Is There Anything Good About Men?

[plural]

You’re probably thinking that a talk called "Is there anything good about men" will be a short talk! Recent writings have not had much good to say about men. Titles like "Men Are Not Cost Effective" speak for themselves. Maureen Dowd’s book was called "Are Men Necessary?" and although she never gave an explicit answer, anyone reading the book knows her answer was no. Brizendine’s book "The Female Brain" introduces itself by saying, "Men, get ready to experience brain envy." Imagine a book advertising itself by saying that women will soon be envying the superior male brain!

Nor are these isolated examples. Eagly’s research has compiled mountains of data on the stereotypes people have about men and women, which the researchers summarized as "The WAW effect." WAW stands for "Women Are Wonderful." Both men and women hold much more favorable views of women than of men. Almost everybody likes women better than men. I certainly do.

Comments

[geminiwench.livejournal.com]

You didn't explain the gap between the proliferation of male and female authors.

Copied from wiki article "literacy" sub cat "history of literacy": England in 1841, 33% of men and 44% of women signed marriage certificates with their mark as they were unable to write. of course that is England but its what I found first.

So, more than half were able to read/write... at least, a little. The 11% drop in literacy rates for women does not translate into authoring only 1-3% of published works of the time. Women were mostly socialists authors? That may make some sense for the early 20th century era (Socialism didnt really get a bad name until the 30s) but I think I mentioned SPECIFICALLY the gap until the beginning of the 20th century when women started to really take a foodhold in the publishing world and became more than the rare case.

If companies don't think it will sell, they won't invest in it. Companies have shot themselves in the leg MANY times making the wrong decision about particular people or particular products. If publishers didn't think books authored by women would turn a profit, they wouldn't bother with them. Publishers were willing to publish letters and diaries of women, but fiction was another story until the 1870s.. and even then was exceptionally rare... until they noticed the profit and interest and started publishing more female authors... which snowballed for decades as they realized people didn't care WHO wrote the book as long as it was good.

No, books were not "average" for the lower class families to own. There were only the two classes until the industrial revolution. You either had money or you didn't. People who could eat while NOT working a hard labor job, were oftentimes academics, though. Libraries were a sign of status and education was becoming a notable pursuit at a time when science and world travel were changing the way people thought about life and their world.

You linked me to the history of colleges in America... I read it. Did you? First truly academic co-ed college was 1833. Women and men MOSTLY went to other colleges,.. which is why many of the top colleges started coordinating women's colleges. It was rare for men and women to attend the same college. And the training given to women in most seminary colleges was not the same offered at academic colleges/universities.... and most women went to seminary colleges, which, like a quoted, was meant to train women for two things: to be Christian wives and Christian teachers. SOME classes taught to men were also taught to women in these universities, but the crossover was not wide.

this book seems to hold alot of the information we're looking for. Hehe.

It wasn't until the mid 19th century that married women owned their own copyrights/patents, own their wage, or inherit directly from their father/husband... and it seems like THATS when women started getting educations, going to advanced/academic universities and organizing themselves. It looks like a perfect catalyst for women to LEARN... they had money of their own for the first time and didn't have to ASK to go to school, they could just go if the funds were available. That IS when everything blossomed, women started writing, most colleges for women popped up and the ball got rolling.

Christian was always Christian, mid line just like today. Its the affilation with sects that leans liberal/conservative. Deists were liberals, transcendentalists were liberals... the academic colleges like Harvard were affiliated with such things, but the smaller seminary schools you're referring to were most likely Roman Catholic or Methodist who were the conservatives of their day.

[geminiwench.livejournal.com]

Pish posh on your last statement. Women were owned THROUGHOUT their lives until the early 1800s. First their fathers or brothers, who sold them to a husband. Where does fear of childbirth and pregnancy calculate into an 8 yr old girl being OWNED and accepting it? Or a 60 yr old woman being OWNED and accepting it? For the rich, it was protection from poverty, (Disownership was possible, but when you cant own property, being on your own means death, sickness and/or prostitution) for the poor it was... "this is what life is". And if they DIDN'T accept it and their owner wanted to enforce it... then, beatings, rape, sold into white slavery, or their death happened. Rich AND poor.

Also, just so I don't sound like a feminazi... heh,... many women DID want families, did want husbands and were perfectly ok with having no property rights, no rights to their children and no right to vote, no right to an education, and no right to choose their own husband. It was the way things were, it was accepted and many were fine with the way things were. Not ALL women wanted to write or go to school,... lucky women with forward thinking owners husbands/fathers were given many benefits outside the accepted system, too.