[Walsh]

Can anyone help me with this. I am arguing that the statement is true ("Historians who omit the history of women omit half the history of mankind") but don't know how to go about this without producing a solely ultra extreme-feminist rant! How do i get around the fact that in the past women's roles were predominantly in the home and therefore the history that they most contribute to is more social and certainly not military. Do I try to persuade that this "domestic history" is as interesting as the great battles or do i find examples of influential female military, political, social etc figures? Conversly do i simply say that history is history whether intersting or oherwise?

[MrJohnDClare]

I think my smart-alec answer to your actual questions would be that all your points are true!

Can you remember when you did GCSE English? Talking in those terms, this isn't a 'persuade' essay - it's an 'argument' essay.
It's about presenting and analysing ALL the different 'sides' to the question, and the marks are to be gained, not by the conclusion, but by the process.

Yes. I know that there are those feminist historians who assert that we have give women parity of column inches or our histories are imbalanced.
But what about all the other sides to the issue?

You touch on some yourself.
What about the argument that - even though through no fault of their own and as a result of unacceptable historical social attitudes which we now despise - there are whole swathes of history where women did nothing of any note. Are we therefore to pad out our histories by a history which says, in effect, 'and in 360 bc Plato wrote the Republic and Mrs Plato went to the supermarket 52 times'? Surely history is about what happened and why and who did it is a side-show?

Or what about the consequent attitude which says that there is no (and should be no) such thing as 'women's history'. NOBODY has ever written 'men's history' - the justification of the 'women's history' brigade is that, since men have always dominated, what we have always thought of as 'history' is, in effect, 'men's history', and that is why we need all those separate studies which strip out the role of women. But nobody ever strips out the role of men. And speaking as one of those men who have written the alleged 'men's histories', I have NEVER omitted women - indeed, I have seized desperately on every possible opportunity of pointing out where women were involved .. including, I might add, such over-hyped frauds as Florence Nightingale.

And I could not possible write this essay without mentioning the gaff of a title which highlights the omission of women's history, but then speaks of the 'history of mankind'! It emphasises the tenuous nature of the premise of the title. IS there a 'history of mankind'? IS there a 'history of women' in those global terms? I would argue very strongly that a study which looks at 'the role of mothers in 19th Iranian religion' is NOT 'women's history'. It is no different to a study of 'the role of navvies in the building of the London-Birmingham Railway' or 'the role of the Evangelicals in Factory reform'. They are ALL simply in-depth studies of how a particular group contributed to building the future in a specific situation. The article on Iranian women is not 'women's history', it is 'history'. Should as many of these studies be about women ... perhaps, but does that make them any more 'women's' history?

And once you stop bantering global terms, the whole thing becomes an irrelevance.
Once you think in specific terms about real problems, then the palce of women inj the history becomes obvious and 'done for you'!
If you are studying the armies of the civil war, women appear only as rather eccentric characters pretending to be men, as camp followers and victims.
If you are studying how unemployed families coped during the 1930s depression, then women occupy centre stage, and men become their dependents, relying on their wives to run the household on nothing AND to maintain their self-esteem.
ie each topic has its own parameters, and there is no 'women's history' per se, just as there is no 'men's history'.

Is it possible that 'women's history' was born of the feminist wave of the 1970s, and that it itself debases women by suggesting that they NEED a special little corner where the rules of 'historical impact' are not as rigorous ... like women's cricket or women's football?


Even within the traditional definition of 'women's history' there are many different approaches. Perhaps a starting point could be here or here.


Your essay should not be about arguing 'a line' - it should be an overview of different historiographical attitudes and perspectives on 'women's history'.

Also, I would advise you to read this , which I found fascinating, before you start writing.

[glitterglitter]

Hi,

I agree that there shouldn't be 'women's history'. However, I do also agree that because women were oppressed it's simply a way of saying the topic is being studied from a slightly different perspective from the normal male, white, middle / upper class angle - and that most certainly has been the default. Glasgow had a 'black history' month last month, and it's the same thing. Noone ever talks about 'white' history just like 'men's history. They don't have to. All our histories are, of course, intertwined, and hopefully our current stories are being written taking everyone's experiences into account.

Anyway, that's not the question. I think you're right - history is about ALL our histories and how they got us here, however 'interesting' and regardless of sex, race or creed. The fact that women's roles were predominately in the home is part of history!

Your line could simply be that history most certainly isn't all about warfare, and just because something isn't 'interesting' doesn't mean it isn't important. And who says social history isn't interesting???? I find details of battles, war films etc. dull and boring! I'm far more interested in how people lived and social and economic history.

Woman's contribution to history has certainly been different, and certainly there have been more important men than women, but that doesn't make it worthless and to be ignored. You could maybe also look to royalty - the influence of royal women has been enormous, but often overlooked.


You could possibly also argue that the fact that women were concerned with domestic issues allowed men to devote such enormous time to their work or fighting, and that this was really important! Behind every great man there is a great woman and all that. They just didn't get the credit. Nowadays many successful men seem to have made it with the support of a strong woman - Michelle Obama, Eleanor Rosevelt, Hilary Clinton, Cherie Blair. Maybe that's why Gordon Brown's career is going down the tubes ... tee hee


Oh, and Plato was gay. Maybe that's why he was so good - being in touch with his feminine side and realising the importance of talk over fighting


Good luck - and I wouldn't worry about going into a rant, just ensure you don't use highly emotive language and I'm sure you'll do great!