h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>
As for adding founding mothers and founding native Americans... this piece is written about the Founding Fathers as, I believe, they are referred to generally in the States and elsewhere. I think the points about women and native Americans is valid, but that would be a whole other entry.
<<

I agree Sho, there's not need to rewrite an entry around it. Like I said, I haven't read the entry yet, but I hope that it isn't saying that women had no input. It wouldn't be hard to write a sentence or two acknowledging the role that women and Native Americans had in the founding of the US (in the spirit of not continuing past mistakes of writing out important players in history).

"Plus you have to be 13 to sign up, right? "

I know the thread has moved on, but no, you don't have to be 13. There's no age limit for h2g2 at all.

"Like I said, I haven't read the entry yet"

Oh come on Kea! You have to read it before you can suggest additions! That's like rule one of PR!

That would be why I haven't commented in PR

The thread we're in now came up on my convo list so I read the PR thread to see what all the fuss was about. I made a comment about women and Native Americans because fkf commented on them and subsequent discussion in *this thread seemed inaccurate to me. I haven't suggested anything to Jodan, instead made a general remark about how one could include accurate information without a substantial rewrite.

You're letting facts cloud the issue here...

But of course!

"Like I said, I haven't read the entry yet, but I hope that it isn't saying that women had no input."

Doesn't really mention women at all, and it has no need to. It's not a gender issue, it's an issue of history. It's an entry about the important historical figures of the founding of the United States. None of them happened to be women. There were some female figures who play peripheral roles in the Revolutionary period, but adding them, and thus giving their acheivements the same weight as those who truly accomplished things, would be ridiculous.

It's not an entry about the Revolution, it's an entry about the people behind the Revolution, which means I'm not talking in generalities in it, so adding a bit about how there were many women who did their fair share for the Patriot cause would be accurate, but it would be inappropriate to put into that particular entry.

By the way, Jodan, I feel like all of this craziness with Fluffykerfuffle has clouded the issue a bit, which is that the entry is great. I hope it doesn't put you off writing again.

"There were some female figures who play peripheral roles in the Revolutionary period, but adding them, and thus giving their achievements the same weight as those who truly accomplished things, would be ridiculous. "

As regards to your entry in particular, you may well be right, but in general I think this is wrong, or at least nor brilliantly phrased. I think you have to set achievements in their historical context in order to measure accomplishment. If a male scientist had made the discoveries that Marie Curie made, I doubt very much that he would be as well known as she is. But Marie Curie is justly celebrated because she achieved what she achieved in spite of prejudice and disadvantage, and because she was a pioneer for women in science.

For similar reasons, it can sometimes be important to acknowledge women playing 'peripheral' roles in historical events where men making an equal contribution are ignored, just to make the point that women were there too, and played a part. This need not take the form of individual case studies, but just to acknowledge that they were there and played a part.

For example, none of the major leaders of the Chartists, a British radical political movement of the 19th century, were women. But the Chartist FAQ does have a section on women's roles. Perhaps no individual woman had a prominent role, but women where there playing a part too, and this needs to be mentioned. Otherwise it creates a false impression of what happened if they're omitted entirely - it makes it look like they just stayed at home and cooked and cleaned.
http://www.chartists.net/Frequently-Asked-Questions-about-Chartism.htm

This is a general point, though, and not one about the entry under discussion.

Really nicely put Otto.

>>This need not take the form of individual case studies, but just to acknowledge that they were there and played a part.<<

Yes, that is what I was meaning too.


>>Perhaps no individual woman had a prominent role, but women where there playing a part too, and this needs to be mentioned. <<

I think this is especially important because women do tend to work collectively whereas men have that emphasis on individual achievement. Where you have a cultural bias to value individual achievement, collective or behind the scenes actions are often rendered invisible.

Why are the actions of women marginalised as 'peripheral' anyway?


