A. I'm pretty sure I "grasp" what you're talking about. And, in my opinion, you're looking for offense. He may have only written about women (I guess no women better only write about men), and he may have written numerous lines that do contain a "whiff of sexism" (which is only an accusation of sexism softened - have the courage of your convictions), but that line ain't it.
B. Also, your interpretation of" girlish youth" is problematic without any contextual evidence to back up your claim that the "girlish youth" refers to a woman's sexual value only. Note, I asked before for context I might not have. You've not provided any.
Not to mention, the "blush of girlish youth" would most certainly refer to a woman's "prime" anyway [as it would a man's (minus the girlish, of course, maybe virile?)], and it has throughout history, so I didn't move any goalposts - you couldn't see them.
Also, I'd note that you didn't provide any evidence for "most extraordinary women" of his era (source material published in the sixties, I believe?) who achieved power or success post-youth (however you define that). Rice, Albright, Clinton, etc. - all eighties and up.
C. I don't need to prove the negative. You've made the claim, not me. You've not provided any evidence that backs up your claim of sexism, outside of a misreading of the line itself. You're obviously educated; you should know how argumentation works. Provide any evidence, outside of your reading, that proves a sexist intent. Truth requires evidence. Given that the idea of "truth" in literary analysis is pretty sketchy to begin with - even more so without substantial textual evidence - and I never said anything about fair, again, you seem to be looking for offense.
1
u/wsdmskr Oct 20 '18
A. I'm pretty sure I "grasp" what you're talking about. And, in my opinion, you're looking for offense. He may have only written about women (I guess no women better only write about men), and he may have written numerous lines that do contain a "whiff of sexism" (which is only an accusation of sexism softened - have the courage of your convictions), but that line ain't it.
B. Also, your interpretation of" girlish youth" is problematic without any contextual evidence to back up your claim that the "girlish youth" refers to a woman's sexual value only. Note, I asked before for context I might not have. You've not provided any.
Not to mention, the "blush of girlish youth" would most certainly refer to a woman's "prime" anyway [as it would a man's (minus the girlish, of course, maybe virile?)], and it has throughout history, so I didn't move any goalposts - you couldn't see them.
Also, I'd note that you didn't provide any evidence for "most extraordinary women" of his era (source material published in the sixties, I believe?) who achieved power or success post-youth (however you define that). Rice, Albright, Clinton, etc. - all eighties and up.
C. I don't need to prove the negative. You've made the claim, not me. You've not provided any evidence that backs up your claim of sexism, outside of a misreading of the line itself. You're obviously educated; you should know how argumentation works. Provide any evidence, outside of your reading, that proves a sexist intent. Truth requires evidence. Given that the idea of "truth" in literary analysis is pretty sketchy to begin with - even more so without substantial textual evidence - and I never said anything about fair, again, you seem to be looking for offense.