• Snowy leaves Circhester and heads to Spikemuth. Watch here as his Rotom Bike learns to swim...somehow.
  • Hey everyone! The Writer's Workshop is hosting an exciting event, Trainers of Fanfiction! It's a community event focused around your characters! Click here to check out the event and sign up!

Female Influence on Global History

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does Team Rocket hire?
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
921
Reaction score
0
Recently, we had some sort of post that went on and on about how wonderful males were. Here were some names mentioned:

Hitler
Male opinion: Was great due to unifying a country and getting his way a lot.
My (female) opinion: Whiny college wanna-be blames everyone else for his problems and then when he's about to get caught, kills himself. Oh, and he tried to backstab the next guy, even though history showed that you can't win conventionally in a fight with this country ....

Stalin
Male opinion: Was great for taking control of a rather large country, industrializing and expanding it.
My (female)opinion: Oh, look, yet another inferiority complex. He drove his country to ruin, befriended the aforementioned idiot, and died because he idiotically told people not to bother him in his room.

I'll stop there, as I'm sure by now we can get the picture that "greatness" is VERY subjective.

No, wait, I have some of my own "great men", to wit ...

Adam
Yeah, the first Guy. Has the sweetest possible life, ruins it due to spinelessness, and then has the audacity to blame his problems on the wife. Take notice, ladies and gentlemen ... this sets the theme for ALL OF HISTORY ....

Jesus
Is a smart-aleck before puberty, has to be guilt-tripped to help others, brags about martyrdom and sacrifice while running away from most of the mobs, doesn't smack His ego-tripping followers, thinks He's so awesome the authorities won't lay a finger on Him, and has very few nice things to say about Ma and family.

George Washington
Irritated that he didn't get that promotion, so he commits treason, idiotically hesitates to enlist African freemen or slaves when the recruitment quota was almost non-existent, goes to war without being properly stocked with ammo, manages to have a retreat labeled a "success", let his men freeze and starve to death for six months, but hey ... at least he retired.

Abraham Lincoln
Was just as uninterested in freeing slaves as everyone else but somehow got credit for it, underestimated the stubbornness of a bunch of hicks (even though he wasn't exactly from aristocratic stock himself), and let his guard down knowing tons of people were furious with him.

Now, before anyone starts flaming me, keep in mind the idea here is to show that greatness is subjective.

And yet, a definition was given: basically "made an impact on history". Well, isn't THAT helpful. The basic gist was that women couldn't be great because they made no or little impact in comparison to men.

I can bet who wrote those histories that said men were greater than women. Anyone care to take a guess?

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2001-06600-008

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2009-16971-002

http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/apl884725.pdf

To start off, psychology has been well aware that there is a bias against women. A usual experiment will describe the achievements of a powerful administrator, but without giving any pronouns or other identifiers as to the gender. The participant will then be told to rate that administrator. One group will be told it's a man and one group will be told it's a woman. Keep in mind it's the EXACT same story, regardless.

Every single time ... the assumed female gets rated lower than the assumed male.

Now, here are women rulers.

Here are famous American women.

Another list, though some names were mentioned already in the first link.

Have you heard how important sanitary practices are in preventing illness? Thank Florence Nightingale (men assumed you could just pass from one patient to another with bloody hands).

Hypatia invented some scientific instruments, before men got in a jealous rage and tore her to bits like wild dogs.

Also, if we can count mythology for a moment ....

Hera
Her husband was a philandering jerk. She didn't just meekly submit to it. She had lovers tortured and killed, attacked the resulting offspring frequently, tried to off her own husband ....

Athena
A warrior just as tough as half-brother Ares, but not as bloodthirsty. Inspired Athenians to greatness in war and the arts. Submitted to no male, god or otherwise.

Isis
When her powerful husband died, she could resurrect him and was seen as responsible for life and death and shared in the Mother Goddess-concept with the likes of Hera and paleolithic "Venuses".

Men, in general, or male gods anyway, must fashion their place in life for themselves, whereas female gods can just create by virtue of their very being. Women were honored because men believed our "rhythms", since they could be synchronized thanks to pheromones (though they didn't know that) and had a general link to the lunar month, were proof of our divine connection with the Earth, also usually identified as feminine as it gives life. However, eventually, when men watched their livestock mating, it occurred to them that they had something to do with children as well, and they then began patriarchy. The belief that women were magical resulted in both fear and loathing. Men had to use overwhelming violence to take our honor away from us.

I realize this reads more like an essay than a debate, but I wanted to show "men" what a reasoned post looks like, LOL. Just kidding (okay, half kidding).

It is my position that greatness is subjective and that both men and women have earned it over the millennia of human history. However, to deny one over the other is simple bigotry, as the facts simply do not bear them out.
 
The Greatest Pokémon Ranger
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
37,254
Reaction score
2,463
You're trying to compare mythical goddesses to real people?
 
New Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
2,500
Reaction score
1
I would like to add:
Rosalind Elsie Franklin

Without her, Watson and Crick (Who took her data without her knowledge), and the breakthrough on the structure of DNA would have been delayed. Unfortunately, she did not recieve the Nobel Prize for it (She died of ovarian cancer and it was given to Watson and Crick).

But as Jessie mentioned, many things in history are subjective! Both genders have earned their spot in history.
 
Does Team Rocket hire?
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
921
Reaction score
0
I was under the impression that the definition of greatness was making a large impact on society. The divine surely earns a place in that definition. What is important isn't the humanity of the names on the list, but the gender.
 
The Greatest Pokémon Ranger
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
37,254
Reaction score
2,463
Okay, yeah I have to admit that Franklin was a major help. Too bad she never got that credit.

Can't we just agree that men and women have had equal impact on history, no matter the size of the impact, and just stop arguing over genders?
 
Does Team Rocket hire?
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
921
Reaction score
0
I'm not arguing. I'm not just the opposite side here. I'm not going off on a female ego-trip saying women pwn men. Note the difference in titles: "The Greatness of Men" versus "Female Influence on Global History". One is a pat on the back, the other is more objective, as it technically could deal with positive and negative influences.

edit: And, quite frankly, I find the seeming discomfort with facts about female achievement rather amusing.
 
The Greatest Pokémon Ranger
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
37,254
Reaction score
2,463
Is there really a point to trying to prove that women have had as much impact on society as men? Those who care already know this and those who don't know it don't want to hear it.

The same thing goes to the men.
 
New Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
2
EDIT: READMEFIRST! I am not sexist. I do support equal rights for all humans. If you think otherwise, well... I've already told you my stance.

Recently, we had some sort of post that went on and on about how wonderful males were. Here were some names mentioned:
Yes, that thread was bad. So will this, bias and all.

Hitler
Male opinion: Was great due to unifying a country and getting his way a lot.
My (female) opinion: Whiny college wanna-be blames everyone else for his problems and then when he's about to get caught, kills himself. Oh, and he tried to backstab the next guy, even though history showed that you can't win conventionally in a fight with this country ....
Only looking at his bad side? Could you maybe present an unbiased POV? Without him, Germany would not be what it is today. He may have lost the war and decided to shoot himself, but his impact is undeniable.

Stalin
Male opinion: Was great for taking control of a rather large country, industrializing and expanding it.
My (female)opinion: Oh, look, yet another inferiority complex. He drove his country to ruin, befriended the aforementioned idiot, and died because he idiotically told people not to bother him in his room.
Wrong. Lenin led the revolution. Stalin succeeded him. And once again, you are only looking at his bad side. He didn't befriend Hitler. They were sworn enemies and war would have broken out any way (if Germany didn't attack pre-emptively the USSR would have done it in 1943).
He still made a huge impact on the world regardless of his actions. He didn't drive the USSR to ruins. It was because of his actions that accelerated development of technology.

I'll stop there, as I'm sure by now we can get the picture that "greatness" is VERY subjective.

No, wait, I have some of my own "great men", to wit ...

Adam
Yeah, the first Guy. Has the sweetest possible life, ruins it due to spinelessness, and then has the audacity to blame his problems on the wife. Take notice, ladies and gentlemen ... this sets the theme for ALL OF HISTORY ....
Um... yeah. First off, we don't even know if he existed or not. Your fallacy (as with the above) is that you try to present with the negatives only, but fail to mention the positives. Assuming Genesis is true, then Adam named the earth's creatures and together with Eve expanded the human race.

Jesus
Is a smart-aleck before puberty, has to be guilt-tripped to help others, brags about martyrdom and sacrifice while running away from most of the mobs, doesn't smack His ego-tripping followers, thinks He's so awesome the authorities won't lay a finger on Him, and has very few nice things to say about Ma and family.
Yeah... no. He didn't run away from mobs. He openly admitted to the people who came to arrest him that he was Jesus (quote: "I am he").
He wasn't a smart-aleck. He was truly faithful, and so were his disciples.
And it wasn't a woman who created the world's most popular religion. It was Jesus, a man.

George Washington
Irritated that he didn't get that promotion, so he commits treason, idiotically hesitates to enlist African freemen or slaves when the recruitment quota was almost non-existent, goes to war without being properly stocked with ammo, manages to have a retreat labeled a "success", let his men freeze and starve to death for six months, but hey ... at least he retired.
Every human - yes, including women - have their own priorities. He was butthurt, but so are you. And once again, this still fails to outweigh the good. He was, historians say, one of the key factors in the American victory in the war. And guess what else? The French who helped were men too.
Abraham Lincoln
Was just as uninterested in freeing slaves as everyone else but somehow got credit for it, underestimated the stubbornness of a bunch of hicks (even though he wasn't exactly from aristocratic stock himself), and let his guard down knowing tons of people were furious with him.
Uh-huh. He still managed to do it. That is fact. Your point?

Now, before anyone starts flaming me, keep in mind the idea here is to show that greatness is subjective.
Those were great people. All of them. They weren't perfect, because they're humans. And yet they still changed history. That is greatness, my friend.

