okay

[schmerica]

Am reading 1602 annotations rather than working on my midsummer_santa story.

Quote from the notes on the first issue:

I feel that it is my duty to add that we should remember, before judging the era in regards to its view of female ability to govern, that there was particular cause for this attitude in this period -- besides the fact that women are, in general, more emotional then men, even in today’s post-industrial, feminist societies. The women of the time were not as schooled as the era’s men and did not seem suited to governance. Moreover, the physical circumstances in which women lived -- including the use of corsets and the like that contributed to female fainting spells and the use of make-ups containing lead (a theory also applied to the ancient Greeks) -- may have contributed to a lack of female intellect or rationality.

I have no comment that would properly express my feelings on this.

(It's 90 degrees out; I think my sister should take me to Plaid Pantry so I can buy soda pop or ice cream.)

Comments

[sssenza.livejournal.com]

God, it irks me that people can still get away with that "women are more emotional that men" line. I don't deny that one can generalize certain behavioral differences between the genders, and I fully admit that biology plays a strong role, perhaps even a stronger role than culture/upbringing in some cases. But what the hell does "more emotional" even mean??? And how would one arrive at such a conclusion without telepathy? This idea that being more *expressive* of emotion means one's judgement, perceptions, reasoning, or decisions are more *influenced* by emotion simply doesn't follow. If indeed women are more expressive of emotion. I suppose in North American and European culture they generally are.