Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg married

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 224 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg married

#201

Post by shimon_e »

ceol wrote: post #195
shimon_e wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should study some history to understand why western society consider a woman to be owned by her husband. In many tribal religions, before the global spread of Abrahamic religion, had a different concept of what was norm arrangement for a man and woman to have a sexual relationship. For example, in many Arab tribes, women belonged to tents. Men would visit those tents and as long as he financed the tent he could h…

Does that somehow make it not sexist? You gave the history of it but the parent comment was not arguing history. I'm not sure what your comment has to do with the parent.

Yes it does. The term, in origin, is not a topic that discrimination applies too. It merely means that in our civilisation lawful sexual intercourse is viewed to be legal through an agreement in between the husband and wife, provided it meets our sexual morales (you can't marry many relatives). Thus, he owns the legal rights for his sexual intercourse to be considered lawful. Unlike in other civilisations, for example the Mazdakian, where women were property of the state in a communist regime. Allowing legal sexual relations on a temporary basis when state condition were met. Where a man could be having legal sexual intercourse with both a mother and daughter for a few weeks. Part of the motive was that it was seen unfair that regular citizens didn't have access to the king's harems to do as they desire. Obviously, this was extremely discriminatory against women and viewed them all as only sexual objects. This is one of the greatest achievements of Abrahamic religion that such doctrines are long ago abolished.

To stress that this was the type of ownership implied. Never has it been legal right for a husband to allow a third party to have sexual intercourse with his wife, at the third party's pleasure. Despite this being the simplistic understanding of the term "his wife" may imply this.

If you want to understand terms in it's simplistic understanding, then I think you better worry about terms like sunrise/sunset.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg married

#202

Post by verve »

evincarofautumn wrote: post #154
heyitsnick wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Additional fun (and ambiguity): The verb "to marry" also means to perform the marriage ceremony. "Mark Zuckerberg married" could, in theory, mean Zuckerberg married two other people. "Got married" doesn't suffer from ambiguity and for that reason i think preferred.

No. He married. It’s unambiguously intransitive.

Here, "married" is a past participle, and the headline is in the passive voice. Headlines from Google News analogous to this post's title:

-Sleep apnea linked to cancer in latest studies -Falcon 9 countdown aborted in last second before launch -Apple, Samsung CEOs set for court talks

Re: Mark Zuckerberg married

#203

Post by shimon_e »

ceol wrote: post #198
mikeash wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"His woman" no more implies ownership than "my parents" implies that I own them.

"His wife" or "his partner" may not imply ownership, but "his woman" most certainly does. Aside from all the cultural connotations, using the common noun "woman" instead of associating a relationship between them depersonalizes her.

The usage of "his woman" would be routed from translation of Bible from Hebrew. In Hebrew, there is only one word for (Ish) man, and husband, or (Isha) woman, and wife.

English translations translated freely taking preference for poetic sound.

So as long as the bible is part of English speaking culture the usage of woman as wife will be common.

Something I find interesting about Persian culture. In Persian the word Zan means both wife and woman, but there is another more formal word Khanom. Which is always to be used when speaking or referring to someone older than you. I wouldn't be surprised if this is due to the etymology of the two word being from different languages.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg married

#204

Post by reneherse »

pg wrote: post #170
stroboskop wrote: post #95

I cannot comment on the content at all because I can't access the submission. Pages submitted to HN should simply not be behind login walls, which is why I flagged this. This thread already has multiple references to the fact that you have to log in to see the submitted post. There are many HN users without a FB account. For them, the headline of the submission cannot be verified by clicking on the link. Although the…

I'm one of the people who can't see it. Usually we'd kill a submission on a FB page. Do you understand what's different this time? Honestly, the comments on this thread are such an embarrassment.

No need to change the HN guidelines, folks.

However, it looks like Asimov's three laws could use an addendum: Be a good sport and a gentleman when significant things happen to people in your community. Apply soft-skill known as "heart".

Re: Mark Zuckerberg married

#205

Post by mikeash »

shimon_e wrote: post #203
ceol wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"His wife" or "his partner" may not imply ownership, but "his woman" most certainly does. Aside from all the cultural connotations, using the common noun "woman" instead of associating a relationship between them depersonalizes her.

The usage of "his woman" would be routed from translation of Bible from Hebrew. In Hebrew, there is only one word for (Ish) man, and husband, or (Isha) woman, and wife. English translations translated freely taking preference for poetic sound. So as long as the bible is part of English speaking culture the usage of woman as wife will be common. Something I find interesting about Persian culture. In Persian the word Z…

Likewise in French, the words for "wife" and "woman" are the same. If you refer to "my wife", you are literally saying "my woman".

This objection seems entirely fabricated and completely overblown.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg married

#206

Post by evincarofautumn »

verve wrote: post #202
evincarofautumn wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. He married. It’s unambiguously intransitive.

Here, "married" is a past participle, and the headline is in the passive voice. Headlines from Google News analogous to this post's title: -Sleep apnea linked to cancer in latest studies -Falcon 9 countdown aborted in last second before launch -Apple, Samsung CEOs set for court talks

Yes, I know. I was only correcting the ridiculous tangent, not referring to the actual headline.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg married

#207

Post by ptrklly »

Whether it's rational or not, this makes me like Zuckerberg a lot more. It seems like a good way to keep your head focused on what matters, to marry the same week that your company goes public.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg married

#208

Post by mahyarm »

awakeasleep wrote: post #105
mahyarm wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't talk about a prenup without ruining things, was your relationship stable and mature enough for a marriage?

If you can talk about leaving your partner with nothing, are you in a marriage-caliber relationship?

A pre-nup pretty much protects what assets you had before the marriage in the case of a divorce.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg married

#209

Post by InclinedPlane »

ceol wrote: post #172
pg wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of the people who can't see it. Usually we'd kill a submission on a FB page. Do you understand what's different this time? Honestly, the comments on this thread are such an embarrassment.

Is the difference you're implying the fact it's Mark Zuckerberg, the person whose company just went public and is a relatively famous Internet entrepreneur? I'm not trying to take a side, but I'm not sure which difference you're implying and which comments are an embarrassment. Could you expand?

It might have something to do with the fact that the guy who invented facebook is using it to announce his marriage.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg married

#210

Post by dennisgorelik »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #48
stephengillie wrote: post #5

As erdemozkan stated in a duplicate discussion: Mark married Priscilla one day after the IPO. That means they were waiting for IPO to get married. Sorry for asking a question that may seem obvious to others, but why were they waiting for the IPO? Is it for financial or legal reasons, such as a Community Property State? Did Zuckerberg sign a prenuptial agreement? An internet search implies he didn't. This reminds me o…

He didn't "wait until the IPO" according to people who knew, he waited for her to graduate. The timing of the IPO is very hard to predict given it requires sign off by the SEC, graduation on the other hand, pretty easy. I don't doubt for a minute that they have some sort of agreement in place in the event of a separation. While most might think such an agreement would benefit Mark, the real beneficiary are Facebook s…

I don't think that gold diggers are of particular danger for wealthy people. It's more a matter of convenience. Zuck is focused on Facebook, he simply does not want to spend time dating/searching for someone else.
Post reply on HN