4 ms·

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.

by vimy 5y ago

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?
    - vimy 5y ago
      Black and white thinking: There is only one explanation. Someone who disagrees is automatically a misogynist.
      - dahart 5y ago
        What other explanations do you have in mind? What “different reasons” are there? Do the reasons you have in mind account for the fact that female representation is growing year over year? I don’t think you’re a misogynist, I wasn’t talking about you. But you are providing multiple comments’ evidence that you may lack historical background and might lack the will to think critically and self-reflect about your own learned assumptions and where you got them, that you might have been trying to make a rhetorical point and aren’t interested in a discussion or in the real answer to the very question you asked - whether women are interested in politics. Answer: they are increasingly. The idea that there are “different reasons” and other explanations besides social bias has historically been a talking point for people who don’t want to either accept or admit that cultural sexism still exists, that’s the undercurrent of your comments even if it’s unintentional on your part. Casting vague criticisms toward me doesn’t change the provenance of the ideas you’ve adopted and shared here. The very idea that there are “different reasons” was suggesting that the discrepancy between male and female representation could be at some kind of natural balance, right? I mean you stated it explicitly, that preferences might explain today’s balance. But it’s not in balance now, and never has been, that’s a fact we know for certain. The data we have - from the fact that there were basically zero women with political careers as little as 100 years ago, to the fact that the number of women in politics has been and continues to steadily increase - the things I’m pointing out pertain to the question of whether there are any other relevant explanations that matter right now. I’m not claiming that there are no sex/gender differences, nor that the numbers should be exactly 50/50. What I’m saying is that the fact that women were (and still are) held back by society obviously shadows all other reasons to this day. We can’t begin to ask whether there are other reasons until we’ve ruled out cultural bias, and we have tons and tons of ongoing data that proves beyond any shadow of doubt that we have not yet fixed cultural bias. Suppose there were additional reasons reasons for today’s gender discrepancy in politics (and I’m sure there are some, like pregnancy). If the reason changed the distribution by 0.1%, would you say that it’s relevant and worth talking about? How would we actually measure it? In terms of what we should do as a society, how would it inform our opinions and policies? At the top of the thread, you asked unironically “what if women are just less interested in politics?” My question to you is: what if interest in politics is primarily determined by cultural biases? What if women thirty years ago said they were less interested in politics precisely because they knew it was a terribly sexist environment? What if that’s still the case to some degree? How would you actually determine which preferences are determined by sex or gender, and which preferences are the result of ongoing discrimination?

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.

by 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?
  - vimy 5y ago
    Black and white thinking: There is only one explanation. Someone who disagrees is automatically a misogynist.
    - dahart 5y ago
      What other explanations do you have in mind? What “different reasons” are there? Do the reasons you have in mind account for the fact that female representation is growing year over year? I don’t think you’re a misogynist, I wasn’t talking about you. But you are providing multiple comments’ evidence that you may lack historical background and might lack the will to think critically and self-reflect about your own learned assumptions and where you got them, that you might have been trying to make a rhetorical point and aren’t interested in a discussion or in the real answer to the very question you asked - whether women are interested in politics. Answer: they are increasingly. The idea that there are “different reasons” and other explanations besides social bias has historically been a talking point for people who don’t want to either accept or admit that cultural sexism still exists, that’s the undercurrent of your comments even if it’s unintentional on your part. Casting vague criticisms toward me doesn’t change the provenance of the ideas you’ve adopted and shared here. The very idea that there are “different reasons” was suggesting that the discrepancy between male and female representation could be at some kind of natural balance, right? I mean you stated it explicitly, that preferences might explain today’s balance. But it’s not in balance now, and never has been, that’s a fact we know for certain. The data we have - from the fact that there were basically zero women with political careers as little as 100 years ago, to the fact that the number of women in politics has been and continues to steadily increase - the things I’m pointing out pertain to the question of whether there are any other relevant explanations that matter right now. I’m not claiming that there are no sex/gender differences, nor that the numbers should be exactly 50/50. What I’m saying is that the fact that women were (and still are) held back by society obviously shadows all other reasons to this day. We can’t begin to ask whether there are other reasons until we’ve ruled out cultural bias, and we have tons and tons of ongoing data that proves beyond any shadow of doubt that we have not yet fixed cultural bias. Suppose there were additional reasons reasons for today’s gender discrepancy in politics (and I’m sure there are some, like pregnancy). If the reason changed the distribution by 0.1%, would you say that it’s relevant and worth talking about? How would we actually measure it? In terms of what we should do as a society, how would it inform our opinions and policies? At the top of the thread, you asked unironically “what if women are just less interested in politics?” My question to you is: what if interest in politics is primarily determined by cultural biases? What if women thirty years ago said they were less interested in politics precisely because they knew it was a terribly sexist environment? What if that’s still the case to some degree? How would you actually determine which preferences are determined by sex or gender, and which preferences are the result of ongoing discrimination?