Why are there so few women in history books and will they feature any more prominently in the future?

Answer 1

The disparity between males and females in history books may be attributed to several factors. Firstly, the traditional view of men and women being allocated differing spheres of life, with that of men being greatly more public, prohibited many women from seeking public acknowledgement for their achievements (for example, female authors commonly used male pen-names to avoid publicity). Furthermore, the allocation of traditional gender definitions led many people to assume that any achievement by a woman would have been creditable in the main part to a man, such as the work of Marie Curie or even more recently Mo Mowlam. The final major factor which accounts for this disparity is that it is a simple reflection of the numerical inequality of historians from each sex, with men vastly outnumbering women and often being unwilling or uncomfortable at the prospect of writing on the subject of women.

As for the future prominence of women in history books, changes are already developing, and will continue to do so. Both Gender History and Women's History are increacingly popular fields, and the number of women completing history degrees in the UK is now on a par with that of men. Moreover, the increacing tendency to study history "from below" will inevitably lead to a greater acknowledgement and understanding of the role of wonem in the past.

I would also recomment a quick look at the book by John H Arnold in the sources.

Answer 2

There are few because a proper education was denied them. They were barred from universities, prevented from carrying out any studies because it was not a woman's job or duty, she had to stay behind at home until she married. Money married money and status. Singles had no option but to work as housekeepers, nannies, governesses. Many writers used male names to get published because they would have been turned down instantly if they'd known something had been written so well by a woman. The past was a straitjacket for women. The list is endless. It is little wonder that women feature so little in history books. History books one day in the future will look very different. There is still prejudice but nothing like the old days. Some countries of course are still discriminatory and have no intention of letting women make their mark in the world.

Answer 3

Historically, this has definately been a MAN's world. Women were treated as property and did little or nothing outside the home. Many women were born in one house, married the kid up the street and died in that house. In their entire lives they may never have left the small town they were born in. They also had NO education. Education was considered bad in a woman and women who read were looked down on. The only women who made much of an impact were those born royal, or those few that ignored the role that culture demanded they live in.

Women are already playing a more predominant role in the history books. Our own age is filled with women in politics, entertainment, science, education and more. As women get more education and enter more fields, they have more and more chances of making a historical impact. Where once all a woman could do was clean her house and pop out kids, today (and in the future) she has just as much possability of making a difference as a man.

Answer 4

The main reason is that in the past, women were regarded as being of inferior intelligence, and of being there just to cook and breed. Thus any intelligent woman was kept down by the males in her family- even sometimes to the point of being declared insane! Men would not accept that women were intelligent enough to write books, or have opinions, which is why so few women in the past have been documented or have published. Now we know we are superior to men in every way, this is already showing by virtue of the huge number of women writers, scientists, doctors, etc. Quite right, too.

Answer 5

They're there you just have to look for them. Many women in history are there for defying their gender roles - Joan of Arc, Bodicea, Lucretia Borgia, Elizabeth I. In order to be recorded in history you have do something unusual, something people of that time would find strange, interesting or just plain wrong. If woman followed the traditional role of society at the time of her life there's not much to record.

If you want to read more about women in history you should check out the "Uppity Women" series of books. They focus on women who made thier imprint throughout history.

Answer 6

Because in the past women were thought to be of lesser value than men & were more or less slaves to their men.
Nowadays, people realise that women have a lot to offer & they are gaining prominence in all fields.

Answer 7

Maybe if women start doing some more important stuff they'll get a bit more recognition. You can't just pull out a few women just for the sake of them being women, that's basically the same as affirmitive action.

Answer 8

the history books are full of famous woman they are the mothers of the men silly enough to wast there lives.

there will be more in the future as women learn to take control

Answer 9

well the ones that we do have are great. Now we are all starting to realise we are in-fact equal, the history books will great greater. Come on you ladies. We have a world to save together

Answer 10

History is written by the victors. Few victors were women, though that isn't to say that history wasn't influenced greatly by women.