"Frankenstein" Authorship in Dispute

Here is the paragraph of interest:

"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. I was stunned to learn about the destruction of records undertaken by Mary for years after Percy's death in 1822 in a boating accident in Italy. Crucial pages covering the weeks when "Frankenstein" was composed were ripped out of a journal. And Percy Shelley's identity as the author seems to have been known in British literary circles, as illustrated by a Knights Quarterly review published in 1824 that Lauritsen reprints in the appendix." - Paglia

-ax

There is a plaigarising woman taking credit.

Ever wonder why there are ZERO historically significant female philosophers, painters, novelists, sculptors, architects, scientists, mathematicians, physicists, neurosurgeons, filmmakers, master chefs, etc. etc.?

Ever wonder why for every female with an I.Q. over 170, there are 190 men with the same or higher I.Q.?

It must be an Evil Patriarchal conspiracy.

Same reason why Britanny is bald.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, Roy, isn't it because until recently (historically speaking) women were mostly raised into domestic roles?

If it were as simple as that, one would have expected a similar advancement in domestic issues from women as men achieved in their spheres of influence in the same time period.

Women and girls had access to similar levels of education as men and boys; certainly in the case of reading and writing skills.

And they even had the choice to work; and were published.

Of course that was all part of the evil male conspiracy....

Rav,

Thank gawd for devil's advocates! Without them, there would be no space for truth!

The main problem with your ummm... theory ---

about "domestic space" being equated with female servitude....

is that there are various forms of POWER.

When women ruled the domestic space, they were in fact powerful, though circumscribed.

Now that women have taken power in other social arenas ... business, government, education, etc --

They have come to understand the limited nature of power in formerly male-dominated spheres.

Women do not like "limited" power.

Back in the cave days, they had 100% power.

In their domains.

They did not have to risk their lives hunting wild beasts.

They only risked having too many babies they had to care for.

So, basically, nothing has changed.

Except, now, thanks to feminism, modern professional women making $100,000 a year still risk making too many babies that they want, but the men to pay for her biologically-determined urges are scarce.

Equality is a bitch.

That is too general a way to ask the question. I think that on the one hand, perhaps up until they got the right to vote, they were an oppressed class of sorts. But the problem is, feminists, academia, and the media have blown the whole thing so wildly out of proportion (i.e. the "history" of their oppression), that it is hard to know the truth. If you read older history texts, like maybe the ones earlier baby boomers used in high school, it does appear that there was maltreatment of women by men. But to equate it with the slavery of Blacks is to my mind, to be so totally overblown as to be ridiculous. Here are some particulars:

Feminists often claim that women did not attain the right to vote, until several decades after Blacks did. But that is only partly correct..it is true as far as the relative times at which constitutional ammendments were made; but the fact is that Blacks did not truly have the right to vote until the 60's, when Lyndon Johnson created the Civil Rights/Voting Rights acts, and provided for the enforcement of those acts. Until that time, Blacks were in practice still largely denied that right, especially in the South.

Many people still incorrectly believe that the term "rule of thumb" originates as something referring to how big a branch could be used to beat a woman. But a quick check of Wikipedia reveals that that claim is hightly questionable. This is a small yet good example, of feminist revision/rewriting of history.

And the reason that feminists revise history, is to push their agenda - to further their ideology.

More generally, I think Farrell says it best in "The Myth of Male Power", when he says that up until modern feminism began in the 60's-70's, women and men were both trapped in their ROLES. Women were the nurterers and child-rearers, whereas men's role was to be the provider for their family, i.e. work outside the home to earn money. Would I say that for example, the great authors, philosophers etc (especially the ones with families) were playing this role? Yes I would, because not only were they providing for others, but also it is embedded in the male psyche (even today) to go out and accomplish big things. Men are judged by their accomplishments, or as Farrell says they are "success objects" (the male parallel for women being "sex objects"). Another way to look at that, is that a woman often views a man as a wallet, the provider of a "financial womb" for her so that she may exercise her greater flexibility, i.e. have a career, be a caretaker, or some combination of those two.

The problem for men and society in general, is that they are mostly still trapped in their historical roles, whereas woman have been mostly freed from theirs. As Farrell observes, "successful men freed women, but forgot to free themselves".

Another good observation that Farrell makes, is that there was a major study which showed the following: women are largely valued for their physical appearance by a man seeking a mate; whereas women judge a potential male mate insofar as how successful he is socially, economically and politically, AS WELL AS his physical appearance. Yet all we ever hear about is how women are judged on their appearance and are "objectified". This results in serious bias against men, for example 99.9% of our energies and concern is devoted to treating female sufferers of bulimia/anorexia, whereas males with these conditions are largely ignored, both by medical professionals and the public (it is finally being reavealed, that there ARE a significant number of boy and men with these conditions).

The two really great sources for this type information, are Farrell's "Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say" and "The Myth of Male Power". I would highly recommend that every man and woman to read these two books.

-ax