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.
Women have, in fact, contributed less to the headlines of history - but simply because we've never been regarded as equal; although that is changing. Even today, however, if a woman decides to be a parent her decision will have a huge impact on her career that a male will not encounter. I don't like reading that passage, but I get over it by hoping that the future will be different than than the past.
And yet, won't the impact be due to the difference between the sexes to a great degree. We speak of the mothering instinct, but if a father fathers, we don't regard it as instinctive. After a birth, the male will likely want to get back to work, not feed and care for the infant. I was married to a computer engineer when our daughter was born. I was enrolled in graduate school. I did care for my daughter, and I assure you I loved her (and still do), but it was her mother who couldn't wait to get home from her job to be with our baby.
Have you guys met Hillary Clinton
She has done more for women in elevating women and breaking barriers and obstacles in politics than any other woman can come to close for even the next 50 years.
Yes, not to mention Margaret Thatcher
Yes but I believe Thatcher is really not a great example because of her track record
I did say not to mention her! *laughs*
Have you ever heard about "the exception that proves the rule?"
There are many reasons why women don't succeed in politics at the same rate as men. One was discovered recently: both men and women, all things being equal, will place more trust in the deeper voice. When was the last time you saw a woman with a high-pitched, squeaky voice in politics? They can't be taken seriously. Hillary overcame that unconscious prejudice, so it can be done. Yet, it's an obstacle every woman entering politics needs to overcome. Like I said earlier, there are hardwired differences between men and women.
I think we devalue the role women actually did play in history. It may more be that all those great men in history had different goals, that a lot of the contributions that women were allowed AND wanted to give are not directly going to make historic headlines. Most of the time you got to want to be known and remembered. Sometimes a mother's love or treatment meant the boy grew to be a historic celebrity. Understanding these proclivities within the brain can trigger that need to be famous at whatever cost. The support system provided is also under estimated if you use the criteria of being famous for good or bad works. Plus history is and can be re-written by the victor.
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.
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...