8 ms·

Thank you! As an Icelandic guy, we're extremely happy about this :)

by hugi 5y ago

c048 5y ago
Could you explain in detail why you're happy about this?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- standardUser 5y ago
  In a society without a history of male dominance over women, having a legislative body with more women than men would be commonplace or at least unremarkable. In virtually all societies through all of history, this has not been the case. So the fact that such a thing has now occurred is an indicator of reduced male dominance, something we should all be happy about.
  - vimy 5y ago
    This point of view assumes women have the same interests as men but were held back by society. What if women are just less interested in politics? Edit: I should have worded it better. I meant political careers.
    - standardUser 5y ago
      My point assumes no such thing. If you have a point to make yourself, feel free to make it instead of asking leading questions.
    - dahart 5y ago
      Women were held back by society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage Participation in politics has been on the rise ever since, it has never yet equalized. We have data to show that interest is greater than participation, and documented history that explains why.
      - belorn 5y ago
        At the time of women was allowed to vote in Sweden, only 10% of men was allowed to vote. One of the forgotten events caused by the early 1900 was the separation of military service with voting rights. Until then a fulfilled military service to ones country was a common condition for voting. Many restrictions on voting was removed during those early decades, including many that prevented many women from voting after the women's suffrage. Conditions like having paid taxes for a set amount of previous years, not having social support, and so on.
      - c048 5y ago
        A Wikipedia article is not a good answer to most things, they're usually single takes and generally aren't broad enough in focus. Wikipedia is a good jump off point for subjects you generally don't know anything about, but that's really it. Take the article you linked; while it does show example of how women were repressed in the past, it doesn't go that far into why they were repressed and how men were also repressed at the time. As someone what likes to read up on medieval European history, there's just so much more to it. I understand the appeal of Wikipedia, but it should really not be treated as anything but an opinion piece that requires further research and reading. While you can read some good articles, they are few and far between (and often only show one viewpoint).
        dahart 5y ago
        Absolutely, the whole intent of my link was to be a starting point for the curious. I don’t see any reason not to prefer a small starting point like a Wikipedia article on Women’s Suffrage, which seems like a nice clear and factual demonstration of the problems with @vimy’s assumptions, especially in a heated controversial topic on HN. If I came on strong and tried to dump something complete - well ignoring that there’s no such thing on this topic, I’d expect it to cause argument, get downvoted, or be ignored. Anyway, by all means if you have a better example, I’d welcome it. If @vimy is serious about their question, and curious whether women want political careers, and whether gender preferences have settled, then a good starting point is recent history. The web page I linked shows that Vice President Kamala Harris was born before black women were allowed to vote everywhere in the U.S. That’s remarkable and relevant to the question they raised, it’s surprising how recently women were allowed to be political, and surprising how quickly things have changed.
  - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
    > In a society without a history of male dominance over women, having a legislative body with more women than men would be commonplace or at least unremarkable. In virtually all societies through all of history, this has not been the case. So the fact that such a thing has now occurred is an indicator of reduced male dominance, something we should all be happy about. You can only come to a conclusion like that through an ignorance of history, or willful ignorance of societies where females exercised power. Although, I would separate matriarchies from matrilineal societies, and also, societies in which women exerted a great deal of power through soft means. For example, a list of pure matriarchies Ancient Amazons Iroquois Confederacy The Mosuo people The Hopi people Some Celtic tribes A list of kingdoms with female rulers of note: England, during some of its most important years [1] A list of Queens Regnant which includes ancient Egypt, Rome, and many, many others [2] Additionally, this would also include periods of Queen Regency too [3] Just to name a few A list of Matrilineal societies: Jews Sparta Scotland Much of Africa If we remember many monarchies, autocracies, and other forms of government had powerful women (Queen Consorts) that provided input into decisions being made. Modern day lobbyists have nothing on a queen that is sleeping with the king. However, when you think about actual legislative bodies, in a democratic sense, that greatly reduces the numbers you can use throughout history. When we think about wide spread democracy, it is actually a fairly recent invention, and normally came with some very specific rules around property ownership, power/wealth, etc. [1] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Elizabeth-I https://www.britannica.com/biography/Elizabeth-I [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_queens_regnant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_queens_regnant [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_queens_regnant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_queens_regnant
    - standardUser 5y ago
      If you are arguing that woman have had more power or roughly equal power in most societies, you are absolutely wrong. You listed exceptions, as in exceptions to the rule, the rule being male dominance in human societies. And all of those exceptions come with a truckload or two of caveats.
      - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    There's a theory that social aggreggation is driven by the behavior of males (who tend to socialize in large, shallow groups) rather than women (who tend to socialize 1-1)

