women in a number of activities.[79][80] Dustin B. Thoman and others (2008) hypothesize that "[t]he socio-cultural salience of ability versus other components of the gender-math stereotype may impact women pursuing math". Through the experiment comparing the math outcomes of women under two various gender-math stereotype components, which are the ability of math and the effort on math respectively, Thoman and others found that women's math performance is more likely to be affected by the negative ability stereotype, which is influenced by sociocultural beliefs in the United States, rather than the effort component. As a result of this experiment and the sociocultural beliefs in the United States, Thoman and others concluded that individuals' academic outcomes can be affected by the gender-math stereotype component that is influenced by the sociocultural beliefs.[81] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism
illumanaughty 5y ago
What makes it likely when nothing about sex/gender is mentioned? Seems like you're the one that has a gender bias and you're projecting lol
- monopoledance 5y ago
  Sure. Must be me projecting, because sexism in tech does not exist. > Spouse acceptance factor is an underrated engineering constraint So, tell me, how could this be interpreted without implicit gender assumptions? Get creative, you got this!
simondotau 5y ago
Can you explain why it would be sexist, even if we applied mid-20th century framing to it? Why is it degrading to describe someone as having a different threshold of tolerance for aesthetics?
- monopoledance 5y ago
  > having a different threshold of tolerance for aesthetics Lol. How you all trying hard to reframe it, to make it sound innocent. I am not going to explain shit. Look how y'all got triggered, totally normal reaction... The original post flagged... If you don't see the generalized "women/wives don't like nerdy/tech stuff", there is no point to this.