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.
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.
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.