Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Parnell
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Women's History - Perpetuation of inequity Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 13:03 |
Historians have found it hard to study women's history. How is it tackled? The study of a minority group? Economic history?
Some historians, mainly women historians, tend to look on everything women have done in history and mark it up as a 'contribution' to history overall. Its the same women who strive for gender equality who pump up every little thing a woman has ever done and try to mark it out as exceptional who continue this discriminatory (Positive discrimination is still discrimination) study of history.
It is counterproductive to the cause of womens rights to study women as an outcasted minority; Only in the study of women in the context of history - IE, the study of history fullstop - is it fair. Is there really a need for this forum when all we are doing is perpetuating an historical injustice?
|
|
Chilbudios
Arch Duke
Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 13:23 |
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?
|
|
Dolphin
Arch Duke
Suspended
Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 13:31 |
Gender study is not useless..But what about a men's history section? A section that deals solely with women's history can be seen as discrimatory, but if it serves to highlight an aspect of history that may be overlooked when all is viewed in the broader picture, then I don't see it as a problem. Why have any section that is not included under 'general world history', if it serves to specify and not take all other factors into consideration? Is the military history section discrimatory against pacifists?
|
|
Parnell
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 13:47 |
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?
|
|
Dolphin
Arch Duke
Suspended
Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 13:57 |
If it keeps the hens happy Parnell, let them at it!
|
|
Chilbudios
Arch Duke
Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Feb-2008 at 14:35 |
Parnell, here's how a book on women history looks in my country (published by Bucharest University in 2004):
Title: About women and their history in Romania
Studies (signed each by a different scholar, for those who are curious: the editor is a man, and of 12 scholars, 2 are men, 10 are women):
- Woman between family and society in Moldova during the Organic Regulations
- The woman's status in the beginning of 19th century
- Social inclusion and exclusion of women in modern Romania (1878 - 1914)
- Daily life in a girl school in the 2nd half of 19th century
- Woman's life in the 19th century - first half of 20th century
- Romanian woman's image in the journals of foreign travellers in the first half of 19th century
- The imaginary on woman in the Old Kingdom between positive and negative
- Discourses on woman in Romania between the two World Wars
- The anonymity of woman in the aesthetics of Ceauşescu's Romania
- The cult of Elena Ceauşescu in the 1980s
- Gender, ethnicity and space. Discourses about the sexual violence against woman in Bucharest.
- Bible's interpretation as source for gender discrimination in Romanian religious practice
So you see, this book is not at all about women's contributions to history, but about what was their position in society in various moments of time and from different points of view.
|
|
Melisende
Pretorian
Joined: 05-May-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 10:23 |
Ahhh Parnell, would you, in your studies of history, specifically (and voluntarily) seek out to study the role of women in general, or the achievements of women (of which there are many - and not just as queens and wives), or to study a particular woman from any historical period???
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 my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre."
|
|
Parnell
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 13:06 |
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?
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 13:29 |
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?
|
|
Chilbudios
Arch Duke
Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 13:52 |
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.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 14:02 |
^
Yes, but then it has to be relevant. A history of the suffergetes could be forgiven for looking at it from a "womans perspective", a history of Margret Tatcher's PM term cannot.
|
|
Aelfgifu
Caliph
Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 18:04 |
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.
|
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
|
|
Tore The Dog
Knight
Joined: 08-Feb-2008
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 74
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Feb-2008 at 20:23 |
Womman population is in majority , atleast 52 % of earth populass , we men are in minority
saw a figure about 46 % but womman usually leads whit 2% in every country , exept in India , China and muslim countrys they have more fluxiations on this chart.
And this old saying , behind a great man is a verry power full womman.
Thats often is the trouth.
|
|
Melisende
Pretorian
Joined: 05-May-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Feb-2008 at 11:04 |
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) ???
|
"For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre."
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Feb-2008 at 12:16 |
Originally posted by Tore The Dog
And this old saying , behind a great man is a verry power full womman.
Thats often is the trouth. |
At least if you don't let them think that, you get hurt. I agree with this topic. The study of women's history, in general, is not really necessary or relevant. As Aelfgifu already said, however, if it focuses instead on the role of women in history, rather than just a feminist perspective, then it's a bit better.
|
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Feb-2008 at 12:17 |
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
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Feb-2008 at 14:00 |
Originally posted by Melisende
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) ???
|
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.
In countering this I could give the example of, Marie Curie, Irene Curie, Emiliy Dickonson Poe, Jane Austen, QEI, Catherine De Medici, all of whom influenced science, the arts and politics to a large extent, and were recognized, while I can give the example of the Miletusian school, the atomist philosphers who were probably the best classical scholors, and yet are unknown to most people. Maybe I should say that they were are unknown because the were all men?
|
|
Melisende
Pretorian
Joined: 05-May-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Feb-2008 at 02:08 |
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"???
|
"For my part, I adhere to the maxim of antiquity: The throne is a glorious sepulchre."
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Feb-2008 at 06:12 |
None. I did not write about the one I did not know about, i.e Lucy Osbourn. In the case of Penfold, the winery was started by her husband, she ran it after his death, and the her daughter and son-in-law took over in the 1870's, only after that did it become the brandname that it is today.
As for Trotula, please give mke an example of "later males plundering and claiming for their own" i.e plagerisation. Her work was hardly notable as it is, these disorders were aleady well known since the time of the Sumerians and it was the 19th century when gynecology became the province of doctors as opposed to mid wives were the causes identified and remedies began.
I wrote the names of those notable women in my previous of the top of my head sans googling, or yahooing or ineed any "ing". Here another one, Lady Gregory.
If the shoe was on the other foot, I would still object. I can however see the relevance of gender in history for certain subjects, the suffergette movement for women, conscription and freemasonary for men.
|
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Feb-2008 at 09:25 |
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???
|
There are literally thousands of men - if not tens or hundreds of thousands! - who made discoveries/deeds greater than or of the same magnitude as those women. And these men are, just as the women you mentioned, virtually unknown. For example, Mary Penfold, she ran a winery. How many men do you think ran wineries through the ages? Hundreds of thousands to millions. Only those who make the most incredibly profound milestones are actually remembered. Beside Einstein, how many Noble physics prize laurates do you think the average person can mention?
And as for Marie Curie who was surely the woman who made the biggest contributions to science: there were many men who made equal or greater contributions to chemistry and physics then her but are totally unknown. The point is, people are not ignorant of the progress of noted women; people doesn't know much about history or historical persons in the first place, irregardless of gender!
Edited by Styrbiorn - 16-Feb-2008 at 09:29
|
|