Here in the real world it's commonly accepted that Conquistadores invaded South and Central American for gold and land.
It's common knowlege that Europeans wanted access to spices and silks and gold, and the Muslims were blocking the routes East, so they had to go to the West, hence the explorers.What you're railing against here isn't feminism at all, but the gender roles assigned by the status quo.
Not "roles assigned by the status quo", but "Biological difference." Feminism is more telling women "Get your own damn chocolate and stand on your own two feet."
"Pay for your own kids and don't expect anyone else to do it for you!"
"Pay for your own clothes and lifestyle instead of leeching off your parents/boyfriend/husband/society"
"You are not entitled to a high-paying job just because you're a woman!"
"If you choose to reproduce, you require more resources than just supporting yourself."
Child-care, alimony, affirmative action, all of them are on the feminist side. That's not standing on your own feet.And when you stop making up your own version of history someday you should read up on the rest of the world, whites don't even hold the market on oppression.
"Woman is the nigger of the world"I don't know what school you went to but we were taught specifically WHY Marie Antoinette was a "bad person". She laughed off the suffering of her people why building an opulent life for herself off of them.
She built nothing. She was born a princess, grew up and married a king. Laughing off suffering does not deserve the guillotine. If you think it does, than you should not be allowed to vote or make decisions for anybody else. You have a very bad understanding of oppression and the use of the death penalty.
Meanwhile, claiming that the subject of "Bad Women" are taught in equal measures to "Good Women" in school is just plain wrong, much less insisting it's in equal proportion to "Bad Men" and "Good Men".That is, it's like not wanting to be a mother; if you were saying this among a group of 20 or 30 other women (with or without males to parrot) you would be drowned out by them.Depends who these 20 or 30 other women are. Many women I know have express a similar lack of interest in motherhood.
Well if you pre-approve the crowd of women according to their beliefs, sure you'll get 20 or 30 who agree with you. But you won't if you fill the crowd with random samples of the population, or pick them by merit (as opposed to belief).And by the way, I've come across a lot of men who get gooey and sentimental over babies too, yet again this is something that's stereotyped as "feminine" behavior".
Because it's silly, sappy, sentimental and of no real interest or use to others. At least expecting women to coo and goo over babies gives a better-than-average chance of being right. By stereotyping it as female behavior, the (biological) distinction between men and women is clarified for those who can see it.Not many, but I listen to quite a few. For instance...Creepily obsessive, but anyway... Why should any of those those things be retracted?
Yes, reading feminist opinions can be very creepy.
Larry didn't say an entire gender was incapable, he didn't say you couldn't perform mental tasks, he didn't brand women genetically inferior. Even so, your response was to visualize death images. Then you twisted his words so they 'certainly sound like' something that justifies your response. You cast a guilty-til-proven-innocent light upon him with "Somehow I doubt that he was".
Okay, if it's not libellous, what term would fit? You can't seriously think it's defensible to misconstrue the truth to that extreme. It's certainly not "equal" to the standards that a man is expected to uphold.I still maintain that he aggravated the situation by refusing to release the full transcripts for so long, except for those few quotes.
He gave an off-the-record talk and tried to keep the transcript as off-the-record as all the other off-the-record talks conducted at Harvard.And either way the "feminism of mine you quoted" doesn't claim to speak for all women, which is what you were insisting feminists do.
Neither does it point out the sizeable numbers of women who completely disagree with you. Larry at least pointed out that there was research that contradicted his thesis of "biological difference". In opposing "biological difference", neither you nor the other feminists on your side have given an inch.Inequality is not the same thing as Inferiority.That hasn't been my experience.
If you want apple pie, oranges are not what you need. If you want orange juice, apples are not what you need. Apples and oranges are unequal, but there is no superiority or inferiority. Could make the argument with dogs and cats, or with boys and girls.Except for the ones who have been recognized for contributions that they've made. Sojourner Truth made a name for herself by being a sharp mind and an eloquent speaker. Even when a woman is recognized for her own merits and efforts somehow to you this equates to some kind of oppression of men. You know, I really don't think that Nancy Hopkins is the only person who likes to play "victim".
Sojourner Truth is long dead and buried. Her success on her merits has nothing to do with the modern institutions of education.Exceptions" eventually become less and less exceptional. There was a point where a woman who enrolled in a university at all was considered very exceptional, now it's almost a given that both male and female students will attend college. Changes don't occur overnight, but they do occur.
There was a point where a man who enrolled in a university at all was considered very exceptional. The men also had to build the university, staff it and discover the things worth teaching. It's not 'social roles', it's that men were capable of doing all that and women weren't, regardless of letting the women in generations later.
Your point that exceptions become less exceptional is a good one, but how do you determine that the differences between genders are in that arena. The duck-billed platypus is still exceptional in being a mammal that lays eggs. It's biological.How many times does it need to be said that there are many different types of feminist ideology before it gets through enough for you to stop making these paranoid generalizations?
I don't know, how many times do I need to hear a college teacher describe a woman as being "strong, bold, independent and defying society's conventions" in exactly the same words, tone of voice and body language? Seriously, teacher after teacher uses exactly those adjectives, just like on the first day of class they say -- again, in the same words, same tone of voice and same body language -- "Our founding fathers owned SLAVES!!" or "Nobody in America talks about class!!". Every class, every semester, the exact same thing.
"Early American Literature" class a year or so ago assigned "Hobomok". The place where the chick in the book behaves like a spoiled brat -- she runs out to Hobomok who worships her because she knows how to use European medicine -- the previous owner of the book wrote "She's being a strong, bold, independent woman, defying society's conventions". Guess what words the teacher used to describe that scene. Go on, guess. The same professor blithely ignored Ruth Hall's black servants begging, with tears in their eyes, for the chance to serve Ruth for free, when she couldn't pay them.
No, you're not saying the same things as these academics, but the basic ideas you're propagating are the same. And in places where you differ, like not having children, it's just a trivial exception.You complain about these "feminists" who allegedly think they speak for all women, but you're happy believing that Hopkin's antics speak for all of us.
Do you think Harvard University should openly discuss biological differences between the genders? If you do, write Nancy and let her know.Is he still apologizing? Is he still spending money on more women or was it just the one donation made to smooth things over at the time? Has there been any more follow up on this or is this just more imaginings?
Well, he'll apologize as many times as he's told to. As for money,
Summers is also now developing a set of initiatives to bolster the status of women within Harvard where they continue to face a greater challenge getting tenured positions.
Obviously it's not the sort of thing that Nancy or her supporters would want to have discussed publicly. Questions of merit might arise, and the resources to pay for it, and all that. Making these decisions is a behind-closed-doors thing, deciding how Harvard should be arranged for "biological equality".
Even though they can't even stifle debate like Nancy wanted.