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

Machine Bias: Man Is to Computer Programmer as Woman Is to Homemaker?

fatml.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Machine Bias: Man Is to Computer Programmer as Woman Is to Homemaker?

#41

Post by jakelazaroff »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #38
jakelazaroff wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To whom is the paycheck made out? In a relationship with a large pay disparity, there is a financial dependence and vast power difference between the involved parties. If your partner started to abuse you, would you rather be the homemaker or the person whose name is on the paychecks?

I understand what you're saying and agree with you in general, but I think you're missing a large part of the picture. In general, women have far better options for ending a marriage than men - as of 2006, 3.6% of alimony recipients were men, for example. > If your partner started to abuse you, would you rather be the homemaker or the person whose name is on the paychecks? In that circumstance, I'd rather be a woman.…

> In general, women have far better options for ending a marriage than men - as of 2006, 3.6% of alimony recipients were men, for example.

Isn't that in large part because of the employment and income disparities between men and women, though? If women are employed less often and generally make less when they do, it makes sense that they're more often the recipient of alimony.

> In that circumstance, I'd rather be a woman. While it's very difficult to find anything resembling an unbiased source, it seems apparent that it is substantially more difficult for a man to seek law enforcement intervention as a victim of domestic abuse.

My comment was actually only regarding homemaking vs. computer programming, not how those occupations are gendered. The parent said "How does it pay less? You get to have a place​ to live, eat, sleep, all for free" — all I meant was that if there's e.g. domestic abuse, all else being equal, it's far better to be the partner who actually makes money than the partner who relies on the other's income.

Re: Machine Bias: Man Is to Computer Programmer as Woman Is to Homemaker?

#42

Post by AstralStorm »

angmarsbane wrote: post #27
AstralStorm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes both ways, the partner can become reliant on this kind of support. And only sometimes partly you can cover the difference with money and/or power - typically much more expensive than cooperation. In fact I'd say the housekeeping skills are always more marketable, more basic and easier to master - you can live off them, but not without. This gives rise to competition which drives both social perception of valu…

It is a lot easier to hire someone to take care of housekeeping duties or to do them yourself than it is to make up for 10+ years of little to zero non-homemaking skill development.

Not as easy as you'd expect if you want someone actually competent and versatile.

You would be surprised how big a bag "homemaking" is, ranging from cooking, through teaching, down to clerical work, through basic finances and back up with handyman (yes yes) fixes. Any of those skills specialized in is marketable, though not respectable on its own.

Note how few of them are true knowledge and research work. All of them are in the areas where there have been major reductions in number of jobs due to automation and centralization.

Re: Machine Bias: Man Is to Computer Programmer as Woman Is to Homemaker?

#43

Post by hasenj »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #28
hasenj wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does it pay less? You get to have a place​ to live, eat, sleep, all for free, without having to stay away from your children for an extended part of the day.

To whom is the paycheck made out? In a relationship with a large pay disparity, there is a financial dependence and vast power difference between the involved parties. If your partner started to abuse you, would you rather be the homemaker or the person whose name is on the paychecks?

At work you are also a slave to your boss, in a sense. If your boss started to abuse you, wouldn't​ you rather be a home maker so that your partner deals with the day to day shittiness of having to be in a job?

The way to not be afraid of abuse it's to have a support network. For example, extended family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances, etc. This applies to you whether you're an employee or a homemaker.

As a human you are always dependant on other people. Part of being a responsible adult is figuring out how to cooperate with people.

Re: Machine Bias: Man Is to Computer Programmer as Woman Is to Homemaker?

#44

Post by hasenj »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #33
reader5000 wrote: post #4

In the sjw-religion, why is "homemaker" considered inferior to "computer programmer"? One of the oldest and most important human occupations versus hunched over at a desk slaving for a salary until being outsourced to a bot in 5 years? I've never understood the default sjw/"feminism" assumptions that anything feminine is "bad".

It's not that anything feminine is "bad", it's that women are often pressured into doing "feminine" things because reasons. There's no reason "homemaker" should be inferior to "computer programmer", but there's also no reason that homemaker should be "feminine". Men are equally capable of taking care of the house, and women are equally capable of programming computers.

It's not about being capable.

Women get pregnant; men don't. Women have to nurse children (as in breast feed), men don't. When a woman it's pregnant or nursing, she needs support. That's the whole reason why there is such a thing as marriage. Because you can't raise children on your own.

Re: Machine Bias: Man Is to Computer Programmer as Woman Is to Homemaker?

#45

Post by jakelazaroff »

hasenj wrote: post #44
jakelazaroff wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that anything feminine is "bad", it's that women are often pressured into doing "feminine" things because reasons. There's no reason "homemaker" should be inferior to "computer programmer", but there's also no reason that homemaker should be "feminine". Men are equally capable of taking care of the house, and women are equally capable of programming computers.

