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.
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.
I can't believe this is even a question. I mean, damn.
Why can't you believe this is a question? Are you implying Moran is a troll?
Have women accomplished anything throughout history?
I am implying you are a troll.
I agree Kairan, Arcus asked a loaded question in a troll-like manner. It insults me too that the main premise is that women haven't made any contributions to the world. It is an absolutely false premise. Biology shows that we are all symbiotic.
A man never accomplished even one great thing or had even one great "discovery" without a woman (his mother) keeping him alive (understanding enough "science" to do so) and nurturing his life in one way or another.
I'm trying to look at this conversation objectively but it is hard since I'm so pissed at Arcus for being such an asshole with such a fucking lame premise.
Reading this seems to betray the personality of a troll provacature.
I expect that this 'attitude' towards women is the problem, not the personality, intelligence, or creativity of women.
During my rather long life, I have known very brite creative women, many in the field of science. A biochem lab where I worked as an undergrad, had many young women with Masters and PHDs doing high end studys. A few of them were blonds!
Give it up, this bigoted shit stinks! To think that anyone would attempt to make the case shows a real disconnect from our present reality...
"this bigoted shit stinks"
Why is Moran bigoted? It's a fairly strong label and you should actually provide quite conclusive evidence for her being so. Whether I agree with it or not, I hardly see it as bigoted statement she is making. She's definitely not putting a fine point to it, that much we can agree on.
"To think that anyone would attempt to make the case"
You should perhaps buy the book and make an angry review of it. :)
The best reason why that women's achievements were not on the level of men is because they simply were not allowed to back in those days. People need to be afforded the opportunity without fear of repercussions. Even today the gender equity is not on the same page...
To be fair, no one was allowed to do very much back in those days when around 98% of the population were doing subsistence farming. And anyone devoting their life to science and innovation until recently were certainly in danger of starving. As they say, for every innovation there's 100 failed ones, and in the annals of history those who failed died.
And of those 2% to continue to use your numbers (made up as I'm sure they are, it's likely less in my opinion), it was only males throughout our history who had the opportunity to wield their power, influence, and thoughts to change the lives of others.
For a multitude of reasons, it has been the men to predominately hold power and wealth in our collective past. Of those few women who have been able to claim it for themselves, they truly excelled: Nefertiti, Cleopatra, Catherine the Great, Queen Elizabeth I, Mbande Nzinga, Queen Victoria. All those women were great leaders during their time. If it seems that women have contributed so little to history, it's only because they have had little in the way of opportunity or resources to do so, not because women are less capable of it.
Made up on the spot, and I'm proud of it! In seriousness though, we can probably agree on it being a rough maximum amount of non-farm workers, and probably not too far from the truth, and being illustrative in the least.
You are making the argument that women couldn't excel because there was a pressure in all time periods, in pretty much all civilizations, pretty much all over the world, which conspired to keep them down. Moran is making the argument that it was just women not stepping up to the plate. Who has the burden of evidence it that discussion?
They both do. How would Moran prove her stance anyway?