If one of the ideas from the thread is taken forward and made, could there be space in the credits for "based on an idea by....."
Or "inspired by...."
I have had a couple of flying lessons in a light aircraft and I would really recommend it. It is a lot of fun and not too tricky once you are up there.
Planes land on their rear wheels for weight distribution. Plus nose up slows the plane down. Putting the entire weight through the front landing gear would probably cause it to break and then you will be using those emergency slides.
Would also like some American history as all we know in the UK is they chucked some tea in a harbour. Could visit major sites of history and cover the native Americans and the Trail of tears too
OK, I listened to the recording and I understand that you feel like, if you took our idea about doing documentaries on kick-ass women of the Middle Ages that you might be "mansplaining"... I understand how you might say that but I also beg to differ. If done with proper respect, I think it is exactly the opposite: it shows that you have respect for these trail-blazing women that had a huge impact on history despite having to overcome the gender bias of their age.
I remember having a discussion with a historian friend of mine that the current trend that states that you must represent the 'culture' to write (or speak) convincingly about that culture. This idea that you must be a member of a minority group to write history about that minority group in order to have credibility is, in my opinion, ridiculous. None of us in a 21st century context are of the group of Medieval culture and the idea that good history cannot be written about the Middle Ages unless the historian is a knight, monk or peasant doesn't really hold water.
So, please reconsider doing a set of documentaries on kick-ass women of the Middle Ages. Approach the subject with curiosity, respect and courage and go for it, mate! You CAN finish your game of cribbage first, though.
Warm regards,
--Shane
P.S. - All planes land on their wing gears (toward the back) because, by lifting the nose, the plane slows enough to land. Anyway, there is only one nose landing gear. So, if you tried to land on the nose gear, it would be hard for the plane to balance without tipping over. Just sayin' 😂
The idea that only a representative of a certain group or culture can say/write something about that topic is indeed unwelcome. It’s also an extreme point of view, and extremism never helps to solve anything.
In a world where in some places and in some minds girls and women are still second rate citizens, I don’t think it’s just as extreme to be sensitive to male/female/other perceptions.
Example 1: if a female doctor who is the leading authority on penile disfunction is invited to a medical programme dedicated to that subject, I don’t think many will wonder why it’s not a man explaining about penises. After all, excellent male doctors tell about female parts, and we accept that.
Exemple 2: if a male historian focusing on medieval times makes a tv show about kick-ass women of the Middle Ages, I – and many other women I know – would think “Were they seriously unable to find an equally competent female historian?”
To me, there really is no difference between the two examples: quality comes first. But! When you’re sending a message such as ‘Yes, there were important women around in the Middle Ages, it’s not just about men’ you’re also sending a message to women and girls that women can fulfil their potential, their gender should not be an obstacle thrown up by others or even themselves to be accomplished in any way they want. Letting a male presenter tell them that instantly ruins that message: there is no woman around who can tell you this just as good.
No matter how well intentioned by the sender, you also have to look how it’s received and the medium that's being used. TV can have a big impact: it reaches audiences that may not read books, magazines, or Substack articles. This is what I mean by sensitivity, and by no means do I want to climb the barricades when a non-member of a group writes about that group.
Thank you for this well-written and reasonable argument. It is a pleasure to read and is also thought-provoking to me. I accept your point. The result of your point seems like a slippery slope, however, to self-censorship. If Dan, or any other male historian, specifically chooses to avoid a subject of women (or any other group that has been historically marginalised) then important histories may remain untold. In my humble opinion, the matter of gender equality (or the equality of any other group) will not be solved until the very thought that anyone should self-restrict themselves from the discussion for fear of sending the wrong message is eliminated. Self-censorship, in my opinion, helps to perpetuate the inequality or "otherness" of the story.
I accept that inequality exists and that active efforts must be made to right these wrongs but I'm not sure that self-censorship of certain subjects is the manner in which this inequality is to be cured. Quite simply, "two wrongs don't make a right."
