4 ms·

Adding some women into the mix seems like a whole different kettle of fish than saying that for moral reasons people are going to have to stop enjoying white ma

by dilap 6y ago

Adding some women into the mix seems like a whole different kettle of fish than saying that for moral reasons people are going to have to stop enjoying white male authors! (Also, I don't think the prevailing western attitude was that it was immoral to enjoy women authors. They certainly existed and were popular! Shelley, Bronte Sisteres, George Eliot, Jane Austen, probably lots more... I think the situation was more like sexism was a thing and not contraindicated by prevailing morality. To respond to that historical fact by postulating that it's now morally required to not enjoy white + male writers, as some sort of psychic vengeance of evening of the scales, continues to seem strange to me.) (Of course, on an individual level, read whatever you want.)

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
The Brontes originally had to publish under male pseudonyms (or rather, pseudonyms of intentionally indeterminate sex). George Eliot is a male pseudonym. Jane Austen arguably wasn't considered serious literature until recent decades; previously her status was more similar to, say, Miss Read in that she was a writer of rather lightweight tales for mainly a female audience.
- dilap 6y ago
  Perhaps we should republish Eliot under a female pseudonym? But yes, fair points, and I'm not disputing there was sexism! But to describe the situation as "male only" is overstating things significantly.
  - watwut 6y ago
    Males currently have no problem to get printed, get publicity and get attention. It is just not true that it would be impossible or hard for male writer to get success. So, there is not reason to reprint male under female pseudonym. With exception od romantic literature, male pseudonym is not disadvantage at all. But, my original point was that there is nothing strange or unusual about morality that is sexist in one way or the other, that was actually norm.
    - dilap 6y ago
      How about: strange post-Enlightenment to see explicitly sexist morality become trendy? I take your point that viewed from a broader historical context it's not strange at all.
      - watwut 6y ago
        > strange post-Enlightenment to see explicitly sexist morality become trendy? Enlightenment period ended in 1815, it is 2020 now.
        dilap 6y ago
        post but we're still living in an era largely defined by enlightenment ideas/ideals (tho, increasingly less so, as evidenced by eg this thread)

by dilap 6y ago

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

The Brontes originally had to publish under male pseudonyms (or rather, pseudonyms of intentionally indeterminate sex). George Eliot is a male pseudonym. Jane Austen arguably wasn't considered serious literature until recent decades; previously her status was more similar to, say, Miss Read in that she was a writer of rather lightweight tales for mainly a female audience.

dilap 6y ago
Perhaps we should republish Eliot under a female pseudonym? But yes, fair points, and I'm not disputing there was sexism! But to describe the situation as "male only" is overstating things significantly.
- watwut 6y ago
  Males currently have no problem to get printed, get publicity and get attention. It is just not true that it would be impossible or hard for male writer to get success. So, there is not reason to reprint male under female pseudonym. With exception od romantic literature, male pseudonym is not disadvantage at all. But, my original point was that there is nothing strange or unusual about morality that is sexist in one way or the other, that was actually norm.
  - dilap 6y ago
    How about: strange post-Enlightenment to see explicitly sexist morality become trendy? I take your point that viewed from a broader historical context it's not strange at all.
    - watwut 6y ago
      > strange post-Enlightenment to see explicitly sexist morality become trendy? Enlightenment period ended in 1815, it is 2020 now.
      - dilap 6y ago
        post but we're still living in an era largely defined by enlightenment ideas/ideals (tho, increasingly less so, as evidenced by eg this thread)