I have to ask this question again about women in history

[Nick Young]

Where are all the great ones?

I know the traditional excuse is that females were oppressed by the patriarchy until the 70s.

But if you look at reality that's not entirely true.

Science wise, I understand there's a huge stigma against female scientists that still exists today, so fair enough that there aren't any female Newtons or Darwins.

But what about the arts? Writing and music and painting, these are fields that women have ALWAYS been encouraged to participate in! In Europe for example, women in the aristocracy were always encouraged to play music, learn painting and write poetry, and families paid huge amounts to ensure that their daughters had the best tutors.

So where are the female Rembrandts, the female Mozarts, the female Bethovens, the female Tolstoys and Dostoyevskys? Why doesn't it happen?

I try so hard to tell myself that women are the intellectual equals to men, but if I try to look at things completely objectively, from the perspective of an alien visitor, it doesn't look that way at all.


ALSO I don't appreciate how women are elevated above men in history simply because they're women.

Joan of Arc for example was a horrible shitty general, she won a couple fluke battles, proceeded to lose the rest and then got captured within a year of her campaign! She was not a great leader!

Florence Nightengale was a goddamn nurse! The field of nursing is not as important as surgery yet history books elevate her above many of the greatest surgeons!

Now Jane Austen is getting on britians 10 pound note ahead of Winston Churchill?


I want true equality. I force myself to believe that both genders are completely equal.

And you can never bring this topic up in public because you instantly get branded a close-minded mysoginistic agent of the patriarchy.

But then once again this question is difficult for me to get my head around: Where are the great female artists creating work on the same level as the greatest male artists? Why is there no War and Peace written by a female? Where is the female Rembrandt? Why is there no female Liszt?

Philosophy too as well now that I think about it: Why is there no female Kant, female Socrates, or female Hobbes?

If you look at history truthfully, the "patriarchal oppression" was never close to the level that modern feminists would have you believe if you follow their words blindly. Patriarchal oppression is not the reason for this huge disconnect between the genders.

[Jameerthefear]

Ada Lovelace?

[Nick Young]

Ada Lovelace?
Nice, she's legit. They need to make an oscar winning movie about her starring Keira Knightley so she starts getting credit she deserves.

[bmulls]

How many prominent muslim women are there today?

There are prominent women in the Western world today, yet none in the middle east. Take the way women are treated in the muslim world and imagine that every where since the beginning of man kind. That's why there aren't many great women through history.

[Nick Young]

How many prominent muslim women are there today?

There are prominent women in the Western world today, yet none in the middle east. Take the way women are treated in the muslim world and imagine that every where since the beginning of man kind. That's why there aren't many great women through history.
the best and most popular architect working today, Zaha Hadid, born in Baghdad.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Education/Pix/pictures/2011/3/3/1299158233780/Architect-Zaha-Hadid-at-h-007.jpg
Designed many great buildings, she should be remembered as one of the all time greats
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/50a25a9a6bb3f7cd76000008-1200/shes-also-currently-working-on-the-dubai-performing-arts-center-the-building-will-house-five-theatres-a-music-hall-a-concert-hall-and-opera-house.jpg

Also Marjane Satrapi, cartoonist of Persepolis, very big comic about growing up in Iran
http://www.lambiek.net/artists/image/s/satrapi_marjane/satrapi_persepolis.jpg


Shirin Ebadi, was chief judge in Iran before the 1979 revolution, won nobel prize not that they mean much any more after Obamas.

Don't rewrite history, "oppression of women" in europe was never close to the level modern feminists have you believe, also in east asia or africa or south america it wasn't really that bad. And it's not like males weren't oppressed themselves, forced to die in wars and work on land for lords and kings, forced to travel hundreds of miles and sacrifice their lives in battle for a cause that has nothing to do with them, women never had to go through anything like that. Look at real history, not rhetoric propaganda history. In Europe especially from the 1500s onward it was fashionable for the richest families to pay the greatest teachers to train their daughters in music lessons or painting lessons for hours and hours at a time. Mozart and Bethoven taught many female pupils just as an example, same as Rembrandt and Ruebens and many other great artists, how come none of their female pupills became greats themselves?

[shaq2000]

Grace Hopper.

[UConnCeltics]

Marie Curie was pretty useful for science.

[Nick Young]

Marie Curie was pretty useful for science.
In your opinion was she at the Galileo-Darwin-Newton-Pasteur-Aristotle level?

[gigantes]

But what about the arts? Writing and music and painting, these are fields that women have ALWAYS been encouraged to participate in! In Europe for example, women in the aristocracy were always encouraged to play music, learn painting and write poetry, and families paid huge amounts to ensure that their daughters had the best tutors.
if there's one area of the arts (er, besides dance, song, performance) that have produced large numbers of greatly talented women, it's writing. i couldn't even begin to list the excellent books i've read by women, and the latest one i'm reading, "the other side of the tiber" by wallis wilde-menozzi is definitely an instant classic.

but it's harder for me when it comes to fine art. besides camille claudel, frida kahlo, mary cassatt, georgia o'keefe i'm kind of at a loss as far as past history goes.

in contemporary history, judith schaecter's lightboxes are utterly brilliant IMO. never seen anything like them before when i first saw them back in the mid 90's. can't really get the full effect without seeing in person, but some examples:
http://www.judithschaechter.com/Older%20Work.html


another judith... vierow who lives around here is a genius with color. actually i haven't been to the galleries in a long time, so i'm sure i'm missing out on lots more.

http://www.vierow.com/Judy/Gallery/Jam.jpg



I try so hard to tell myself that women are the intellectual equals to men, but if I try to look at things completely objectively, from the perspective of an alien visitor, it doesn't look that way at all.
that was a terrible mistake i made for a long time. women are not equal to men, just like the races aren't equal, just like nothing in life is really equal. women average the same IQ scores as men, but they come at it with very different brain composition. they have 10x our level of white matter, so they are natively way better at forming networks and finding connections than we are. while we have 6x their level of grey matter, which tends to make us the deeper and more focused thinkers on single subjects.


