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.
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.
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.
Although this is true as far as you've taken it, historically, the house wouldn't even exist in the first place without the man's income.
More recently this has been less true, but it comes at the expense of the housework and/or childrearing being outsourced.
In most Western countries women have more leisure time than men, though they also tend to do most of the house work. Surely, the equality in free time is more important than the equality of domestic work?
My beef isn't with domestic work, or anything else for that matter, but I believe it should be possible to discuss unstigmatized - but now I'm stepping outside my contrarian caveat.
Why would it be a historical fallacy? Are you really arguing that the process of discovery is biased against women? It seems to me that discoveries are discoveries, and they are attributed accordingly. The issue Moran raises is that discoveries by females have been few - which is a historical fact unless it can be proved to be a fallacy. Her last point is that women need to pick up the pace, and that we'll realize it post hoc.
I am aware of what a historical fallacy is, I asked for where it had been committed. You are committing an equal one in your last paragraph where you assume it is the process. Pot-A-to, po-TAH-to.
I don't believe the quote gives any support to either of your assumptions, it is merely stating that women haven't contributed. Full stop. Grasp at conclusions all you want, but you cannot attribute those to the author.