4 ms·

>>> 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 wat

>>> 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.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      I'd much rather have a reasonable statement made in course language than an outrageous lie wrapped in friendly-sounding language. "The issue is that _many_ people see full gender parity as equality...." What is this based on? I see this stated pretty often, but I don't think I've ever encountered someone who thinks this way.
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      > 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 As a reminder, the post to which you originally replied was answering this question: >>>>> Did anything significant happen [in the 1960s/1970s] to cause this, or is it just an interesting anomaly? This is a very reasonable and important question about "gender parity, cultural values, and other political issues". IMO the parent provided a pretty decent, if pithy, answer. You have stated that you agree with the substance of parent's answer. > edit: Also, speaking this way pushes people to vote based on emotion instead of whether or not the comment contributed to the conversation. The way I see it, OP answered an important question in a mostly accurate manner. Their language was perhaps crass, but the substance of the "head out of their ass" claim -- that the US prior to 1960 was very bigoted and the political movement to end that bigotry contributed in part but not in whole to a move toward gender parity -- is one that you even seem to agree with. So, parent wrote an accurate answer to a significant question about the very topics you deem important. In turn, you replied with a condescending rebuke of his tone, a sequence of straw-men that distract from the original conversation about the cause of historical trends in employment, and a sequence of inconsistent positions about the role of rhetoric in argumentation. I don't think these sorts of meta-conversations are particularly useful, but the content of your posts contradicts your stated preferences.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  So you think emphasizing rhetorical persuasion over reasoned persuasion is detrimental to productive conversation. But then proceed to make an entire post about rhetorical content even though you completely agree with the post's logical conclusions. And then use that critique of language -- not logic -- as a springboard for a counter-argument that isn't even responsive to the author's original claim (which you say you agree with anyways). That position is untenable. Be consistent, especially if you're advancing an argument in favor of logic! > Interpret it how you like. I was critiquing... No, you missed my point. The tone of your writing comes off as condescending, regardless of your intent. It is the sort of thing a parent says to a child, or a judge to an unruly defendant. I literally cannot think of a way to read "watch you tone" in a way that is not condescending. It is reasonable to tell someone to please phrase something in a more polite manner. It is completely unreasonable to do so in a condescending tone, and many people will down-vote you for doing so. IMO there is nothing wrong with blunt language on an internet forum. You apparently disagree, except when it comes to your own speech. Again, be consistent. > but the tone of your post Not my post.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    I think the point is that if you're right you shouldn't have to play dirty with rhetoric to prove your point.
- mfoy_ 9y ago
  I'm not sure the statement that "women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers" really jives with reality.

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.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I'd much rather have a reasonable statement made in course language than an outrageous lie wrapped in friendly-sounding language. "The issue is that _many_ people see full gender parity as equality...." What is this based on? I see this stated pretty often, but I don't think I've ever encountered someone who thinks this way.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > 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 As a reminder, the post to which you originally replied was answering this question: >>>>> Did anything significant happen [in the 1960s/1970s] to cause this, or is it just an interesting anomaly? This is a very reasonable and important question about "gender parity, cultural values, and other political issues". IMO the parent provided a pretty decent, if pithy, answer. You have stated that you agree with the substance of parent's answer. > edit: Also, speaking this way pushes people to vote based on emotion instead of whether or not the comment contributed to the conversation. The way I see it, OP answered an important question in a mostly accurate manner. Their language was perhaps crass, but the substance of the "head out of their ass" claim -- that the US prior to 1960 was very bigoted and the political movement to end that bigotry contributed in part but not in whole to a move toward gender parity -- is one that you even seem to agree with. So, parent wrote an accurate answer to a significant question about the very topics you deem important. In turn, you replied with a condescending rebuke of his tone, a sequence of straw-men that distract from the original conversation about the cause of historical trends in employment, and a sequence of inconsistent positions about the role of rhetoric in argumentation. I don't think these sorts of meta-conversations are particularly useful, but the content of your posts contradicts your stated preferences.
throwawayjava 9y ago
So you think emphasizing rhetorical persuasion over reasoned persuasion is detrimental to productive conversation. But then proceed to make an entire post about rhetorical content even though you completely agree with the post's logical conclusions. And then use that critique of language -- not logic -- as a springboard for a counter-argument that isn't even responsive to the author's original claim (which you say you agree with anyways). That position is untenable. Be consistent, especially if you're advancing an argument in favor of logic! > Interpret it how you like. I was critiquing... No, you missed my point. The tone of your writing comes off as condescending, regardless of your intent. It is the sort of thing a parent says to a child, or a judge to an unruly defendant. I literally cannot think of a way to read "watch you tone" in a way that is not condescending. It is reasonable to tell someone to please phrase something in a more polite manner. It is completely unreasonable to do so in a condescending tone, and many people will down-vote you for doing so. IMO there is nothing wrong with blunt language on an internet forum. You apparently disagree, except when it comes to your own speech. Again, be consistent. > but the tone of your post Not my post.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  I think the point is that if you're right you shouldn't have to play dirty with rhetoric to prove your point.
mfoy_ 9y ago
I'm not sure the statement that "women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers" really jives with reality.