(From Science Digest, May 1960)
I've scanned and uploaded this entire (extremely weird) article. You can read it using the links below:
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
One particularly scary excerpt (from page 4):
I would counsel the woman of intellect to watch her wit. Though it need not be tinged with malice, it has of necessity an astringency which many people find disconcerting. And after the tide of laughter at a woman's wit has ebbed, the wrack left in the public mind is a sort of malaise: "She has a sharp tongue," or "I wouldn't like to tangle with her."
Candor is a second danger. The woman who is honest with men is so at her own risk if this honesty requires either criticism or skepticism of their position.
She must, above all, have no conviction that what she has to say is of importance, but train herself instead to listen quietly to men no more knowledgeable in a given subject than herself and, what is more, also defer to their judgment.
And bear in mind, this was in a science magazine. While I know conditions for women haven't yet improved much everywhere in the world, I'm incredibly thankful that I didn't grow up being told to let the boys win all the time. Not that I'd have listened, but still -- the fact that we don't often see articles like the one linked above much these days (outside the fundamentalist press) strikes me as indicative of some progress on the social front.
This kind of thing used to be normal! And I don't doubt that the women who first stood up to assert that they had every bit as much right to wield their brains in public as men probably got accused of "feminist extremism" and "playing identity politics". I'm glad they didn't desist, and you should be, too. :P
15 comments:
To be fair I've never really seen much of a divide in women and mens intellects. In the UK (which I have had the misfortune of growing up in) they are both generally as idiotic as each other.
The internet is probably the best thing to happen to universal equality ever. It allows the chance to discuss a variety of subjects with only your knowledge and intellect being seen which means people can only judge you on those qualities instead of your gender, race, etc
For my money, the worst bit is the end:
"If they can bring themselves to consider women primarily as human beings, they will be able to treat them intellectually as men and emotionally as women. If they do that, they will find the brilliant woman surprisingly docile and far from unfeminine."
Since my mother is a doctor, I haven't seen this, but there indeed are many factors why men usually choose dumber women for their spouses : they have enough competition. Of course, it may be that our technologies (weird, I wonder why I say 'us', when I speak about humanity?) wouldn't exist without it, but it is certainly a thing to get rid of, because nothing damages us (again) more than the out-of-line macho-istic competition. *cough* shit the bed *cough* - why do we need people who beat their wives, create car accidents, even kill people just to get some feeling of self-appreciation. Who drinks more beer, who can get a prettier chick, or who gets most out of this life, damn, it is so fucking wrong - no one even sees it!
Sorry for my idealistic nonsense. It just pisses me off when I see stuff like this.
gash: I tend to take everyone on their own individual terms as it is -- not according to stereotypes. Nevertheless, it's sort of odd to see someone describe people in the UK as "idiotic"; here in the USA, there's sort of a stereotype that Brits are more intellectual. Ah well. Stereotypes are silly regardless of which "direction" they go in.
And while I do think the Internet does allow for a particular kind of meritocracy, I don't think I'd describe it as a harbinger of "universal equality" quite yet since there are heaps of people in the world who don't have running water, let alone Net access.
stephen: Yeah, you definitely found another "choice" quote from the article. "Surprisingly docile", my arse!
larv: Well, I didn't specifically post this article to piss people off -- I'm actually sort of encouraged by the fact that we don't normally see articles like this today except in religious fundamentalist publications. But it is definitely difficult to read without cringing.
Well Anne trust me when I say this. The UKs reputation for intellect is not earned. The vast majority of our population have (thanks to ten years of socialist government) become fairly idiotic people who seek only a combination of alcohol, celebrity stories, mind numbing television and free money for doing nothing.
All these factors have helped contribute to our country constantly being strapped for cash as they hand it out to everyone almost now (if your a white male with no disabilities and a job then you get nothing but extra taxation). I wish I could say theres a chance of it improving but unfortunatly because the Labour party keep saying they will put more money into social security they're going to keep getting elected by people who don't want to work.
A sad but true state of affairs and the main reason I want tout of this dam country.
gash:
I don't know if you even realize this, but it sounds to me like you're just repeating the kind of complaints one might be likely to hear in the context of superficial public banter, and not really thinking very much about what you're saying. And I don't want my blog to turn into a sounding board for unexamined complaining.
Its what I've observed. And it is off topic so I was planning on leaving it just at that.
Hi, Anne C. I've tagged you with the "Roar for Powerful Words" Award. Details at AS SQ 8.
And while I do think the Internet does allow for a particular kind of meritocracy, I don't think I'd describe it as a harbinger of "universal equality" quite yet since there are heaps of people in the world who don't have running water, let alone Net access.
Not only that, but the particular thing on the net rewards things such as (in various places) certain kinds of intellectual and academic skills, quick thinking, etc. Not everyone has those, and I doubt that, for instance, people with intellectual disabilities, think it's fair to judge people according to those things.
Of course, I tend to think ethics are more important than particular skills. It's what you use your skills for, and what you do with what you've got, not what you've got itself, that tends to impress me.
ballastexistenz said:
Not only that, but the particular thing on the net rewards things such as (in various places) certain kinds of intellectual and academic skills, quick thinking, etc.
Yeah, that too. While I am personally someone who benefits from computer-based communication to a degree that allows me unprecedented access to educational and social opportunities (that would have been totally inaccessible to someone like me a generation ago), I think it would be pretty dangerous for me to assume on that basis that the Internet was some kind of panacea for everyone.
Well I have always regarded intellectual ability as being the most valuable human attribute.
Wow. This reminds me of when I worked for a group of men that were very very sexist. The belived women were to be seen and not heard. You had to be smart and work smart but you could never be complimented and you had to always remember your place. You low low low place in the food chain. It was a terrible experience and eye opening for me.
Marla: I've been lucky enough not to have worked with too many sexist-seeming folks, though I have on occasion been told, "You think like a man!" in the context of someone trying to compliment me for being "logical" (which, you know, basically just tells me that they don't tend to see women as capable of logical thought).
I did run into a fair bit of sexism in school, though, and it always used to confuse the heck out of me -- I remember arguing with my gym teacher in elementary school because he was convinced that girls couldn't do "regular" push-ups, and that if we did, it would somehow interfere with breast development(?) or something like that. I was generally horrible in sports games but I could do push-ups, and it bugged me that I was being told I shouldn't even try something based on my gender.
I also used to occasionally get in trouble for not just letting stereotypical assumptions slide -- e.g., when teachers would assume that only boys would be interested in a space-related project (not a literal example, but stuff like that did happen sometimes). Things have definitely gotten better but there's still a ways to go...
Post a Comment