SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: average joe who wrote (51956)6/27/2002 6:09:03 PM
From: epicure  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
I'm very happy that these women's history scholars believe that women had wider literacy but it contradicts not only what I have on hand, but everything I heard in lecture in college. You apparently have only googool which led you to a women's history website. I am thrilled that you were able to find that, but I see no real evidence for what you suggest. Could you please supply evidence, as opposed to opinion? Would you like me to explain the difference to you, in order to assist you?



To: average joe who wrote (51956)6/27/2002 6:16:43 PM
From: epicure  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
This will amuse you AJ- your women's history page is not unlike those very odd scholars of black history who would like to make us believe that blacks accounted for as many discoveries as whites, and were, at the same time, disadvantaged. It is rarely possible to be both radically discriminated against AND be a major intellectual force. While I understand the reasons the women's history scholars would like to believe women's literacy was greater than that of men, I'd need to see some proof before I swallowed something like that. From a social standpoint it makes more sense to accept that men were more literate- absent proof to the contrary of course. Love to see that proof. WAITING to see that proof. Did I mention I was waiting? tap tap tap (that's my foot)