6 ms·

> In summary, the U. S. began, even if just a little bit, to pull its head out of its ass with respect to equality and rights. Please watch your tone. Just tha

> In summary, the U. S. began, even if just a little bit, to pull its head out of its ass with respect to equality and rights. Please watch your tone. Just that your opinion is different from others and happens to currently match the majority view doesn't mean you should be rude to those with different opinions. There are plenty of people with more nuanced opinions on gender roles that aren't bigoted. edit: To those downvoting me, can you please explain why? If there is something wrong with my statement, I would love to learn from your opinion on it.

ErikVandeWater 9y ago
I'm not sure why you've been downvoted. Phrases like "pulling its head out of its ass" are not going to contribute to sophisticated and level-headed discussion.
- dominotw 9y ago
  >Phrases like "pulling its head out of its ass" are not going to contribute to sophisticated and level-headed discussion. use the downvote button then.
  - ErikVandeWater 9y ago
    Please upvote me then. I don't have enough karma to downvote yet. ;)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
throwawayjava 9y ago
>>> at around the 1960s/1970s. >> the U. S. began, even if just a little bit, to pull its head out of its ass with respect to equality and rights > Please watch your tone... There are plenty of people with more nuanced opinions on gender roles that aren't bigoted. But the opinions codified in policy prior to the 1960s/1970s were objectively horrifying. Brown v. Board was decided in 1954. Jim Crow was going strong in the 50's and hung on into the 60's. Harvard Medical School did not (purposefully) admit women until '45; Princeton until '69. Title IX passed in the 70's and gender parity in university admissions didn't happen until '81. The first no fault divorce law wasn't passed until '69. The Equal Pay Act was passed in '63. IMO there isn't a non-bigoted defense of -- or inappropriate tone for criticizing -- the confluence of those policies. (Also, "watch your tone" is condescending and defensive. Unless you support returning to Jim Crow and repealing the Equal Pay Act, there's no reason to be defensive.)
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  I agree that most of above is objectively horrifying, but the tone of your post was overly emotional and attracts the kinds who vote based on emotion instead of logic. "the U. S. began... to pull its head out of its ass," is not professional. > there isn't a non-bigoted defense of -- or inappropriate tone for criticizing -- the confluence of those policies. >it was the era of "women's lib", or in full "women's liberation". IOW, "a woman's place is in the home, preferably barefoot and pregnant" began to go out the window. Some people don't think it's a bad thing that women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers. I agree that policies at the time were too extreme, but many others and I also believe that perfect gender parity in all careers is also extreme. What is considered "equal" varies depending on the person. > Also, "watch your tone" is condescending and defensive. Interpret it how you like. I was critiquing a behavior that I felt hurt the conversation and if left unchecked, has the potential to damage the culture of this site.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    What's damaging to the culture of this site is describing strong gender bias and oppression as "women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers." The phrase is not "professional" but do you think it's wrong? Would you say policies where, for example, women couldn't get credit cards without their husband's permission, or black people couldn't go to certain schools, cannot be described as the country having its head in its ass? I don't think full gender parity in all careers is likely to happen, nor necessarily a worthy goal. Full gender parity in opportunity, however, is extremely important, and this era you're romanticizing with an outrageously misleading description was far, far, far from equal opportunity.
    - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
      > The phrase is not "professional" but do you think it's wrong? Would you say policies where, for example, women couldn't get credit cards without their husband's permission, or black people couldn't go to certain schools, cannot be described as the country having its head in its ass? It's not wrong, but speaking that way also doesn't foster a nuanced conversation with emotion in check, hence is bad for the site's culture IMO. And yes, I do think those policies are wrong. There is a big difference between culture and policy though. > Full gender parity in opportunity, however, is extremely important, and this era you're romanticizing with an outrageously misleading description was far, far, far from equal opportunity. I agree 100%. The issue is that _many_ people see full gender parity as equality, and in fact may be the majority viewpoint depending on how this site is skewed. If this site fosters an environment where people with slightly abnormal yet nonextremist viewpoints are downvoted to oblivion, it has the potential to form a huge echo chamber where issues like gender parity, cultural values, and any other slightly political issue cannot be discussed. It's not a good environment, even if it matches the majority viewpoint at the time. edit: Also, speaking this way pushes people to vote based on emotion instead of whether or not the comment contributed to the conversation.
mikestew 9y ago
Please watch your tone. Just that your opinion is different from others and happens to currently match the majority view doesn't mean you should be rude to those with different opinions. Yes, $DEITY forbid that I offend those who thought that black children should not attend school with white children, or those that truly thought a woman's place was in the home and not in the work place. Those that thought women should make the decisions about their bodies, let's not rudely push that agenda on those that differ, because it's really just a matter of opinion. Let's keep a civil tone, just like those that oppose civil rights. I stand by my statement and its wording, as well as holding the opinion that America has not quite finished with that cranial->anal extraction.
watchyourtone 9y ago
Hey, how about you please watch YOUR tone. And nobody buys your self-serving, silly little assertion that "nuanced opinions on gender roles" aren't just bigotry. You are being downvoted for being childishly defensive about your "nuanced opinions". They are not.
Cthulhu_ 9y ago
Tone policing. You can avoid this ad hominem fallacy and instead reply to / counter the argument made instead of the tone it was presented in.
mfoy_ 9y ago
Phrasing and tone aside, you're not making any point about the content. To deconstruct your comment: >Just that your opinion is different from others and happens to currently match the majority view doesn't mean you should be rude to those with different opinions. Who is he being rude to? The hypothetical reader who believes all social progress made since 1960 was a mistake and Jim Crow was fine and good? >There are plenty of people with more nuanced opinions on gender roles that aren't bigoted. This isn't saying anything of substance. You are claiming some people have a more detailed opinion on gender equality than "it was bad in 1960/70" and is also not a bigot. This is just patently true... so what point are you trying to make?? So completely bereft of any meaningful contribution, the only thing left is some condescending tone policing. That's why I down-voted you.

