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.
You must have been the last to find out. LOL
Never heard of Hephaestion, eh?
Yes, I'm half Greek and was brought up on those myths and histories - however, I was around ten, and sexual orientation didn't mean much to me at that age, especially when there were women getting pregnant by god/bulls.
Well, since none of those men would have even existed without a woman, I think it's fair to say that EVERY great accomplishment in history can be traced back to a woman :)
They wouldn't exist without men either as it takes two for that particular tango, so isn't it kinda draw?
"the thought or voice of a woman will not be heard or understood."
So what you are saying is that women should be heard in a non-gendered language such as science. Except that they do get heard when they have something useful to say, M. Curie being the prime example, and there are a few others. But where are the masses?
"Male dominated societies, religions and cultures made women into second rate persons without a voice worth listening to."
To be fair, they made every member of those societies second class citizens. On the other hand, we are rounding 100 years of women's equal representation in voting, so why not in all spheres?
"women had to have babies and take care of them. (They often died early, because of men not aware of hygiene issues.)"
Well, this is a matter of biology, not sexism. And women weren't aware og hygiene issues either... until a man discovered it! Surprisingly, it wasn't a women, but Semmelweiss, a man, which made one of the major breakthroughs. And this in a society before which women had jealously guarded child birth for millenia.
"Indeed, women could not contribute to history as much as men could."
A fair point, but their contribution is even less than their potential impact, isn't it? And it's certainly not only positive, ref. Mary I or Alexandra, the latter of whom is most famous for her liking of huge cock....
"Indeed, women could not contribute to history as much as men could."
A fair point, but their contribution is even less than their potential impact, isn't it?
Please share with us how you have determined what the potential impact of women should have been?
And it's certainly not only positive, ref. Mary I or Alexandra, the latter of whom is most famous for her liking of huge cock....
You realize that patriarchy creates a phenomenon where history 'forgets' the accomplishments of successful women (and people of color). Lurid tales are more memorable and focusing on a woman's sexuality (rather than her life's work) is a great way to reinforce the patriarchal hierarchy.
"Please share with us how you have determined what the potential impact of women should have been?"
Well, seeing as the Jews have historically been absolutely the most suppressed, why not that level of contribution?
"You realize that patriarchy creates a phenomenon where history 'forgets' the accomplishments of successful women"
Then why do we remember quite a few accomplishments made by females? Seems like a poorly functioning system, if its intent (at least one of its intents) is to suppress female accomplishments.
I don't play the oppression olympics, so I have no comment on who has been the most suppressed. Why should women achieve like Jews instead of like African Americans or Australian Aboriginals? How do you choose the correct level of potential achievement for any group?
Were you sleeping during history, or is it that your brain is so attuned to experiencing everything from the perspective of priviledge that you didn't notice the scarcity of women's accomplishments? (Is this not the premise of this entire post?) We do not remember quite a few accomplishments made by females. I think you're just making things up to suit your opinions at this point.
Forgetting the accomplishments of women might hold when it comes to journeymanly or even masterful work, but it's hard to imagine that if Beethoven was a woman we would have forgotten who wrote the 9th Symphony. Likewise if Lenin had been a woman, would we have forgotten who instigated the Russian Revolution? The suppression argument only goes so far.
The "language" of science still remains ungendered. It isn't actually a language at all, it's a process of providing evidence and conclusions. It's similar to how mathematics and music are often referred to as languages - and they are patently ungendered.
Weeeeeeelll.. Saying that women did not have access to education and science is certainly covering up quite a bit. My dad was only offered middle school, and not really expected to do anything else. He was expected to start working at age 15, which he did. My mother, on the other hand, was expected to stay in school at least until she was done with high school. She did and then went into postal school. Those were the gender norms in Norway in the 60ies. Before that time, getting any education beyond the mandatory middle school was very uncommon for both genders, my grandmother being extremely proud of her having attended trade school and thus being more educated than my grandfather. Access to science isn't really something which is handed to you, and never has been, it is something which is actively sought out to those interested.
Actually having a doctor present at child birth is a very modern invention, it used to be the role of the midwife. Only the very top of society had access to doctors at birth until the sixties, and as i previously stated the whole process of childbirth was for the most part closed off to men - even doctors - until quite recently in our history.