Have women accomplished anything throughout history?

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.

Load Previous Replies
  • up

    Claire Couch

    I think I agree that the recorded contributions of women are, compared to men, almost non-existent.


    1)  I don't think that makes those that are recorded worthy of dismissal.

    2)  And I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion, but that's partly because the conclusion was written somewhat poetically, and thus it's specific meaning is far from clear.

    But, I would like to point out, that, much the same could be said for many ethnic groups.  Even more tellingly, the same could be said for the lower economic classes.  And if we assume that women have, on the whole been appx 50% of the population, while the lower economic classes have been a MUCH higher percentage of the population, maybe even being as high as 90%, depending on the historical period and region in question.  So, that seems more noteworthy.

    Again, not sure exactly what you mean in your conclusion, but, I'd have to say, given the above, I'd disagree with the sentiment, as I understood it.

    I mean, is your point that, if you happen to be a black woman from a low socio-economic class, things are so bad, that life isn't worth living, given the totality of history?

    I think, that leads me to one more potential objection.  Regardless of any factor of age, gender, class, race, etc, you can't compete with the totality of history.  You can only contend with the present.  Let the future decide how to remember you once you are a part of the distant past.  Depending on what one woman living in the present does right now, or in the near future, in 10,000 more years, the same question might be gender reversed, and the first name listed citing all the remarkable women throughout history (while bemoaning the paucity of male contributions) might be the woman who acts now or in the near future.

  • up

    Gregg R Thomas

    I like turtles. :D

    • up