June 29, 2010It gets to the point that the more you care, the more graphic your notes on women's rights; the more women doubt your manhood for sincerity.
In the reviews of Steig Larson's Millenium series of books about women, he came under criticism for his graphic descriptions of the violations against the women characters in his books. As a herald for women's rights, a man who claims support for feminism, his knowing about severe violations but moreover relating them in print opened up the editorial of the line between knowing/describing and feeling it/describing it.
It seems that some women harbor the rights to feminism so exclusively that when a man joins the chorus all subsequent criticism makes his comentary out to be off key.
Now we in these United States are going to face an approaching majority of women. The only weakness in the history of womens' accomplishments had been due to the fact that authors of history were predominantly men; now that can hardly be said. Though women have been in the majority in fields like photography, tailoring, cheffing, they will now have both the attention on the fact, but the fact of their attention front row center.
Will women take more time to add to our civilization's history? And will they include men in a rightful place?
My neice had a revisionist history course at the prestigeous University of Southern California. The Japanese professor began with an example over the cause for Japan's attack on the United States was due to our hold out trade of coal, a vital ore for the development of Japan's vital industries.
Yeah, industries like armament. And, Japan was at war with China, which was our ally in the Pacific.
Will feminist revisionist history admit men? How approachable to the line of favor will women historians tread?