Jodan, I understand the impulse to see certain historical events as genderless but it's not irrelevant or insignificant that men were the only prominent people visibly involved. To say that gender is irrelevant is in fact to do the same thing that historians in the past have done, and say that *only men founded the US. Ditto the Native American issue. You exclude women and Native Americans from history by omitting them. It's not that women and Indians weren't there doing anything, it's that their stories haven't been told (not properly at least).


For me too, this is a general comment, not one aimed at the entry, but at the issue of who writes what about history and why.

It's not that they're being omitted by not having their story told. But in this case - the founding fathers of the USA - they haven't got a story to tell! Let's face it - who were the people running around drumming up support for the revolution, sitting through tedious meetings, organizing conferences, and creating governments? Women might have helped out, but they weren't the principle parties. They weren't figureheads then, and they aren't now. Thus, they aren't founding fathers.

*sits back to watch the action*

"To say that gender is irrelevant is in fact to do the same thing that historians in the past have done, and say that *only men founded the US"

Well, the inconvenient fact to this line of argument is that, quite literally, only men *did* found the US, if we're talking about the big historical figures. I realize you're talking about the issue in general, but if we're dealing with specific historical figures, as my entry does, there is literally no good example of women who participated in the founding of the United States. If you look at the list of criteria I lay out for what constitutes a founding father, it's pretty difficult to find a woman who really participated. And that's certainly due to attitudes of society at the time.

Now, if my entry was about the common folk who participated in the American revolution - from the soldiers to the farmers - then women would certainly merit a mention, and there would probably be mentions of them sprinkled throughout. But it's inappropriate to crowbar information about women into an entry about specific people, none of whom was a woman.

"You exclude women and Native Americans from history by omitting them. It's not that women and Indians weren't there doing anything, it's that their stories haven't been told (not properly at least)."

In the American Revolution, women and Native Americans did not play any significant leadership roles. There was not a conscious choice by historians, or myself, to omit them. The fact that they were excluded from important roles in government by the men of their times is not the fault of historians. The fact of this exclusion does not go unremarked upon in the history books, either. But it does not need to be brought up in every examination of history.

You're both missing the point I am making. I've already accepted that there were no individual women in roles that would fit with your entry's definition of the founding of the US

The point I am making *isn't that women were excluded from positions of power (although that is true). It's that women's actions at that time have been excluded from *history, because white men didn't know what to write about them i.e. what women *were doing was invisible to the men who had the power to write about it and so they didn't. Like you, white middle class historians have had a specific definition of what is 'important' and excluded the things they thought were unimportant (like 'helping out').

This omission (and yes, that is what it is) can be somewhat rectified now by understanding the dynamics of gender and history. Ditto ethnicity and class.

I don't know enough about the history of the founding of the US to give any useful examples of this*. But I have read a fair amount about and of the history of women in history to know that this is such a common dynamic as to be the norm and universal (at least where English speaking cultures are concerned). I'm not totally sure but I don't think you will find this discussed in mainstream histories, because the mainstream still views 'important' history as being the heroic so women's roles and actions still aren't adequately represented (except where individual women excell in that heroic way). Most of what I have read has come from feminist historians and academics. My understanding has also come from analysing history with respect to gender and particularly looking at what white men have written about indigneous women (and why this is largely so inaccurate).

*Unfortunately it seems that I won't get this from your entry either, with respect to women and Indians.


>>Women might have helped out, but they weren't the principle parties<<

That's a pretty good summary of exactly what I am talking about. To say that women had *no role in the founding of the US is to make women's roles invisible. To say that women did have a role but it was a peripheral, unimportant one ('helping out') is to lay *your culturally imbued definition of what is important on history. Which marginalises the role of women in history. Either way, what gets written will not be accurate because of its omission. It thus actively writes history as full of men with very little women and perpetuates the myth that women weren't important. It only tells half the story (or less than half if you take class and ethnicity into account).

Y'know what, that's a totally ridiculous argument.

"Like you, white middle class historians have had a specific definition of what is 'important' and excluded the things they thought were unimportant (like 'helping out')."

