Women's History - Perpetuation of inequity

So you're saying that while studying women in history, we shouldn't study the interaction between genders as a separate topic? Maybe some historians tend to exagerate on it, but does it make the gender studies totally useless?

What I'm saying is that any women's study seems to yammer on about relatively minor things women have done (Mostly as wives to powerful men) and have added them all as contributions to history. They have created a new genre, 'womens history' which seems to be anything any woman has ever done. Studies of the emancipation, civil rights and suffragete movements are all worthy topics... but womens history and African American history? Why should they have an entire historical survey to themselves?

Parnell, here's how a book on women history looks in my country (published by Bucharest University in 2004):

Studies of the ways in which women interacted in a male dominated society are sociological or anthropological persuits... Looking at the suffragete movement, and the women who dominated it is important. Looking at the history of feminism is important. But looking at the history of women? Women have been half the population since time eternal. Your looking at their history?

Studies of the ways in which women interacted in a male dominated society are sociological or anthropological persuits... Looking at the suffragete movement, and the women who dominated it is important. Looking at the history of feminism is important. But looking at the history of women? Women have been half the population since time eternal. Your looking at their history?

There are histories of slavery, of criminality, of homosexuality, of aristrocracy or of trade, basically histories where only a particular and differentiated segment of the society is studied. I don't see why gender differentiation should be a taboo.

As far as I know, proper 'Women's History', which is waht this forum is for, is indeed about women in history as Chilbudios describes it. A.k.a. about the position of females in society in a given age or place, and not so much for the glorification of any particular women, or the female gender in general. Yes, there are more groups whose history has been less prominent, and most of these do not have a specific sub-forum. This is mailny because many of these groups still have little interest, and a forum on them would be overly quiet. I would support a forum on slaves, if there would be sufficient interest in the subject. The reason why I think there is a Women's History sub-forum, and not a Slave History sub forum, is bacuse women still amke up 50% of the worlds population today, and also are a group who today have access to the same sort of education and resources as men (at least in some countries), which slaves are not. It is true that Women's History coul be placed under general hstory, or the period which it concerns, but one just has to look though the list of subjects in any of these forums to see that most subjects are about historic subjects that mainly concern men. This is in all respects logical. Men ruled the world in the past, and most history was made and written by them. But I still can see the purpose of keeping Women's history as a specific subject, if only to stop the various sporadic threads from dissappearing into the mass of other subjects.

Originally posted by Sparten Originally posted by Melisende As many achievements by women have in the past been overlooked or attributed to those of the masculine sex, is it any wonder that some like to blow their own trumpet as loud as they can.   For instance?

Sophia Brahe - her work was just as important as that of her brother's - but how many know who she was??

Caroline Herschal ??? Lucy Osborn ???? Mary Penfold ???  Caroline Norton ?????  Trotula Platearius ??? Cleopatra (not the Queen of Egypt or her relatives of same name) ???

Originally posted by Melisende Sophia Brahe - her work was just as important as that of her brother's - but how many know who she was??

Sister and assistant to Tyko Brahe. Describing her assistance work as "just as important" is an overstatement though.


Edited by Styrbiorn - 15-Feb-2008 at 12:19

Originally posted by Sparten Caroline Herschal 50 Pounds a year from the King (in 1782!) and a gold medal from the Royal Astronomy society and the Prussian Scientific Gold Medal in 1846. I am sure many people would want to be as "overlooked."   Mary Penfold Ran a winery. Hardly the stuff of legends.   Caroline Norton Great campaigner for changes in the law of marriage and was recognized as such in her lifetime. But then so was John Stuart Mills.   Trotula Platearius A book on gynecological disorders was doubtless an addition the science, but not exactly Newtons laws.   Cleopatra of Alexandria Most of her work as a scholor was discredited, then again so was most of the Alexandrian schools scientific work. Modern science dates from the 15th century.

How many did you google first ??

Mary Penfold - yes ran a winery, the success of which has been credited to her son-in-law who took the Penfold name.

Trotula - yes wrote a gynecological treatise, which later males plundered and claimed for their own.

As I said, how many notable women and their contributions can you name off the top of your head without the aid of google??? 

Question:  if the boot was on the other foot, would you object then to a subforum solely of "Men's History"???

Originally posted by Melisende How many did you google first ?? Mary Penfold - yes ran a winery, the success of which has been credited to her son-in-law who took the Penfold name. Trotula - yes wrote a gynecological treatise, which later males plundered and claimed for their own. As I said, how many notable women and their contributions can you name off the top of your head without the aid of google???

Edited by Styrbiorn - 16-Feb-2008 at 09:29