How TRUE is THE PREMISE that well-behaved women NEVER make history? Why is IT th

1. 84

   gmwilliamsposted 7 years ago

   How TRUE is THE PREMISE that well-behaved women NEVER make history? Why is IT that rebellious women
   
   succeed & will be REMEMBERED while nice girls simply become quite anonymous......fading into the background......even being FORGOTTEN as quite insignificant?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 66

   Tusitala Tomposted 7 years ago

   I think THAT could be equally said about the majority of men as well as women. Most men of fame, even the so-called 'good ones' such as Nelson Mandella, have had a infamous past.  In Nelson's case, what was called by the Africaaner masters, "terrorism."
   
   Florence Nightingale was a "well-behaved" woman who became very famous.   Her name is still famous almost 200 years after the Crimean War.
   
   Madam Curie is another woman whose name has gone down in history.
   
   So, in answer to your question: How true is the premise that well-behaved women never make history, the answer is that it is UNTRUE.    A woman doesn't have to be a rebel any more than a man need be to 'make history.'

   replyreport
3. 67

   WordCrafter09posted 7 years ago

   I don't disagree with Tom Ware's reply, but another point to be made is that it doesn't take a whole lot of "being rebellious" (even in this day and age) for a woman to be seen as that (or worse, as "mentally ill" or as having "some less than desirable issue or weakness or flaw).  For SOME women in SOME circles (and I'm guessing there's a whole lot of them and a whole bunch of circles); or even for one woman in a small circle that's the wrong circle, all a woman has to do in order to be viewed as "rebellious" is refuse to be treated as, or act like, "less". 
   
   2016 or not, there are still plenty of people who think their daughters are their "dollies" or that their children are trophies but who are more likely to back off when sons grow up.  Blanket generalizations aren't ideal, but in general young men automatically get a certain amount of respect (at least from anyone with "throw-back thinking", but I think among their peers as well).  For now, forget boys and men because they aren't the issue here.
   
   Anyway, a whole lot of people think they have right to their own expectations of what girls/women should be TO THEM and FOR THEM.  Since being a mother and a good one is a separate thing, forget that here as well.  (Of course, there should be the expectation that a woman be a good mother if she has children, so I'm not talking about that.)
   
   Too many people still think that women are pretty much for the purposes of others, whether that's for them or for "whoever else".  They see women as "for grunt work" , as "little assistants".  They use women to boost their own ego, and if they need a monster to blame for something they'll do what people who are inclined to seek scapegoats do, which is see "turn a woman into a monster".  People still tend to see women as the ones who either should make someone else feed good, or at least don't let them feel bad (even if that means shutting up).
   
   Girls and women of all ages still make easy punching bags (even if it's "only" a verbal punching bag, and even if the punching is done when the woman is not even present.)
   
   So, one's children aside, all SOME women have to do to be seen as "rebellious" is to expect to be treated and respected as a capable, separate, and equal adult who isn't for no reason but for other people's purposes.
   
   Maybe things are better for young women today, but I suspect that many people think things are better than they really are simply because younger women haven't yet lived long enough.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Tusitala Tomposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      A magnificent answer.  Women are still treated, by and large and all around the world, as 'lesser.'  When will this change to real equality?  At present, that looks to be a long way off.

      replyreport