According to certain ''feminists'' on here, women were only included in History books when... (read details)?

Question

According to certain ''feminists'' on here, women were only included in History books when feminism came along and wrote ''women's history'' books. It's funny because they value those books as ''unbiased'', yet books written by males, according to them, are ''biased'', and left women out. Is this ANOTHER case of hypocrisy? Feminist-written books are unbiased, and male ones are?

None of you...feminists...are answering the question(s).

Answer 1

"According to certain ''feminists'' on here, women were only included in History books when feminism came along and wrote ''women's history'' books. It's funny because they value those books as ''unbiased'', yet books written by males, according to them, are ''biased'', and left women out".

If that is their argument then it is dubious at best. Was Queen Elizabeth kept out of the history books? If so, then how do we know of her? How about Hypatia of Alexandria? How about Cleopatra, or Aggripina, or Boudica? If this truly is their argument, I highly doubt it's veracity.

"According to certain ''feminists'' on here, women were only included in History books when feminism came along and wrote ''women's history'' books. It's funny because they value those books as ''unbiased'', yet books written by males, according to them, are ''biased'', and left women out. Is this ANOTHER case of hypocrisy? Feminist-written books are unbiased, and male ones are"?

Well if male written books are biased then it is a certainty that female books are biased. I am unaware of some innate genetic difference between men and women which allows women to take off the blinders of perception. So yes it would be hypocrisy.

Answer 2

I (female) was not very interested in feminism at all, generally ignored it, until I looked up a subject online and found it being talked about on a feminist site. I hung around and read some articles and while the attitude of the person writing it REALLY annoyed me, they also tended to pick on little things that I didn't think mattered... I was extremely disturbed by all the valid points. Basically they (society at large, women-haters etc) are not interested. I am not interested in becoming an angry feminist so I don't want to hear more of what they have to say either. The books by black people with a chip on their shoulder on the other hand I have unfortunately started reading a few but got so unbelievably angry by the sheer stupidity, pointlessness, and racism that I had to close those too. Ignorance is bliss as they say. It also helps them make stupid irrational arguments they start trying to define people without actually knowing what they define themselves as , or what they're trying to say (the people on here against the feminists) I think if they want anyone to listen at all, they need to drop the tone, as it puts people off and makes them sound like angry irrational people ranting rather than allowing people to focus on their points.

Answer 3

It is hard, perhaps impossible to separate any historical work from the perspective of the person who writes it. History claims to be factually based, yet the facts which are focused upon are entirely subjective.

Whether it is the history of nations, conquests, leaders, the history of science or the arts. The focus of the historian determines the work that is produced.

That focus has largely been on nations, politics, wars, dynasties, and only more recently has it shifted towards what life was like for ordinary men and women. Feminism can take a good deal of credit for that shift.

Of course history is biased. Almost everything is biased. How can it not be.

Answer 4

Unbiased book? Every author male or female has some agenda or argument their trying to get across in their book. So of course, both are biased

Answer 5

When a book is marketed as 'women's history' you expect it to be about women. When you buy a book marketed in the genre of 'black history' you expect it to be about black men and women. When you read a book titled Chinese American History you do not expect it to include the Spanish contributions to American history. This is neither hard to understand nor bias.

When you read a high school textbook called American History you except it to be all-inclusive of all races and genders who made significant contributions to the history of America. Pick up any high school textbook written before the 60's and you'll see that women and ethics groups are not fairly represented. This does not mean that there were not obscure books out there that mentioned these groups in passing. However, those obscure books were not books used to form and groom young minds to be future leaders.

Whoever it was up above who said that history is not stagnant is absolutely correct. Historical research is an on-going thing and it helps bring into focus details that---at a time closer to the event---might not have seemed important then but in retrospect are highly significant, marking the beginning or ending of something.

Answer 6

I take it that Elvis has left the building. Women were written about in History books. I remember seeing essays about one or two. There was bias but there was a preponderance of male contributors to our history. I'm guessing that more women made it into the pages of feminist written books and the bias was that they were hunted for with a fine tooth comb and a magnifying glass, because until the 18th century, women didn't make much headway.
Can we include everything and everybody? We should try.
C. :)!!

Answer 7

I'm sorry but I think almost ALL history books are biased...history has been recorded by those who had the ability to be able to record, for one...to be taken seriously. It's not just women who have been left out of history books, it's also men...those without privilege or fame...history books are generally written by those who seek to present a particular viewpoint...an agenda.

Just my opinion.

Answer 8

In the past, history books tended to be Eurocentric and often downplayed or overlooked the contributions of people from different ethnic groups and from other parts of the world. They still are to a certain extent. I would have loved to hear more about Asian history when I was in high school. Instead, all I heard about was European history.

Answer 9

Dude, is this even a question?

C'mon, D, make them simple... this is an entire argument. I'll answer it if you it looks like you actually WANT to hear what I think. Who pissed you off, pussycat? I'll kick her qss!

BTW-Did'ya get my e-mail?

Answer 10

I realize this is difficult for the pointyheads to comprehend, but in the days before Women's Studies, women's achievements were not routinely included in standard curricula.

February is Black History Month, in which the contributions of African-Americans are spotlighted. Will you be jumping to ridiculous conclusions about that too, or are women the only lucky recipients of your wrath?