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

Post by jakelazaroff » Fri, May 19, 2017, 1:19 PM UTC

reader5000 wrote: post #49

jakelazaroff wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Post by loco5niner » Fri, May 19, 2017, 4:44 PM UTC

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…

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 19, 2017, 5:28 PM UTC

loco5niner wrote: post #52

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…

> non-women. aka, men

Post by jakelazaroff » Fri, May 19, 2017, 9:25 PM UTC

loco5niner wrote: post #56

jakelazaroff wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many ways to be neither a woman nor a man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_variance

There are also many ways to be born missing limbs, but that fact doesn't normalize it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_amputation