Sexism in History or, Writing Women's History Is a Tricky Business

Abstract

Sexism, like racism, is an ideology of oppression. It is a set of social attitudes based on the fundamental belief in the natural inferiority of women. Sexism in historical writing is much like sexism in daily life. For the most part women are made invisible. When discussed at all, women are treated with the same set of narrowly defined attitudes that oppress most women throughout their lives. Usually, they appear as part of the domestic scenery behind the real actors and action of national life. This should hardly be surprising. History, after all, is written by professional historians whose ideas and values reflect the attitudes of our dominant white male culture. The writing of history in general, and the writing of Women's History in particular, has been largely influenced by unchallenged assumptions about the of history and the of woman. It is only recently that these assumptions have been seriously questioned by a few concerned historians and many angry women. Traditional history has been most concerned with the re-creation of the elite intellectual military, economic and political powers that fashioned the course of events. Most general histories have ignored minority groups and women. Instead, thev are records of diplomatic decisions, military maneuvers, and economic exchanges. Biographies of white male authors, soldiers, industrialists and politicians have crowded the library shelves labeled History has been the record of those who controlled other people's lives. Recently, I asked my students to scour their favorite monographic history for information on women. They discovered that women were invisible in history. Jane Adams, Susan Anthony, then a few sneeting words about the Suffrage movement and the topic was closed. The recent social pressure exerted by minority groups has created a new awareness of cultural voids in historical writing. New interest in working class culture, Black and Chicano studies, and yes, even Women's History, has led historians to question the nature of traditional history. Resurrecting the history of the oppressed, recreating the voice of the inarticulate and giving life to the muted discontent of the enslaved have more and more become acceptable activities for socially concerned historians. Though the nature of history has been challenged, assumptions about women have remained culturally unchanged. The American woman still sees herself defined as a female who happens to be a human being, while men are viewed as human beings who happen to be male (Adams, 1967). Most forms of written and visual media still portray the American female as the happy recipient of biological destiny. In short, American men and women continue to be educated, conditioned, and bombarded with images of woman's natural inferiority. Consequently, there is a serious problem in the writing of Women's History. While historians attempt to resurrect women's past, they are burdened with the stereotypes and prejudices of the present. For many historians, this creates a serious dilemma. Unless their own experiences challenge their conditioned responses to the role of women in society, historians have little but their prejudices with which to guide them into the unfamiliar world of female feelings, motivations, and ideas. Unfortunately, their attempts to understand Women's History have often been examples of error and misjudgement.