*sigh*

[rm]

ktempest links to and quotes from a series of discussions on SF/F that should make your blood boil.

I don't really have time to form a response right now, in part because I am so enraged and in part because the stuff she points to strikes so closely and dangerously near the heart of really pressing things for me (and I would hope everyone, but I also know that isn't necessarily the case).

Where are the female Beethoven's? Sewing and breeding and doing as they're told, even right now. Because it's safer for peopel in general and women in particular. Women, in particular whow ould have to be in most cases twice as good as Bethoven to get half as much notice. to be, in fact "the female Beethoven." The quote goes on to say that women, by and large can't achieve the highs and lows of men, that it is not, apparently, by and large, in our characters.

Fuck you. The idea that men of great accomplishment are not as much shocking exceptions as the women galls me. The forgetfulness on the part of the posters ktempest cites that throughout history women have largely lacked the tools (physical and intellectual training, access, wealth) to do be something beyond the narrow circles that were granted them -- appalling. ANd of course, it omits those strange characters of history who knew that as women their lives had limits they didn't want -- La Maupin, Dr. John Barry, and the records we have of dozens if not hundreds of women who disguised themselves as men to go to war (interestingly, most records of American women who did this indicate that the women in question were following or looking for their spouses, brothers or other family members during the civil war; most European records we have of the same involve, it seems, little more than a bid for freedom or adventure or a desire to fight -- that is to say they were fleeing domesticity, rather than looking to reclaim it). Of course, all this also leaves out stuff like the women of the army Air Corp in WWII. Women have, throughout history been undocumented and straightjacketed, but not nothing, not weak, not lacking in imagination, fortitude, or genius (Marie Curie anyone?). Goddamn.

The thread goes on into some insane things about race as well, that are equally appalling and drive me crazy because the book I am writing is not a white white place, but I am also aware that I have been refraining thus far from teh describing the characters much physically because of the "Blaise Zabini factor" -- which is to say, I'm not sure if I want to fuck with people and their assummptions halfway through or if I'm dreading what happens the moment I do, even if it's on page 8.

Comments

[saltbox.livejournal.com]

Interesting. On the point of female veterans, I saw an exhibit at the Women's Museum in Hanoi about women's contributions to the there-called Vietnam-American War. The impetus for serving seemed less for freedom or for love of men, and more for wanting to get the colonialist oppressors out of there. It was interesting to see their role celebrated, not as an aside, but seemingly as part of the general culture (given that I saw this theme in other general military-related museums there as well.)

I just laugh at people who hold retrograde attitudes like that. What's the saying? The best revenge is one's own success, or something like that.

[baronalejandro.livejournal.com]

Feminism is great. Love feminism. Protest marches for equal pay and recognition across the board? Sign me up. Twice. Yesterday.

Doing it at the price of denigration of men? Not an antelope's chance in a supernova. I will not stand for one second of elevating one group at the expense of another, no matter what the past says. Because that is not equality, that it just flipping the coin.

[rm.livejournal.com]

I get what you're saying. I agree with what you're saying. What I don't understand why you're saying it here.

No one is talking about turning the tables. Hell, no one is even talking about feminism. Rather, merely the unpleasant assertion that something in the fundamental, biological nature of women makes them less capable than men of being extraordinary in any arena. This is not, so much a moment where you as a man, need to defend your place in the world, because some women are saying "but we were Beethoves, just made to darn socks so that no one, not even us, ever knew."

[heron61.livejournal.com]

My guess as to why it's being said is that the far right has done a frighteningly good job of equating feminism with being anti-male in the minds of far too many people. The number of discussions I've had or witnessed with people who are neither idiots nor conservatives, and who declare that they are not feminists because they have been convinced that feminism means all manner of noxious things. The degree to which the far right controls discourse is deeply disturbing.

[baronalejandro.livejournal.com]

It's not even the far right. It's elements of the feminist movement itself. Some of the rhetoric is a little....well.

[ktempest.livejournal.com]

keyword being *some* and I'll add some other concepts: vocal minority, complete distortion, misconstruing.

If you really feel the entire feminist movement, or even part of the movement, is 'denigrating men' or being 'anti-male' then please back that up with at least 6 reliable, and different, sources.

[baronalejandro.livejournal.com]

elements of

[ktempest.livejournal.com]

again, I'd like to see some sources.

[baronalejandro.livejournal.com]

Well, maybe I read into something that wasn't there, or maybe I just plain misread. Sometimes my comprehension, she ain't so good. :-)

I've studied the biology of it, at least in the fencing realm. Some of my research shows that in some ways, women are *more* suited biologically to fencing than men are (things having to do with lower body strength ratios and regulation of heat). I don't think anybody can disagree that there are differences, but only fools thing that those differences 'predispose' one gender over another in 99.9% of all activities.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Sure, again, it's the irrelevance I'm being freaked out by here, not what you're actually saying (all of which is reasonable). The issue in the discusstions that ktempest links to is that it is not a particular discussion of one particular field of endeavor, but an assertion that women simply to not achieve the highs (there is no female Einstein) and lows (there is no female Hitler) of huamn achievement/experience that men do. In any/every realm. That's SCARY.

As to fencing, as it's a digression I appreciate, I think we definitely have an advantage with French technique, because I watch a lot of guys struggle with not using physical force as their main tool with it over and over, and if they can't resist that urge, they should be doing Italian. And yeah, some people have a hell of a time hitting me just because of where I am in relation to them and the fact that they are unused to it. So once I can hit them reliably, they have a real problem.

[fragiletender.livejournal.com]

The 'why are there no female x, y and z's?' argument always pisses me off. There have always been exceptional women, it's not our fault if the idiot in question is too lazy and blinkered to bother looking outside a very narrow 'dead white male' cannon. I strongly object to the idea that amazing women like Marie Curie are 'oddballs'.'Oh if a man does it he's great, if a woman does it she's a freak' - how the hell can we win against that kind of attitude?

I'm an artist and I know that I'm lucky to be making art now because it's a hell of a lot easier for women to be artists than it used to be. The visual art world has changed so much in the last 50 years. While there is still a way to go (the work of female artists still sells for less than male artists), there are ever-increasing numbers of women in positions of power in the art world, not just artists but also curators, gallery owners, critics, art writers, art historians and collectors. And thankfully female artists are increasingly being judged simply on the merits of what they make, not on whether it's suitably feminine.

Oh, and as a mother, I'd strongly dispute the wacky idea that women don't have extreme highs and lows so that we're better fitted for childrearing - er, clearly spoken by someone whose never considered throwing the baby out of the window because it won't bloody stop crying!

They can't have it both ways, they can't complain that our hormones make us all crazy and over-emotional and then say that we don't have extreme highs and lows. I think idiotboy might have been sucked in by those old myths about genius - you know, all the 'tragic/ suicidal/suffering/ crazy bullshit that artists, musicians, writers and scientists all get lumbered with. Funny how no one ever remarks on the equally famous creative geniuses, both male and female, who just got on with it day after day without any 'made-for-tv' drama. But I guess that more mundane and common reality just doesn't fit into peoples desire for genius to be something extreme that exacts a high price.