quote:
Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
MagiK I had read your post. And your PM in fact, I will get round to replying to it in a few minutes I expect. You didn't seem to get what I was saying. You said that there are no famous women leading in the ancient world (something that is only partially true in the first place - you shouldn't say revisionist like it is a dirty word, there is a lot of merit in there. It is not revising to re-write unpalatable truths, it is revising to correct faults due to sexism. Epona is in a better position to argue this than me, but if you want me to then I will gladly do so). I then said that even were that true it doesn't matter to women now - they don't have to be constrained merely by the women that went before them. Then you replied with a line stating a 90lb woman could not be a football player. Well no... but does that have more to do with her size than her sex? I find it funny that to prove your point you couldn't take a normal case you had to take an extreme one. Could a 90lb man play football? What exactly were you trying to prove with that one.
Barry please, usually you do a better job than this..I never said there were NO women leaders or explorers or conquerers..I said they were damn few and far between..the Exception to the rule.....I realize there have been a few very very powerful and influential women..but hey there are boatloads of males for each one of them females.
I use the extreme case to prove my point, the fact is a 200lb 6'0" woman could not be a NFL linebacker for the simple reason that the men who play that position would have vastly superior upper body strength...something that is dictated by physiology of men and women (no I can't cite relevent texts) but anyone who has had an anatomy class should know that men have the superior upper body strength pound for pound. The fact is that the physical limitations of women vs men are most easily seen in the sporting world where the extremes are most noticable and therefore easier to see.