And you can never bring this topic up in public because you instantly get branded a close-minded mysoginistic agent of the patriarchy.
basic fact of life: KMFDM. no pity for the majority. now go out and deal with it.


If you look at history truthfully, the "patriarchal oppression" was never close to the level that modern feminists would have you believe if you follow their words blindly. Patriarchal oppression is not the reason for this huge disconnect between the genders.
agree, patriarchal oppression is not the reason for the disconnect, but don't fool yourself... across just about every form of civilisation it was pretty much a landslide favoring men's rights over women's. if you have a basic overview of history then you should know this.

women generally get what they want by the power of networks and alternate strategies to circumvent direct confrontation. if you understand a few principles like this about women, it explains the vast majority of their behavior and why their names do not pop up as much in history.

no, they tend to work behind the scenes of history.

[bmulls]

the best and most popular architect working today, Zaha Hadid, born in Baghdad.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Education/Pix/pictures/2011/3/3/1299158233780/Architect-Zaha-Hadid-at-h-007.jpg
Designed many great buildings, she should be remembered as one of the all time greats
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/50a25a9a6bb3f7cd76000008-1200/shes-also-currently-working-on-the-dubai-performing-arts-center-the-building-will-house-five-theatres-a-music-hall-a-concert-hall-and-opera-house.jpg

Also Marjane Satrapi, cartoonist of Persepolis, very big comic about growing up in Iran
http://www.lambiek.net/artists/image/s/satrapi_marjane/satrapi_persepolis.jpg


Shirin Ebadi, was chief judge in Iran before the 1979 revolution, won nobel prize not that they mean much any more after Obamas.

Don't rewrite history, "oppression of women" in europe was never close to the level modern feminists have you believe, also in east asia or africa or south america it wasn't really that bad. And it's not like males weren't oppressed themselves, forced to die in wars and work on land for lords and kings, forced to travel hundreds of miles and sacrifice their lives in battle for a cause that has nothing to do with them, women never had to go through anything like that. Look at real history, not rhetoric propaganda history. In Europe especially from the 1500s onward it was fashionable for the richest families to pay the greatest teachers to train their daughters in music lessons or painting lessons for hours and hours at a time. Mozart and Bethoven taught many female pupils just as an example, same as Rembrandt and Ruebens and many other great artists, how come none of their female pupills became greats themselves?

You just proved my point. The most prominent muslim women are a fcking architect and a fcking cartoon writer, and the architect lives in Britain.

In the Western world you've got female Prime Minister of Australia, female Secretary of State, female CEOs, etc. Women in legitimate positions of power.

Idk if this thread makes you feel better about yourself or something, but it's kind of pathetic.

[Rubio2Gasol]

Prime Minister of Australia really lost me when she played the "feel sorry for me - I'm a girl' to protect her own misogynist parliment memeber. People like her invalidate whatever the idiotic feminist movement is trying to accomplish.

Helen Clark, for me the greatest female politician ever.

[Rubio2Gasol]

How many prominent muslim women are there today?

There are prominent women in the Western world today, yet none in the middle east. Take the way women are treated in the muslim world and imagine that every where since the beginning of man kind. That's why there aren't many great women through history.

Patriarchy is somewhat responsible, but not at all to the extent you seem to think. Both men and women have been greatly oppressed throughout history, men though have been somewhat placated and encouraged to study.

But in the modern post-renaissance western world, invention and genius is rarely rejected on the basis of gender.

Before that it was suppressed on the basis of class, which both men and women suffered for.

[Graviton]

Women are just not as intelligent as men, simple a that. They lack the cold emotionless logic and ruthless attitude to reach their full potential. And that "oppressed" excuse is hardly relevant considering lot of the great writers, geniuses and scientist were oppressed themselves. They discovered things on their own.

And what exactly are women better at? Even the best cooks in the world are male.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Aunt Jemima is probably the most notable one in history.

[eppelp]

It's a numbers game. There have been tens of thousands of male Rulers, Scientists and artists and how many of them were truly "great"? There have been fewer female rulers, scientists etc and therefore the great females a fewer and tend to disappear among the more numerous males.

[UConnCeltics]

In your opinion was she at the Galileo-Darwin-Newton-Pasteur-Aristotle level?
No.

[gigantes]

Women are just not as intelligent as men, simple a that. They lack the cold emotionless logic and ruthless attitude to reach their full potential. And that "oppressed" excuse is hardly relevant considering lot of the great writers, geniuses and scientist were oppressed themselves. They discovered things on their own.

And what exactly are women better at? Even the best cooks in the world are male.
wow, okay.

well, on the positive side... i

[OhNoTimNoSho]

they dont have to try as hard because they got a *****

[Dresta]

Where are all the great ones?

I know the traditional excuse is that females were oppressed by the patriarchy until the 70s.

But if you look at reality that's not entirely true.

Science wise, I understand there's a huge stigma against female scientists that still exists today, so fair enough that there aren't any female Newtons or Darwins.

But what about the arts? Writing and music and painting, these are fields that women have ALWAYS been encouraged to participate in! In Europe for example, women in the aristocracy were always encouraged to play music, learn painting and write poetry, and families paid huge amounts to ensure that their daughters had the best tutors.