Perhaps a small personal story will help illuminate my point of view (at the risk of mansplaining). I left a 30+ year corporate career, where the glass-ceiling was most definitely in place, to created a technology business that held diversity firmly at its core. All diversities were considered including; gender, religion, culture, ethnicity and sexual orientation. My wife and I agreed that we would invest our money in this business because it was right for us. As part of our journey, we decided that we would mandate a policy that our company (in an industry that is overwhelmingly male) will have at least half women. It isn't good enough to just have that policy, however. If women are at lower levels in the company and all senior positions are held by males -- there is no equality. So, we mandated at every level of the company, there should be at least an equal gender representation, including at the Board level. We also mandate equal pay for equal work by making our pay levels clear to everyone. We measure diversity and report on it monthly at the Board level and take action if changes need to occur.
Surprisingly (to me), a very senior woman called me out on the policy by saying, "Do you think women need to be saved? Is that why you've created this policy?" My reply to her was the following, "As a man, am I not able to establish a policy that is good for a business that my wife and I founded with our own money because we felt it was the right thing to do?" These questions, from a woman I respected, made me question why I insisted on a diversity policy. Did my conditioning as a white male lead me to feel that I must solve this problem as some sort of crusader. Should we remove the policy and use the old adage, "we will hire the very best regardless of diversity..." which most companies use in order to explain why they lack diversity. In the end, my wife and I decided -- as the founders of the company -- that we would keep in the policy because we could still find the very best for each job and also ensure diversity. The concept of diversity and hiring the very best team is not mutually exclusive. Sorry for the digression but I wanted to describe a dilemma that I had -- not someone else.
In my humble opinion (that I'm prepared to change with a reasoned view), equality is important to foster -- regardless of who fosters it -- and a movement toward equality is hindered when a change agent is questioned for her or his intentions. I suspect Dan will trust his gut on this and avoid the topic for exactly the reason that you impart within your argument. I just hope that the stories of these important women are eventually told.
First of all, my apologies to the readers here, the discussion between Shane and me is not really about History, but very much about the Etcetera. It is also part of my cunning plan to send some confirmation bias Dan’s way, so he’ll march into the TV producer’s office thundering “It’s Valérie’s European universities suggestion or nothing!” 😉
I’m enjoying our discussion, Shane!
The fear of self-censorship is very close to making the bullshit bingo list of reasons why not to take action to change for the better. In my opinion there is nothing censorial with pausing a minute and wondering “Is this really the best way to go about… (fill in the blanks) ?”. It’s not about fear of sending the wrong message, it’s about figuring out how – in the instance of the kick-ass Medieval women – a tv programme is best served. I’m sorry, English is not my first language, so I may not be able to express the nuances of my opinion.
Your anecdote about your own company’s recruitment policy was very interesting, as was the response by a female employee (by the way, remember that not all women have the same opinions, just like men don’t all have the same opinions). But my point isn’t about a female quota in the workplace, which as a policy is still very controversial and the jury is still out on whether it works or not. My point was about that in some cases we can pause to reflect on our actions, be sensitive about how they are received and how different choices can achieve better results. Perhaps the original meaning of the word woke, before it became a beating stick for very creepy and conservative people who are afraid of losing their privileged position?
An anecdote of my own: a friend sent me the video of a song called Put a woman in charge (sung by a man by the way). Instantly I thought of a number of women in politics whom I really, really don’t want to wield any power to realise their very nasty ideas. The world is not necessarily a better place when we automatically promote women. We don't want to lose the talent and abilities, but just because a person is a woman, doesn't mean we must ditch our critical thinking. Is that what you were saying in your last paragraph, too?
We might be more in agreement than would appear on first sight 🙂
If one of the ideas from the thread is taken forward and made, could there be space in the credits for "based on an idea by....."
Or "inspired by...."
I have had a couple of flying lessons in a light aircraft and I would really recommend it. It is a lot of fun and not too tricky once you are up there.
