4 ms·

> I absolutely in no way can see even a path to understanding how it is demeaning to talk about things people did in the past, that were deliberately ignored or

> I absolutely in no way can see even a path to understanding how it is demeaning to talk about things people did in the past, that were deliberately ignored or buried, because of their gender. Not the parent, but a common take on pieces like this is that they’re trying too hard, and end up trying to promote people who’d clearly not have made any kind of “pantheon” even if they’d been men, yet frame it as if they would have. The tone of this piece is a lot like one of those, even if the film isn’t doing that (haven’t seen it). As for how that might be demeaning, imagine if things were reversed and you read a piece about the forgotten Great Men Inventors that opened with put-downs of Roberta Oppenheimer and Thelma Edison and the Wright Sisters and demanded that we consider among their ranks the unjustly forgotten men inventors, who are just as good and important... like Edwin Moore, who patented the push-pin. Would that be inspiring to men, do you think? Or would it come off as lame pandering and an indictment of the premise (“there are tons of men who accomplished great things in the past but were ignored because they were men”) that they couldn’t find any better examples? Nb that a scarcity of such examples even given perfect record keeping is exactly what one would expect in a society in which one sex had had far fewer opportunities to do work we consider notable, no matter their actual potential.

fao_ 5y ago
> As for how that might be demeaning, imagine if things were reversed and you read a piece about the forgotten Great Men Inventors that opened with put-downs of Roberta Oppenheimer and Thelma Edison and the Wright Sisters and demanded that we consider among their ranks the unjustly forgotten men inventors Those articles already exist though? I'm thinking about The Oatmeal's article on Nikolas Tesla versus Edison, which in no way actually devalues "Men as a concept". There are very many articles in which this is done and I haven't seen it been observed that it devalues men. What's different here is that this is centering the oppression that these women faced from the men around them, and the society that they lived in. Now, of course you can't do that with most men, since they haven't faced of crushing, systemic oppression to that all-encompassing degree on a large scale like this. However, when it is relevant, it is told. For example, Turing's story is often interwoven with the fatal systemic oppression he faced, because he was a gay man. And I'm not sure anyone can say that specifically is demeaning to him. What you're calling out here, excusing my arguments above, is merely hyperbole as part of marketing, and I'm not at all sure that's relevant to what this comment thread is talking about. > who are just as good and important... like Edwin Moore, who patented the push-pin. I'm... not really sure what you mean to do here? This is a confusing comparison to draw here. I can't actually see an example of where Edwin Moore is remembered as 'inventor of the push-pin', whereas the women in these articles are remembered to some degree -- after all we have this archival footage! It's just that their names are not as prominent after the fact, which is unexpected given the tangible contributions that they made. The fields you're comparing here are disparate, and Edwin Moore hardly had a professional career out of, say, making aeroplanes. Whereas these women were both highly regarded (The one woman turned down a prestigious job offer in a highly regarded musical establishment specifically to make electronic music), and their work was influential to their contemporaries -- they just aren't mentioned after the fact. Given these two pieces of fact, the only reading I can see here is that you intended to deliberately draw a bad, dodgy example, and hoped I and other people wouldn't notice. Which seems rude at best. I'm not sure how the article demeans women, but your comparison here certainly seems to? I hope you can correct this, if this is not what you intended! Thanks for your response anyway!
- havernator 5y ago
  Sorry for being rude by taking your question in good faith. Won’t do that again.

fao_ 5y ago

> As for how that might be demeaning, imagine if things were reversed and you read a piece about the forgotten Great Men Inventors that opened with put-downs of Roberta Oppenheimer and Thelma Edison and the Wright Sisters and demanded that we consider among their ranks the unjustly forgotten men inventors Those articles already exist though? I'm thinking about The Oatmeal's article on Nikolas Tesla versus Edison, which in no way actually devalues "Men as a concept". There are very many articles in which this is done and I haven't seen it been observed that it devalues men. What's different here is that this is centering the oppression that these women faced from the men around them, and the society that they lived in. Now, of course you can't do that with most men, since they haven't faced of crushing, systemic oppression to that all-encompassing degree on a large scale like this. However, when it is relevant, it is told. For example, Turing's story is often interwoven with the fatal systemic oppression he faced, because he was a gay man. And I'm not sure anyone can say that specifically is demeaning to him. What you're calling out here, excusing my arguments above, is merely hyperbole as part of marketing, and I'm not at all sure that's relevant to what this comment thread is talking about. > who are just as good and important... like Edwin Moore, who patented the push-pin. I'm... not really sure what you mean to do here? This is a confusing comparison to draw here. I can't actually see an example of where Edwin Moore is remembered as 'inventor of the push-pin', whereas the women in these articles are remembered to some degree -- after all we have this archival footage! It's just that their names are not as prominent after the fact, which is unexpected given the tangible contributions that they made. The fields you're comparing here are disparate, and Edwin Moore hardly had a professional career out of, say, making aeroplanes. Whereas these women were both highly regarded (The one woman turned down a prestigious job offer in a highly regarded musical establishment specifically to make electronic music), and their work was influential to their contemporaries -- they just aren't mentioned after the fact. Given these two pieces of fact, the only reading I can see here is that you intended to deliberately draw a bad, dodgy example, and hoped I and other people wouldn't notice. Which seems rude at best. I'm not sure how the article demeans women, but your comparison here certainly seems to? I hope you can correct this, if this is not what you intended! Thanks for your response anyway!

havernator 5y ago
Sorry for being rude by taking your question in good faith. Won’t do that again.