![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Well, I've been pondering history as a school subject for some nights now. It's about time for the kiddo to start formal history (as opposed to the informal discussions we have, the ones sparked by movies and books and stuff we see in the store).
And, of course, like a good feminist, I reckon that I ought to include some women's history. But then I started thinking--
What exactly is women's history, and why is it important, and to whom?
Well, it seems to me that the whole idea of women's history as celebrated during women's history month is to say "Look, here are some extraordinary women, and they are every bit as special and motivated and accomplished as the extraordinary men with whom you are more familiar."
The lesson behind that is "When given the opportunity to excel equally, women do just as well as men do in areas which we consider worthy of praise, so let's praise them."
The interesting thing here, though, is that while we're covering women who succeeded in a man's world, despite the odds, we are leaving out the vast, vast majority of women, those who lived with the tasks and restrictions common to women of their time period and social class, and who worked at what we call "women's work." How can it be "women's history" if it doesn't talk about 99% of the women who existed?
So, why DON'T we cover the accomplishments of women, and talk about the changes in "women's work"-- the tasks accomplished by women in the past, and those thought of as "feminine" today? Is it because they're unchanged over the years? Hardly! Knitting, for instance, was once practiced solely by men. Bread-baking had hundreds of regional variants. Things as simple as cord-braiding and making buttonholes have histories. If students have a pretty good idea what the average man's life was like in a time period, why not have an idea what the average woman's was?
I think the reason we don't see it as a priority to cover most women's tasks and accomplishments in the past is the same reason that so many of us are proud "tomboys" or "one of the boys" today. I think that there's a belief that women and men are equals, but that traditionally-male doings are more prestigious than traditionally-female ones.
Think about it. How many times have you seen someone describe herself as "just a housewife"? How many times have you seen disappointment expressed over a woman who chose to "give up a rewarding career" to stay home and raise her children? There's a belief that because you don't need a college degree to be a homemaker, it doesn't require any real intelligence and has no room for advancement. This seems to me to be related to some of the beliefs that traditionally feminine things don't require any un-feminine skills. (For instance, women are traditionally bad at math, poor dears, and can't balance a checkbook, which requires only addition and subtraction; but any knitter or seamstress knows that making clothing can require up to simple algebra, and that's women's work!)
Anyways, one piece of evidence that we value boyish things over girlish things is this. How many women out there say that they were tomboys growing up? I believe that actually the vast majority of women would describe themselves as "tomboyish" or "tomboys," often for such ruggedly masculine traits as "liking to ride my bike" or "playing in the sandbox." When being feminine is seen as an unwillingness to participate in anything that isn't exaggeratedly girlish, who would want to be feminine? When liking girly stuff traps you in a world where you can only do girly things, who would admit to it?
Another reason for the girl-horrors is this: something that girls do, especially in age-cohorts, is practice their social skills by paying attention to minute differences of phrasing, posture, dress, and so on. It sometimes happens that the use of these socializing skills turns into a one-upmanship contest in being snarky, sarcastic, and mean to other girls. (It doesn't always happen this way, of course, but when it does, it's snark in its purest form.)
When things go critical (pun intended) like that, then some girls actually decide on a tactic best described as "If you can't join them, beat them." If they're unable to perform marginally well at the girl games, they'll start socializing with boys (or with no one) instead of with the girly girls. This doesn't necessarily make the late-onset "tomboys" less feminine than the girly girls, just less willing to put up with snark, or temporarily less accomplished at whatever skills are valued by the in-group.
And I am here to tell you that some of us take a long time to get over that shit. I am nearly 33 1/2 years old, it's been 16 years since I was in high school, and I am still getting used to the idea that just because someone likes shoes and makeup and hair and pretty clothes, because they value their body and how it looks and works, they don't automatically want to point and laugh at me.
And, folks, do I ever need to get over that.
Nothing is wrong with makeup. Nothing is wrong with doing your hair. Nothing is wrong with enjoying the attention of getting a manicure, and having someone make your nails pretty.
Nothing is wrong with working your ass off and educating yourself in gardening, clothing construction, preserving food, physiology, chemistry, accounting, carpentry, and the theory of child development and education plus a dozen other subjects-- all so that you can stay home and do your best raising a family. Nothing is wrong with feeling a kinship with your mother's mother and her mother and her mother before that, when you do something that's been passed down the female line.
Nothing is wrong with covering your hair, or wearing dresses, or giving praise for your body and how it works for you. Nothing is wrong with thinking you're pretty. Or smokin' hot. Nothing is wrong with emphasizing those traits for a certain audience, either.
And nothing is wrong with wanting to do some of these things, sometimes. Nothing is wrong with wanting to play with the ideas, and not take them terribly seriously.
Not every woman has a happy girlhood, but that doesn't make her less of a woman.
So what am I going to teach my little girl, who is the girliest girl who ever girled? Am I going to teach her about men who excelled, and women who excelled in the same fields whose names we know? Yes, but I'm also going to teach her about women's work-- why we have words for "brewster" and "spinster," how women worked their hands raw at the docks cleaning fish and then spent their break times knitting themselves beautiful sweaters, about how women's creativity came out in their daily tasks and that's why we have quilting, about how women wrote their histories in recipe books passed down from mother to daughter.
I want her to be proud of her grandmothers, and her great-grandmothers, and to know what they accomplished and how much work and study was behind it, not just have her pity them because they lacked the same opportunities as men.
And I want her to be proud of herself, and do her best to improve herself and use her education-- and not feel like being a mother and a homemaker is "less than" what her intelligence and talents deserve.