So where are the female Rembrandts, the female Mozarts, the female Bethovens, the female Tolstoys and Dostoyevskys? Why doesn't it happen?

I try so hard to tell myself that women are the intellectual equals to men, but if I try to look at things completely objectively, from the perspective of an alien visitor, it doesn't look that way at all.

Now Jane Austen is getting on britians 10 pound note ahead of Winston Churchill?

I want true equality. I force myself to believe that both genders are completely equal.

And you can never bring this topic up in public because you instantly get branded a close-minded mysoginistic agent of the patriarchy.

But then once again this question is difficult for me to get my head around: Where are the great female artists creating work on the same level as the greatest male artists? Why is there no War and Peace written by a female? Where is the female Rembrandt? Why is there no female Liszt?

Philosophy too as well now that I think about it: Why is there no female Kant, female Socrates, or female Hobbes?

If you look at history truthfully, the "patriarchal oppression" was never close to the level that modern feminists would have you believe if you follow their words blindly. Patriarchal oppression is not the reason for this huge disconnect between the genders.There is, it's called 'Middlemarch' and it's written by George Eliot, who was from the same era and on the same level as Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. I don't personally like Jane Austen particularly, but the Brontes were very good also.

And yes, it can be mostly explained by patriarchy, as girls were told from a young age that they were less intelligent and that their primary duty was towards the keeping of the home and other non-intellectual activities. If you want a good example of this, then you should read 'The Mill on the Floss' - a semi-autobiographical account of Eliot's own upbringing and see how she is constantly harangued for being a clever girl (it always spells trouble, they say) and the constant suppression of her intelligence and open mindedness, which are continually held down by the restrictiveness of her family, and (in particular) her narrow-minded older brother. 'Jane Eyre' is probably another book that would enlighten you on this topic.

Women should of course be treated equally, but that doesn't mean they aren't different (this is what it's hard to get many feminists to admit). I would say women are more emotionally connected with life than men on average, and that is why you never get female philosophers willing to stand back and completely distance themselves from the world. To forgo life and living, effectively. And it is also why no male writer has been able to get to the depths of emotions as to what drives people like Eliot did.

You seem to forget that men have been the prime perpetrators of human atrocity also, and that the majority of men are still very unintelligent. Just because a few great men have done great things does not give you any extra claim to it simply because you are a man.

Your post is pretty ignorant and sexist tbh.

[AlphaWolf24]

Hilary Clinton!!!!!




nuff said

[Scoooter]

Women are just biological machines we use to make more men.

[MavsSuperFan]

In your opinion was she at the Galileo-Darwin-Newton-Pasteur-Aristotle level?

you ranking aristotle with those guys :kobe:

She is better than him

[MavsSuperFan]

Golda meir was an effective leader for the israeli people. She was bold and decisive. When those israeli athletes were killed in Munich she ordered Mossad to get revenge. Lots of countries Israel's size would be too scared to do that.

[Graviton]

[QUOTE=gigantes]wow, okay.

well, on the positive side... i

[Dresta]

you ranking aristotle with those guys :kobe:

She is better than him
So true, Aristotle was an ass who said almost nothing that was right.

There's a good half-dozen other Greek philosophers superior to him. Aristotle only has this inflated reputation because the Christian theologians bummed the hell outta him.

[Nick Young]

You just proved my point. The most prominent muslim women are a fcking architect and a fcking cartoon writer, and the architect lives in Britain.

In the Western world you've got female Prime Minister of Australia, female Secretary of State, female CEOs, etc. Women in legitimate positions of power.

Idk if this thread makes you feel better about yourself or something, but it's kind of pathetic.
Threads not to make myself feel good fool.

Architects are a big deal too.

Understand why you don't rate a cartoonist tho

[Nick Young]

It's a numbers game. There have been tens of thousands of male Rulers, Scientists and artists and how many of them were truly "great"? There have been fewer female rulers, scientists etc and therefore the great females a fewer and tend to disappear among the more numerous males.
sounds like BS. Throughout human history the gender ratio has been 50/50 roughly. weak excuse

[Nick Young]

There is, it's called 'Middlemarch' and it's written by George Eliot, who was from the same era and on the same level as Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. I don't personally like Jane Austen particularly, but the Brontes were very good also.

And yes, it can be mostly explained by patriarchy, as girls were told from a young age that they were less intelligent and that their primary duty was towards the keeping of the home and other non-intellectual activities. If you want a good example of this, then you should read 'The Mill on the Floss' - a semi-autobiographical account of Eliot's own upbringing and see how she is constantly harangued for being a clever girl (it always spells trouble, they say) and the constant suppression of her intelligence and open mindedness, which are continually held down by the restrictiveness of her family, and (in particular) her narrow-minded older brother. 'Jane Eyre' is probably another book that would enlighten you on this topic.

Women should of course be treated equally, but that doesn't mean they aren't different (this is what it's hard to get many feminists to admit). I would say women are more emotionally connected with life than men on average, and that is why you never get female philosophers willing to stand back and completely distance themselves from the world. To forgo life and living, effectively. And it is also why no male writer has been able to get to the depths of emotions as to what drives people like Eliot did.

You seem to forget that men have been the prime perpetrators of human atrocity also, and that the majority of men are still very unintelligent. Just because a few great men have done great things does not give you any extra claim to it simply because you are a man.

Your post is pretty ignorant and sexist tbh.
Double standard BS. Many of the greatest men of all time were told they were nothings and had no hope and were oppressed and denounced by society, this just lead them to working harder to unlock their full potential and discover great things.

