1,600 words
(Adapted from ‘highly commended’ submission in the Minds Underground’s 2024 essay competition.)
Feminism is an extremely versatile socio political movement, and as such carries with it a variety of definitions. The categorisation that “feminism is about all genders having equal rights and opportunities, … respecting diverse women’s experiences, identities, knowledge … and empower[ment]” (International Women’s Development Agency, 2018) is herein taken to represent ‘feminism’. Where, then, does the notion of ‘women’s history’ interact with this? Firstly, we must consider what the primary focus of women’s history should be; next come the questions of whether women’s history is inherently feminist, and whether it’s a valid historical approach to apply a feminist lens to times that predate these ideas; before finally recognising history’s greater relevance to modern social matters with the continued fight for gender equality, ie feminism, included. Overall, its arguable that women’s history and feminism are certainly linked, but mutually exclusive, and thus women’s history is not necessarily feminist.
When researching ‘women’s history’, the first article that appears, from (History.com 2019), refers to this historical niche as “full of trailblazers in the fight for equality”, while another source (Women’s History Network, 2024) suggests a broader interest in “women’s lives and experiences in all periods and places” which begs the question: what is the centre of ‘women’s history’? Arguably, the latter definition is more accurate to a historical field: the fight for equality is often pinpointed as beginning with the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention, yet the gender binary – and thus women – dates back to Ancient Greece, so to reduce women’s history to the fight for equality erases thousands of years, which is historically misleading. Furthermore lies the question of whether women’s history should be centred on discrimination or liberation, or an intersectional approach of both. This final idea is where my personal opinion lies, for it is pessimistically disingenuous to focus solely on barriers women have faced, yet by definition liberation can only exist as a product of discrimination, and therefore both must be fairly considered when discussing women’s history. With these considerations in mind, the term ‘women’s history’ henceforth signifies a full chronology, beginning with humanity, not inequality. This includes the “trailblazers” who fought (and are fighting) for equal rights, but by widening women’s history to begin before nineteenth century first-wave feminism, it allows for a much broader, much more interesting, historical inquiry, as well as a richer debate into whether or not history can be described as feminist for periods when this becomes anachronistic.
There is a strong case that women’s history is intrinsically feminist – if the purpose of women’s history is to venture into both societal and individual happenings women have undergone throughout the past, this is nothing other than “respecting diverse women’s experiences [and] identities”, by its very existence, women’s history can be seen as inherently feminist. Some may counter this on the clause of feminism calling for “all genders having equal opportunities” which rebukes ‘women’s history’ to misandrist segregation, but this can be easily debunked: to the question of ‘men’s history’ I simply raise you the history1 of mankind.2
A second viable argument acknowledges that history does not equate to the past, rather our interpretation of it, which is unavoidably attached to modern philosophies such as feminism, which can hinder or help us. Put succinctly by John Arnold, “without ‘bias’ there would be no need for historians. ‘Bias’ is not something to find and eradicate, but rather something to hunt and embrace” (Arnold, 2000, pg 109). He goes on to discuss the inevitable subjectivity within historiography, including when dealing with direct sources, and acknowledges the ripple effect created: a secondary source written in the 20th century on the French Revolution acts also as a primary source for how French Revolution was viewed thereafter, for example. This returns to questioning the extent to which novel ideas should be applied to historical interpretations – one can assume that Joan of Arc would’ve campaigned alongside Emmeline Pankhurt if she were born eight centuries later, but there can be no such confirmation as feminism as a movement had not yet been conceived in the mediaeval period. To draw again from (Arnold, 2000, pg 165): “Using modern labels to describe the past can be dangerously anachronistic, particularly if those labels refer to concepts which, although recently invented, lay claim to universal applicability across time and culture.”
