4 ms·

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 shou

by 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.
    - vimy 5y ago
      I think you misinterpreted what I said. I never said women weren't held back. Only that there could be a different reason for the lack of women in politics.
      - dahart 5y ago
        Are you sure I misinterpreted? Your restated position sounds the same as what I heard above, the message seems the same, and my reaction is the same: that maybe you don’t really know any history and don’t understand how recently women were not allowed to participate in politics. What makes you think there could a different reason, when there are women still alive today who weren’t allowed to vote, let alone seek office in their lifetimes? The only reason to suggest there’s a different reason is to try to downplay bias, to resist acknowledging the truth that society did hold women back, and that we haven’t yet recovered from that. You’re suggesting an unspecified alternative to what we already know is the reason, because it was documented. The number of women in politics is increasing today, right now. (The article is only one of many examples.) The number has gone up multiples during your lifetime. So it’s very clear that you can’t claim the numbers are the way they are because of some “different reason”. The number of women interested in politics (and business, and medicine, and engineering…) are still growing and responding to the recent decision to stop discriminating. We can’t make conclusions about any other reasons until the distribution of women in politics settles, for a long time, and in many countries. Right now, that’s not the case, right now more and more women are seeking political careers.

by vimy 5y ago

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.
  - vimy 5y ago
    I think you misinterpreted what I said. I never said women weren't held back. Only that there could be a different reason for the lack of women in politics.
    - dahart 5y ago
      Are you sure I misinterpreted? Your restated position sounds the same as what I heard above, the message seems the same, and my reaction is the same: that maybe you don’t really know any history and don’t understand how recently women were not allowed to participate in politics. What makes you think there could a different reason, when there are women still alive today who weren’t allowed to vote, let alone seek office in their lifetimes? The only reason to suggest there’s a different reason is to try to downplay bias, to resist acknowledging the truth that society did hold women back, and that we haven’t yet recovered from that. You’re suggesting an unspecified alternative to what we already know is the reason, because it was documented. The number of women in politics is increasing today, right now. (The article is only one of many examples.) The number has gone up multiples during your lifetime. So it’s very clear that you can’t claim the numbers are the way they are because of some “different reason”. The number of women interested in politics (and business, and medicine, and engineering…) are still growing and responding to the recent decision to stop discriminating. We can’t make conclusions about any other reasons until the distribution of women in politics settles, for a long time, and in many countries. Right now, that’s not the case, right now more and more women are seeking political careers.