Historians tend to write about interesting and important aspects of history. The entire point of the study of history is to look at the important parts, the parts which influenced later events, and learn from them.

Try writing an entry, or essay, about women "helping out", and see what kind of lessons and influences that can be gained from these events. As far as I can tell, you're calling for history which doesn't rely on events or influences, which is no kind of history I know.

I'm all for feminism, but focusing on things that have little to no historical value is not something I believe in. You can write entries like that, but don't expect others to do so, and do not complain when they take the traditional route.

Now be fair. "Charlotte" (and me, for that matter) have said over and over and over again that we're not talking about your current entry.

"Historians tend to write about interesting and important aspects of history. The entire point of the study of history is to look at the important parts, the parts which influenced later events, and learn from them."

That's one kind of history, but it's not the only kind. Much as I hate to link to Wikipedia, have a read of this entry on social history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_history
and the contrasts between social history and "history of great men" and "political history". What you've written, I guess, is political history, which is fine and perfectly valid. But I can't agree that "the entire point" of studying history is "the important parts" which can be ascribed to the actions of great men.

Two examples. You can't tell the story of how Britain stood alone against Nazi Germany without telling the story of how women took on certain roles in the military and in factories and farms, replacing the men in uniform. No single woman was 'important', but you can't explain how the UK stood alone just by talking about Churchill.

Second example. Anti-Catholic prejudice in much of the UK started to fade after WW1, partly because of the bravery and compassion of Catholic chaplains in the military. This was a really important social development, but it can't be put down to individuals.

So, fine. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing the kind of historical entry that you're doing. Nothing at all. But it's a mistake to take such a narrow view of what history is.

Firstly, I will say it again, I am not telling you what to do with your entry. This is why I am commenting here instead of PR. I think the issue is significant, but I'm not particularly interested in getting you to change the founding fathers entry.

The rest of your post is such a great example of the ignorance of women's roles in history that I'm tempted to let it stand on its own . Obviously, you think that what women do is irrelevant to history, but you seem incapable of seeing that that perspective is a culturally imbued one. That's ok, you've got lots of good company.

>>
Try writing an entry, or essay, about women "helping out", and see what kind of lessons and influences that can be gained from these events. As far as I can tell, you're calling for history which doesn't rely on events or influences, which is no kind of history I know.
<<

Yes, it is no kind of history you know of, which is why you don't understand what I am talking about. It's also apparently why the history you 'know' is predominantly white, middle class and male.

Have you read any 'women's' history? i.e. history that takes accound of gender? Or do you assume that it would be so boring as to not warrant the effort?

*

Here's an example I've been thinking about. A friend of mine, a woman in her 50s, is a grandmother who works in the community in lots of invisible and 'unimportant' ways. She was telling me recently about one part of her work where she is alongside a man, younger than her, who has alot of respect and standing and power in society. She is in fact highly skilled in the area that she works in but is pretty much totally disinterested in the glory. She is more effective at her work because she doesn't need public acknowledgement of what she does.

One thing that she does is 'feed' ideas to the powerful man who then takes those ideas and puts them to the world and makes them work in a very public way. He gets ALL the public acknowledgement and credit (not least because he is largely unaware that this is what she is doing, feeding him ideas. He no doubt thinks that the projects he is successful with are due to HIM. I'm sure he thanks those who have helped him, but he and wider society thinks that HE is the one that made it happen).

Most women I know know that this dynamic is very common. I also know that it's not a new thing, and you can see it throughout historical accounts of all kinds.

You can portray my friend's work as 'unimportant', or marginal, which is what mainstream history does by and large. But it is ridiculous to think that all the great events you value would have happened in the way they did without the input of women.

Otto's post is a much better expression of what I was saying in the first part of my last post (and it's without my overt annoyance too ).

"Obviously, you think that what women do is irrelevant to history, but you seem incapable of seeing that that perspective is a culturally imbued one. That's ok, you've got lots of good company."

