Are Women Human? Penetrating, Sensible, and Witty Essays on the Role of Women in Society

Being a fan of Sayers' Lord Peter stories for many years, I decided to try her essays too. "Are Women Human?" consists of two essays--the title essay and another called "Human Not-Quite-Human." Both are well-written, and more importantly, well-reasoned. Reading her I found myself smacking my head more than once and thinking "Why did I never think of that? It makes such sense!" Sayers' arguments are both to the point and made with humor. She makes her points from history and from the Bible, and her warnings against generalizing are excellent. Not all men are the same. How can all women be? This is an easy, fun read from which one can take away a lot of excellent ideas.

This is a great book. It is two essays, ‘astute and witty essays on the role of women in society.’ They need to be read today. They are logical answers to questions on feminism. The Introduction by Mary McDermott Shideler is as good as the two essays. As Mary says, “...she espoused...a way of life that she practiced on the premises that male and female are adjectives qualifying the noun ‘human being’, and that the substantive governs the modifier.” And her essays expand on this concept. Very, very interesting.

I first came to this book after reading a stirring review of it in philosopher Susan Haack's book Putting Philosophy to Work: Inquiry and Its Place in Culture . Haack, like Sayers, is a believer that equality of the sexes means that the sexes are to be treated the same when justified and differently when justified (the former being more justified than the latter). In other words, Sayers is a breath of fresh air, particularly in this ironic age where feminism leads as often to "women's ways of knowing" as to any equalitarian sentiment. In the lead-off title essay, Sayers starts by telling us that she does not wish to be defined as a modern feminist (writing in the '60's) and that she believes modern feminism often does more damage than good. Why? Becuase feminists both play identity politics and the imitation game. Feminists play identity politics when they talk about women's rights, women's points of view, etc., instead of human rights, human points of view, etc. How do women play the immitation game? By dressing like and acting like men FOR NO OTHER REASON than a misguided sense that equality can only mean "to be the same as," when it can also mean "to have the same value as." (Sayers sees nothing wrong with dressing like, or acting like, men so long as it is done out of desire to dress or act that way rather than a desire to immitate in order to achieve equality.) Sayers's greatest point in this essay deserves a good paraphrase: Sayers is confused when people ask her why a woman would want to study Aristotle. What could they hope to gain. Sayer's reply is simple: not many women want to study Aristotle just as not many men do. The point is not that women should study Aristotle but that women should have the same opportunity as men to study Aristotle or not study him. This is similar to Sayer's reply when she is asked what women's point of view is on issue x. She sarcastically tells us to ask A WOMAN for HER point of view if we want to know it (and reminds us that no one asks what mens' point of view is on issue x). In other words, women do not need x rights because they are women, but because they are human. Since men and women are human first and sexes after, any question about why we should treat women equally is probably better phrased, "why should we treat humans equally." The second of these essays says much of the same thing as the first, but one never gets tired of hearing it in all the new and creative ways Sayers has of saying it. Her paragraphs of satire depicting what it would be like for men to be in women's shoes (reading articles questioning their ability to do work outside the factory and reading advice about how their most important role is to maintain their wives' affections) is hilarioius and biting at the same time. On a personal note, I read Sayers book becuase I am growing rather sick of hearing phrases like "women's ways of knowing," and "feminist political theory," (I heard the word "womanist" the other day used to describe someone's views). In my view, Sayers and those like her need to be heard now more than ever to remind us that phrases like these do more harm than good in their very shallow differentiation from women to men (don't women think like men do? don't they and men experience politics as people first and women later?). Sayers's more common-sensical approach which seems women as people and political/social equiry as a human, rather than a sex-driven, issue, will hopefully serve as the antidote to current feminist (or womanist?) excesses.

Sort, witty and intelligent-plus it is funny and very modern.