Planes land on their rear wheels for weight distribution. Plus nose up slows the plane down. Putting the entire weight through the front landing gear would probably cause it to break and then you will be using those emergency slides.
I'm currently on high speed rail to Edinburgh. Though, we are now stopped in Peterborough.
Definitely watch Essex Dogs
Would also like some American history as all we know in the UK is they chucked some tea in a harbour. Could visit major sites of history and cover the native Americans and the Trail of tears too
I love these podcasts, they are so authentic. The Viking idea is great, go for it.
1000% would watch a companion to Essex Dogs.
All of these are SO good! I would watch every single one! Well done everyone!
Love Cribbage! Yes planes land on their rear wheels, nose up. Great First Draft as always!!
At this point I'm just excited for a new Dan Jones show. Thanks for the part 2!
Dear Dan,
OK, I listened to the recording and I understand that you feel like, if you took our idea about doing documentaries on kick-ass women of the Middle Ages that you might be "mansplaining"... I understand how you might say that but I also beg to differ. If done with proper respect, I think it is exactly the opposite: it shows that you have respect for these trail-blazing women that had a huge impact on history despite having to overcome the gender bias of their age.
I remember having a discussion with a historian friend of mine that the current trend that states that you must represent the 'culture' to write (or speak) convincingly about that culture. This idea that you must be a member of a minority group to write history about that minority group in order to have credibility is, in my opinion, ridiculous. None of us in a 21st century context are of the group of Medieval culture and the idea that good history cannot be written about the Middle Ages unless the historian is a knight, monk or peasant doesn't really hold water.
So, please reconsider doing a set of documentaries on kick-ass women of the Middle Ages. Approach the subject with curiosity, respect and courage and go for it, mate! You CAN finish your game of cribbage first, though.
Warm regards,
--Shane
P.S. - All planes land on their wing gears (toward the back) because, by lifting the nose, the plane slows enough to land. Anyway, there is only one nose landing gear. So, if you tried to land on the nose gear, it would be hard for the plane to balance without tipping over. Just sayin' 😂
The idea that only a representative of a certain group or culture can say/write something about that topic is indeed unwelcome. It’s also an extreme point of view, and extremism never helps to solve anything.
In a world where in some places and in some minds girls and women are still second rate citizens, I don’t think it’s just as extreme to be sensitive to male/female/other perceptions.
Example 1: if a female doctor who is the leading authority on penile disfunction is invited to a medical programme dedicated to that subject, I don’t think many will wonder why it’s not a man explaining about penises. After all, excellent male doctors tell about female parts, and we accept that.
Exemple 2: if a male historian focusing on medieval times makes a tv show about kick-ass women of the Middle Ages, I – and many other women I know – would think “Were they seriously unable to find an equally competent female historian?”
To me, there really is no difference between the two examples: quality comes first. But! When you’re sending a message such as ‘Yes, there were important women around in the Middle Ages, it’s not just about men’ you’re also sending a message to women and girls that women can fulfil their potential, their gender should not be an obstacle thrown up by others or even themselves to be accomplished in any way they want. Letting a male presenter tell them that instantly ruins that message: there is no woman around who can tell you this just as good.
No matter how well intentioned by the sender, you also have to look how it’s received and the medium that's being used. TV can have a big impact: it reaches audiences that may not read books, magazines, or Substack articles. This is what I mean by sensitivity, and by no means do I want to climb the barricades when a non-member of a group writes about that group.
Dear Valérie,
Thank you for this well-written and reasonable argument. It is a pleasure to read and is also thought-provoking to me. I accept your point. The result of your point seems like a slippery slope, however, to self-censorship. If Dan, or any other male historian, specifically chooses to avoid a subject of women (or any other group that has been historically marginalised) then important histories may remain untold. In my humble opinion, the matter of gender equality (or the equality of any other group) will not be solved until the very thought that anyone should self-restrict themselves from the discussion for fear of sending the wrong message is eliminated. Self-censorship, in my opinion, helps to perpetuate the inequality or "otherness" of the story.