[Swaggin916]

How bout your mom... she was definitely a trooper. Great woman indeed for putting up with such an ungrateful ****

[Kews1]

Hilary Clinton!!!!!




nuff said

pfft, shes nothing without Bill

[longhornfan1234]

Margaret Thatcher.

[LJJ]

Well, the music situation is a bit misrepresented in the OP.

It's true that girls in priviledged families would ofter receive a musical education. Thus, there were also a lot of adult female musicians throughout classical music history as well. So why did none of them go on to become household names like Mozart or Beethoven?

In short it's actually as the conventional narrative goes: because they weren't allowed to.
It wasn't because of a lack of talent, there would always be outliers. Not all the great, famous composers were actually that talented either. And we know of plenty of females who did display musical talent. In fact, both Mozart's and Mendelssohn's older sisters were noted child prodigies rivalling at least in some aspects the talents of their younger brothers (which is a huge deal, as Mozart and Mendelssohn are the two most accomplished child prodigies in music history). We know for a fact both of their musical careers were strongly opposed and cut short by their families.
A women's, even with prodigious musical ability, only acceptable choice of life would be to become the head of a household. They could continue to perform music as a hobby, locally. And a lot of great compositions have actually been written with the intention of the local female virtuosi performing it. They could teach music, locally. And actually a lot of the great musical figures had female teachers.
But women could never travel as a musician, they could never publish music and they could never hold an official position. All of these things were essential for become a famous, well respected composer or performer.

So it's actually true that the reason there is no female Mozart or Liszst is because of patriarchy.

That said, it's much harder to answer why there have been so few great female musicians in modernity. Even when females are widely renowned for their musical genius (Argerich, Fitzgerald, etc), it's almost always as a performer and not as a content creator.

[ILLsmak]

I got u boy.

While not exactly a feminist celebration, my counter argument to "where are the great women in history" is this:

Women have accounted for a large portion of art made by men, as inspirations.

Women console great men in a way no one else could, telling them they are great, likely before they were. Men don't support each other like that.

Plenty of women also twisted great leaders around their fingers and changed history in that way.

also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin

-Smak

[gigantes]

some cool, interesting posts in this thread. nice reading.

nick young, if that is your real name, it is time for you to come along and declare them all bullshit.

[iamgine]

Well, the music situation is a bit misrepresented in the OP.

It's true that girls in priviledged families would ofter receive a musical education. Thus, there were also a lot of adult female musicians throughout classical music history as well. So why did none of them go on to become household names like Mozart or Beethoven?

In short it's actually as the conventional narrative goes: because they weren't allowed to.
It wasn't because of a lack of talent, there would always be outliers. Not all the great, famous composers were actually that talented either. And we know of plenty of females who did display musical talent. In fact, both Mozart's and Mendelssohn's older sisters were noted child prodigies rivalling at least in some aspects the talents of their younger brothers (which is a huge deal, as Mozart and Mendelssohn are the two most accomplished child prodigies in music history). We know for a fact both of their musical careers were strongly opposed and cut short by their families.
A women's, even with prodigious musical ability, only acceptable choice of life would be to become the head of a household. They could continue to perform music as a hobby, locally. And a lot of great compositions have actually been written with the intention of the local female virtuosi performing it. They could teach music, locally. And actually a lot of the great musical figures had female teachers.
But women could never travel as a musician, they could never publish music and they could never hold an official position. All of these things were essential for become a famous, well respected composer or performer.

So it's actually true that the reason there is no female Mozart or Liszst is because of patriarchy.

That said, it's much harder to answer why there have been so few great female musicians in modernity. Even when females are widely renowned for their musical genius (Argerich, Fitzgerald, etc), it's almost always as a performer and not as a content creator.
Makes sense.

But what would you consider modernity? Who are the great male content creators in this modernity?

[LJJ]

Makes sense.

But what would you consider modernity? Who are the great male content creators in this modernity?

For classical music starts in the early 1900s until now. So that would be Prokofiev, Sch

[iamgine]

[QUOTE=LJJ]For classical music starts in the early 1900s until now. So that would be Prokofiev, Sch

[MavsSuperFan]

I got u boy.

While not exactly a feminist celebration, my counter argument to "where are the great women in history" is this:

Women have accounted for a large portion of art made by men, as inspirations.

Women console great men in a way no one else could, telling them they are great, likely before they were. Men don't support each other like that.

Plenty of women also twisted great leaders around their fingers and changed history in that way.

also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin

-Smak

You arguement is extremely anti women.

basically you are arguing that women are independently incapable of greatness.

I think we are all overlooking the fact that despite usually being a slight majority of the population (women have longer lifespans on average, and only through radical social policies has the male population exceeded the female population) women have always been in real terms an oppressed population.

Women werent allowed to get educations until relatively recently in the west and in lots of parts of the world they are still killed for seeking an education.

Recently in the america we have seen that female graduates outpace male graduates. It wont show up immediately but 3-4 decades down the line, females might make up a majority of the power positions in society if this trend continues.

The last few years the majority of new recruits to my office have been female. 20 years ago it was almost all males. As the move up the corporate ladder they will eventually enter the power positions.

[gigantes]

@LJJ,
again, i think it goes to the white / grey matter disparity in the brain. there are many quick reads online about this summarising the research.

but this would just be a quantifiable way of identifying what we should already be able to figure out given our knowledge of classic male and female roles the last six million years or so. we're tribal creatures and we're designed by evolution to do different things to best succeed in that format.

as we know, men tend to be the wanderers, procurers, risk-takers, problem-solvers (especially in the face of novel situations), protectors of life, physically powerful, hardy and combative, etc.

and women are life-bearers, life-nurturers, first influences, first teachers, emotional framework, invested in positions of safety, harmony-builders, workers upon small regular tasks, sensitive to social nuances around them, finders of clever work-arounds, etc.

if a clownfish asks other clownfish why an anemone is lousy at being a clownfish, the answer is likely to be........

