"Women's History Sourcebook" Topic
5 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Utter Drivel Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Showcase ArticleIs there finally a gluestick worth buying for paper modelers?
|
Tango01 | 08 Jun 2015 10:59 p.m. PST |
"Yes, I am fond of history." "I wish I were too. I read it a little as a duty, but it tells me nothing that does not either vex or weary me. The quarrels of popes and kings, with wars or pestilences, in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and hardly any women at all -- it is very tiresome:" Catherine Morland, in Northhangar Abbey (1803), by Jane Austen How are historians to remedy the silence about women in many traditional accounts of history? This question has received a number of distinct answers. The first solution was to locate the great women of the past, following the lead of much popular historiography that focuses on "great men". The problem here is that just as the "great men" approach to history sidelines and ignores the lives of the mass of people, focusing on great women merely replicates the exclusionary historical approaches of the past. The next solution was to examine and expose the history of oppression of women. This approach had the merit of addressing the life histories of the mass of women, but, since it has proved to be possible to find some degree of oppression everywhere, it tended to make women merely subjects of forces that they could not control. On the other hand, historians' focus on oppression revealed that investigating the structures of women's lives was crucial…" Main page link Amicalement Armand |
ochoin | 09 Jun 2015 3:49 a.m. PST |
I think that with the change of emphasis to social history, women are getting more attention than they once did in the field of history. Archaeology has always given space to their roles in ancient societies. I personally think history should offer as much as possible a voice for all its participants. The study of history not surprisingly has the appearance of the society that writes it. If a society is sexist, so will be its accounts of the past. Undoubtedly we've got a way to go but no-one just wants to hear the male voice anymore. BTW why is this on 'Drivel'? |
Tango01 | 09 Jun 2015 10:20 a.m. PST |
Hesitation from were I post it my friend. (smile) Amicalement Armand |
goragrad | 09 Jun 2015 12:24 p.m. PST |
Looking through that syllabus Tango, this is probably one of the most political topics ever posted. Particularly if one follows some of the links. But it is very PC so that should help. |
OSchmidt | 10 Jun 2015 10:36 a.m. PST |
The article seems very unfocused and very power-point. I took three seminars in Women's History on the way to PhD hood with Norma Basch one of the doyens of Women's History in the 90's. Excellent courses. Not at all what one would consider PC, and Norma was herself the leas PC person I ever met. She was passionate about the discipline but insisted on scholarly integrity. The most pitiable fate was in store for those women who took the course with an expectation of getting easy "A's" by bleating on about victimhood. I remember he reading the riot act to one of them by saying that "there are in a very real sense no "women's issues." There are only human issues that women have a different perspective on, but in which they are intimately involved in every sense. One of the most fascinating segments of the discipline was when she would old forth in discussions of the meaning of "sentiment" and "sensitiveness" in Victorian Society and the tremendous social political power of women in Victorian society. My own inquiry into the Renaissance and the armies of the Renaissance brought home powerful revelations that what keeps the armies in the field of the time is the women. In an age before commissariats and mess halls, PX's and Ordinance stores, the armies of the Renaissance were entirely dependent upon the camps, those huge straggling, disorderly camps where a woman might be a prostitute, but she could also be a sort of den mother in addition to being a prostitute over a group of soldiers. After the battle, it wasn't the army who was going to range over the field looking for your hacked up body, but the woman, the prostitute, who was also laundress, sutleress, and "watcher of your stuff" while you were away. It was also fascinating now and then when you got those rare tidbits which showed how desperately these soldiers and women in these camps in spite of all the violence, vice, and brutality, would try and hold on to some shreds of domesticity and civil life in the midsts of the absolute antithesis of it. How the Victorian idea of the home (and the women in charge of it) as a "Happy Haven in a Heartless World." |
|