I accept that inequality exists and that active efforts must be made to right these wrongs but I'm not sure that self-censorship of certain subjects is the manner in which this inequality is to be cured. Quite simply, "two wrongs don't make a right."
Perhaps a small personal story will help illuminate my point of view (at the risk of mansplaining). I left a 30+ year corporate career, where the glass-ceiling was most definitely in place, to created a technology business that held diversity firmly at its core. All diversities were considered including; gender, religion, culture, ethnicity and sexual orientation. My wife and I agreed that we would invest our money in this business because it was right for us. As part of our journey, we decided that we would mandate a policy that our company (in an industry that is overwhelmingly male) will have at least half women. It isn't good enough to just have that policy, however. If women are at lower levels in the company and all senior positions are held by males -- there is no equality. So, we mandated at every level of the company, there should be at least an equal gender representation, including at the Board level. We also mandate equal pay for equal work by making our pay levels clear to everyone. We measure diversity and report on it monthly at the Board level and take action if changes need to occur.
Surprisingly (to me), a very senior woman called me out on the policy by saying, "Do you think women need to be saved? Is that why you've created this policy?" My reply to her was the following, "As a man, am I not able to establish a policy that is good for a business that my wife and I founded with our own money because we felt it was the right thing to do?" These questions, from a woman I respected, made me question why I insisted on a diversity policy. Did my conditioning as a white male lead me to feel that I must solve this problem as some sort of crusader. Should we remove the policy and use the old adage, "we will hire the very best regardless of diversity..." which most companies use in order to explain why they lack diversity. In the end, my wife and I decided -- as the founders of the company -- that we would keep in the policy because we could still find the very best for each job and also ensure diversity. The concept of diversity and hiring the very best team is not mutually exclusive. Sorry for the digression but I wanted to describe a dilemma that I had -- not someone else.
In my humble opinion (that I'm prepared to change with a reasoned view), equality is important to foster -- regardless of who fosters it -- and a movement toward equality is hindered when a change agent is questioned for her or his intentions. I suspect Dan will trust his gut on this and avoid the topic for exactly the reason that you impart within your argument. I just hope that the stories of these important women are eventually told.
First of all, my apologies to the readers here, the discussion between Shane and me is not really about History, but very much about the Etcetera. It is also part of my cunning plan to send some confirmation bias Dan’s way, so he’ll march into the TV producer’s office thundering “It’s Valérie’s European universities suggestion or nothing!” 😉
I’m enjoying our discussion, Shane!
The fear of self-censorship is very close to making the bullshit bingo list of reasons why not to take action to change for the better. In my opinion there is nothing censorial with pausing a minute and wondering “Is this really the best way to go about… (fill in the blanks) ?”. It’s not about fear of sending the wrong message, it’s about figuring out how – in the instance of the kick-ass Medieval women – a tv programme is best served. I’m sorry, English is not my first language, so I may not be able to express the nuances of my opinion.
Your anecdote about your own company’s recruitment policy was very interesting, as was the response by a female employee (by the way, remember that not all women have the same opinions, just like men don’t all have the same opinions). But my point isn’t about a female quota in the workplace, which as a policy is still very controversial and the jury is still out on whether it works or not. My point was about that in some cases we can pause to reflect on our actions, be sensitive about how they are received and how different choices can achieve better results. Perhaps the original meaning of the word woke, before it became a beating stick for very creepy and conservative people who are afraid of losing their privileged position?
An anecdote of my own: a friend sent me the video of a song called Put a woman in charge (sung by a man by the way). Instantly I thought of a number of women in politics whom I really, really don’t want to wield any power to realise their very nasty ideas. The world is not necessarily a better place when we automatically promote women. We don't want to lose the talent and abilities, but just because a person is a woman, doesn't mean we must ditch our critical thinking. Is that what you were saying in your last paragraph, too?
We might be more in agreement than would appear on first sight 🙂
Waiting for the part 3!