3 ms·

I can't tell/understand this PC meme. I have heard older generations talk about minorities in a way I wouldn't. It was a different time, women there are people

I can't tell/understand this PC meme. I have heard older generations talk about minorities in a way I wouldn't. It was a different time, women there are people (very old) alive born before women could vote. Maybe it is societal conditioning, but I think that is wrong and look back on older generations and think they must also have known. I can not say the same thing for much of these PC causes. I find it iritating and bad for society, much like I am sure racists in the south found the gradual acceptance of interracial dating and increased equity irritating. I find many of the causes championed, or at least incedents in the news, to be a mockery of a free society but I can't help wonder if I am the same as Jim Crow. I suspect he felt quite vindicated as well.

tveita 11y ago
People absolutely sincerely believed that not giving women the right to vote was for the best both for society and the women themselves. There wasn't some malicious conspiracy involving a majority of the voting population. Women were thought to be naturally uninterested in politics, and to not have the head for it anyway. Dabbling in politics was seen as an unwomanly thing ladies should be spared from. Not unlike how people today think that the scarcity of women in tech is due to them naturally having less interest in it. It's easy to ascribe the status quo to the natural order of things. Of writing of that era I like "Are Women People?"[1] It's written from a suffragettes point of view, but it includes some cherry-picked quotes from anti-suffragists, such as: "The grant of suffrage to women is repugnant to instincts that strike their roots deep in the order of nature. It runs counter to human reason, it flouts the teachings of experience and the admonitions of common sense."—N.Y. Times, Feb. 7, 1915." That was the kind of thing you could write in a newspaper of the time and have people agree with you. That should tell us something about how blind we can be to contemporary societal problems, and how silly we will look in hindsight. [1] http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11689/11689-h/11689-h.htm http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11689/11689-h/11689-h.htm

tveita 11y ago

People absolutely sincerely believed that not giving women the right to vote was for the best both for society and the women themselves. There wasn't some malicious conspiracy involving a majority of the voting population. Women were thought to be naturally uninterested in politics, and to not have the head for it anyway. Dabbling in politics was seen as an unwomanly thing ladies should be spared from. Not unlike how people today think that the scarcity of women in tech is due to them naturally having less interest in it. It's easy to ascribe the status quo to the natural order of things. Of writing of that era I like "Are Women People?"[1] It's written from a suffragettes point of view, but it includes some cherry-picked quotes from anti-suffragists, such as: "The grant of suffrage to women is repugnant to instincts that strike their roots deep in the order of nature. It runs counter to human reason, it flouts the teachings of experience and the admonitions of common sense."—N.Y. Times, Feb. 7, 1915." That was the kind of thing you could write in a newspaper of the time and have people agree with you. That should tell us something about how blind we can be to contemporary societal problems, and how silly we will look in hindsight. [1] http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11689/11689-h/11689-h.htm http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11689/11689-h/11689-h.htm