Comments on: “Older women [...] are inclined to be cantankerous and fussy.”

By: Aphie

Aphie — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:24:06 +0000

Good comparison, lauredhel! I personally don't think there is any one "absolute truth" of historical happenings - and inevitably, all history is going to be viewed as events scan through current social ideologies; and so, what we say about them will shift. Troper - whilst you may agree that "it is unfair to look with our eyes", you seem to have missed the point; the article quoted is humorous precisely BECAUSE the attitudes it displays are at odds with modern thought. And whilst I'd agree with Lively myself, in that when creating historical FICTION in the modern day it is important not to simply project modern mores and behaviours in order to produce a more believable and accurate text, this awareness does not preclude an historical text of any kind, fiction or non-, from being analysed using today's standards. Aphie's last blog post..BWahahaha!

By: Lauredhel

Lauredhel — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:22:14 +0000

amanda w: Spot on. Another very current example of wrangling is the "debate" around the Apology to the Stolen Generations. There are still happily oblivious privilege-soaked dinosaurs around who insist that everyone involved at the time had intentions as pure as the driven snow, and that therefore it's all ok and Australia has nothing to regret or feel sorry for. Both the premise and the logic are fatally flawed. Lauredhel's last blog post..?Revealed: the Butcher of Bega?

By: kristi

kristi — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 22:23:33 +0000

The question is, how assertive did these women have to be to be called cantankerous, fussy battleaxes? My hunch is that they had simply had enough bullshit and were just standing up for themselves. The men could afford to be “mellow,” as they never had to fight to be treated with respect. And if they weren’t mellow sometimes, that was just manliness, and it didn’t count against them or the other men at work. Men are individuals, after all.

By: Peggy

Peggy — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:59:14 +0000

Just to clarify, I didn't mean to suggest that all women of the mid-20th century were resigned to the status quo or to belittle the work of the women who fought hard for women's rights. It's because of them that we have progressed to where we are today. But I do think that the basic expectations of women who enter the workforce* have changed. Many of the rights that feminists of the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s were fighting for, I believe are largely taken for granted today, such as equal access to higher education, to be considered for professional positions, and to not be expected to quit upon marriage or pregnancy. From that 1943 hiring guide, it seems like women were treated like exotic aliens, and I think that's less true now, at least in most occupations. That's not to say the fight for equality in the workplace is over by any means, but that the battle lines have shifted over the years. I think that necessarily means that the average 18-year-old woman today views the workplace differently than she would have if she were born 60 years ago. * To be clear, I'm talking about working in traditionally male-dominated professions. I'm not sure how much it's changed for women who work in traditionally female occupations, such as housekeepers or nannies or kindergarten teachers. Peggy's last blog post..Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day

By: amanda w

amanda w — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:22:49 +0000

I imagine in fifty or a hundred years, the people of the time will look back on our times, and say we should treat with respect the idea of gay people being unnatural, pwd being burdens and transgendered people being mentally ill freaks. After all, it's the majority view of our time. The fact that the movements for these people's rights and respect haven't yet gained popular traction means that the vast majority of these people didn't feel their experience was oppressive. amanda w's last blog post..Hey, that feels pretty damn familiar.

By: orlando

orlando — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:24:00 +0000

UT, I get the impression that you think it’s inappropriate to criticise the writers of this guide for their sexism because they were conforming to the accepted, conventional attitudes of the time, but you are ignoring the point other commentators have made that these attitudes were experienced as opressive by the women to whom they were applied at the time. Also that, as accepted as they may have been, these attitudes were irrational based on the evidence available at the time (i.e. looking at the nature of the work women were already doing) and, perhaps chiefly, that it is because people recognised, even then, that these attitudes dererved to be ridiculed that change happened at all.

By: Lauredhel

Lauredhel — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:12:42 +0000

OK, Troper, step up with the courage of your convictions if you’re going to make accusations of injustice. What exactly do you find “unfair” in my post, who is it unfair to, and why?

By: Unknown Troper

Unknown Troper — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:05:53 +0000

In what way was i “ignoring the basic principle that women are people”?

If i did i am sorry

It was Peggy that said that it is unfair to view the past through modern eyes – historical context is important – as is the shades of gray and complexities of reality. Historical people are not one-dimensional Republic Pictures serial villains.

By: Lauredhel

Lauredhel — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:19:39 +0000

You seem to be choosing to completely ignore all pre-second-wave feminism (and the basic principle that women are people) in favour of an ignorant, obstinate laissez-faire historical relativism.

Many women weren’t content with or resigned to their oppressed lot then, so why should we assign to them that contentment and resignation in retrospect?

I’m not sure why you think that’s appropriate here, but I can tell you right now it’s starting to get a bit irritating. It’s the same sort of shoulder-shrugging crap that is used to justify entrenched “cultural” oppressions and the gender-biased evpsych so beloved of MRAs.

By: Kage

Kage — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:46:57 +0000

I fail at HTML. The minute paper is called “Women should not be trade commissioners”

[fixed that for you. ~lauredhel]