[iamgine]

perhaps another reason is that most women had to go through childbearing and child raising at a pretty young age in the past century. It's pretty hard becoming great at something while raising kids at the same time since they took much of your time.

[MavsSuperFan]

perhaps another reason is that most women had to go through childbearing and child raising at a pretty young age in the past century. It's pretty hard becoming great at something while raising kids at the same time since they took much of your time.

This is another big factor.

The birth control pill and the financial freedom from men, allows them to choose when and if they want to bear children.

[Nick Young]

You arguement is extremely anti women.

basically you are arguing that women are independently incapable of greatness.

I think we are all overlooking the fact that despite usually being a slight majority of the population (women have longer lifespans on average, and only through radical social policies has the male population exceeded the female population) women have always been in real terms an oppressed population.

Women werent allowed to get educations until relatively recently in the west and in lots of parts of the world they are still killed for seeking an education.

Recently in the america we have seen that female graduates outpace male graduates. It wont show up immediately but 3-4 decades down the line, females might make up a majority of the power positions in society if this trend continues.

The last few years the majority of new recruits to my office have been female. 20 years ago it was almost all males. As the move up the corporate ladder they will eventually enter the power positions.
Learn real history. In the middle ages, women were more educated then men. Men left schools early at a young age to work the fields and help their fathers, women for the most part, were ENCOURAGED to stay in schools as long as possible. Of course I'm talking about the 99% normal population, not the 1% elite ruling class.


If you claim women have been oppressed you also have to claim that men have been oppressed. Throughout history men have been forced to fight in wars and give up their lives fighting as soldiers in wars they have nothing to do with.

In natural disasters, men always give up their lives to protect the women and children.

There was never a time in history when women were called to die on the front lines like men always have.

In WWII for example, women were allowed to stay home and work in factories, men had to go in to battle and give their lives. Is that equality?

Both genders were equally oppressed, just oppressed in different ways.


ALSO did you know that in the 70s universities changed their courses to ensure that it's easier for women to succeed, and harder for males?

ALSO Good grades do not equal greatness. They literally mean JACK SHIT. I know so many morons who get top marks in university and are going nowhere because all they know how to do is follow directions and do what they're told.

University for the most part trains people to be underlings and worker drones to work for people with ambition and creativity and drive.

[MavsSuperFan]

Learn real history. In the middle ages, women were more educated then men. Men left schools early at a young age to work the fields and help their fathers, women for the most part, were ENCOURAGED to stay in schools as long as possible. Of course I'm talking about the 99% normal population, not the 1% elite ruling class.


If you claim women have been oppressed you also have to claim that men have been oppressed. Throughout history men have been forced to fight in wars and give up their lives fighting as soldiers in wars they have nothing to do with.

In natural disasters, men always give up their lives to protect the women and children.

There was never a time in history when women were called to die on the front lines like men always have.

In WWII for example, women were allowed to stay home and work in factories, men had to go in to battle and give their lives. Is that equality?

Both genders were equally oppressed, just oppressed in different ways.


ALSO did you know that in the 70s universities changed their courses to ensure that it's easier for women to succeed, and harder for males?

ALSO Good grades do not equal greatness. They literally mean JACK SHIT. I know so many morons who get top marks in university and are going nowhere because all they know how to do is follow directions and do what they're told.

University for the most part trains people to be underlings and worker drones to work for people with ambition and creativity and drive.



Learn real history. In the middle ages, women were more educated then men. Men left schools early at a young age to work the fields and help their fathers, women for the most part, were ENCOURAGED to stay in schools as long as possible. Of course I'm talking about the 99% normal population, not the 1% elite ruling class.

Education if it doesnt reach a certain threshold is meaningless. A fifth grade education isnt going to do anything for you.


If you claim women have been oppressed you also have to claim that men have been oppressed. Throughout history men have been forced to fight in wars and give up their lives fighting as soldiers in wars they have nothing to do with.

The vast majority of men have been oppressed. The key difference is men in the ruling class. No women at that time were educated to the same level those men were.

There was never a time in history when women were called to die on the front lines like men always have.

In WWII for example, women were allowed to stay home and work in factories, men had to go in to battle and give their lives. Is that equality?
These are not common occurrences and you are a fool if you think overall women had it better.

Both genders were equally oppressed, just oppressed in different ways.
In different ways, but clearly men overall always had the better end of the deal. You could argue recently in the west women have the better end of the deal.

ALSO Good grades do not equal greatness. They literally mean JACK SHIT. I know so many morons who get top marks in university and are going nowhere because all they know how to do is follow directions and do what they're told.

University for the most part trains people to be underlings and worker drones to work for people with ambition and creativity and drive.[

They do not mean jack shit. Its not for sure, nothing is for sure, but the more educated you are the higher your earning power. If you get a joke liberal arts degree of course nothing is going to come of it. But get a degree in a STEM subject or a business degree and you will typically do better than the average american.

Its anecdotal but at most of the accounting firms and other such corporate workplaces I am familiar with, females are being hired at increasing rates. We arent going to hire someone to a full time articling position without at least the clear indication that they are going to complete their bachelor's degree.

More and more the talent pool is becoming female.
EDIT: also a lot of the great men in history were scientists, and education was obviously very important to their success.

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

To keep it simple testosterone is the magic hormone.

All creative genius has a good portion of sublimated energy coming from it.

With that said, very informative thread. A lot of misconceptions cleared up on both sides!


I think there was one polymath/polyglot woman in Greece named Hipposta or something along that ilne. Her resume was impressive.

