Old Classics or New Literature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

Women have undoubtedly been heavily disadvantaged in the past, however there is still an enormous disparity between male and female writers and frankly, high achievers in virtually every field which is consistent in every culture and every region on Earth. You can argue that this is due entirely to cultural factors or social limitations but I'm not convinced. I also don't think your average woman is any less intellectual adept than your average man, by the way.

---

I don't think you can make claims about every culture.

I'd stop before the hole gets any deeper if I were you. Let's leave it at that.

Good argument. I especially liked the part where you didn't make one. Anyway the disparity is clear to see, unless you want to point me to some cultures where the majority of technical and financial jobs as well as political posts are held by women you can definitely concede that there is a disparity right? Now the reason for the disparity is certainly in part due to social conditions but I don't think that's the entire story, you're free to provide some sort of argument though, I would love to actually discuss this with someone.

Men commit 90% of all homicides in the U.S.A as well so the disparity between men and women is often very ugly for men... I guess that's all social conditioning though because apparently it's absurd to consider that men and women may be psychologically and mentally different by nature as well as nurture.

According to Wikipedia, the three best-selling novelists of all time are women: Agatha Christie, Barbara Cartland, and Danielle Steele. JK Rowling and Enid Blyton are also among the top ten. As far as "high achievers in virtually every field" being more likely to be men, how about primary carers and nurturers of young children? I'll bet the most of the "high achievers" to whom you refer were primarily nurtured by women -- or isn't child-care an achievement worth valuing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

According to Wikipedia, the three best-selling novelists of all time are women: Agatha Christie, Barbara Cartland, and Danielle Steele. JK Rowling and Enid Blyton are also among the top ten. As far as "high achievers in virtually every field" being more likely to be men, how about primary carers and nurturers of young children? I'll bet the most of the "high achievers" to whom you refer were primarily nurtured by women -- or isn't child-care an achievement worth valuing?

---

I'm a daycare instructor myself and I would hazard that at least 90% of my coworkers have been women, but this just reaffirms my point that men and women are different and choose to work in different fields based on natural differences opposed to societal pressure. By the way, I'm not suggesting that men are better than women and as i am no achiever myself it isn't to my own credit that I'm pointing out the lack of women at the top end of most industries, nor do I think it reflects badly on myself personally that men commit the overwhelming majority of violent crimes, being male myself; these are simply facts.

Fran Kafka, Edie Allen Poe, Salome Rushdie...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

Good argument. I especially liked the part where you didn't make one. Anyway the disparity is clear to see, unless you want to point me to some cultures where the majority of technical and financial jobs as well as political posts are held by women you can definitely concede that there is a disparity right? Now the reason for the disparity is certainly in part due to social conditions but I don't think that's the entire story, you're free to provide some sort of argument though, I would love to actually discuss this with someone.

---

The disparity is the key. This argument you're proposing is a rehash of a cultural assumption made in the last century - that some jobs were unsuitable for women on physical grounds. It was 'natural' that you didn't get women soldiers, plumbers, mechanics, engineers etc. This is now a sexist assumption and women are moving successfully into those roles. Are there as many women in those fields as men? No, but their prescence disproves former assumptions, just as the success of women in literature disproves former assumptions that education was not for women and hence publishing. The lack of representation is because those roles are still being normalize as women's too.

Your own job as a day care instructor sees your co-workers being mostly women. Why might that be? That day care work fits with looking after school age children perhaps? That many men would not consider working with young children because it is not as culturally acceptable? (Here in the UK they cannot get male Primary school teachers - 4- 11year olds. I was one of 3 male staff out of 38). The disparities are still there and it is very simplistic of you to attribute this to the innate qualities of men and women whatever stats you might bring up about violence and murder. Despite anything else most men do not commit violent acts and murder, and that a small minority do might reflect an aberrance that is not present in the majority of the population.

Men commit more violent crimes than women -- but it's not clear whether nature or nurture is the primary reason. Also, the fact that the three best-selling novelists were women makes me wonder if the subjectivity upon which critical acclaim is based might be prejudiced in favor of men. Best-seller lists are, at least, reasonably objective.

Evelyn Waugh, Hilliare Belloc, Joyce Kilmer. (Or don't those count?)

As to why more women do not work in engineering. It may be that they don't feel welcome and not everyone wants job where they are not appreciated. My father is an engineer, so I had the occasion to hear how 'it is not a suitable job for a woman.' This perception is slowly changing, but it is still present. That women can be engineers is one thing and a change in a good direction, but there is also this persisting perception which needs time to disappear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

The disparity is the key. This argument you're proposing is a rehash of a cultural assumption made in the last century - that some jobs were unsuitable for women on physical grounds. It was 'natural' that you didn't get women soldiers, plumbers, mechanics, engineers etc. This is now a sexist assumption and women are moving successfully into those roles. Are there as many women in those fields as men? No, but their prescence disproves former assumptions, just as the success of women in literature disproves former assumptions that education was not for women and hence publishing. The lack of representation is because those roles are still being normalize as women's too.

