Quote from: jhkim on May 23, 2023, 11:19:47 PM


I didn't use the term "coverture", but I don't see how that changes what I said. Coverture is overtly sexist. A husband can get an independent bank account, but a wife cannot. Also, single women were also often discriminated against - like requiring an unmarried woman to get a cosignature for an account or credit card by her father or other male relative, while not doing the same for unmarried men. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 was a well-reasoned response to this sort of discrimination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Credit_Opportunity_Act

Yeah, the evidently egalitarian thing to do was to give the wahmen credit that they had NO way to pay and fuck their husbands with it.

No, dude, it's not sexist to ask for the recipient of a credit to have a way to pay for it, and many women had the way and therefore got the credit.

But you're a male feminist.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 24, 2023, 04:04:09 PM
But you're a male feminist.

WHOA!

Come on GB, you can't call him a sexual predator without proof.

I just had to purge the male feminists from my gamer group.

It's a bright new dawn. 

Quote from: jhkim on May 23, 2023, 11:19:47 PM
As I noted, "he" wasn't actually used in a neutral fashion. That might be a theoretical, but it never matched actual usage. In practice, people used "he" or "she" depending on whether they pictured typically male or female.

You know, actually I want to dispute this.  I provided a link to people who were creating the case to destroy the neutral he stuff.  You claimed this was "theoretical".  Obviously it was real, or they wouldn't have made that study, right?  They actually wanted to change how people talk, after all.

Note also that your take- that it wasn't really a neutral he- seems like the sort of argument someone would make if they were trying to convince a non-sexist that their language was sexist, and to change it, or something.  If the assessment were true, I'd think it was fine, but... is it true?  Were there non-leftists studying this or something?  It's easy to find evidence of that this shift in usage was (and is) absolutely deliberate and for political purposes, so why worry about the idea that someone might say "he" for a fireman and "she" for a nurse?

Quote from: Venka on May 24, 2023, 09:30:26 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 23, 2023, 11:19:47 PM
As I noted, "he" wasn't actually used in a neutral fashion. That might be a theoretical, but it never matched actual usage. In practice, people used "he" or "she" depending on whether they pictured typically male or female.

You know, actually I want to dispute this.  I provided a link to people who were creating the case to destroy the neutral he stuff.  You claimed this was "theoretical".  Obviously it was real, or they wouldn't have made that study, right?  They actually wanted to change how people talk, after all.

Note also that your take- that it wasn't really a neutral he- seems like the sort of argument someone would make if they were trying to convince a non-sexist that their language was sexist, and to change it, or something.  If the assessment were true, I'd think it was fine, but... is it true?  Were there non-leftists studying this or something?  It's easy to find evidence of that this shift in usage was (and is) absolutely deliberate and for political purposes, so why worry about the idea that someone might say "he" for a fireman and "she" for a nurse?

Classic motte-and-bailey strategy, make a vague enough claim and when challenged retreat to something specific that doesn't really disproves the cvounter argument and pretend that was your position all along.

That's what Jhkim and all leftists do.

Quote from: Venka on May 24, 2023, 12:15:50 AM

Quote from: jhkim on May 23, 2023, 11:19:47 PM
As I noted, "he" wasn't actually used in a neutral fashion. That might be a theoretical, but it never matched actual usage. In practice, people used "he" or "she" depending on whether they pictured typically male or female.

Sure, people would say "she" for like a secretary.  But that was because you pretty much knew it was a woman (and your guess was well based in math!).

Is this just about the example? What if it was likely to be a woman, but not guaranteed - say 80%? That might fit for waitress or librarian. I think that it was still likely to use "she" in such a case. The point is that use of "he" vs "she" was based on expectation, rather than "he" being neutral to use in all cases.

The point is that previous posters argued that "he" was gender neutral, when it wasn't in practice. If one wants to argue that it is proper to use "he" based on expectation, that's a different argument.

Gygax thought it was better to go with "he or she" rather than just "he", and he claimed that by the 1980s that 10% of D&D players were women.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 24, 2023, 04:04:09 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 23, 2023, 11:19:47 PM
I didn't use the term "coverture", but I don't see how that changes what I said. Coverture is overtly sexist. A husband can get an independent bank account, but a wife cannot. Also, single women were also often discriminated against - like requiring an unmarried woman to get a cosignature for an account or credit card by her father or other male relative, while not doing the same for unmarried men. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 was a well-reasoned response to this sort of discrimination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Credit_Opportunity_Act

Yeah, the evidently egalitarian thing to do was to give the wahmen credit that they had NO way to pay and fuck their husbands with it.

