On 17/07/12 02:15, BGB wrote: > so, typically, males work towards having a job, getting lots money, ... and > will choose > females based mostly how useful they are to themselves (will they be > faithful, would they > make a good parent, ...). > > meanwhile, females would judge a male based primarily on their income, > possessions, > assurance of continued support, ... > > not that it is necessarily that way, as roles could be reversed (the female > holds a job), > or mutual (both hold jobs). at least one person needs to hold a job though, > and by > default, this is the social role for a male (in the alternate case, usually > the female is > considerably older, which has a secondary limiting factor in that females > have a viable > reproductive span that is considerably shorter than that for males, meaning > that the > older-working-female scenario is much less likely to result in offspring, > ...). > > in this case, then society works as a sort of sorting algorithm, with > "better" mates > generally ending up together (rich business man with trophy wife), and worse > mates ending > up together (poor looser with a promiscuous or otherwise undesirable wife).
Way to go combining sexist, classist, ageist, heteronormative, cisnormative, ableist (re: fertility) and polyphobic (equating multiple partners with undesirability) assumptions, all in the space of four paragraphs. I'm not going to explain in detail why these are offensive assumptions, because that is not why I read a mailing list that is supposed to be about the "Fundamentals of New Computing". Please stick to that topic. -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
