211–220 of 224 posts
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…
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…
Mmm, except we're not talking about a transliteration of a Bible verse. This is colloquial usage of the term "his woman" in the English language with respect to American culture, which implies ownership. This has absolutely-- and I mean absolutely-- nothing to do with Hebrew.
> So as long as the bible is part of English speaking culture the usage of woman as wife will be common.
And has nothing to do with what we're talking about. The term implies ownership, and the Bible takes a very "man owns woman" stance. I assume your intent was not to prove my point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 exampl…
What? Since when do you need to "own the legal rights" to perform sexual intercourse? Are you saying I cannot legally have sex unless I'm married?
I'm having a hard time following what you're saying, because most of your post is just rambling. The Mazdakian? Nothing to do with us. Abrahamic religion abolishing sexist doctrines? Are you kidding me? The Bible is full of extremely sexist views. It treats women explicitly like objects.
None of your post has anything to do with my parent comment, nor the original. I feel there is a pattern here, because all of your other posts in this thread have been the same. Right now, in 2012, a man referring to his partner as "his woman" (or a woman referring to her partner as "her man") implies ownership and has a negative connotation.
If you're not on Facebook, it's just this pic. http://imgur.com/zxZkN
I have a Facebook account, I just refuse to login to it unless I want to actually access my Facebook account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
So having someone you know (and knew) when you were just a crazy dreamer, and they still wanted to be with you, is a very priceless thing. Amen. I agree, minus the prenup part though - I'm not cynical about Mark/Priscilla's love for each other because of your last sentence there, like I highly doubt that the Gates have that kind of arrangement either. As someone who's young, crazy, and laser-focused on the startup ga…
Shouldn't you keep "I should get rich first" in the back of your mind instead? You can always not marry them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So having someone you know (and knew) when you were just a crazy dreamer, and they still wanted to be with you, is a very priceless thing. Amen. I agree, minus the prenup part though - I'm not cynical about Mark/Priscilla's love for each other because of your last sentence there, like I highly doubt that the Gates have that kind of arrangement either. As someone who's young, crazy, and laser-focused on the startup ga…
> As someone who's young, crazy, and laser-focused on the startup game, and still so far away from where I want to be in life, that's something that's in the back of my mind all the time whenever I'm seeing someone special. Shouldn't you keep "I should get rich first" in the back of your mind instead? You can always not marry them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
please don't think of her as "HIS WOMAN" (or him as her man). this implies ownership, and marriage is not about ownership. he might have worn it out of respect/love for her, yes.
Agreed. Though I think the problem is not the "his", it's the "woman". "His wife" would sound fine. "HIS WOMAN" sounds like a caveman or Redditor talking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 exampl…
> Thus, he owns the legal rights for his sexual intercourse to be considered lawful. What? Since when do you need to "own the legal rights" to perform sexual intercourse? Are you saying I cannot legally have sex unless I'm married? I'm having a hard time following what you're saying, because most of your post is just rambling. The Mazdakian? Nothing to do with us. Abrahamic religion abolishing sexist doctrines? Are y…
Islam took over Persia and put an end to Mazdakian belief. This is a credit to Abrahamic religion. The society you were born in could have been very different had Mazdak's ideas won. The concept of family would not exist and the gene pool would have very few trees. The idea of monogamous relationships are a given in our society and this is built on the success of Abrahamic religion removing competing systems almost entirely out of the conscience of human thought.
In history one could find other competing systems and the Mazdakian is just one example.
One must remember the bible was written before it's ideas were successful. To re-interpret it's ideas are after it's success may lead one to the wrong conclusions about what it actually was trying to convey. It may appear to be a lot more sexist than what it actually meant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
please don't think of her as "HIS WOMAN" (or him as her man). this implies ownership, and marriage is not about ownership. he might have worn it out of respect/love for her, yes.
The formal definition may mean 'possession', but English doesn't always work like that. Sometimes we say or write things that depend on the context/geography/community for the true meaning. It's not black and white. Also, I think tersiag was stressing the person for which he wore a suit, not that he wore a suit for HIS woman (instead of someone else's woman).