3 ms·

As a person not seeking a romantic partner, I discriminate against 100% of the population. :) I would assume you also have some preference within the subset of

As a person not seeking a romantic partner, I discriminate against 100% of the population. :) I would assume you also have some preference within the subset of gay [folks of your gender] as well. It's not necessarily right or wrong. But it's still, by definition, bias. The data in the article showed systemic bias against Black women. Marriage is a process that arguably promotes wealth equality (by averaging), which is why it should be at least noted that certain people have unequal access to marriage with a preferred partner.

mrguyorama 4y ago
>Marriage is a process that arguably promotes wealth equality (by averaging) That's an argument you would lose, as forever people have mostly stayed within their Socieo-economic status and when you get even a little higher in the wealth game you are often taking that explicitly into account.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  > That's an argument you would lose, as forever people have mostly stayed within their Socieo-economic status While I strongly disagree with pretty much the entire point athrowaway1324 is making, this part isn't really correct. I remember reading a study about a decade or so ago that socioeconomic mixing in marriage used to be much more common, and found this article [1] summarizing the result: > If anything, people are more likely than ever to marry into their own class, as a report from the Institute for Public Policy Research showed this year. Of people born in 1958, just over a third of women had a partner from the same class as themselves: 38% married up, while 23% married down. For those born in 1970, 45% married into the same class; of those born between 1976 and 1981, 56% married into the same class, with a far smaller proportion (16%) marrying up. Previously, you used to see much more "mixing" in the cases of, for example, a businessman marrying his secretary or a doctor marrying a nurse. Of course, there is a whole separate discussion about the power dynamics in those situations. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/oct/19/class-divide-relationships-posh-rough https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/oct/19/class-d...
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Except marriages go a lot farther back than 1960. An extremely short blip of less SES equal marriages during a period of historic class mobility, at least in the US, does not change the broad reality.
  - TMWNN 4y ago
    >Previously, you used to see much more "mixing" in the cases of, for example, a businessman marrying his secretary or a doctor marrying a nurse. Of course, there is a whole separate discussion about the power dynamics in those situations. Anti-sexual harassment training, and more broadly the discouraging of socialization between men and women, has reduced the opportunity for men and women to marry. The flip side of the leering male executive no longer being able to chase his secretary around a desk to try to pinch her on the butt is another executive not being able to politely court the secretary he is in love with (and vice versa). I don't have a good answer for how to get the one without the other, but both are consequences of modern sensibilities.
lezojeda 4y ago
[dead]
the_af 4y ago
> But it's still, by definition, bias I don't understand what insight this is supposed to bring. "Discrimination" is often used as a loaded word in many contexts, but when looking for sexual or romantic partners it's not a negative word. Saying "when looking for dating partners you are discriminating" is tautological; it brings no new information to the table. If you like veggie food but not beef you're also discriminating. So?

mrguyorama 4y ago

>Marriage is a process that arguably promotes wealth equality (by averaging) That's an argument you would lose, as forever people have mostly stayed within their Socieo-economic status and when you get even a little higher in the wealth game you are often taking that explicitly into account.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> That's an argument you would lose, as forever people have mostly stayed within their Socieo-economic status While I strongly disagree with pretty much the entire point athrowaway1324 is making, this part isn't really correct. I remember reading a study about a decade or so ago that socioeconomic mixing in marriage used to be much more common, and found this article [1] summarizing the result: > If anything, people are more likely than ever to marry into their own class, as a report from the Institute for Public Policy Research showed this year. Of people born in 1958, just over a third of women had a partner from the same class as themselves: 38% married up, while 23% married down. For those born in 1970, 45% married into the same class; of those born between 1976 and 1981, 56% married into the same class, with a far smaller proportion (16%) marrying up. Previously, you used to see much more "mixing" in the cases of, for example, a businessman marrying his secretary or a doctor marrying a nurse. Of course, there is a whole separate discussion about the power dynamics in those situations. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/oct/19/class-divide-relationships-posh-rough https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/oct/19/class-d...
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Except marriages go a lot farther back than 1960. An extremely short blip of less SES equal marriages during a period of historic class mobility, at least in the US, does not change the broad reality.
- TMWNN 4y ago
  >Previously, you used to see much more "mixing" in the cases of, for example, a businessman marrying his secretary or a doctor marrying a nurse. Of course, there is a whole separate discussion about the power dynamics in those situations. Anti-sexual harassment training, and more broadly the discouraging of socialization between men and women, has reduced the opportunity for men and women to marry. The flip side of the leering male executive no longer being able to chase his secretary around a desk to try to pinch her on the butt is another executive not being able to politely court the secretary he is in love with (and vice versa). I don't have a good answer for how to get the one without the other, but both are consequences of modern sensibilities.

lezojeda 4y ago

[dead]

the_af 4y ago

> But it's still, by definition, bias I don't understand what insight this is supposed to bring. "Discrimination" is often used as a loaded word in many contexts, but when looking for sexual or romantic partners it's not a negative word. Saying "when looking for dating partners you are discriminating" is tautological; it brings no new information to the table. If you like veggie food but not beef you're also discriminating. So?