Nope, it’s purely logic. I’m sorry you want this woman to work so bad. No one said you cannot imagine what you want, but that distinctly adds information that is not stated.
It doesn’t state the information either way. She may or may not work. Insisting that she doesn’t is YOU (and the original person I replied to) adding information. I accept that both options are possible. Can you?
Agnostocism? 😂 If you were truly agnostic, you wouldn’t have started pushing your view.
As for logic 🤣🤣🤣🤣 I don’t need to prove she definitely is working, that’s not how logic works. It’s sufficient that I can provide even one reasonable scenario under which she could be home earlier than him but still work full time, to disprove the statement that she doesn’t work. So here you go: maybe she works from home, so she cooked because she didn’t have to commute.
I get it - you interpret this scenario as evidence of her being lazy and/or incompetent. You want to buy into that, for whatever personal reasons of your own, so you ignore the facts:
The picture is misleading - the chicken is cooked, that colour is a sauce. You can tell if you look closely to the right of the chicken, and to the area below the chicken where the sauce comes onto the vegetables. So not only did she cook him chicken, she even made him a sauce with it.
The scenario is similarly presented in a misleading way to evoke an emotional reaction from the reader.
a) You only know about his coming home from work because that is what he chose to tell you. He wants you to identify with him, to remember that exhausted feeling after a hard day of work.
b) You know nothing about her circumstances. That allows the reader to inject their personal bias into the scenario, which you can see from the varied responses to the post. Your bias is toward a traditional provider/home maker relationship, which is why in your opinion such an opinion is “baked in” to the scenario. I don’t have that bias because I know too many women who work and still do the majority of the household work. My experience is not the exception - there is a tremendous amount of research on this topic.
We are a generation of young women who were told we could do anything and instead heard that we had to be everything.
Courtney E. Martin
So, maybe she works. Maybe she doesn’t work outside the home but recently gave birth to twins and hasn’t slept properly in weeks. Maybe she has a chronic illness that makes cooking difficult. Maybe she was never taught how to cook and is trying really hard to teach herself. Maybe that meal tastes amazing.
All I’m asking is that you see her as a human who maybe had a tough day too. To think critically and not just allow your emotions to be manipulated.
It’s baked in to the scenario: You get home from work. She’s already been cooking. These are the two clues you need to pay attention to.
That implies she’s at least had some time more at home than who ever’s receiving the food.
Maybe she goes into work earlier than he does, maybe she works from home, maybe she does shift work. There is nothing “baked in” to this scenario.
You have to work with the information provided, not imagine further details. The info provided leans towards implying she stays at home.
No, your bias leans towards this. Careful, your misogyny is showing.
Nope, it’s purely logic. I’m sorry you want this woman to work so bad. No one said you cannot imagine what you want, but that distinctly adds information that is not stated.
It doesn’t state the information either way. She may or may not work. Insisting that she doesn’t is YOU (and the original person I replied to) adding information. I accept that both options are possible. Can you?
I am not insisting. I am declaring agnosticism. The evidence provided does not prove
godher employment.Now please, start using logic instead of daydreaming.
Agnostocism? 😂 If you were truly agnostic, you wouldn’t have started pushing your view.
As for logic 🤣🤣🤣🤣 I don’t need to prove she definitely is working, that’s not how logic works. It’s sufficient that I can provide even one reasonable scenario under which she could be home earlier than him but still work full time, to disprove the statement that she doesn’t work. So here you go: maybe she works from home, so she cooked because she didn’t have to commute.
I get it - you interpret this scenario as evidence of her being lazy and/or incompetent. You want to buy into that, for whatever personal reasons of your own, so you ignore the facts:
The picture is misleading - the chicken is cooked, that colour is a sauce. You can tell if you look closely to the right of the chicken, and to the area below the chicken where the sauce comes onto the vegetables. So not only did she cook him chicken, she even made him a sauce with it.
The scenario is similarly presented in a misleading way to evoke an emotional reaction from the reader.
a) You only know about his coming home from work because that is what he chose to tell you. He wants you to identify with him, to remember that exhausted feeling after a hard day of work.
b) You know nothing about her circumstances. That allows the reader to inject their personal bias into the scenario, which you can see from the varied responses to the post. Your bias is toward a traditional provider/home maker relationship, which is why in your opinion such an opinion is “baked in” to the scenario. I don’t have that bias because I know too many women who work and still do the majority of the household work. My experience is not the exception - there is a tremendous amount of research on this topic.
So, maybe she works. Maybe she doesn’t work outside the home but recently gave birth to twins and hasn’t slept properly in weeks. Maybe she has a chronic illness that makes cooking difficult. Maybe she was never taught how to cook and is trying really hard to teach herself. Maybe that meal tastes amazing.
All I’m asking is that you see her as a human who maybe had a tough day too. To think critically and not just allow your emotions to be manipulated.