Even the most ardent historian, male or female—citing Amazons and tribal matriarchies and Cleopatra—can’t conceal that women have basically done fuck all for the last 100,000 years. Come on—let’s admit it. Let’s stop exhaustingly pretending that there is a parallel history of women being victorious and creative, on an equal with men, that’s just been comprehensively covered up by The Man. There isn’t. Our empires, armies, cities, artworks, philosophers, philanthropists, inventors, scientists, astronauts, explorers, politicians and icons could all fit, comfortably into one of the private karaoke booths in SingStar. We have no Mozart; no Einstein; no Galileo; no Ghandi. No Beatles, no Churchill, no Hawking, no Columbus. It just didn’t happen.

Nearly everything so far has been the creation of men—and a liberal, right-on denial of it makes everything more awkward and difficult in the long run. Pretending that women have had a pop at all this before but ultimately didn’t do as well as the men, that the experiment of female liberation has already happened but floundered gives strength to the belief that women simply aren’t as good as men, full stop. That things should just carry on as they are—with the world shaped around, and honouring, the priorities, needs, whims, and successes of men. Women are over, without having even begun. When the truth is that we haven’t even begun at all. Of course we haven’t. We’ll know it when we have.

~Caitlin Moran

Do you agree or disagree with the above sentiment and statements, and why or why not?


NOTE: I'll be contrarian in the discussion, both because I find it fun, and also because echo chambers are boring.

Views: 1420

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Oh please.  To say that men don't actually 'listen' to 5 year old kids...and that men don't have empathy.  Now your third point I can't debate. 

I'll drink to that.

Marie Curie. QED

Newton, Einstein. QED

The question is have women accomplished anything. Yes, they have. Does the fact that Einstein and Newton were men undermine the accomplishments of the many women of science? Not in the least. It is a ridiculous standard to say that if a group of people has not accomplished anything because Newton and Einstein were men.

Also, I do not think that anyone has mentioned that the most cited physicist in the world is a woman (Lisa Randall). She is widely considered to be one of the greatest physicists of our time.

Also, this list says "no Hawking". Marie Curie is a much more important figure in physics than Hawking.

If you had cared reading beyond the enticing headline, you would have discovered that the actual question is if whether or not you agree with the statements and conclusions made by Moran, and why. But that, I know, requires reading. It's actually part of my incredibly devious and malign design, to see who cares for reading. I'm evil in that way I guess. 

And I believe the most powerful person throughout history has always been male. We can continue pointing out great men vs women, but according to Moran it should be possible to point out 5 males to every female, and still have quite a few males left once the female list runs dry. The statements never implies there are no great women, only that there are few great women. 

I did read past the headline and a main claim of this article is that women have not done anything and that they have no comparative geniuses. You are simply committing the fallacy of moving the goalpost if you try to pretend it isn't. Also, the "no Gandhi" part is just hilarious because there was a female Gandhi: Indira Gandhi. .

It is also worth pointing out that women were not allowed to do virtually anything until just a few decades ago. there is "no parallel history" because they were repressed and discouraged. there were no mozarts, for example, because women were simply not allowed to do what he did. it makes this question like asking why there were not more black scientists during the 1800's. In just the few decades, however, they have started to increasingly outnumber men in college and the most cited physicist in the world now is a woman.

also, you use the word "powerful" without explaining what you mean by it.

We now have a very free and open atmosphere with more women in colleges and universities than men (not to self: take some college courses), and yet where are the females in many fields. Women are present and accounted for in arts and letters and even in the sciences (anyone watch The Universe documentary show regularly?). And yet, where are the female architects, symphony composers, and mathematicians? Men and women, even in absolute freedom and with the same opportunities, seem to be drawn to one field of study or another based on their gender. The two sexes are hardwired to want different things, it seems. And when you reply, remember I'm talking statistically and in the aggregate. While some men and women may defy this characterization, they tend to be the exception that proves the rule. They stand out due to their being not the norm.

Unseen, it should also be mentioned that there are no longer lots of discoveries made by individual scientists. Einsteins, Maxwells, and Newtons have been replaced with giant think tanks (which women are well represented in).

This means that (1) when there were Newtons, etc..... women were not really allowed to do science and (2) now that they are, there are no real Newtons anymore. Instead, there are groups of hundreds of scientists (like Fermilab, NASA, the CDC, the NIH, and the people at the LHC) working on a single project. Even given this, there are still people like Shirley Ann Jackson and Lisa Randall who have contributed a lot.

This shift explains why there are now very few male or female Newtons.

Also on the "And yet, where are the female architects, symphony composers, and mathematicians?" It should be noted that almost no one can name contemporary architects or composers of either gender because almost no one cares about these things.

If you read all my posts on this subject, you won't find me saying that women are dumb or untalented, but rather that men and women have different brains and different inclinations even once all the barriers are removed.

I'm not here to devalue women just defend their differentness.

Well, that there are no more Newtons or Einsteins simply because Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, along with quantum physics, covers all the bases. What's left to discover is pretty obscure stuff. What is needed is an overarching theory stitching them all together or obviating them by explaining everything, and I'm sure scientists of both sexes are working on that grand theory and may have discovered it with the recent talk of string theory, membranes, multiple dimensions, and so on. We'll know if they can provide proof that more than a small handful of people can understand, or can provide concrete results implying the truth of the new theory.

As for the architects, symphony composers, and mathematicians, there are well-known people in all of those fields that those (few) interested in those fields are well aware of. Whether ordinary jills and joes know about them is beside the point.

behind every man is a woman!

So women behind men?


Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin



Things you hate.

Started by Devlin Cuite in Small Talk. Last reply by kris feenstra 34 minutes ago. 156 Replies

Blog Posts

Dead man's Switch

Posted by Philip Jarrett on April 18, 2014 at 11:29pm 0 Comments


  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service