I'd like a potential experiment done (consensually of course) where a girl at birth is injected with exogeneous test and trained to be the greatest at her field.

I've also heard that females can
a) see more colors than men
b) hear more sounds than men
c) smell fainter particles than men
d) actually have a few endurance athletes on par in swimming and running (will check my sources)
e) stronger white matter
f) more sensitive to environmental stimuli
g) a stronger link between IMAGINATIO nand reality, dream and day, logic, and emotion, holistic and compartmentalization (From a thicker corpos callasum).. interestingly enough dolphins don't have one and two Creative Geniuses (Einstein and Feynman did nto have AS HIGH of an IQ as others did but had EXCELLENT Right Brain-Left Brain Synchronicitiy) which begs the question.. what gives?

My oversimplified elementary probably-wrong but conceptually-solid hypothesis is that they simply don't have the latent energy especially in the most impressionable years (teens to 20s) and the hormonal craving for oxytocin (trust/relationships), ooestrogen (fertility), menses/ovulation, actually REDIRECTS mental focus from the cold formulaic dull process of mastering something into wanting to have fun, getting f*ked, obsessing about other people and security and all that.

I can attest that most of the people who want to CREATE CREATE CREATE BUILD BUILD BUILD something original that I meet in real life are about half and half. I can also attest that mos to fhte people who actually EXECUTE and ACT, are men.

Like LJJ said; in matters of writing, song performances; women be top notch. But creative genius and cr

[Nick Young]

Education if it doesnt reach a certain threshold is meaningless. A fifth grade education isnt going to do anything for you.


The vast majority of men have been oppressed. The key difference is men in the ruling class. No women at that time were educated to the same level those men were.

These are not common occurrences and you are a fool if you think overall women had it better.

In different ways, but clearly men overall always had the better end of the deal. You could argue recently in the west women have the better end of the deal.


They do not mean jack shit. Its not for sure, nothing is for sure, but the more educated you are the higher your earning power. If you get a joke liberal arts degree of course nothing is going to come of it. But get a degree in a STEM subject or a business degree and you will typically do better than the average american.

Its anecdotal but at most of the accounting firms and other such corporate workplaces I am familiar with, females are being hired at increasing rates. We arent going to hire someone to a full time articling position without at least the clear indication that they are going to complete their bachelor's degree.

More and more the talent pool is becoming female.
EDIT: also a lot of the great men in history were scientists, and education was obviously very important to their success.
Wars are not common occurrences? WTF? They are the one consistent thing through human history, fool.

Accounting firms are hiring women because women are more happy to follow directions and work as an underling then men are.

Jesus and Mohammad had little formal education are are two of the greatest people in history.

Buddha had education but gave it up.

[gigantes]

I'd like a potential experiment done (consensually of course) where a girl at birth is injected with exogeneous test and trained to be the greatest at her field.
something like that was done with the polgar sisters in hungary. as a broad experiment across the breadth of their childhoods, their parents asked them to pick a subject to become an expert in, then worked to train the kids accordingly. the eldest picked chess, so the other two followed.

the youngest sister judit became the greatest female chess player of all time (with nobody remotely close), always preferred to compete against men, and made it in to the top ten in the world. her game is very creative and highly aggressive IIRC. she is an absolute beast on the chessboard, really. she's 37 now, past her absolute chess prime. the other two sisters became accomplished grandmasters, also, but she is the best of them.

anyway, along the lines of your post, the nature of their training probably had huge impact on their developmental neurochemistry and biochemistry. imagine if more little girls were trained in this way?

http://www.quantumgambitz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Judit-Polg%C3%A1r.jpg

[gigantes]

Buddha had education but gave it up.
no, buddha completed his princely education, got married, had a kid, then spent the rest of his life pursuing a worldly education.

[Nick Young]

something like that was done with the polgar sisters in hungary. as a broad experiment across the breadth of their childhoods, their parents asked them to pick a subject to become an expert in, then worked to train the kids accordingly. the eldest picked chess, so the other two followed.

the youngest sister judit became the greatest female chess player of all time (with nobody remotely close), always preferred to compete against men, and made it in to the top ten in the world. her game is very creative and highly aggressive IIRC. she is an absolute beast on the chessboard, really. she's 37 now, past her absolute chess prime. the other two sisters became accomplished grandmasters, also, but she is the best of them.

anyway, along the lines of your post, the nature of their training probably had huge impact on their developmental neurochemistry and biochemistry. imagine if more little girls were trained in this way?

http://www.quantumgambitz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Judit-Polg%C3%A1r.jpg
Interesting. Perhaps women in history have just not been able to focus long enough on any one thing in order to master it, perhaps, like J-money said, due to their lack of testosterone.

What's being done today to lower testosterone in males?

[Nick Young]

no, buddha completed his princely education, got married, had a kid, then spent the rest of his life pursuing a worldly education.
Well he had academic education and gave it up for worldly education, ur right.



(off topic but Siddhartha Guathama for GOAT human:rockon: )

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

Interesting. Perhaps women in history have just not been able to focus long enough on any one thing in order to master it, perhaps, like J-money said, due to their lack of testosterone.

What's being done today to lower testosterone in males?


In the environment, there's something called a xenoestrogen and phytoestrogen. These are artificial chemicals that can be breathed, inhaled, and have a small disruptive effect on a human being's endocrine system.

In colognes there are phthalates, shower curtains, bottled water, air fragrances and other things; these are toxic and lead to a slightly lower quality of air. If a human being is exposed to.. say a paper mill factory or another thing in the womb, there can be some defects.


