Multiple feminists stated that they are, so I went to Google Books, selected the first pre-second-wave-feminist history book that I came upon (which was from 1919) and randomly selected a page. That page highlighted an entertainment business run by a woman (one Mrs. Wright) in the early 18th century. So what's up with that? (page 127): http://books.google.com/books?id=5K8VAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=subject:%22united+states+history%22+date:1890-1940&lr=&as_brr=0&ei=BmdpR669KorqiwGnsZR8#PPA127,M1
2007-12-19 05:56:51 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
It should also be noted that the Soviet Union was a closed society and details about their history were not known (and still are objectively not known) until very recently.
2007-12-19 06:06:00 · update #1
Then how do you explain how, by RANDOMLY selecting a page, the very first thing I read highlighted the business accomplishments of an early 18th century woman?
2007-12-19 06:06:54 · update #2
Baba Yaga: How can you dismiss my absolutely RANDOM selection of a RANDOM pre-feminist history book and a RANDOM page yielding details about an early 18th century woman's business "isolated". Or do you think that the more obvious answer is your ignorance?
Old history books are not read often. I occasionally read them and they're not filled with misogeny and racism as modern academia would have you believe.
2007-12-19 06:10:17 · update #3
Baba Yaga: I'd be glad to repeat it, but won't waste my time since your only retort is to accuse me of lying anyway. I know for a fact that the discrimination you allege doesn't exist because I do, from time to time, read books published well before feminism's adverse affect on so many minds.
2007-12-19 07:23:34 · update #4
Baba Yaga: And to add, I actually provided evidence (which you arbitrarily rejected since it challenged your dogma). However, you a personal epiphany that you had as a child as your "evidence". It appears you're the one attempting to define "gospel".
2007-12-19 07:42:25 · update #5
This isolated example notwithstanding, all of pre-feminism's textbooks are gender-biased. I was an honor student at a very good high school, and realized by the time I was a senior that I had only been pesented with history, literature, science, philosophy, etc. from the standpoint of white males. People like Marie Curie and George Washington Carver were oddities, what they did overshadowed by what they were. I hope it's different now.
ETA: then apply the scientific method to your "random" study. Let someone else pick the textbooks and you open them at random, and repeat the "experiment" numerous times. Your point won't stand up. Come to think of it, I don't believe you at all. You wouldn't be the first anti to lie and expect the rest of us to believe him.
As usual, Laela is offbase. History isn't history; it depends on who writes and interprets it. But you can't blame her for believing what she was told.
I stand by what I said. You are the ignorant one for expecting people here to accept what you say as gospel. Your point proves nothing.
2007-12-19 06:07:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 3⤋
Yes, they are in the sense that they tend to overlook the contributions of women and minorities. When I was in high school more than 30 years ago, I didn't know that there were a lot of black cowboys in the Old West. I always thought they were white men because that's all I ever saw in the movies, TV shows, and in history books.
2007-12-19 08:51:24 · answer #2 · answered by RoVale 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Pre-1900s history books were written by men, because only men would take on the task. Even rich women with plenty of time chose not to write history, instead spending their time in hair salons.
Even today, the vast, vast majority of history book authors are men. Of the women who write, the vast, vast majority are paid to write (univ. professors).
With the exception of women writing to "prove" that men are bad (aka feminist studies), it is clear that the vast, vast majority of women would rather spend their time worrying about fashion trends.
2007-12-19 07:11:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Not only are they gender bias but they are also racially bias. Women and minorities have both been marginalized. Colonization has affectively eliminated the contributions of anyone other than white, europeans.
2007-12-19 06:33:44 · answer #4 · answered by The Ms. 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
They are all gender biased. The old ones are just way worse.
2007-12-19 06:05:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 2⤋
Not gender-biased, just gender-exclusive.
2007-12-19 06:05:25 · answer #6 · answered by Rainbow 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
What is the difference; history is history. Honestly I am so sorry; only this is like crying you got chocolate ice cream and I didn't.
2007-12-19 06:09:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 7⤋