amicabl: The point I was trying to make in my obviously fractured English was that the life expectancy of 30 or 40 or whatever was caused by the large number of small children who died which reduced the statistical life expectancy or maybe I am wrong there too. No offence meant to the ladies with whom in the real world I usually get on quite well with.
And hence your name, right? :)
Yes, I understood what you were saying. And of course, that point has merit. However, it is not the whole picture. Infant and maternal mortality rates have been impacted dramatically by the advent of science. It is not reasonable to make the assertion that the world was better off, health-wise, before scientific advancements.
And yes, women have benefited largely by medical advancements. We actually can anticipate living past our childbearing years, our children can anticipate having their mothers around longer...unless, of course, you are a JW woman. Or a JW child. Then, your mortality risks go through the roof. JW women and children enjoy the primitive state of medicine during and previous to the 19th century.
The point that I was making, amicabl, was that "common knowledge" is knowledge that is suspect - we have to stop and examine if that "common knowledge" is rooted in our own personal biases. Things that we can believe are 'facts" because they are "common knowledge" can be simply manifestations of our own desires and/or position and/or limited access to information.
