I was at a meeting the other night, and we were noting how each generation creeps just a little closer toward parity. Each advance comes with a period of push back. At our church, the first woman to be on the board (in the 60s) was old even then (over 70). She was a gentle rabble rouser but kept pushing for younger generations. BTW, she died just shy of her 108th birthday.
How is this misanthropic [sic], runar? Do you think every effort to raise the profile of women is necessarily a lowering of the profile of men?
Gracie’s looking for female role models, and is discouraged to find so few. It’s true that most of the pivotal figures in history have been men, but it’s also true that the contributions of women, collectively and individually, have long been underreported and undervalued. Fortunately, “As it was in the past, so it shall always be” is a logical fallacy.
(By the way, “misanthopy” is commonly used when speaking of hatred of “mankind” (i.e. “humanity”), not “men and boys.” Compare it to its cognates, “philanthropy” and “anthropology.” “Misandry” isn’t in all the dictionaries, but it’s been around for over 100 years and fits what you seem to be looking for; the roots are similar, but as English words they have different meanings. But I deny that this strip is misandrist, as well.)
runar, I stand by my original analysis. I see no “boys yucky” here, neither on Gracie’s part nor on the cartoonists’. Does Gracie indicate that the women in the book should outnumber the men, or even that it be 50/50? Reading misandry into this strip suggests, to me, at least a hint of misogyny.
Gracie has high ambitions. She want to achieve much, and she probably WILL achieve much (OK, I know she’ll never actually grow out of childhood), but she also wants role models. Most history books are mighty scanty on those.
Many women who HAVE been of historical significance have been overlooked, undervalued, and even villified by historians through the ages. Joan of Arc was “a witch.” Katherine the Great was an “insatiable slut”. Cleopatra was “Antony’s whore.” There have been attempts to to counteract this, and as others have suggested Gracie WOULD be better served by looking outside the mainstream history books. But it’s true, “Well-behaved women seldom make history.” – Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
rayannina almost 13 years ago
… but the times, a-they are a-cha-a-a-a-a-angin’ …
phuhknees almost 13 years ago
Not to worry Gracie; most of the biggest a-holes in history have also been men…
spamster almost 13 years ago
every Great Man has had a Great Woman behind him. Usually pulling his strings.
cdward almost 13 years ago
I was at a meeting the other night, and we were noting how each generation creeps just a little closer toward parity. Each advance comes with a period of push back. At our church, the first woman to be on the board (in the 60s) was old even then (over 70). She was a gentle rabble rouser but kept pushing for younger generations. BTW, she died just shy of her 108th birthday.
autumnfire1957 almost 13 years ago
And the great women have been women. Gracie will be Stellar.
Number Three almost 13 years ago
Awwwwww, LOL
xxx
runar almost 13 years ago
More misanthropy
fritzoid Premium Member almost 13 years ago
How is this misanthropic [sic], runar? Do you think every effort to raise the profile of women is necessarily a lowering of the profile of men?
Gracie’s looking for female role models, and is discouraged to find so few. It’s true that most of the pivotal figures in history have been men, but it’s also true that the contributions of women, collectively and individually, have long been underreported and undervalued. Fortunately, “As it was in the past, so it shall always be” is a logical fallacy.
(By the way, “misanthopy” is commonly used when speaking of hatred of “mankind” (i.e. “humanity”), not “men and boys.” Compare it to its cognates, “philanthropy” and “anthropology.” “Misandry” isn’t in all the dictionaries, but it’s been around for over 100 years and fits what you seem to be looking for; the roots are similar, but as English words they have different meanings. But I deny that this strip is misandrist, as well.)
jpsomebody almost 13 years ago
How about Joan of Arc?
Cuddleman almost 13 years ago
Duh!
fritzoid Premium Member almost 13 years ago
runar, I stand by my original analysis. I see no “boys yucky” here, neither on Gracie’s part nor on the cartoonists’. Does Gracie indicate that the women in the book should outnumber the men, or even that it be 50/50? Reading misandry into this strip suggests, to me, at least a hint of misogyny.
Gracie has high ambitions. She want to achieve much, and she probably WILL achieve much (OK, I know she’ll never actually grow out of childhood), but she also wants role models. Most history books are mighty scanty on those.
Many women who HAVE been of historical significance have been overlooked, undervalued, and even villified by historians through the ages. Joan of Arc was “a witch.” Katherine the Great was an “insatiable slut”. Cleopatra was “Antony’s whore.” There have been attempts to to counteract this, and as others have suggested Gracie WOULD be better served by looking outside the mainstream history books. But it’s true, “Well-behaved women seldom make history.” – Laurel Thatcher Ulrich