Thank you! As an Icelandic guy, we're extremely happy about this :)

by hugi 5y ago

Thank you! As an Icelandic guy, we're extremely happy about this :)

c048 5y ago

Could you explain in detail why you're happy about this?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
standardUser 5y ago
In a society without a history of male dominance over women, having a legislative body with more women than men would be commonplace or at least unremarkable. In virtually all societies through all of history, this has not been the case. So the fact that such a thing has now occurred is an indicator of reduced male dominance, something we should all be happy about.
- vimy 5y ago
  This point of view assumes women have the same interests as men but were held back by society. What if women are just less interested in politics? Edit: I should have worded it better. I meant political careers.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    My point assumes no such thing. If you have a point to make yourself, feel free to make it instead of asking leading questions.
  - dahart 5y ago
    Women were held back by society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage Participation in politics has been on the rise ever since, it has never yet equalized. We have data to show that interest is greater than participation, and documented history that explains why.
    - belorn 5y ago
      At the time of women was allowed to vote in Sweden, only 10% of men was allowed to vote. One of the forgotten events caused by the early 1900 was the separation of military service with voting rights. Until then a fulfilled military service to ones country was a common condition for voting. Many restrictions on voting was removed during those early decades, including many that prevented many women from voting after the women's suffrage. Conditions like having paid taxes for a set amount of previous years, not having social support, and so on.
    - c048 5y ago
      A Wikipedia article is not a good answer to most things, they're usually single takes and generally aren't broad enough in focus. Wikipedia is a good jump off point for subjects you generally don't know anything about, but that's really it. Take the article you linked; while it does show example of how women were repressed in the past, it doesn't go that far into why they were repressed and how men were also repressed at the time. As someone what likes to read up on medieval European history, there's just so much more to it. I understand the appeal of Wikipedia, but it should really not be treated as anything but an opinion piece that requires further research and reading. While you can read some good articles, they are few and far between (and often only show one viewpoint).
      - dahart 5y ago
        Absolutely, the whole intent of my link was to be a starting point for the curious. I don’t see any reason not to prefer a small starting point like a Wikipedia article on Women’s Suffrage, which seems like a nice clear and factual demonstration of the problems with @vimy’s assumptions, especially in a heated controversial topic on HN. If I came on strong and tried to dump something complete - well ignoring that there’s no such thing on this topic, I’d expect it to cause argument, get downvoted, or be ignored. Anyway, by all means if you have a better example, I’d welcome it. If @vimy is serious about their question, and curious whether women want political careers, and whether gender preferences have settled, then a good starting point is recent history. The web page I linked shows that Vice President Kamala Harris was born before black women were allowed to vote everywhere in the U.S. That’s remarkable and relevant to the question they raised, it’s surprising how recently women were allowed to be political, and surprising how quickly things have changed.
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  > In a society without a history of male dominance over women, having a legislative body with more women than men would be commonplace or at least unremarkable. In virtually all societies through all of history, this has not been the case. So the fact that such a thing has now occurred is an indicator of reduced male dominance, something we should all be happy about. You can only come to a conclusion like that through an ignorance of history, or willful ignorance of societies where females exercised power. Although, I would separate matriarchies from matrilineal societies, and also, societies in which women exerted a great deal of power through soft means. For example, a list of pure matriarchies Ancient Amazons Iroquois Confederacy The Mosuo people The Hopi people Some Celtic tribes A list of kingdoms with female rulers of note: England, during some of its most important years [1] A list of Queens Regnant which includes ancient Egypt, Rome, and many, many others [2] Additionally, this would also include periods of Queen Regency too [3] Just to name a few A list of Matrilineal societies: Jews Sparta Scotland Much of Africa If we remember many monarchies, autocracies, and other forms of government had powerful women (Queen Consorts) that provided input into decisions being made. Modern day lobbyists have nothing on a queen that is sleeping with the king. However, when you think about actual legislative bodies, in a democratic sense, that greatly reduces the numbers you can use throughout history. When we think about wide spread democracy, it is actually a fairly recent invention, and normally came with some very specific rules around property ownership, power/wealth, etc. [1] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Elizabeth-I https://www.britannica.com/biography/Elizabeth-I [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_queens_regnant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_queens_regnant [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_queens_regnant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_queens_regnant
  - standardUser 5y ago
    If you are arguing that woman have had more power or roughly equal power in most societies, you are absolutely wrong. You listed exceptions, as in exceptions to the rule, the rule being male dominance in human societies. And all of those exceptions come with a truckload or two of caveats.
    - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  There's a theory that social aggreggation is driven by the behavior of males (who tend to socialize in large, shallow groups) rather than women (who tend to socialize 1-1)