Saturday, October 23, 2010

How the Mighty are Laid Low

"Her reputation as one of the country’s greatest female authors may rest on her elegant writing style.

But Jane Austen could not spell or correctly use punctuation, and wrote in a ‘regional accent’, according to a study of her handwritten work.

Professor Kathryn Sutherland, an Oxford University academic, said that manuscripts showed that her finished work was corrected by an editor.

Perhaps even more surprisingly for fans, that editor was believed to have been a man".

Oh my God! What tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth there will be in Wimin's Studies departments all over the world! The greatest female writer in English literary history couldn't even spell, and had to have her work corrected by a man! Imagine the shame! The rage! The angst! The cognitive dissonance ("We feminists never rated her that much anyway, our opponents just made that up to discredit us")!

Even before this latest revelation, she was hardly a female Shakespeare anyway. Even Fay Weldon apparently described her as "more Mills and Boon than War and Peace".

I'm not attacking Austen's work; it simply was what it was, and it was no doubt historically significant in some sense. I am poking fun at the ridiculous feminist canonisation of Austen as some kind of literary genius, when she was plainly no such thing. What fun to see that particular balloon popped! As Jane might have put it herself, "Recieved veiws are not always to be relied on".

This blow to the feminist intellectual establishment comes only a few years after we learned that the great gothic novel 'Frankenstein' was not in fact written by Mary Shelley at all, but by her husband, the great poet Percy Bysshe Shelley.

In a review of 'The Man who wrote Frankenstein', Camille Paglia comments: "Lauritsen assembles an overwhelming case that Mary Shelley, as a badly educated teenager, could not possibly have written the soaring prose of "Frankenstein" (which has her husband's intensity of tone and headlong cadences all over it) and that the so-called manuscript in her hand is simply one example of the clerical work she did for many writers as a copyist...."

There are two interesting things to be said. Firstly, the idea that European women in the 18th and 19th centuries had no opportunity to produce art is utterly untrue. Upper class women in particular had almost nothing else to do. They did not lift a finger to support themselves. They had servants to look after their every need, with the costs being met either by the men of their family or by the labour of workers on their estates. They did not do a hand's turn in their entire lives. Instead, they were encouraged to cultivate 'accomplishments', and these were typically artistic. Playing musical instruments, painting and writing were their principal activities. Not only were women able to pursue the arts if they wished; they had every opportunity presented to them on a golden platter. Their environment could not have been more conducive to the pursuit of the arts.

The second thing to notice is that they produced practically nothing. Despite all of this leisure, privilege, time and encouragement, there is not one single female Mozart, Shakespeare, or Michelangelo. Not one. I'm not saying merely that it is not a 50-50 split. It is much worse than that. There is not even a single, solitary one.



Spotsworth said...

It really is an interesting question. Where are all the great artists? We are told that women were always held back by the patriarchy, but when they have time and unlimited resources, they produce nothing.

The only happy women are those who embrace what they intrinsically and genetically desire, marriage and children. I've never met a woman who was happy working a job. Their natures are to be caretakers, wives and mothers only. There are very few exceptions.

Anonymous said...

The only answer I can think of is : rich privileged women were too busy preening and posturing for social power to be truly productive members of society , and had little pressure or incentive to. Men provided them with all the luxuries they could afford out of love.

As you can see, it is men's love and (misplaced) respect for women that eventually led them to claim the right to be parasites - provide nothing of value but consume the finest of what men's labour can offer.

BrusselsLout said...

... - provide nothing of value but consume the finest of what men's labour can offer.

What price vagina, eh?

Robert said...

A little late, I know.
While collecting Social Security I finally got around to reading Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice last month. Last week I started Gone with the Wind.
The latter towers over Jane Austen and the movie.

Anonymous said...

Now, now, gentlemen, we're being ungracious. Women have produced lots. Some examples:

Women's studies textbooks
"The Vagina Monologues"
"Self" magazine

Not to mention, thousands and thousands of other books about women.

Women are prolific writers--as long as they can write about themselves.

BrusselsLout said...

Slightly off topic gentlemen, but there's been an important development.

Men's Rights are now being discussed on a national (UK) radio show (ExpressFM).

See ManWomanMyth's website for details.

Anonymous said...

You should leave a contact email address somewhere on this site....

reguardless: the province of Ontario (Canada) now impounds the cars of 'dead-beat' fathers. I should also note that the great liberal paper in Ontario, The Toronto Star, has made no mention of the this law. Interesting.? i think so.....

the said...

eh. most writers, male or female, cannot write for shit. that's why there exist editors. i know that of which i speak, too, as i am an editor at a prominent magazine and literally 99 percent of the writers i edit has his (serious) flaws. i'm talking very basic errors that professional writers should not make, including verb tenses and spelling, not just fuzzy syntax or colloquial v. technical writing. and 100% of my writers are men.

why don't we hire better writers, you ask? because there aren't any.

BrusselsLout said...

Interestingly enough, writing is more a female orientated skill. It's left-brained. It's the reason girls take to school easily and boys more typically hate it. It's why women love to talk, talk, talk. It's why they bond quicker than men, and doubtless the root of why feminist groups took off fast but the men's movement is somewhat more sluggish.

Men on average talk 2000 words a day. But women 7000. No big surprises there to anyone who refuses to get brainwashed by media and politicians with a self-serving agenda. (Feminism = divide men = conquer men = power and control over everyone.)

We're right-brained, see. We can visualize, feel and intuit better than woman. Ask a star footballer how he "scored that goal" he'll make a dull mess of the description. But watch the replay, and his style making use of space and time on the pitch will be impeccable excitement. On the subject of space-time, look at Einstein's theory of gravity. He used the idea of a curved spaces to explain how things pull towards each other. Yet in everyday conversation he was considered by many a bore. But what woman has ever achieved anything to this scale in science?

Yet still, all the great writers, novelists, poets are MEN. Their creations are still right brain driven. But they have sufficiently well-developed left brains (like women's almost) to be able to transfer what they create to the left and then talk about it and write about it.

My writing's shit and my talking's shit. I make loads of errors. Wish it was better, but fuck it. That's what makes me male. The reason women are crap at engineering, maths, science and sport is what makes them women.

This difference is ESSENTIAL to our common happiness. But that happiness is being usurped by governments with ideological agendas to serve, that keeps them in power and gives them the control they are addicted to.

Anonymous said...

"Where are all the great artists?"

It is only since recently that women have been able to express themselves so they will be turning up soon.

Some feminist academic explained it recently.

Be careful not to be knocked down in the rush!