Also there's the whole epidemic of a severe increase in the rise of autistic boys. This is due to a bunch of things but one of them is wimminz not GETTING PREGGERS on time (before 30ish) which I think is extremely fukked up.

And don't get me started in how fukked up public schools are. They prescribe Ritalin (god knows what the fukk that shit does to your brain) left and right and discipline boys for horseplay which is a NATURAL EXTENSION of a kid's willingness to compete/explore that is not only crucial to their identity but eventually a necessary survival skill.

Despite consuming more calories, pushing more weight in the gym, being taller (higher/larger bone density is a product of higher test usually) and partaking in less-stressed (Cortisol and Test you can say are antithetical) lifestyles that an average man from the 1930's possessed more test than a modern day chap.

Which makes me wonder if any of us dudes are even remotely touching our full potential.

I think the tides about to turn soon. There could be a fresh crop of talent coming up or better yet a re-establishment of the principles that made the civilization we have today. Maybe an embracement of architecture? Maybe an honoring of strength leadership and brains, the cornerstone of masculinity?

Somebody cue up Muse's Uprising..

[gigantes]

Interesting. Perhaps women in history have just not been able to focus long enough on any one thing in order to master it, perhaps, like J-money said, due to their lack of testosterone.
makes sense as far as that goes. IIRC testosterone works hand-in-hand with our superior grey matter neurochemistry, helping us to focus so well on single subjects. everyone here should really read that white-grey article-- it explains so much.


What's being done today to lower testosterone in males?
i try to avoid drinking out of plastic containers because of the BPA content. man boobies aren't so sexy past a certain size. :/


(off topic but Siddhartha Guathama for GOAT human:rockon: )
i would have to say he, joseph campbell and neil degrasse-tyson are probably my three favorite human beings of all time. :cheers:

[MavsSuperFan]

Wars are not common occurrences? WTF? They are the one consistent thing through human history, fool.

Accounting firms are hiring women because women are more happy to follow directions and work as an underling then men are.

Jesus and Mohammad had little formal education are are two of the greatest people in history.

Buddha had education but gave it up.

First of all i am trying to have discussion with you, no need to be an ass

Wars are not common in that they do not take up the majority of mens lives. in fact the vast majority of time that men have spent throughout history has overwhelmingly been at peace. Non-military action is far more common than military action.

Even the 100 years war (actually 112 years i believe) had decades without significant battles.

If your whole premise is to deny that women have had it considerably worse than men throughout human history we can stop the discussion now as you are immune to facts and common sense.

There are people with no formal education that have been extremely great. If you are saying that an education doesn't increase your chances of being great you are ignorant of history.

Women are taking over the entry level positions in many corporations. its just starting. Over the last 20 years we have seen a steady increase in the proportion of female graduates and obviously this means the proportion of male graduates is in decline.

Some point to the fact that executive positions are still overwhelmingly male, this is true, but you dont become a CEO/Partner/COO/CFO/etc right out of university. I am of the belief that unless it this trend changes 3 decades from now women will be the leaders in business and politics.

[Nick Young]

First of all i am trying to have discussion with you, no need to be an ass

Wars are not common in that they do not take up the majority of mens lives. in fact the vast majority of time that men have spent throughout history has overwhelmingly been at peace. Non-military action is far more common than military action.

Even the 100 years war (actually 112 years i believe) had decades without significant battles.

If your whole premise is to deny that women have had it considerably worse than men throughout human history we can stop the discussion now as you are immune to facts and common sense.

There are people with no formal education that have been extremely great. If you are saying that an education doesn't increase your chances of being great you are ignorant of history.

Women are taking over the entry level positions in many corporations. its just starting. Over the last 20 years we have seen a steady increase in the proportion of female graduates and obviously this means the proportion of male graduates is in decline.

Some point to the fact that executive positions are still overwhelmingly male, this is true, but you dont become a CEO/Partner/COO/CFO/etc right out of university. I am of the belief that unless it this trend changes 3 decades from now women will be the leaders in business and politics.
What's better, being alive, or getting your head chopped off in the desert by an enemy because you got drafted into a war you don't give two shits about?

Why do you rate office politics so highly? Being an underling and slowly rising up a few positions over the course of a 50 year career working for someone else does not equal greatness. There is nothing impressive at all about being an office drone.

[MavsSuperFan]

What's better, being alive, or getting your head chopped off in the desert by an enemy because you got drafted into a war you don't give two shits about?

Why do you rate office politics so highly? Being an underling and slowly rising up a few positions over the course of a 50 year career working for someone else does not equal greatness. There is nothing impressive at all about being an office drone.

Sigh, my point was warfare is a small percentage of the lives of men. Your premise was that men had it tougher because they throughout history would be expected to fight and die in wars. my point was that battles (in comparison to peace) werent that common.

Fine lets move away from corporate business, people tend to focus on what is important in their lives, but fair point it is not for everyone. My point was that it was an example and evidence that women until recently have been oppressed. Which was one reason why historically women have accomplished much less than men. Most good jobs (not a receptionist or office temp or intern) in an office require a bachelor's degree, until recently these jobs were almost exclusively male.

You cant move up the corporate ladder if you don't get in the door. Also an education is seen as a desirable qualification by most voters. More female graduates will increase the amount of female politicians. Its easier to do great things if you have some political power.

Overall just arguing that there are a lot of reasons explaining why women have much less accomplishments throughout history then men do, without going to the conclusion that they are inferior.

[gigantes]

actually i think warfare, or at least warfare on a smaller scale, is very much a constant with us.

sublimated aggression poorly managed is one of the biggest flaws in civilisation IMO.