Let’s then explore another indisputably key figure in women’s history, Cleopatra, with these musings and established definition of feminism in mind. Reflectively, (Tyldesley, 2019) notes that Cleopatra was “charismatic and intelligent … ruthless … [and] said to be a popular ruler” and makes an effort to assert her leadership “not as a protected sovereign but as an independent monarch.” Our modern instinct is to assume with these quotations and perhaps some prior knowledge that Cleopatra was a unique case, a standalone female ruler who overcame rampant prejudices. This is the history many may have been prescribed. But this is not the complete facts of the past. It is a stretch to assert Ancient Egypt as a society practising gender inclusion, Cleopatra overcame notable barriers on account of her gender, but she was not the first and certainly not the only female Pharaoh. Rather, Cleopatra, Neithhotep, Merneith, among others all held this accolade (Lockett, 2023). This – albeit very brief – account of the objective past is now interpretable into, subjective, history. It is disingenuous to apply the label of feminism to a period predating it by millenia: while on the one hand, the rule of female Pharaohs is aligned with the feminist notion of equal rights and opportunities for all genders, it is invalid to claim that Cleopatra and her predecessors aspired to rule Egypt in the name of gender politics/equality, for this ideology simply did not exist at the time. Therefore, while perhaps less problematic as time progresses towards the aforementioned 19th century benchmark, it is inattentive to attach modern terms to archaic times. This is not to say that these eras are not women’s history nor should they be neglected (indeed, for reasons outlined above, the opposite is true) but, as we would not expect a Georgian to appreciate bacteriology, we cannot expect a Tudor to understand feminism. Undeniably, there are figures throughout (women’s) history who held beliefs of equal opportunity and respecting women’s experiences, but the majority would not have called themselves feminists, neither, then, should we.
Women’s history, quite obviously, has not yet culminated. Neither has the need for feminism. These two facts can, and should, operate together. History is unequivocally one of the strongest tools in navigating social injustice of today: I can reiterate the Santayana adage that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, but I’d like to direct you also to the (Collins and Stearns, 2020, pg 173) statement that “history doesn’t answer all social questions … but, earnestly consulted and responsibly interpreted, history does help humanity in its never-ending quest for truth and understanding.” Not only can we look to the past for changes and continuities which have shaped contemporary cultures; but the study of history, as established, requires immersion in stories and societies different from one’s own, which provides opportune moments to reflect upon our own lives and contexts, reflection which is the root of development. In the summative words of (Arnold, 2000, pg 186): “To study history is to study ourselves … to think differently about oneself, to gather something of how we ‘come about’ as individual human beings, is also to be made aware of the possibility of doing things differently … History is an argument, and arguments present the opportunity for change. When presented with some dogmatist claiming that ‘this is the only course of action’, history allows us to demur, to point out that there have always been many courses of action, many ways of being. History provides us with the tools to dissent.”
In conclusion, feminism and women’s history, as they have been defined throughout this essay, are intertwined: the feminist movement has and continues to contribute centuries towards the field of women’s history, whose exclusive existence can arguably be seen as inherently feminist, but must also include the millennia predating feminism. The question of whether women’s history is necessarily feminist, however, raises more nuances – most notably acknowledging how we approach the past in the process of creating history, and our idiosyncrasies and contemporary biases which affect our interpretations, including the issue of anachronism with terminology such as ‘feminism’. In my opinion, women’s history is not necessarily feminist, and it is paradoxical to suggest so: the only accurate feminist form of women’s history is one that begins in and around the 19th century; but by establishing this beginning, billions of women’s lives, identities, and experiences are simultaneously silenced, and so this is in actuality not truly feminist. It is not the job of the historian to make the past conform to modernity, and mistakenly applying contemporary feminism to the full chronology of women’s history is no exception.
- The etymology of ‘history’ actually comes from the Greek ‘historia’, to inquire, rather than the English pronoun, but the point of men being centric to history, for indeed a large part of history, remains valid. ↩︎
- To the better question, that which seeks histories beyond the gender binary, I’d note that this field of study is rich and expanding, a notable work being Jen Manion’s ‘Female Husbands: A Trans History’ which offers insight to this niche, as well as discussing historical methods & the validity of applying terms like ‘transgender’ to the past. ↩︎
Bibliography
Arnold, J.H. (2000). History: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Collins, M. and Stearns, P. (2020). Why Study History?. S.L.: London Publishing Partner.
Editors, History. com (2019). Women’s History milestones: a Timeline. [online] History. Available at: https://www.history.com/topics/womens-history/womens-history-us-timeline.
International Women’s Development Agency (2018). What Is Feminism? [online] IWDA. Available at: https://iwda.org.au/learn/what-is-feminism/ [Accessed 24 Feb. 2024].
Lockett, R. (2023). The Queens of Egypt: Ancient Egyptian Queens in Order | History Cooperative. [online] History Cooperative. Available at: https://historycooperative.org/queens-of-egypt/.
Tyldesley, J. (2019). Cleopatra. In: Encyclopædia Britannica. [online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Cleopatra-queen-of-Egypt.
Women’s History Network (2024). Women’s History Network. [online] Women’s History Network. Available at: https://womenshistorynetwork.org/.
Leave a Reply