In Dorothy Sayers book "Are Women Human," which was a short story on how women were treated in England in the early 1900s. It was her thoughts on gender notions and how women were treated in society, but asserting why she was not a feminist to the cause. She argues that women and men are all humans that have the same needs, or different ones depending upon the individual. However, nevertheless it shows how women are associated and still compared to our male counter parts. Miss Sayers continues the argument that women and men are all humans that have the same needs, or different ones depending upon the individual. It's ok to have a certain amount of classification, which is necessary and presents no harm in doing so. In her second short story entitled "The Human-Not-Quite-Human, she focused on women acting more like men than anything else. She compared the human factor of Vir being the male, Femina the female and Homo being both male and female. She described that men have always dealt with Vir and Homo while women only dealt with Femina. Sayers argue the point that men (Vir) have always demanded that women (Femina) shall act lady like at all times; regardless if she's engaged or in a Homo relation or not. Men have always been attracted to women and will appropriate it without any regard to having scruples. Based on her concept of this last statement; it still holds true within today's society. However, if women acted as such; she labeled them as being unworthy or a scamp. Overall, both short stories were amusing and delightfully funny as Sayers poked fun about being human. Reading this book provided some insight on how things were then and now. It's worth reading.

Without Dorothy L. Sayers where would we be as Christians and civilized human beings? Read the book, send it to your female relatives, friends, acquaintances. Sayers asks the right question and answers it with wit, charm, and intelligence. Even if you disagree, you will have to give her credit for the best prose, the most elegant of styles, and the great debate. She smashes everyone's sacred cow and then some. And, don't stumble over the examples from another generation. Apply the analogy to your time and circumstance. She gives you a tool of learning so use it.

It is an absolute must have.

Starting from the premise that both men and women are people and should be valued for their individual personalities and capabilities these witty essays show that the woman's place in society was under discussion in the 1930s. Dorothy L Sayers is better known for her crime novels featuring Peter Wimsey and for her religious writing and many people today will not be aware of these fascinating essays. Sayers did not like the word `feminist' as she felt it served to drive an artificial wedge between men and women. She is scathing about the expectations placed on women to be feminine at all times, to dress in certain ways and do certain jobs and she highlights the stupidity of the stereotype by showing how similar strictures could be placed on men. She suggests jobs should be allocated on the basis of capabilities rather than gender which may well mean that both men and women will mainly do particular types of jobs. But she points out that every individual has different qualities and abilities and they should not be forced to do particular types of work just because of their gender. Sayers highlights the oft repeated statement of women taking men's jobs by applying the same reasoning to the wearing of trousers. The criticism is that women do not look good in trousers but as Sayers points out the same could be said of many men but no one suggests they should wear a skirt because of it. Women wear trousers because they are comfortable, warm and convenient and what they look like should be irrelevant. There are criticisms of women in that Sayers feels they are far too inclined to copy what men do - to prove they are as good as men - when what they should be doing things which suit their own abilities and in their own way rather than trying to copy what men do just to prove a point. Full of common sense and Sayers' trade mark wit this little book makes excellent reading for anyone who thinks the position of women in society is a modern issue. I recommend it.

Having read the excellent review already on this site I want to echo everything that was written by the reviewer. What can I add? Firstly that the issues raised are as relevant today as they were in the 1930s. We have come a long way since The Bronte sisters had to assume male names to get published - but recent news stories and pay disparity show that there is still a way to go. The second observation is the personal and historical context in which Sayers lived. In many ways she was personally in the vanguard of the emancipation of women - but her writing has no hint of bitterness or self pity regarding her own difficulties. Finally it is short and concise. Sayers is a master with words - a less skilled author would have written a book twice the length! Worth every penny!

cracking read, excellent condition, would use the supplier again

Dorothy L Sayers, best known for her detective fiction has encapsulated in this slight volume more sense on equality and choice than can be found fifty years on in any number of more modern polemics, diatribes and pressure groups. In fact it's sad that in the time since these were penned that choices and attitudes which Sayers exposed to critical light have not progressed to the point where these insights are historical rather than as relevant now as then. Some of the points are couched in terms more suited to the fifties and then current events than now but looking beyond that the points retain their relevance