I don't want much, do I?
And, of course, like a good feminist, I reckon that I ought to include some women's history. But then I started thinking--
What exactly is women's history, and why is it important, and to whom?
Well, it seems to me that the whole idea of women's history as celebrated during women's history month is to say "Look, here are some extraordinary women, and they are every bit as special and motivated and accomplished as the extraordinary men with whom you are more familiar."
The lesson behind that is "When given the opportunity to excel equally, women do just as well as men do in areas which we consider worthy of praise, so let's praise them."
The interesting thing here, though, is that while we're covering women who succeeded in a man's world, despite the odds, we are leaving out the vast, vast majority of women, those who lived with the tasks and restrictions common to women of their time period and social class, and who worked at what we call "women's work." How can it be "women's history" if it doesn't talk about 99% of the women who existed?
So, why DON'T we cover the accomplishments of women, and talk about the changes in "women's work"-- the tasks accomplished by women in the past, and those thought of as "feminine" today? Is it because they're unchanged over the years? Hardly! Knitting, for instance, was once practiced solely by men. Bread-baking had hundreds of regional variants. Things as simple as cord-braiding and making buttonholes have histories. If students have a pretty good idea what the average man's life was like in a time period, why not have an idea what the average woman's was?
I think the reason we don't see it as a priority to cover most women's tasks and accomplishments in the past is the same reason that so many of us are proud "tomboys" or "one of the boys" today. I think that there's a belief that women and men are equals, but that traditionally-male doings are more prestigious than traditionally-female ones.
Think about it. How many times have you seen someone describe herself as "just a housewife"? How many times have you seen disappointment expressed over a woman who chose to "give up a rewarding career" to stay home and raise her children? There's a belief that because you don't need a college degree to be a homemaker, it doesn't require any real intelligence and has no room for advancement. This seems to me to be related to some of the beliefs that traditionally feminine things don't require any un-feminine skills. (For instance, women are traditionally bad at math, poor dears, and can't balance a checkbook, which requires only addition and subtraction; but any knitter or seamstress knows that making clothing can require up to simple algebra, and that's women's work!)
Anyways, one piece of evidence that we value boyish things over girlish things is this. How many women out there say that they were tomboys growing up? I believe that actually the vast majority of women would describe themselves as "tomboyish" or "tomboys," often for such ruggedly masculine traits as "liking to ride my bike" or "playing in the sandbox." When being feminine is seen as an unwillingness to participate in anything that isn't exaggeratedly girlish, who would want to be feminine? When liking girly stuff traps you in a world where you can only do girly things, who would admit to it?
Another reason for the girl-horrors is this: something that girls do, especially in age-cohorts, is practice their social skills by paying attention to minute differences of phrasing, posture, dress, and so on. It sometimes happens that the use of these socializing skills turns into a one-upmanship contest in being snarky, sarcastic, and mean to other girls. (It doesn't always happen this way, of course, but when it does, it's snark in its purest form.)
When things go critical (pun intended) like that, then some girls actually decide on a tactic best described as "If you can't join them, beat them." If they're unable to perform marginally well at the girl games, they'll start socializing with boys (or with no one) instead of with the girly girls. This doesn't necessarily make the late-onset "tomboys" less feminine than the girly girls, just less willing to put up with snark, or temporarily less accomplished at whatever skills are valued by the in-group.
And I am here to tell you that some of us take a long time to get over that shit. I am nearly 33 1/2 years old, it's been 16 years since I was in high school, and I am still getting used to the idea that just because someone likes shoes and makeup and hair and pretty clothes, because they value their body and how it looks and works, they don't automatically want to point and laugh at me.
And, folks, do I ever need to get over that.
Nothing is wrong with makeup. Nothing is wrong with doing your hair. Nothing is wrong with enjoying the attention of getting a manicure, and having someone make your nails pretty.
Nothing is wrong with working your ass off and educating yourself in gardening, clothing construction, preserving food, physiology, chemistry, accounting, carpentry, and the theory of child development and education plus a dozen other subjects-- all so that you can stay home and do your best raising a family. Nothing is wrong with feeling a kinship with your mother's mother and her mother and her mother before that, when you do something that's been passed down the female line.
Nothing is wrong with covering your hair, or wearing dresses, or giving praise for your body and how it works for you. Nothing is wrong with thinking you're pretty. Or smokin' hot. Nothing is wrong with emphasizing those traits for a certain audience, either.
And nothing is wrong with wanting to do some of these things, sometimes. Nothing is wrong with wanting to play with the ideas, and not take them terribly seriously.
Not every woman has a happy girlhood, but that doesn't make her less of a woman.
So what am I going to teach my little girl, who is the girliest girl who ever girled? Am I going to teach her about men who excelled, and women who excelled in the same fields whose names we know? Yes, but I'm also going to teach her about women's work-- why we have words for "brewster" and "spinster," how women worked their hands raw at the docks cleaning fish and then spent their break times knitting themselves beautiful sweaters, about how women's creativity came out in their daily tasks and that's why we have quilting, about how women wrote their histories in recipe books passed down from mother to daughter.
I want her to be proud of her grandmothers, and her great-grandmothers, and to know what they accomplished and how much work and study was behind it, not just have her pity them because they lacked the same opportunities as men.
And I want her to be proud of herself, and do her best to improve herself and use her education-- and not feel like being a mother and a homemaker is "less than" what her intelligence and talents deserve.
I don't want much, do I?