Your own job as a day care instructor sees your co-workers being mostly women. Why might that be? That day care work fits with looking after school age children perhaps? That many men would not consider working with young children because it is not as culturally acceptable? (Here in the UK they cannot get male Primary school teachers - 4- 11year olds. I was one of 3 male staff out of 38). The disparities are still there and it is very simplistic of you to attribute this to the innate qualities of men and women whatever stats you might bring up about violence and murder. Despite anything else most men do not commit violent acts and murder, and that a small minority do might reflect an aberrance that is not present in the majority of the population.

---

1. Women are less capable than men at physical labour, that is a simple fact. Carpentry, plumbing, garbage disposal, the military and fields like mechanics are still dominated by men, just walk past a construction site for proof of this. It's not sexist, by the way to suggest that women as a gender can't lift as much as men can, you might as well call it sexist that I think men are usually taller than women.

2. I have never suggested that women are unfit for these jobs, only that women choose to work in different fields.

3. Now regarding daycare instructors being mostly women I think you're right to think a lot of this is due to cultural stigma but I also think that women by nature just enjoy children more. Call me sexist, call me old fashioned but this has been my experience in interacting with female friends, girlfriends, family members etc. Women like children more and women choose to spend more time with children. I also think men tend to place more of a value on money and childcare and education is a notoriously poorly paid field.

4. My point was simply to showcase something I believed pointed to an innate difference between men and women. Men are more aggressive and more likely to be violent, I believe this is evolutionary and inborn, you're free to believe that every single difference that manifests between men and women is the result of social conditioning. I will disagree with you.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_d...man_psychology

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aylinn

As to why more women do not work in engineering. It may be that they don't feel welcome and not everyone wants job where they are not appreciated. My father is an engineer, so I had the occasion to hear how 'it is not a suitable job for a woman.' This perception is slowly changing, but it is still present. That women can be engineers is one thing and a change in a good direction, but there is also this persisting perception which needs time to disappear.

---

Time will tell. I'm not a woman or an engineer but i do work in an industry absolutely dominated by women (childcare) and I have never felt unwelcome or that as a male I have a more difficult time gaining positions or promotions. In fact I feel like I'm often prioritized over female candidates in being hired due to the scarcity of men in the field.

In your opinion would a woman have the intelligence to understand that a thread entitled "Old Classics or New Literature?" was not her vehicle for expressing opinions about gender inequality? Would she be capable of starting a new thread called "Are Men and Women Equal?" in the Serious Discussions forum?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

1. Women are less capable than men at physical labour, that is a simple fact. Carpentry, plumbing, garbage disposal, the military and fields like mechanics are still dominated by men, just walk past a construction site for proof of this. It's not sexist, by the way to suggest that women as a gender can't lift as much as men can, you might as well call it sexist that I think men are usually taller than women.

---

If men were only as sexist as nature a lot of gender disparity would disappear by itself. But yes, I lean towards your view about the absurd attempts our modern society is making for a long time to remove completely the idea of difference between the sexes on each and every level, in every form or shape, as an article of liberal faith. It is comfortable and easy to believe that men and women have inherent sameness in all respects. It is also politically correct. Try for political leadership with a somewhat different view and you'll be trashed ad nauseam, you don't stand a chance.

That said, however, there is no gainsaying that a lot of supposed 'natural difference' between the sexes is but a front for retaining something from the old order of patriarchy, which remains alive and kicking in developing countries. But the 'problem' is that a patriarchal society with clear divisions of socially-constructed roles, I believe, was an existential necessity in pre-modern agrarian civilisations. It wasn't that the old peoples were intellectually dull and couldn't understand the ideas of equality; those ideas were put forth numerous times across all over the world, but only as an afterthought, because humanity did not have the technology and wherewithal to achieve it, either between genders or between social classes. With that in mind, when Westerners trash poorer developing countries for gender oppression and hackneyed ideas, they should realise that a lot of Third-world problems are caused by poverty and by old-style agrarian systems which is keeping alive classical social disparity of classes and genders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pompey Bum

In your opinion would a woman have the intelligence to understand that a thread entitled "Old Classics or New Literature?" was not her vehicle for expressing opinions about gender inequality? Would she be capable of starting a new thread called "Are Men and Women Equal?" in the Serious Discussions forum?

---

You've made four posts on the subject so you tell me.

Marbles I agree with you, a patriarchal hiarchy is natural and occurred everywhere. Nowadays it's not necessary of course because I don't often need to defend my tribe or homestead from mongols etc and my partner is capable of living without protection in safety to bear offspring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

You've made four posts on the subject so you tell me.

---

No, I can't imagine many women being too challenged by that.

Thomas Womann, Joyce James...