[Balla_Status]

Men have been oppressed ever since De Beers came up with a marketing scheme to prey on the western worlds culture of materialism and consumerism to convince women they need diamond engagement rings.

[Scholar]

I don't know where exactly you got this idea that women were always encouraged to write poetry, make music, etc.
Women were frowned upon by typical white males so much that many would get arrested for simply wearing outfits not fitting the set norms of society.
Some correct me if I'm wrong but I recall reading years ago that Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein, originally published the book under her husband's name in order for it to even be read by publishers.

Men have always considered themselves superior to women.

In the past, according to white men of even moderate wealth, the heirarchy of humanity went:
White males >>> white females >>>>>>>>>>> colored men >> colored women

[Nick Young]

I don't know where exactly you got this idea that women were always encouraged to write poetry, make music, etc.
Women were frowned upon by typical white males so much that many would get arrested for simply wearing outfits not fitting the set norms of society.
Some correct me if I'm wrong but I recall reading years ago that Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein, originally published the book under her husband's name in order for it to even be read by publishers.

Men have always considered themselves superior to women.

In the past, according to white men of even moderate wealth, the heirarchy of humanity went:
White males >>> white females >>>>>>>>>>> colored men >> colored women
I got this idea by studying history and literature written in the time period instead of blindly believing 1970s bullshit feminist rhetoric with no basis in history.

Also if Mary Shelley had to change her name to get Frankenstein published, which I don't think happened because it was first published anonymously, what about Jane Austen and Emily Bronte who were popular published female novelists and her contemporaries?

See? if you use basic logic, you will realize how baseless your claims are.

WTF is all this white superiority BS? Maybe it's that way now-but what about Roman times, where society was basically color blind? What about the golden age of the Arab empire? What about the great Chinese empires that were the most technologically advanced civilizations in their time? What about the golden age of ancient egypt? Were white man>colored man back then? You are only looking at this from the perspective of a westerner looking at the west. It's an extremely closeminded viewpoint that you're taking.

[RidonKs]

what about Jane Austen and Emily Bronte who were popular published female novelists and her contemporaries?
they both used pseudonyms numnuts

on a side note, this guy did a social experiment i think a few years ago, submitted a bunch of austen's lesser known stuff to major publishers and each and every one were rejected. i've never read anything by her and don't really plan to but its kind of interesting.

and somewhat related to this asinine thread. fame in posterity is a cultural phenomenon. its the cultural elite that essentially decides whats 'good' and whats 'bad'... and thus who gains genius-status from future generations. of course its not cut and dry, some people get discovered long after their death etc, but for millennia its been men dictating which figures we should pay attention to and which figures we should ignore. that's.... kind of important in evaluating the topic of this thread, which i repeat is pretty dumb anyway.

j$ makes some neat arguments in here but regardless, they still require enormous leaps of logic based on preconceptions of the way men and women 'are'. i buy some of it to an extent just on personal bias but by the time you have to extrapolate into exactly HOW these great works are created, its pretty damn flimsy.

[Rasheed1]

Jane Austen is actually a brilliant writer.. I am taking a course where we have to read her work, and I was pretty surprised at how she got me to care about:

1800s European culture
love stories from a woman's point of view
various issues that revolve around women and a woman's place in society.

I just got done reading Pride and Prejudice.. And now I am reading a book called Emma

It takes a minute to adjust to the time period and the mindset of that time, but as soon as you do, it gets pretty easy to enjoy her work.

[Rolando]

Didn't read through everything but, from what I've seen, not enough weight has been given to the fact that most women have babies. When a women gets pregnant and subsequently has a child, her whole life is turned upside down. Whatever career she had or interests she was pursuing normally take a back seat to childcare.

Society is only recently trying to change and make allowances for mothers to be able to comfortably resume their professional careers after giving birth.

Those of you who have children must acknowledge the incredible amount of time and energy needed to raise even just one kid. The majority of that huge outlay of time and energy has overwhelming come from women. It is an enormous factor when considering the historical accomplishments of women.

[Nick Young]

they both used pseudonyms numnuts

on a side note, this guy did a social experiment i think a few years ago, submitted a bunch of austen's lesser known stuff to major publishers and each and every one were rejected. i've never read anything by her and don't really plan to but its kind of interesting.

and somewhat related to this asinine thread. fame in posterity is a cultural phenomenon. its the cultural elite that essentially decides whats 'good' and whats 'bad'... and thus who gains genius-status from future generations. of course its not cut and dry, some people get discovered long after their death etc, but for millennia its been men dictating which figures we should pay attention to and which figures we should ignore. that's.... kind of important in evaluating the topic of this thread, which i repeat is pretty dumb anyway.

j$ makes some neat arguments in here but regardless, they still require enormous leaps of logic based on preconceptions of the way men and women 'are'. i buy some of it to an extent just on personal bias but by the time you have to extrapolate into exactly HOW these great works are created, its pretty damn flimsy.
Bronte used a penname because she wrote about her neighbors and didn't want them to find out.

Jane Austen's pseudonym was "A Lady" so it's not like she hid her gender, numbnuts.

Stop rewriting history to fit your artificial vision of the world.


Jane Austen's writing is dull as dirt in every sense of the word, doesn't surprise me no modern editor would want to publish tripe like that.

[AintNoSunshine]

Sasha grey, bobbi starr?

[RidonKs]

Bronte used a penname because she wrote about her neighbors and didn't want them to find out.

Jane Austen's pseudonym was "A Lady" so it's not like she hid her gender, numbnuts.

Stop rewriting history to fit your artificial vision of the world.
its pretty funny that the only two "popularly published female novelists" you managed to come up with didn't use their own names. no artificial vision here. you're just exposing yourself like always.