On 7/16/2012 8:59 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
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.
sorry to anyone who was offended by any of this, it was not my intent to
cause any offense here.
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
