GENIUS FORUMS

Mostly brought to you by my frustration with my history exam...

Why is it that we keep having to learn "Women's World Records" ? OK. We get it. Seriously. We do. All this feminism and women can do things just as much as men can. But let's just take a minute to look at what you're actually saying:

Some guy did it. And then several years later some woman did it, plus didn't do it as well. Take, for a famous example, Charles Lindbergh - flies from NYC to Paris in May 1927. Then Amelia Earheart, in 1932 flies from Newfoundland to Northern Ireland. Plus, she was aiming for Paris and was forced down early.

And by the way, at that point flight has like a 30 year history (1905 - Wright brother's powered flight) A 5 year difference in a 30 year history is kinda... a lot... But we're not just studying this because "it was different in the 30s... women were treated badly" because we've continued this. First woman past the speed of sound. First woman in space. First woman to die because an Iraqi shot her plane down (not even the first woman to die in war in an airplane which happened in 1944...). I don't even know the man who holds that record.

I am completely unimpressed, really. We know it can be done, we know it has been done... What's the big deal? Why oh why must I memorize two names for every single world record in this class?

Men go out and do stuff. Women run along behind going "we can do that toooooooooooooooooooo" For crissake. If you want to be equals, go do something new and quit just trying to prove you can do things that have already been done.

That said, I will now return to memorizing a bunch of names of people who don't matter in the grand scheme of things. (except for Hannah Reicht - she's kinda cool in her own right... in charge of testing planes for the nazis, and one of Hitler's top advisors, plus the last person to see him alive...)

The magic of being 'first' in something is tempting and attractive, to be as well as hear about it seems. That brought me to the question if a list could be made from the women who do have a first accomplished, but only as human or person. I found so far:

1587 - Virginia Dare is the first person born in America to English parents

1911 - Marie Curie is a pioneer in radioactivitity and first two-time Nobel laureate and the only person with Nobel Prizes in two different fields of science

1939/1964 - Jacqueline Cochran sets some aviation world records on altitude and speed.

1975 - Elizabeth Ann Seton is canonized, making her the first American-born saint.


Just a few I could find and not all of them are serious intended but it would be interesting to list more significant firsts if anyone knows of them. The persons you find might provide insight into character, since they possibly had to overcome quite a lot.

Rory wrote:

Men go out and do stuff. Women run along behind going "we can do that toooooooooooooooooooo"

Yes, Rory, learning that women are able to do things “too” just doesn’t fire the imagination in the same way as learning about someone who went through numerous trails and tribulations to be “the very first” at something. Being second or third really doesn’t cut it when “being first” is the true defining moment. For example, being first man on the moon means something – being the fifth man on the moon just doesn’t make the same impression.

Following in the footsteps of someone who was the first at something often requires similar courage and determination – it just lacks the same mystery and sense of danger of the ‘first’ venture. Pretending that it does just makes the whole uniqueness of being ‘first’ redundant. And as you say, women proving they can do things that have already been done really ‘proves’ nothing at all. Ah! But it does prove one thing: that women actually do consider themselves incapable and unequal, and therefore not up to the challenge of searching out new arenas so as to be first to conquer them.

The fact that hardly any woman in history has taken up the challenge of striving to be first to push out the barriers of human knowledge tells us that she is indeed mostly incapable and unequal to men in this challenge. The few females that have done so are rare – not because they are female, but because they, like their male counterparts, have done something that no one has achieved before.

Up until a few decades ago, the only women you’d find in history books (apart from famous Queens, mistresses and murderers) were those few females that truly did push the boundaries of human knowledge. Then, with the rise of feminism in the seventies, women were dug up out of the dark recesses of history, dusted off and polished up for the benefit of women who wanted a ‘herstory’ to show “just how equal women really were”. But as you show, Rory, the consequence of this has been that all women just look foolish, desperate and incapable – which then muddies and belittles the true efforts of those few truly courageous and intelligent women who deserved their place in the history books.

-
Sue

.


Hannah Reicht not only tested planes for corporate german interests ... she flew Hitler & Friends "safely" to Paraguay, South America.

So. She was the last woman pilot to see Hitler in Europe ... but! ... the first woman pilot to see Hitler in South America. Hahahah Hahahah


Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason



.

Tomas wrote:.
Hannah Reicht not only tested planes for corporate german interests ... she flew Hitler & Friends "safely" to Paraguay, South America.

So. She was the last woman pilot to see Hitler in Europe ... but! ... the first woman pilot to see Hitler in South America. Hahahah Hahahah

So that Boys from Brazil thing was all true?

Do you believe in the MIB, too?