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: 2259

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And so we go on...
Yes, the language of science is what we call a vocational language. I did not mean that language.

I speak in general, never using a personal experience in a discussion. There is always a personal experience that is the exeption to the rule. But exceptions do not proof anything.

When I mention the male docters that did not wash their hands and caused many deaths, I am not talking about the midwives in other times. I merely mention it as another example of male disinterest in womanly things. I still see a lot of disbelieve in women's potemtials, even in the classroom.

BTW Fanny Mendelssohn was a composer. A number of her songs were originally published under her brother Felix's name in his opus 8 and 9 collections. Because a woman's work might not be welcomed?
Later her work was published in her name

Wiki: Her piano works are often in the manner of songs, and many carry the name Lied ohne Worte (Song without Words). This style (and title) of piano music was most successfully developed by Felix Mendelssohn, though some modern scholars assert that Fanny may have preceded him in the genre.

"And so we go on"? Ever understood the concept of a principled disagreement?

I almost feel sad for someone which doesn't appear to have any personal experiences which confirms to history. I used mine as an illustrative example to draw a few generalized conclusions about an experience which is becoming increasingly less common. Perhaps your problem is connecting with someone which comes from a farming background?

I see you manged to dig up a female composer, on which I congratulate you. Does it disprove the point that nearly all composers were men? Not in the leas. It actually confirms it, and is a bit like finding an irregular verb in German - exceptions prove the rule.

We must be on very different channels :-)
I do have a lot of personal experiences of men and women that accomplished a lot. But in my view it is not appropiate to use personal data in a discussion.

The lone female composer is not a rebut to the fact that men in the history, as we know it, accomplished more than women did. They sure did. I do not disagree with that at all.
I do not have to dig deep to find accomplishing women. They are there, though not in great numbers. Numbers are in favor of the mmale history makers. The question is: why?
The one female composer is not the issue here. The fact that at first she could only publish under her brothers name is.
If you read me well, you must have noticed that I am aware of the fact that exceptions do not prove the rule.

In a world/culture so dominated by men, the thought or voice of a woman will not be heard or understood.
Male dominated societies, religions and cultures made women into second rate persons without a voice worth listening to.

But the question is: why couldn't women have dominated? Why did they allow themselves to be made into second rate citizens? Why have female-dominated societies, religions, and cultures almost never existed in history?

It seems obvious that it must have had something to do with biology steering human culture in the direction of male-dominated arrangements, since it seems so universal. Are men guilty of taking advantage of this situation? Yeah, probably. But I don't really think any individuals, male or female, are ultimately responsible for the course of history.

Looking at diferent religions and how they originated, one could say that at first men protected "life", women. From protecting it went to overprotecting and taking away their rights to decide about their own lives. Most religions of today are into sexcism and are "protecting" thus suppressing women "for their own good".

I would say looking at religions their main focus was on controlling the populace in a time where the central government was weak and it was impossible to retain a monopoly on violence. While controlling reproduction has been a part of most religions, the subjugation of the masses have certainly been a much more important factor.

Great post.  And not to start flames, but a lot of women DO like their man to be dominant.  To make decisions for them and to be the head of the households.  To care for them and to provide money (security) for them.  Sure there are women who are obsessed with success in their career, but this is still relatively rare.  

I think biology has something to do with it.  

On the other hand, when I confronted a devout christian female with the passages in the bible about not letting them speak in church, or covering up their body or stoning women who aren't virgins, she kind of agreed and just said that women are supposed to pure and obedient housewives.  So I also know religious indoctrination can push the issue to an entirely new level of a society being male dominated.  

To what extent is it biological and to what extent is it learned behavior then is my question.  

Between AD 61 and AD 63 Boadicea led her Iceni people to a glorious war against the Romans......

"[Her] kingdom was annexed as if conquered, Boudica was flogged, her daughters were raped, and Roman financiers called in their loans."

If this is your significant hero.... Ceasar genocided 1/3 of the population of Gaul and Decious wiped out the whole Dacian civilization unquestionably. A woman: yes. Successful? Not so much.

She hounded their forces to the end....  but you were not asking for her to be better than Caesar, you were just asking for fame.

I think any answer that indicates women were downtrodden and they really were as good as men is patronising to say the least.  I see where you are coming from and you are right, on the surface.  Until we accept this as a premise, we can't start working out why that should be.

Hear, hear.

Women better start taking their fair share of the job. It's patently unfair that men are expected to take what has up until fairly recently been viewed as "female" tasks without women doing the same. 

Should "housewives" be banned by law perhaps?

How much time and energy does a woman put into domestic work, if she does all of the household work?

How much time and energy does a man put into handyman work, if he does all of the maintenance work?

Compare. Be honest with yourself. Housework is constant and never-ending. Handyman work is sporadic. It's easy to see that an equal distribution of male and female work between both partners gives the man more domestic work to take on than maintenance work for the woman. They would both be doing half of each gender's workload or the same amount of total work.

I hope you beef isn't with sharing the domestic labor.  Why should a woman, now taking on a career outside of the home, also work what is essentially a second job in the home (when her partner could share that work)? If you don't think it is a second job, consider what would happen if no one in the household did that domestic work: it would require the family to hire a maid and a nanny. Of course women should also take on half of the work load men have shouldered.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service