Rachel Shapiro
Dr. Sparks
WGS 700
8 Sept. 2014
History’s Inclusion of Women’s History: 18th-21st Century Approaches
Despite its wide-ranging thematic, geographical, and political interests, history as
a discipline has long been limited to describing the history of men. Since male historians
were primarily (and historically) responsible for writing history, it is no surprise that their
articles and books reflected cultural biases of their time period in regards to women, who
were largely excluded or written about in gendered, stereotypical terms. With the
increasing attention to women’s history in the 1970s, women began to reclaim their
historical past, producing articles, curriculum, and engaging in activism. However,
women’s history as a field today still contains many issues associated with its recent
integration into scholarship of history.
In her book History & Feminism: A Glass Half Full, Judith Zinsser underlines the
two competing archetypes of women commonly employed by male historians in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. One of these, used by notable historians such as
Michelet, Toynbee, and Gibbon, portrayed women as inferior, weak, and dangerous,
often characterized by their “latent, potent sexuality” and ability to tempt “‘weak and
tender’” men (9). Simultaneously, another common view emerged, as historians chose to
present the archetype of the “ideal woman” who then would be praised for her grace,
good manners, and devotion to her husband (9). This forced categorization clearly
attempted to place women into two narrowly defined, stereotypical categories—women
were “dangerous” or “ideal,” temptresses or devoted mothers, sexual deviants or obedient
wives, and in all cases, weak, inferior, and subservient.
If history is, as Zinsser claims, obsessively preoccupied with writing the
experiences of “exceptional beings,” when women were deemed noteworthy enough to
be included in this category, it was their masculine qualities that received the highest
accolades (6-7). Considered the “exception” to the common flaws associated with their
sex, their identity was framed as a masculine one, confirming traditional views on gender
and power. Despite new approaches in twentieth century historiography—including the
work by revisionists, members of the Annalistes, and Marxist historians—women
appeared in gendered terms, if at all (20-22). Well into the 1960s, many history textbooks
relied on the definition of the “feminine” in contrast to the “masculine,” describing
women with sexist adjectives that underscored the few women that were represented (1113).
It was in this decade that women sought to reenvision a new type of history.
Armed with influential works including Simone de Beauvoir’s La Deuxieme Sexe, Betty
Frieden’s The Feminine Mystique, and Margaret Mead’s Male and Female: a Study of
the Sexes in the Changing World, women sought to reclaim their history (29). The
publishing of Gerda Lerner’s 1969 essay “New Approaches to the Study of Women in
American History” as well as similar articles began the process to broaden scholastic
inquiry into women’s history, developing even further in the 1970s (24-5). During the
70s, historians began to “uncover” the long-neglected histories of women with a great
deal of enthusiasm and success. However, by the end of the decade, a two-fold problem
had become apparent. While the study of women’s history merited increased attention by
Shapiro 2
scholars, it did not ultimately reform history as a whole; while acknowledged, many
historians continued to write male-centered history just as before. Secondly, at the
beginning of the 1980s, historians came to realize that, despite the progress of feminist
scholars, they were ultimately trying to insert women’s history into a discipline that, at a
structural level, had been built around the telling of male experience. In an effort to
redefine the field, some scholars proposed a three-fold alternative approach, including the
use of Marxism, the study of “gender,” and the view of “private” versus “public” spheres
(48-9).
Since then, in US women’s studies alone, thousands of different mediums have
begun to document women’s contributions to history. In her article, “Forgetting the Past,”
Judith Bennett notes that, in the past forty years, women’s history as a field has
undergone various shifts in theory, moving away from the idea of simply reinserting
women’s history into the collective history of the United States (172). While the
integration of women’s history into the overarching discipline history is credited to the
feminist historians of the 1970s, authors disagree about the extent to which historians (in
particular, women historians) had already been writing their own histories. Mary
Frederickson, an American historian, writes in her article “Going Global: New
Trajectories in U.S. Women’s History” that “The first generation of women's historians.
Mercy Otis Warren and Julia Sargent Murray, emerged during the American Revolution”
and refers to the historians interested in women’s history in the 60s’ and 70s’ as a “new
cohort”(181). Zinsser takes a much different view in her book, focusing almost entirely
on texts published in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and while she acknowledges
the accomplishments of women during this time period, entitles a subchapter “The First
Feminist Decade,” referring to the 1970s (42). Bennett further complicates this idea,
stating that some current historians in the field of women’s history believe that “ . . . any
feminist research that reaches back before the 1960s now risks being characterized as
‘antiquarian – and potentially politically incorrect – knowledge projects’” (671).
