Comment by IanCal | Hacker News Reader

Comment by IanCal | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I shouldn't rise to this, but it's a relaxed Sunday and I have some time to waste, and think it's important to look at what others say and think about how they may have meant it.

They did not assume it was only for bored boyfriends. They thanked the person who thought about bored boyfriends. That means the chairs are at least partly for bored boyfriends but not exclusively for bored boyfriends. The person replying, if a boyfriend, would have a convoluted thought process if it was 'I'm glad the person who designed the space thought about other people than me that I can also obviously make use of' rather than 'I'm glad the people who designed the space thought about me' when seeing something that benefits them directly.

> homosexual erasure

I feel your assumption that a bored boyfriend being considered is homosexual erasure ignores the boyfriends of other men. Or perhaps you meant something more specific but didn't specify? Perhaps you'd like myself and others to check before jumping to a conclusion about your motives rather than calling you a homophobe? Why not extend us the same courtesy.

While its nice that people consider the needs of other people, it also sends a social message.

To make a comparison, what if a IT company which had a similar ratio of male employees to female as this mall has female visitors to male, would make a "girlfriend waiting area that is designed for women"? Would it be a considerable and thoughtful idea, or would it be perceived as sending a sexist message?

Can't it be both a sexist message and a thoughtful and considerable act that benefit people directly?

I think I'd like to strongly re-say what I've already said.

The original comment was this

> Every time I enter a clothing shop and see chairs, I thank the heroes of that establishment who thought about bored boyfriends.

I do not believe that this was a sexist message. At least, I think it's a stretch to claim that it definitely is without clarification.

The mods have moved the comments about so if you didn't read things in this order, it may not have come across the same.

The comment I replied to could easily have avoided any comment by me by not referencing “boyfriends” as such, but instead “Significant Others” or some such more inclusive term.

I also think you read too much exactness into the original comment; it was casually written, and used the term “boyfriends” as a term for those who come into a store, not to shop themselves, but in the company of someone else who will. I feel that this is casually making unnecessary assumptions, and making some people feel like they are not “normal”, such as women who are not interested in clothes.

One must be careful when speaking and writing as to not make people with less-than-majority traits feel unwanted or excluded. Using gendered language where it is not strictly necessary is one such thing which should be avoided.

Can't speak for women, but I don't feel particularly "erased". Or normal. On whose behalf, precisely, do you imagine yourself usefully intervening in this way?

Anyone not covered by the term “boyfriend” is being implicitly “erased” by the original comment’s wording. Some of those people, like maybe a man-woman pair who are platonic friends where the man is not strictly a “boyfriend”, are less important to assert their rights for, since their existence is being less denied by the rest of society. Others, like maybe a woman-woman lesbian couple, is more important.

Your life must be utter torture viewing every human interaction through the lens of supposed 'gender equality'.

> The comment I replied to could easily have avoided any comment by me by not referencing “boyfriends” as such, but instead “Significant Others” or some such more inclusive term.

And what if they are a boyfriend? A boyfriend that sees a thing designed for people in their situation? Is it terrible for them to think "I'm glad people thought about boyfriends like me"?

> it was casually written, and used the term “boyfriends” as a term for those who come into a store, not to shop themselves, but in the company of someone else who will.

Or casually written as a person describing their own experiences as a boyfriend.

> I feel that this is casually making unnecessary assumptions, and making some people feel like they are not “normal”, such as women who are not interested in clothes.

It seems to me to make no assumptions at all, other than a boyfriend who does not enjoy clothes shopping is one of the groups that the designer considered.

> I also think you read too much exactness into the original comment;

You're on the verge of realising my core point. You took an incredibly precise meaning from the comment that, quite reasonably, said "boyfriends". It did not say others were not included, but that didn't stop you accusing someone of something I feel (and hope) most of us strongly disagree with.

Again, is it unfair for me to say your comment about homosexual erasure ignores homosexual men because you assume "boyfriend" can't refer to a man who doesn't care about clothes shopping with his partner who is also a man? Can't homosexual men also not care about clothes? Why do are you promoting such stereotypes? Is this not an unfair attack from me against you, because I assume you don't think this but your comment wasn't really quite clear enough not to be misinterpreted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com