quote:

---

Catherine the Great of all the Russias is reputed to have died attempting relations with a horse.
Or is that a palace myth?

---

It is a palace myth.

Why bring this up, and answer this question in the feminism forum? Well, it is suggested in the link above that the story was spread in an effort to discredit Catherine's achievements. Catherine's sex life was not, so far as I understand, too different from many European kings who took on numerous and much younger mistresses. Such were the perogatives of royal power, regardless of gender. What is interesting is that, with the possible exception of Henry VIII, I can't think of another king for whom the main attack on their reputation is that they were congenitally horny. Debunking this particular myth is important not just for the sake of pedantry, but to show how hard a time female politicians have always had being treated as equals. And this still happens today... why, for example, was it considered newsworthy a few years back when Kim Campbell started dating a younger man? With the understandable exception of the cradle-robbing PET, has any other prime minister's sex life drawn any attention whatsoever?

quote:

---

With the understandable exception of the cradle-robbing PET, has any other prime minister's sex life drawn any attention whatsoever?

---

Why is Pierre Trudeau's marriage an "understandable exception"? I think you're trying to defend the people who paid attention to it in order to minimize the damage that the attention does to your theory. Sort of like: "People never discuss male politician's sex lives! Well alright, Trudeau, but that's okay because he was a cradle-robber."

And what's with this "cradle-robber" thing anyway? Margaret was an adult when she married Pierre, no?

Two men, and two women.

On the one hand, Catherine bought Diderot's library from him while he was still alive, which was a great thing to do, for two reasons: it saved him financially at the time, and it saved many of his mss that we might otherwise have lost.

Did you know that his great dialogue Le Neveu de Rameau first appeared translated by Goethe from a copy of the ms at the Winter Palace? (skdadl now ducks and runs, waiting for John_D to prove this yet again another palace myth.)

If foggy memory serves, though, it was over a century before the French managed to find a copy of their own. This is a long and complicated story ... Never mind.

On the other hand, Denis's trip to see Catherine was not all that pleasant, one gathers, nor all that good for his health. He was, after all, an ornament to her, as artists always are to the Great, men and women both, although usually only after they have managed to demonstrate their genius all on their starving lonesomes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

Did you know that his great dialogue Le Neveu de Rameau first appeared translated by Goethe from a copy of the ms at the Winter Palace? (skdadl now ducks and runs, waiting for John_D to prove this yet again another palace myth.)

---

AFAIK, this is true. I'm no expert on French literature, though.

quote:

---

I'm a feminist, John_D, but I still keep a li'l distance from Mrs Thatcher and her ilk, eh?

---

Catherine the Great, from what I have read in Russian history [a 2 semester course in college 30+ years ago & several books since]appears to have have been a mixed bag, politically & socially. I agree that attempts to disparage her name by attributing errant sexual practices to her are chiefly because she was a woman. Had any of the male Tsars liked horses in such a way it would be a mere footnote, if mentioned at all.

Consider England's Queens, Elisabeth I & Victoria. As a student of history, I believe them great monarchs. Yet much of what has been written of them takes the approach that "well, for mere women, they weren't too bad." We must recognize that in the context of their times, it was amazing that they could do what they did. However, I think we must work at ways to look at their accomplishments in a broader, more universal context. Notice, I do NOT say "objective" context--that I believe is impossible! History is an Art, not a science. Remember, the Greeks had a word for it--Clio, the Muse of History, a Female figure. I sense that we need much more scholarship by women about women in history, political science and sociology.

quote:

---

It may be that, because I see much better with my LEFT eye than with my right eye, men have less of a problem with powerful political women with conservative pratices or leanings than with reform-minded liberal, leftist or socialist women.

---

That seems true to me too. Apart from the iconic figures -- Thatcher, Meir, Gandhi, and all those USian women secretaries of state, we see this often in Canadian politics.

I'm nowhere close to putting this well enough as a theory, but might it be that the cool ruthlessness that is needed to accede to power is still admired even by liberal or lefty men simply because it looks more like competence to them? because it looks familiar? And while many men of any persuasion might find cool ruthlessness relatively easy, a lefty woman is still going to find it hard?

None of the conservative women who have acquired power in Canada (that I can think of) has ever been called "shrill," eg. But the liberal and lefty women who've duked it out on the public stage get that label all the time.

Our leading female conservative light at the moment, mind (Belinda Stronach), is mostly avoiding any characterizations at all by keeping her mouth firmly shut and just smiling for the cameras.

[ 11 February 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]