3 ms·
The text is specifically referring to 'wife' - the underlying assumption (or fact) that the team all have wives. Not a single husband[1]. It's not about 'helpi
by groby_b 3y ago
The text is specifically referring to 'wife' - the underlying assumption (or fact) that the team all have wives. Not a single husband[1].
It's not about 'helping out your spouse', the 60s comment was in reference to stereotypically gendered language. It was not, and has never been, about 'helping your spouse'.
[1] Or enby partner, but the point still stands.
- DiggyJohnson 3y agoHow do you know they weren’t all men? If that was in fact the case, would you still say the author ought to use ungendered language? Remember this is a personal experience, not a political piece.
- groby_b 3y agoI know it's a personal piece. I'd prefer if the author used ungendered language, but my amount of upset about that not happening is close to zero. I'm not the language police. I do, however, very much object to folks moving goal posts on a discussion. OP commented on 60s language because it was gendered. Apply whatever value judgment you want to that statement, agree, disagree, whatever you need to do - but it was never a discussion about "helping a spouse is bad". That was the point. Let's stop debating things that have never been said, we have Twitter for that.
- SoftTalker 3y agoThis kind of commentary gets so tiresome.