The writing I have read by the greatest female authors, which seems to me on a level with anything I have read by the most-respected male authors, is sufficient demonstration, to my mind, that women face no intrinsic handicap when it comes to producing artwork of the highest quality.
Who said they possess a handicap? My point was that there isn't enough great work, or canonized work as of yet, to make the claim that women have equal literary talent to men. I never claimed they don't, but their isn't enough works that are considered true classics to make a statement that they are equal. I'm not talking about now, I'm talkin about the past up to now, which isn't arguable by listing off a dozen works by women.
There will never be a Faust written by a woman. There will never be a War and Peace, or Moby Dick, or works of Plato, or Nietzsche, or The Grapes of Wrath, or Shakespeare and on and on, by a woman. Look at multiple 100 greatest novels ever written lists and see the percentage of men vs. women. Look at top 500 lists. One cannot claim that women would have produced these works. I'm not saying they "couldn't", but that they didn't, and it is not realistic to automatically assume they would have. Based off everything I have seen in the arts, women cannot make the claim to be the equal of men within these disciplines, at the highest levels. Look at painting, writing, music, and tell me there is parity. There isn't, and until such time in the future as there is enough great works of comparable merit, I don't accept statements that basically say women would have been equal if not superior had they not been held down. Not only can this not be proven, but it almost seems like an attempt to diminish the achievements of men. There is a strong feminist undercurrent that is popular within western culture right now, and I'm ok with that for the most part. Women have been held back for a long time, but claims they would have achieved the same things as men is either wishful thinking, or not backed by history.
Given the inequality of the past, then what you would do is extrapolate backwards from the present where the relationship is more equal. Then you can see that women in the west now do produce as much quality work as men, and it is safe to assume that they would in the past. That they didn't is down to inequality.
On the original point, St Lukes is free to form whatever list he likes given it is personal preference.
Extrapolations and assumptions are just that.
Given that women produce fine work now that they have the opportunity to do so makes the assumption safe in my view. That is of course unless you think there's some other factor involved?
Women have always produced fine work, just not at the same quantity as men do. I read somewhere that due to the challenges men face in securing reproduction compared to women the spectrum of male intelligence and capabilities is more widely variable which produces more male geniuses as well as more male idiots who end up in prison etc. This seems reasonable to me considering that the highest and lowest positions in society are dominated by men. Most presidents, great writers, engineers and physicists are men but so are most career criminals, prisoners, homeless beggars and drug addicts.Originally Posted by Paulclem
Did you read my earlier post? My point was that women had unequal chances to produce classic work in the past because of inequality. The fine work many produce now suggests they would have done so in the past had they had the chance.
Women don't produce nearly as much as men do even today, in any field or discipline. "Many" women have always produced fine work, just not nearly as many as men.
I'm not sure that women can be considered less productive than men fairly. They are the ones who take career breaks, and there is still prejudice, though possibly less than twenty or thirty years ago.
I am surprised that no-one else wants to defend women's productivity in the face of historical inhibition of opportunities.
Paul, I would but the prospect of having to argue the point is just too depressing.
I have just completed an excellent novel by Helene du Coudray. She was very young when she wrote "Another Country" but she went on to write more.Women have had the burden of child rearing and for that reason they haven't had the same luxury to scribble. It's faintly comic to think there's a significant intellectual difference (although there is a difference) because it wasn't Hermione Melville, Lenora Tolstoy, Charlene Dickens, or Lady Wilma Scott
I know what you mean Lykren.
I always think of Mary Shelley - there's no way she would have had the opportunity to write Frankenstein if she had not lived so unconventionally and had the benefit of her philosopher father. How many educated women of the time had unrealized talent? Very few.
Or Carmine McCarthy, Juanita Steinbeck, Marsha Twain, Michelle de Cervantes...Hey Ennison, this is kind of fun!
As far as the earlier posts about women go, I've kept out of it till now because the whole thing seemed so pointlessly contentious. Women didn't produce that much literature when they were socially discouraged from writing books? Gee, I wonder why that was. Not enough data to say that they're equals of men in that or any other field? Damn that estrogen! Damn it to hell! Read somewhere that men are either geniuses or idiots? Yeah, well you've got me there, pal.
Is there really anything to say about it other than who cares? Sorry, Lykren and Paul, for not saying it earlier.
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 12-07-2014 at 08:31 PM.
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.
By the way, women actually outperform men and boys in school from kindergarten to university so I'm not seeing this anti female bias that supposedly permeates all aspects of society and hinders female accomplishment. The only areas women are largely absent from are both the highest and lowest stratum of society (the majority of mathematicians are male, the majority of physicists are male and the majority of homeless people and prisoners are male) so unless there is some bizarre conspiracy centered around keeping women out of fields like engineering and mathematics all the while making sure they don't end up homeless or in jail we might just have to accept some natural differences between the genders.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