ErikVandeWater 9y ago

I'm not sure why you've been downvoted. Phrases like "pulling its head out of its ass" are not going to contribute to sophisticated and level-headed discussion.

dominotw 9y ago
>Phrases like "pulling its head out of its ass" are not going to contribute to sophisticated and level-headed discussion. use the downvote button then.
- ErikVandeWater 9y ago
  Please upvote me then. I don't have enough karma to downvote yet. ;)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

throwawayjava 9y ago

>>> at around the 1960s/1970s. >> the U. S. began, even if just a little bit, to pull its head out of its ass with respect to equality and rights > Please watch your tone... There are plenty of people with more nuanced opinions on gender roles that aren't bigoted. But the opinions codified in policy prior to the 1960s/1970s were objectively horrifying. Brown v. Board was decided in 1954. Jim Crow was going strong in the 50's and hung on into the 60's. Harvard Medical School did not (purposefully) admit women until '45; Princeton until '69. Title IX passed in the 70's and gender parity in university admissions didn't happen until '81. The first no fault divorce law wasn't passed until '69. The Equal Pay Act was passed in '63. IMO there isn't a non-bigoted defense of -- or inappropriate tone for criticizing -- the confluence of those policies. (Also, "watch your tone" is condescending and defensive. Unless you support returning to Jim Crow and repealing the Equal Pay Act, there's no reason to be defensive.)

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
I agree that most of above is objectively horrifying, but the tone of your post was overly emotional and attracts the kinds who vote based on emotion instead of logic. "the U. S. began... to pull its head out of its ass," is not professional. > there isn't a non-bigoted defense of -- or inappropriate tone for criticizing -- the confluence of those policies. >it was the era of "women's lib", or in full "women's liberation". IOW, "a woman's place is in the home, preferably barefoot and pregnant" began to go out the window. Some people don't think it's a bad thing that women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers. I agree that policies at the time were too extreme, but many others and I also believe that perfect gender parity in all careers is also extreme. What is considered "equal" varies depending on the person. > Also, "watch your tone" is condescending and defensive. Interpret it how you like. I was critiquing a behavior that I felt hurt the conversation and if left unchecked, has the potential to damage the culture of this site.
- mikeash 9y ago
  What's damaging to the culture of this site is describing strong gender bias and oppression as "women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers." The phrase is not "professional" but do you think it's wrong? Would you say policies where, for example, women couldn't get credit cards without their husband's permission, or black people couldn't go to certain schools, cannot be described as the country having its head in its ass? I don't think full gender parity in all careers is likely to happen, nor necessarily a worthy goal. Full gender parity in opportunity, however, is extremely important, and this era you're romanticizing with an outrageously misleading description was far, far, far from equal opportunity.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    > The phrase is not "professional" but do you think it's wrong? Would you say policies where, for example, women couldn't get credit cards without their husband's permission, or black people couldn't go to certain schools, cannot be described as the country having its head in its ass? It's not wrong, but speaking that way also doesn't foster a nuanced conversation with emotion in check, hence is bad for the site's culture IMO. And yes, I do think those policies are wrong. There is a big difference between culture and policy though. > Full gender parity in opportunity, however, is extremely important, and this era you're romanticizing with an outrageously misleading description was far, far, far from equal opportunity. I agree 100%. The issue is that _many_ people see full gender parity as equality, and in fact may be the majority viewpoint depending on how this site is skewed. If this site fosters an environment where people with slightly abnormal yet nonextremist viewpoints are downvoted to oblivion, it has the potential to form a huge echo chamber where issues like gender parity, cultural values, and any other slightly political issue cannot be discussed. It's not a good environment, even if it matches the majority viewpoint at the time. edit: Also, speaking this way pushes people to vote based on emotion instead of whether or not the comment contributed to the conversation.

mikestew 9y ago

Please watch your tone. Just that your opinion is different from others and happens to currently match the majority view doesn't mean you should be rude to those with different opinions. Yes, $DEITY forbid that I offend those who thought that black children should not attend school with white children, or those that truly thought a woman's place was in the home and not in the work place. Those that thought women should make the decisions about their bodies, let's not rudely push that agenda on those that differ, because it's really just a matter of opinion. Let's keep a civil tone, just like those that oppose civil rights. I stand by my statement and its wording, as well as holding the opinion that America has not quite finished with that cranial->anal extraction.

watchyourtone 9y ago

Hey, how about you please watch YOUR tone. And nobody buys your self-serving, silly little assertion that "nuanced opinions on gender roles" aren't just bigotry. You are being downvoted for being childishly defensive about your "nuanced opinions". They are not.

Cthulhu_ 9y ago

Tone policing. You can avoid this ad hominem fallacy and instead reply to / counter the argument made instead of the tone it was presented in.

mfoy_ 9y ago

Phrasing and tone aside, you're not making any point about the content. To deconstruct your comment: >Just that your opinion is different from others and happens to currently match the majority view doesn't mean you should be rude to those with different opinions. Who is he being rude to? The hypothetical reader who believes all social progress made since 1960 was a mistake and Jim Crow was fine and good? >There are plenty of people with more nuanced opinions on gender roles that aren't bigoted. This isn't saying anything of substance. You are claiming some people have a more detailed opinion on gender equality than "it was bad in 1960/70" and is also not a bigot. This is just patently true... so what point are you trying to make?? So completely bereft of any meaningful contribution, the only thing left is some condescending tone policing. That's why I down-voted you.