All three scholars point to the rapid growth of feminist studies in the past 30-40
years as essential in the development of this new way of viewing history; however, they
also underline the challenges currently associated with the field. Bennett’s article focuses
on the Berkshire Conference, and she underscores the field’s problematic preoccupation
with modern history, citing a lack of research for pre-1800 women’s issues and even
stating that “ . . . as defined by our journals and conferences, ‘women’s and gender
history’ has effectively become synonymous with ‘women’s and gender history since
1800’ (670). Frederickson points to the need for women’s studies in American history to
employ a global, not just comparative, perspective in order to link women’s experiences
in the United States with those in other countries (172). Moreover, it is evident just in
searching for books and articles on the current state of affairs in women’s history that
most articles offer an American or Eurocentric evaluation of the field, and very few
venture to address the integration (or lack thereof) of women’s history in other
geographical areas.
As a whole, women’s history has evolved significantly, moving from a neglected
afterthought to a vibrant study within the discipline of history. While it has come a long
way from the scholarship of the 1970s, it is clear that it is still in the process of changing
as it addresses new questions and challenges.
Shapiro 3
Women’s Studies Textbooks: a Comparison
As a relatively “new” field, it is not surprising that publishers and editors
underline a number of difficulties in writing textbooks for women’s studies. Varying
from methodological concerns to problematic assumptions that the field may take for
granted, there seems to be a preoccupation amongst editors about what the field is, how it
is organized, and why it is of significant importance.
In Introducing Gender and Women’s Studies, edited by Diane Richardson and
Victoria Robinson, the introduction traces the developments in the field since the first
edition was published in 1993. Oriented in broad sweeping categories, like “Theory and
Politics” and “Institutions, “ the book seeks to present a holistic overview in terms of
thematic concerning the field. The introduction is short (4 pages) and traces the changes
in the modern field of gender and women’s studies, yet a significant amount of time is
devoted to addressing current problems and “changing practices.” These include
problematic application of a primarily “North American” concept globally, increasing
interest towards queer theory and technology, and an increased emphasis on “gender”
over “women” studies (XVII-XIX).
Rethinking Women’s and Gender Studies, edited by Catherine M. Orr, Ann
Braithwaite, and Diane Lichtenstein, takes a much different approach. First, it should be
noted that the title places the word “women” before “gender,” unlike the book by
Richardson and Robinson, pointing to the variations even in the name of the discipline.
Moreover, the word “Rethinking” as well as subcategories such as “Foundational
Assumptions” and “Ubiquitous descriptions” frame women’s and gender Studies in terms
of a problematic approach. The introduction itself is much longer than that of Richardson
and Robinson, spanning 13 pages, and focuses mainly on their approach. They inform
readers that they organized their text in “genealogical” terms, asking contributors to
select one essential word and organize their essay around this concept in an effort to
explore common assumptions, seeking to avoid how “ . . . thinking too narrowly dictated
where we could go . . .” (4).
Unlike Ann, Braithwaite, and Lichtenstein’s work, Handbook of Gender and
Women’s Studies by Kathy Davis, Mary Evans, and Judith Lorber chooses to organize
chapter headings again by sweeping categories such as “Current State of Women’s
Studies” and “Intimate Relationships and Sexualities.” The last heading is particularly
relevant because while the other textbooks address sexuality through one particular essay,
this text chooses to highlight it as an important component to the field, placing more
emphasis on the inclusion of sexuality studies. The introduction itself highlights some of
the current problems facing women’s studies while providing a synopsis of each of its
chapter headings.
While the organizational and methodological approaches vary by textbook, all
note the problematic aspects of the field in order to “rectify” and defend these issues in
the structure of their textbook.
Shapiro 4
Works Cited
Bennett, Judith M. "Forgetting The Past." Gender & History 20.3 (2008): 669-677.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Sept. 2014.
Frederickson, Mary E. "Going Global: New Trajectories In U.S. Women's History."
History Teacher 43.2 (2010): 169-189. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Sept.
2014.
Davis, Kathy, Evans, Mary, and Judith Lorber, Ed. Handbook of Gender and Women’s
Studies. Sage Publications: California, 2006.
Orr, Catherine M., Braithwaite, Ann and Diane Lichtenstein, Ed. Rethinking Women’s
and Gender Studies; Third Edition. Taylor and Francis: NY, 2012.
Richardson, Diane and Victoria Robinson, Ed. Introducing Gender and Women’s
Studies. Palgrave MacMillon: NY, 2008.
Zinsser, Judith P. History and Feminism: A Glass Half Full. New York: Twayne
Publishers, 1993.