It's not about being capable. Women get pregnant; men don't. Women have to nurse children (as in breast feed), men don't. When a woman it's pregnant or nursing, she needs support. That's the whole reason why there is such a thing as marriage. Because you can't raise children on your own.

> Women get pregnant; men don't. Women have to nurse children (as in breast feed), men don't. When a woman it's pregnant or nursing, she needs support.

Absolutely none of this is relevant to whether non-women or women "should" be homemakers. Women get pregnant but that doesn't mean they're in any way more suited to taking care of children than non-women.

> Because you can't raise children on your own.

Tell that to the literally millions of single parents who do a great job raising kids while millions of two parent households fail at it.

Re: Machine Bias: Man Is to Computer Programmer as Woman Is to Homemaker?

#46

Post by jakelazaroff »

hasenj wrote: post #43
jakelazaroff wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To whom is the paycheck made out? In a relationship with a large pay disparity, there is a financial dependence and vast power difference between the involved parties. If your partner started to abuse you, would you rather be the homemaker or the person whose name is on the paychecks?

At work you are also a slave to your boss, in a sense. If your boss started to abuse you, wouldn't​ you rather be a home maker so that your partner deals with the day to day shittiness of having to be in a job? The way to not be afraid of abuse it's to have a support network. For example, extended family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances, etc. This applies to you whether you're an employee or a homemaker. As a human…

> The way to not be afraid of abuse it's to have a support network.

Your support network is significantly more flexible if you have access to money. You haven't (and I suspect can't) made any real argument that there's not a vast power imbalance in a relationship where one party makes the most or all of the money.

Re: Machine Bias: Man Is to Computer Programmer as Woman Is to Homemaker?

#47

Post by hasenj »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #45
hasenj wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about being capable. Women get pregnant; men don't. Women have to nurse children (as in breast feed), men don't. When a woman it's pregnant or nursing, she needs support. That's the whole reason why there is such a thing as marriage. Because you can't raise children on your own.

> Women get pregnant; men don't. Women have to nurse children (as in breast feed), men don't. When a woman it's pregnant or nursing, she needs support. Absolutely none of this is relevant to whether non-women or women "should" be homemakers. Women get pregnant but that doesn't mean they're in any way more suited to taking care of children than non-women. > Because you can't raise children on your own. Tell that to th…

I find it hard to take seriously someone who uses phrases like "non-woman" non-ironically.

> Tell that to the literally millions of single parents who do a great job raising kids while millions of two parent households fail at it.

As far as I know, single parent households are largely dysfunctional and fail at producing responsible adults.

Re: Machine Bias: Man Is to Computer Programmer as Woman Is to Homemaker?

#48

Post by reader5000 »

angmarsbane wrote: post #27
AstralStorm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes both ways, the partner can become reliant on this kind of support. And only sometimes partly you can cover the difference with money and/or power - typically much more expensive than cooperation. In fact I'd say the housekeeping skills are always more marketable, more basic and easier to master - you can live off them, but not without. This gives rise to competition which drives both social perception of valu…

It is a lot easier to hire someone to take care of housekeeping duties or to do them yourself than it is to make up for 10+ years of little to zero non-homemaking skill development.

Yes because the entire value a husband receives from his wife is her housekeeping contributions.

Re: Machine Bias: Man Is to Computer Programmer as Woman Is to Homemaker?

#49

Post by reader5000 »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #46
hasenj wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At work you are also a slave to your boss, in a sense. If your boss started to abuse you, wouldn't​ you rather be a home maker so that your partner deals with the day to day shittiness of having to be in a job? The way to not be afraid of abuse it's to have a support network. For example, extended family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances, etc. This applies to you whether you're an employee or a homemaker. As a human…

> The way to not be afraid of abuse it's to have a support network. Your support network is significantly more flexible if you have access to money. You haven't (and I suspect can't) made any real argument that there's not a vast power imbalance in a relationship where one party makes the most or all of the money.

If you think spending power is the only relevant form of power in a marriage you are incorrect.

Re: Machine Bias: Man Is to Computer Programmer as Woman Is to Homemaker?

#50

Post by jakelazaroff »

hasenj wrote: post #47
jakelazaroff wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Women get pregnant; men don't. Women have to nurse children (as in breast feed), men don't. When a woman it's pregnant or nursing, she needs support. Absolutely none of this is relevant to whether non-women or women "should" be homemakers. Women get pregnant but that doesn't mean they're in any way more suited to taking care of children than non-women. > Because you can't raise children on your own. Tell that to th…

I find it hard to take seriously someone who uses phrases like "non-woman" non-ironically. > Tell that to the literally millions of single parents who do a great job raising kids while millions of two parent households fail at it. As far as I know, single parent households are largely dysfunctional and fail at producing responsible adults.

> I find it hard to take seriously someone who uses phrases like "non-woman" non-ironically.

I find it hard to take seriously someone who thinks gender binary is a thing.

> As far as I know, single parent households are largely dysfunctional and fail at producing responsible adults.

Do more research then. That's absolutely false.

Post reply on HN