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: 1532

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.

housespouces, perhaps?

I believe that this is a historical fallacy at its core. At least in terms of the way that it's being discussed. The author actually seems to be arguing that it is due to systematic bias And that something needs to change.

+1

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 actually didn't argue anything regarding bias against women. I simply shared what I believed the author conveyed (which seems contrary to your understanding). When the author says, "pretending that women have had a pop at all this," I assume she believes we haven't. This could mean that we haven't because we haven't tried or we haven't because there are still barriers to knock down. I do not see where the author opines on the matter of why. I see that the author calls for change, for us to stop pretending it's over. I do not see where she asserts that there are no barriers or bias.

As for the historical fallacy:
A historical fallacy is when "one reads into a process the results that occur because of that process." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_fallacy)
Tallying up the number of men vs. women who have made history is only studying the end product. I believe the historical fallacy here would be to assume that the end product is the result of sex differences and not processes that act upon each sex differently.

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. 

My only assumption is that if there is a result or end product there was some sort of process that formed that product.  Assuming this is not and cannot be a historical fallacy.

But don't you see that is exactly my point.  It is only saying that they haven't, but not why they haven't.  Yet you have stated several times in this thread that women just need to step up,  and used the excerpt to support your opinion (when it says nothing of the sort).

I believe the historical fallacy here would be to assume that the end product is the result of sex differences and not processes that act upon each sex differently.

If the processes act upon each sex differently, it would seem to be due to the differences between the sexes. The same processes act upon geese and ganders, mares and stallions, etc., yet they remain geese, ganders, mares, and stallions, acting differently according to sex. Humans are still mammals.

Perhaps I should rephrase and say biological differences (or innate) between the sexes vs. external environmental differences that are not biological in nature.

In this context, I'm only stating that it's a historical fallacy to assume the former with only final products as evidence.  I'm not stating here what I believe on the matter.

And I'm not saying individual women are unable to compete with men in certain areas, but I think when one talks statistically in the aggregate, we shouldn't expect any huge changes even with women being offered the same opportunities as men. Personally, I like men and women to be different from each other, but I want women to have the same opportunities as men. However, even in an atmosphere of equal freedom and opportunity, I suspect in the aggregate the sexes would continue overall to make the same sorts of choices they've made in the past: women more people oriented, men more ego oriented over all. We really are different from each other. 

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service