4 ms·

As good an idea, and decent an implementation. Can we please change the title from this very sexist and heteronormative language?

by jrock08 12y ago

shawabawa3 12y ago
> Can we please change the title from this very sexist and heteronormative language? He made it for his wife, not for housewives in general (in fact for me there's no implication that it's specifically for housewives or that he does no cooking himself) This is yet another instance of PC gone mad
- jrock08 12y ago
  I completely disagree that there isn't a general implication that this is for wives of HN users. Another example: "Show HN: SportsRank, Fantasy score prediction I built for my Bros." Is this for just my Bro, or am I making a statement about who I think will use it, specifically Bros. Similarly "my wife" makes an implicit statement that your wife (who obviously cooks) will want to see this.
hxw 12y ago
How is this sexist if it was made for OP's wife?
petercooper 12y ago
"Why hello Gerald, I'd like to introduce you to my wife, Kate." "How very dare you, Cuthbert. That is a decidedly sexist way to refer to your spouse." "My spouse? I do not possess zir, Kate is an independent human being associated with me through our mutual engagement in the social contract of marriage." "Oh, that is such a monogamist way to put it.."
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Yeah, the disputing of possession bugs me. Certainly it's true that I do not possess my wife, but I also don't possess my brother and he's still my brother and there's nothing weird about that phrasing. Though it is worth noting that not many do get annoyed at that phrasing, and overgeneralizing to paint others with it and thinking that has any bearing on their concerns is poor reasoning.
  - jrock08 12y ago
    So I'm actually not disputing the possession of my. I couldn't care less. I have a problem with painting this as something that "wives" would use, instead of something that you or I would use. It's like saying: "Show HN, SportsRank. Fantasy score prediction I built for my Bros" Sure, you could use it, but really I built it for Bros, not you. Because you and I have an implicit connection. We are both probably nerdy programmers, and I'm saying that I don't use it so you probably won't either. edit: I'm shadowbanned, so I'll edit here. So I don't think it actually is that different, bro vs wife. The implication is that we are a homogeneous group that doesn't necessarily include the "other" group. But more importantly, I think there are better and less exclusive ways to say that someone elses itch encouraged you. MealDays: Meal planner inspired by my wife. MealDays: Meal planner designed by my wife. MealDays: Meal planner idea from my wife. To me, "for my wife" implies a somewhat passive wife who is going to use this thing. The ones above imply the wife taking an active role in helping and specing, which based on the OPs comments and programming best practice is more realistic anyway.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    @jrock08 (I can't respond directly because your comment is already dead, but I don't think it was actually non-constructive): I didn't mean to suggest that you did contest the "my" - I was just agreeing that I've seen that before and that it is obnoxious and reading more into language than is there at any level. My second part was intended to emphasize, however, that that objection only applies where it applies, which as you say is not your comment. I still think the title is substantively different than your "bros" example; it is referring to one particular person, and I think that matters a lot. As I said elsewhere, "Hackers build things to scratch itches, and then they share them. The fact that it's a particular other person's itch that got the ball rolling is interesting and potentially inspirational."
erikb 12y ago
Is it sexist to develop software for your wife?

As good an idea, and decent an implementation. Can we please change the title from this very sexist and heteronormative language?

by jrock08 12y ago

As good an idea, and decent an implementation. Can we please change the title from this very sexist and heteronormative language?

shawabawa3 12y ago

> Can we please change the title from this very sexist and heteronormative language? He made it for his wife, not for housewives in general (in fact for me there's no implication that it's specifically for housewives or that he does no cooking himself) This is yet another instance of PC gone mad

jrock08 12y ago
I completely disagree that there isn't a general implication that this is for wives of HN users. Another example: "Show HN: SportsRank, Fantasy score prediction I built for my Bros." Is this for just my Bro, or am I making a statement about who I think will use it, specifically Bros. Similarly "my wife" makes an implicit statement that your wife (who obviously cooks) will want to see this.

hxw 12y ago

How is this sexist if it was made for OP's wife?

petercooper 12y ago

"Why hello Gerald, I'd like to introduce you to my wife, Kate." "How very dare you, Cuthbert. That is a decidedly sexist way to refer to your spouse." "My spouse? I do not possess zir, Kate is an independent human being associated with me through our mutual engagement in the social contract of marriage." "Oh, that is such a monogamist way to put it.."

dllthomas 12y ago
Yeah, the disputing of possession bugs me. Certainly it's true that I do not possess my wife, but I also don't possess my brother and he's still my brother and there's nothing weird about that phrasing. Though it is worth noting that not many do get annoyed at that phrasing, and overgeneralizing to paint others with it and thinking that has any bearing on their concerns is poor reasoning.
- jrock08 12y ago
  So I'm actually not disputing the possession of my. I couldn't care less. I have a problem with painting this as something that "wives" would use, instead of something that you or I would use. It's like saying: "Show HN, SportsRank. Fantasy score prediction I built for my Bros" Sure, you could use it, but really I built it for Bros, not you. Because you and I have an implicit connection. We are both probably nerdy programmers, and I'm saying that I don't use it so you probably won't either. edit: I'm shadowbanned, so I'll edit here. So I don't think it actually is that different, bro vs wife. The implication is that we are a homogeneous group that doesn't necessarily include the "other" group. But more importantly, I think there are better and less exclusive ways to say that someone elses itch encouraged you. MealDays: Meal planner inspired by my wife. MealDays: Meal planner designed by my wife. MealDays: Meal planner idea from my wife. To me, "for my wife" implies a somewhat passive wife who is going to use this thing. The ones above imply the wife taking an active role in helping and specing, which based on the OPs comments and programming best practice is more realistic anyway.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  @jrock08 (I can't respond directly because your comment is already dead, but I don't think it was actually non-constructive): I didn't mean to suggest that you did contest the "my" - I was just agreeing that I've seen that before and that it is obnoxious and reading more into language than is there at any level. My second part was intended to emphasize, however, that that objection only applies where it applies, which as you say is not your comment. I still think the title is substantively different than your "bros" example; it is referring to one particular person, and I think that matters a lot. As I said elsewhere, "Hackers build things to scratch itches, and then they share them. The fact that it's a particular other person's itch that got the ball rolling is interesting and potentially inspirational."

erikb 12y ago

Is it sexist to develop software for your wife?