David-Sarah Hopwood <[email protected]> writes: > 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.
It is, but it is the reality, and the reason of most of our problems too. And it's not by putting an onus on the expression of these choices that you will repress them: they come from the deepest, our genes and the genetic selection that has been applied on them for millena. My point here being that what's needed is a change in how selection of reproductive partners is done, and obviously, I'm not considering doing it based on money or political power. Of course, I have none of either :-) And yes, it's perfectly on-topic, if you consider how science and technology developments are directed. Most of our computing technology has been created for war. Or said otherwise, why do you think this kind of refundation project hasn't the same kind of resources allocated to the commercial or military projects? -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}. _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
