Re:Julie Ann Horvath Describes Sexism and Intimidation Behin...
by kalleboo on Monday March 17, 2014 @07:05AM
(#7414326)
> As it turns out, the person writing the parent comment defined a founder's wife as "one of your most valuable business resources"
To be fair, in a world (the world of business) where employees are referred to as "human resources", everyone involved has already been objectified.
Re:Julie Ann Horvath Describes Sexism and Intimidation Behin...
by nailer on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:47AM
(#7413131)
Let's put the shoe on the other foot:
> The person writing the parent comment defined a founder's husband as "one of your most valuable business resources".
Nope, not offended. The husband is valuable, in no way does it state this is the only value of the husband.
Re:Julie Ann Horvath Describes Sexism and Intimidation Behin...
by dannypgh on Monday March 17, 2014 @12:25PM
(#7416036)
Things look different removed from context. In this case, the relevant context is the history of marriage as a property agreement arranged between the husband and the father of the bride.
Women objectification is about treating a woman like an object, a belonging, a resource.
As it turns out, the person writing the parent comment defined a founder's wife as "one of your most valuable business resources". That person should have said, "some of your most valuable business insights will come from your wife". It wouldn't be objectification, but it would still establish differences between the sexes based on anecdotal experience.
Assuming unproven differences between the sexes to be true has always been ethically borderline from a scientific perspective. From a social perspective, it artificially deters persons of each sex from doing something which is then implicitly considered "unnatural" for them.