And yet, a definition was given: basically "made an impact on history". Well, isn't THAT helpful. The basic gist was that women couldn't be great because they made no or little impact in comparison to men.
Yeah. Women should have taken control then.

I can bet who wrote those histories that said men were greater than women. Anyone care to take a guess?

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2001-06600-008

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2009-16971-002

http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/apl884725.pdf

To start off, psychology has been well aware that there is a bias against women. A usual experiment will describe the achievements of a powerful administrator, but without giving any pronouns or other identifiers as to the gender. The participant will then be told to rate that administrator. One group will be told it's a man and one group will be told it's a woman. Keep in mind it's the EXACT same story, regardless.
Yes, society by default has a bias agaisnt women. I can't deny that. And I don't deny that women can be great, either.

Every single time ... the assumed female gets rated lower than the assumed male.

Now, here are women rulers.

Here are famous American women.

Another list, though some names were mentioned already in the first link.

Have you heard how important sanitary practices are in preventing illness? Thank Florence Nightingale (men assumed you could just pass from one patient to another with bloody hands).
Yes, but men discovered the cure and medical prevention (iodine, alcohol, penicillin, etc).

Hypatia invented some scientific instruments, before men got in a jealous rage and tore her to bits like wild dogs.
Yeah? More Greek men than women contributed to science in her time period.
Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, etc. The Renaissance too were mostly male artists/scientists/thinkers/politicians.

Also, if we can count mythology for a moment ....

Hera
Her husband was a philandering jerk. She didn't just meekly submit to it. She had lovers tortured and killed, attacked the resulting offspring frequently, tried to off her own husband ....

Athena
A warrior just as tough as half-brother Ares, but not as bloodthirsty. Inspired Athenians to greatness in war and the arts. Submitted to no male, god or otherwise.

Isis
When her powerful husband died, she could resurrect him and was seen as responsible for life and death and shared in the Mother Goddess-concept with the likes of Hera and paleolithic "Venuses".
Yeah? That's not greatness. Zeus was male and still had more power than all of them. He defeated the fucking creator and usurped the throne. Let's see Athena try it.

Men, in general, or male gods anyway, must fashion their place in life for themselves, whereas female gods can just create by virtue of their very being. Women were honored because men believed our "rhythms", since they could be synchronized thanks to pheromones (though they didn't know that) and had a general link to the lunar month, were proof of our divine connection with the Earth, also usually identified as feminine as it gives life. However, eventually, when men watched their livestock mating, it occurred to them that they had something to do with children as well, and they then began patriarchy. The belief that women were magical resulted in both fear and loathing. Men had to use overwhelming violence to take our honor away from us.
Red herring + butthurt. Yeah. You girls had a chance to prove otherwise. You didn't take it. Men were willing to take that chance, however, and gain greater status.

I realize this reads more like an essay than a debate, but I wanted to show "men" what a reasoned post looks like, LOL. Just kidding (okay, half kidding).

It is my position that greatness is subjective and that both men and women have earned it over the millennia of human history. However, to deny one over the other is simple bigotry, as the facts simply do not bear them out.
A debate is not composed of fallacies. You avoid the point. Point being why men were great. The men you mentioned were great, regardless of thier flaws. That is all I'm going to say for now.
 
Last edited:
Sheep Queen of Bulbagarden
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
14,583
Reaction score
1,044
Got to call you out on Washington - He managed to have a retreat labeled a success because saving your troops from an enemy they cannot hope to beat and keeping your army to ambush the enemy you can beat is a perfectly sound strategy, which he employed successfully.

The Romans used it against Carthage (and won the war), the French used it against the English (and won that war), the Russians used it against Napoleon (and won that war). Avoiding the enemy that's too strong for you, and attackign those enemies you have a legitimate hope to beat, may not be glorious but it win wars.
 
New Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
2
Honestly, I don't get why this thread was opened when it's pretty much the same thing as the one that was just closed.

Pointless debate will never end.
 
Where the Shadows lie
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
1
This is satirical, right?

I realize this reads more like an essay than a debate, but I wanted to show "men" what a reasoned post looks like, LOL. Just kidding (okay, half kidding).

It is my position that greatness is subjective and that both men and women have earned it over the millennia of human history. However, to deny one over the other is simple bigotry, as the facts simply do not bear them out.
Oh, good. You had me for half a second.

I agree, greatness has nothing to do with male or female. In the same vein, greatness has nothing to do with race or background. Greatness is greatness. Women historically were suppressed because they were the child-bearers and had to stay at home to tend to the family, which is why they've been treated as inferiors for so long. To say however, that women are unequal is the height of lunacy. Men and Women are equals, and as time goes on, the historical sexism is being eliminated.
 
Sheep Queen of Bulbagarden
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
14,583
Reaction score
1,044
Yeah. That's...not altogether what I had in mind when I suggested a new thread could be made. I'm going to close it for now and discuss with the senior staff how best to allow a discussion on gender roles to proceed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top