[gruez]

I don't think the parent is arguing that financial transactions involving humans aren't bad, he's arguing that labeling the transaction as "misogynistic" regardless of which side receives the value doesn't make sense. It'd be like arguing that consumers paying for a widget is "anti-consumer" (seems reasonable enough) but at the same time consumers getting paid to take a widget is "anti-consumer" (wtf?) and finally if there's no value exchanged then it's magically hunky dory.

[ethanbond]

1) I didn't say it was misogynistic.

2) It obviously is misogynistic because in either case a woman is being held and transacted as property between men.

The point is that women (and people in general) are not widgets, no matter how you wish to transact them. There's nothing mysterious going on here: it looks like property changing hands because it's property changing hands, and those people were property for the exclusive reason that they were born as women.

In your widget analogy: the widget is absolutely a secondary player in the exchange and is treated as property as compared to both other parties regardless of which way the money flows. Any such transaction would correctly be called "widget-ist" if you wish.

[gruez]

> 1) I didn't say it was misogynistic.

Right, the person you responded to was talking about misogyny but you subtly changed it to "it’s bad to transact other human beings".

>2) It obviously is misogynistic because in either case a woman is being transacted as property between men.

that's basically what I was arguing in the previous comment?

>I don't think the parent is arguing that financial transactions involving humans aren't bad

[ethanbond]

The person I responded to brought up a "gotcha" about both directions being misogynistic as some sort of contradiction, which it's not.

[quickthrower2]

> consumers getting paid to take a widget is "anti-consumer" (wtf?)

Ironic thing to say post Snowden, Cambridge Analytica and on HN!

Button sorry for the diversion. Back to diamonds…