"Yes, it is no kind of history you know of, which is why you don't understand what I am talking about. It's also apparently why the history you 'know' is predominantly white, middle class and male."

How many ways do you think I'm going to let you use to call me narrow-minded, racist and sexist? Stop it. That's not fair at all. I may disagree with you, but that does not mean I am anti-woman, or whatever epithet you may come to throw at me.

"Firstly, I will say it again, I am not telling you what to do with your entry"

I know, I read that. But as this issue was raised by a discussion from my entry, I think it's relevant. And I don't think that this is an issue for h2g2 or Peer Review, because the scope and perspective of an entry are something that the author of an entry gets to decide.

As for the matter of your friend, that's not true at all. That woman's role is important, and influential, and if a biography was written about the man, it would be appropriate to write about this woman as much as her influence warrants. I don't know why you would think I wouldn't agree with that.

Otto, that branch of history is a specialized one, and as the wikipedia entry says, it aims to look at history through a certain perspective. If you want to write about history from a certain perspective, that's fine. And I do not believe that there's anything wrong with writing about the masses, social change or a movement. That's great history! I've written about the Civil Rights movement on h2g2. Those two examples you cite are also great history. The people behind the scenes, like Otto's first example, is certainly important. I remember reading an entry, I think by Frenchbean, about that.

You'll notice I never said that I only believe in a 'great men' style of history. I believe in a history that focuses on important events and influences. Social history, as far as I can tell from that wikipedia entry, falls squarely within that definition. But I don't think historians should focus on what is not necessarily important to the history of the world because it is not often looked at. That's affirmative action for history, or what I think is called positive discrimination on that side of the Atlantic.

I do believe that history should be, so far as a focus on importance, non-discriminatory. I think history should focus on importance and influence without regard to color, gender, ethnicity or hair style. That is not to say that events of racial change (the American Civil Rights movement), the roles of women (the role of women in Britain during WWII is a great example) or whatever are unimportant.

The way I think of it is, if I had to write a 50,000 word history of humankind, a guide to life, the universe and everything as we know it, I would write about the important events, what led to them and the effects. By necessity, the priorities of history must be that. If you choose a different route, that's a specialized form of history, which is fine. Don't try to cast someone who doesn't take that view as ignorant though. That's not okay.

ohhh you are all saying so much better than me... what i was thinking !! i am in awe
And i never did mean to shoehorn women into the entry, jodan, i know you knew that... but just making that clear to others...
aAnd i AM glad i brought the founding mothers thing up in the PR but i realise now i needed another place to continue the discussion about that... i like this place... i didn't know it existed!

and here is a little thing i thought of while reading your last thing, kea...
this little exploration of female artists in history is very interesting...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_artists
for example... this quote:
"Often guild rules would forbid women from attaining the various ranks leading to master, so they remained "unofficial". As with all workshop production, the works produced would be signed by the workshop master, with the signature signifying a level of quality, rather than singular authorship. It is hard to differentiate the elements created by the various artists of any workshop, and until the late Renaissance few works were signed at all."

Since i am an artist, i have read alot about art... and somewhere in my readings i came across the information that many talented women worked as apprentices to greatly respected artists... artists like Rodin. Perhaps one female apprentice i read about was this one...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodin
"In 1883, Rodin agreed to supervise a course for sculptor Alfred Boucher in his absence, where he met the 18-year-old Camille Claudel. The two formed a passionate but stormy relationship and influenced each other artistically. Claudel inspired Rodin as a model for many of his figures, and she was a talented sculptor, assisting him on commissions."

What i had read, elsewhere, was that female apprentices would make complete artworks by themselves but let their master sign it... for two reasons: one, as said above, as a signal of quality (hooked to his name) and two, because their work would not even be looked at, no matter how brilliant, if it was known it was done by a woman.

sooo... hooking into the observation earlier that women arn't motivated by glory so much as getting the job done... in this instance... the job is getting the art out there... sharing the vision... which is what true artists do.