No, dude, it's not sexist to ask for the recipient of a credit to have a way to pay for it, and many women had the way and therefore got the credit.

This is getting off-topic, but after the 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act, it was still legal to deny someone credit based on their income or credit history. What the law changed is that it was not legal to deny someone credit based on their gender.

For example, my mother and father were both medical doctors in the 1960s, but initially my mother made more money because my father had a more difficult time getting credentialed. I haven't talked to them specifically about credit applications at that time, but both of them were quite clear that they were discriminated against at that time - she because of her gender, he because of his race.

Even back in the 1960s, lots of people didn't fit the stereotype of husband provider and spendthrift wife. I can't find historical numbers, but as of 2019, American men have higher debt than American women. (ref)

Quote from: jhkim on May 25, 2023, 10:07:36 AM
Even back in the 1960s, lots of people didn't fit the stereotype of husband provider and spendthrift wife. I can't find historical numbers, but as of 2019, American men have higher debt than American women. (ref)

Now do one for how men pay for all the dates and vacations, even when dating women that have their own income, have to buy the engagement and wedding ring, pay for the wedding, then when they get married he often pays off her student loans. And he ends up in debt? SHOCKING!

The fact that women are about equal, DESPITE all of these additional financial burdens on men, is horrifying.

"But, in my experience, with my typical upbringing by a pair of Doctors..."

Quote from: Grognard GM on May 25, 2023, 12:09:55 PM
"But, in my experience, with my typical upbringing by a pair of Doctors..."

That's what makes it all so amusing.  Jhkim's worldview is so incredibly narrow, and yet he asserts that his experiences somehow trump the norms.

Take, for example, his bullshit about the discrimination in credit before some magical (read: worthless) government law in the seventies.  I just happen to be sitting with my mother, mother-in-law, aunt, and several other women in their seventies and eighties. And they say he's completely ignorant.  I'm sure his parents felt terribly abused and discriminated against by society (I mean, where do you think he got his stupid ideas from?), but their feelings didn't track with reality.

Just one example.  In the 60s my mother-in-law wanted to buy her husband a new car for his birthday.  The problem was that he was the sole earner in the household and she had never had a job.  Not since she worked as a teenager.  So she rolled into the car dealership and they sold her a car, on credit, without one shred of income.  She secretly left the house once the kids went to school and worked at a fast food place for almost a year without him knowing to pay off a big chunk of the car.  But the day she bought it she had no job and no credit (and she bought it from a major dealership, not some fly-by-night used car lot).  So somehow she managed to pull this off while being oppressed by the man, a decade before her government saviors passed the magic law...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 26, 2023, 10:11:11 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on May 25, 2023, 12:09:55 PM
"But, in my experience, with my typical upbringing by a pair of Doctors..."

That's what makes it all so amusing.  Jhkim's worldview is so incredibly narrow, and yet he asserts that his experiences somehow trump the norms.

Take, for example, his bullshit about the discrimination in credit before some magical (read: worthless) government law in the seventies.  I just happen to be sitting with my mother, mother-in-law, aunt, and several other women in their seventies and eighties. And they say he's completely ignorant.  I'm sure his parents felt terribly abused and discriminated against by society (I mean, where do you think he got his stupid ideas from?), but their feelings didn't track with reality.

Just one example.  In the 60s my mother-in-law wanted to buy her husband a new car for his birthday.  The problem was that he was the sole earner in the household and she had never had a job.  Not since she worked as a teenager.  So she rolled into the car dealership and they sold her a car, on credit, without one shred of income.  She secretly left the house once the kids went to school and worked at a fast food place for almost a year without him knowing to pay off a big chunk of the car.  But the day she bought it she had no job and no credit (and she bought it from a major dealership, not some fly-by-night used car lot).  So somehow she managed to pull this off while being oppressed by the man, a decade before her government saviors passed the magic law...

I don't claim that my experiences are universal or trump the norms. But equally, your experiences aren't universal either. There are millions of people who fit the norms, but also millions who didn't fit the norms. For what it's worth, my parents were both medical doctors, but they were both the first in their families to go to college. My father was the son of a dairy farmer who grew up in what is now North Korea. My mother is the daughter of a factory worker outside Boston.

I'm glad that your mother-in-law could buy a car herself so easily, but there were other people who didn't have that experience.

I also made no claims that the law magically changed everything. The federal law was part of a general shift away from coverture and towards equal treatment of men and women. I think the law helped pressure some holdouts, but for the law to be enacted meant that the majority had already moved towards that. Like other federal civil rights laws, it helped enforce the changes that were already present in large sections of the country.

Waste of time bickering with idiots like this