Unfortunately, those who write women’s history are often the worst culprits and are frequently guilty of focusing on agency to the exclusion of reality, telling us these women transcended the limits placed on women as a whole, these women resisted male oppression, or these women made lemonade when men gave them a truckload of horseshit and abuse. Usually, these women end up being an infinitesimal portion of the female elites of a given society who were able to exercise a small measure of freedom and write about it, leaving us with evidence that it happened. I’m all for celebrating women who break out of molds and resist, but not when the celebration covers up a reality that warrants mourning, a covering up that often occurs despite the fact that the broader, oppressive reality is cursorily acknowledged in the introduction to the book.
You’re doing X in spite of Y. Right on. Now how about we remove Y so we can all do A through Z?
I think the writer makes an interesting point in terms of how women are depicted in history books. In general, more preeminence is given to the individual achievement, rather than the context in which the achievement took place and the lives of the anonymous crowds who had little chance to stand out.
Also, I believe that if context was offered with more depth, the individual achievements would stand out even more, as it would be evident that the obstacles were systemic and difficult.
For the past decade and a half I have been making all my content available for free (and never behind a paywall) as an ongoing practice of ephemeral publishing. This site is no exception. If you wish to help offset my labor costs, you can donate on Paypal or you can subscribe to Patreon where I will not be putting my posts behind a lock but you'd be helping me continue making this work available for everyone. Thank you. Follow me on Twitter for new post updates.