4 ms·

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 p

by 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.
    - vimy 5y ago
      Recent decision? I think it’s you who has a warped view of history. And a very black and white one.
      - dahart 5y ago
        Yes, 50 years, even 100 years, is very recent in social cultural terms - they are within the lifetime of a single person, which is shorter than it takes for some attitudes to change. What do you mean by warped and black and white? Please elaborate. Just like your comments above, this is vague and unspecific and unconstructive. I think laws preventing women from voting was pretty black and white, so what nuance am I missing, exactly? Were you really wondering whether women want to have political careers, or do you hope not? Are you upset by the fact that increasing numbers of women are becoming career politicians?

by c048 5y ago

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.
  - vimy 5y ago
    Recent decision? I think it’s you who has a warped view of history. And a very black and white one.
    - dahart 5y ago
      Yes, 50 years, even 100 years, is very recent in social cultural terms - they are within the lifetime of a single person, which is shorter than it takes for some attitudes to change. What do you mean by warped and black and white? Please elaborate. Just like your comments above, this is vague and unspecific and unconstructive. I think laws preventing women from voting was pretty black and white, so what nuance am I missing, exactly? Were you really wondering whether women want to have political careers, or do you hope not? Are you upset by the fact that increasing numbers of women are becoming career politicians?