They are great in low-brow fiction ( Emily Bronte, Jane Austen). And half of them ( American authors) I hear first time.
Edited by mutabor - 1/31/13 at 5:56am
Off the top of my head, a few book recommendations that may help change your mind:
Patricia Duncker - Hallucinating Foucault
Sheila Kohler - The House On R. Street
Iris Murdoch - The Sea, The Sea
Annie Proulx - The Shipping News
Beryl Markham - West with the Night
None of these is difficult to read, however all are brilliantly written and anything but low-brow, imo.
I have difficulty to imagine women to be priests. There could be exceptions but generally I would say "no way". I don't believe "in progress" in the sense that as if women were not given chance and if you allow them to prove their abilities in mens' spheres ( like religion) they will be as capable or influential as men. Priests are some kind of visionaries and especially as visionaries women suck. In practical areas women can rival and even surpass men.
Religion as a man's sphere, women sucking as visionaries... come on, Mutabor. You're not putting any effort into your trolling anymore. It's too obvious.
What "abilities" do priests have that women have to prove themselves capable of, exactly? How do women fail as visionaries where men succeed, exactly? Perhaps you could acquaint yourself with the role of women as priestesses, mystics, and oracles throughout history in various cultures, assuming you actually care about the subject. Or maybe stop to think about the many nuns and female saints throughout Christiandom, and ask yourself how exactly that differs from the function of a priest in acting as a spiritual proxy.
Yes, Schopenhauer was a notorious misogynist. He had a lot of personal issues that colored his philosophy, which is what prompted Nietzche to observe he was jealous of people who were happy and knew how to actually live life.
I've actually heard the painting / writing argument before. It's a flawed argument, to say the least. It assumes that because women didn't pick up canvases and ink quills and start producing masterpieces, they must be inferior. It ignores underlying social conditions like a lack of educational opportunities and the frowning upon of too much self-expression in upper class society. From an early age, women were told what to think and how to behave. They were kept in drawing rooms and told to sew and languish in obscurity. They had it drilled into their heads that they were inferior, and they largely believed it. The lower classes didn't have the luxury of leisure activities, least of all women with families to take care of. Women have always been blamed for the social injustices foisted upon them. Whether it's their fault for not being able to find the time to hone painting or their fault for not having the training as a writer when they aren't allowed out of the estate. People are all too eager to criticize women for concerning themselves primarily with honing those qualities that make them desirable wives, yet throughout the ages this was a means to a woman's survival. A woman couldn't "make a living" as an artist.
Great female artists like Sappho are considered exceptions. Yet a relatively small proportion of works of the ancient world survived, and attributing authorship is always difficult. Women have used pen names throughout history---again, due to social restraints---so this just compounds the problem. We're all too willing to assume a female author who writes well is really using her husband's talents, yet I have to wonder how many great male authors have had their works penned by the women in their lives.
When we give females the same opportunities as men, lo and behold we start seeing more female artists. Still we begrudge this. We say it's all mediocre, all the inevitable outcome of accessibility. Do you realize how relatively short the time has been since these attitudes have changed? We're talking about a single century in some parts of the world pretty much. Seems a little unfair to judge the output of that small timeframe against the entirety of recorded history. Let's see how things look 100 years from now.
Also I have to seriously LOL at Jane Austin being labeled "low brow fiction" by Mutabor. I don't care for her work, but she's generally recognized as one of the greatest novelists of all time. As for not recognizing the names Harper Lee and Sylvia Plath... yikes. Add Virginia Woolf to the list and check 'em out sometime. Even if you don't like them, they should be familiar to anyone well read.
Yeah, accessibility these days means anyone can have their stuff read by others. Mediocrity abounds. But this applies just as much to men, and I don't see it as any argument specifically against female authors.
Recognition doesn't automatically equate to quality. Otherwise Ayn Rand would be considered a better writer than Gogol. There are plenty of lesser known female writers like Fumiko Enchi, Susan Sontag, and Natasza Goerke who are among the best writers of the 20th century. Plenty of luminous female thinkers like Hannah Arendt, Edith Stein, Luce Irigaray, Simone Weil, Simone de Beauvoir, Catherine Malabou, Julia Kristeva, Judith Butler, etc.
Wow. So you're just going to disregard everything that was just posted? I'm not defending MF, or anything really, but your argument style upsets me. It's the same employed by fanatics and those who ignore facts in order to preserve their opinions.
In other news,