Whenever someone makes the self-evident observation that women have historically played insignificant background roles, there is always an army of triggered foids and cucks who are ready to disprove this general truth with cherry-picked counterexamples.
Ignoring the fact that the very need to bring up rare counters to disprove a general statement contributes to the generality of said statement (exception that proves the rule) these counterexamples are used to “proof” that women are, and always were, as capable as men, if not more so.
One has to wonder how it could be that women have been practically enslaved in every culture of significance if they are supposedly as capable as men. Hint, they are not.
There are two examples that come up almost every time:
Ada Lovelace, the supposed first programmer ever and Jeanne d’Arc, the famous warrior saint.
To make it short, both of them are just blown-up to make modern women feel good about themselves.
Lovelace was not the first programmer. Her mentor, who developed the analytical engine obviously wrote programs for it long before Ada came along.
Jeanne d’Arc never wore a sword or armor and never fought and she never led an army. Those things were left to her simpish retinue and men of culture like Gilles de Rais.
Lesser known examples would be Sophie Scholl and Zoë Quinn. The former was a minor member of an anti-Nazi resistance group who joined later, but now here in Germany she is presented as the head and face of the resistance. Zoë Quinn, to name a modern example, was hailed as a “game developer” in mainstream media despite being nothing else but a talentless (attention) whore with nothing to show for it.
All those facts are known and easily accessible, and it is sure to say that these individuals, if they had been born as men, would be almost totally unknown by now.
Seriously, how pathetic must women be if our media need to create artificial icons to motivate them to do anything exceptional?
Ignoring the fact that the very need to bring up rare counters to disprove a general statement contributes to the generality of said statement (exception that proves the rule) these counterexamples are used to “proof” that women are, and always were, as capable as men, if not more so.
One has to wonder how it could be that women have been practically enslaved in every culture of significance if they are supposedly as capable as men. Hint, they are not.
There are two examples that come up almost every time:
Ada Lovelace, the supposed first programmer ever and Jeanne d’Arc, the famous warrior saint.
To make it short, both of them are just blown-up to make modern women feel good about themselves.
Lovelace was not the first programmer. Her mentor, who developed the analytical engine obviously wrote programs for it long before Ada came along.
Jeanne d’Arc never wore a sword or armor and never fought and she never led an army. Those things were left to her simpish retinue and men of culture like Gilles de Rais.
Lesser known examples would be Sophie Scholl and Zoë Quinn. The former was a minor member of an anti-Nazi resistance group who joined later, but now here in Germany she is presented as the head and face of the resistance. Zoë Quinn, to name a modern example, was hailed as a “game developer” in mainstream media despite being nothing else but a talentless (attention) whore with nothing to show for it.
All those facts are known and easily accessible, and it is sure to say that these individuals, if they had been born as men, would be almost totally unknown by now.
Seriously, how pathetic must women be if our media need to create artificial icons to motivate them to do anything exceptional?
