feministicbookcircle.blogg.se

After a discussion with our history regarding the portration of women in our history textbook, we decided to reflect on the matter. This is the text we produced as an answer to him.

 All models, perspectives or points of views we apply to history when we study it, is to a greater extent flawed and a simplification of the reality of the past. This includes every model or perspective we apply, such as socioeconomic perspective, European perspective, African perspective, environmental perspective or a feministic perspective. The perspectives are many and indeed all of them contain flaws and the outcomes of them are huge generalizations. Despite this, every perspective is essential and central to use in order to understand and reinterpret our past.

We agree that it is wrong to categorize the world into groups because we receive a flawed interpretation of the reality. But how is it possible not to in order to understand our society and history? In our society today the first folder every person is placed in is male or female. According to feminist theory, the ideal scenario would be when the gender no longer matters in our lives and when we’re all are equal. In order to get there we have to point out the problems and issues before we can solve. But as we do live in this society where the first thing we do is to divide people into categories of men and women, it is hard not to orientate or retell history from that point of view.

In order to apply our feministic perspective to our textbook in history, we have to elucidate what the concept feminism actually means and how it’s used. To be a feminist, implies an intellectual standpoint, where the feminist tries to point out and make visible patriarchal structures and want to change them.

These structures are found in the past as well as in the present. The fact that they are called structures means that they have been present in our society for many centuries, so long that many people no longer react to them or question them. They are regarded as norms, unwritten rules and they are indeed hard to break.

In patriarchal structures, the norm lies on the male gender while the female gender is regarded as the second gender, subordinated by the man, Simone de Beauvoir suggests this in her essay The second sex. Now, if we apply this to our textbook History for the IB Diploma Authoritarian and Single-Party States by Allan Todd and Sally Waller, where we have three chapters that treat women’s position in the society: What was the position of women in Stalin’s Russia?, What was the position of women in the Nazi state? and What was the position of women in Mao’s China?, we see clearly how this indicates that the women is regarded as the second gender meanwhile the rest of the chapters in the textbook treats men. The best of scenarios would be if women were intergraded in the rest of the textbook and not treated as subchapter in history. The word men’s position in society is not mentioned since this is already pre-decided that the chapters treat men and therefore not present in the title. This will also mean that the history is based on the male gender, it is written about him, being in the center, and it’s written through a male perspective.

The history textbook provides 200 pages of general (male) history and then one and a half a page of female history. Instead history should include both genders and not completely exclude the female gender which indeed is 50% of the population. The point is that the book gives 200 pages of history and then one and a half page about the females in history which shows clearly that women are not included in the history but treated as a sub-subject.

We also want to point out that a chapter about the gender roles clearly would be necessary in a history textbook, but then those chapter should also include how men were depicted, not just women. In the case of History for the IB Diploma Authoritarian and Single-Party States, there is only chapters for how women were depicted. This creates a sense of exclusion from the “general” history, that it does not include women.

As feminists we react to the way the authors categorize women in the textbook as some sort of sub-subject. This reflect the patriarchal society we live in today where the template is the white heterosexual male. Men have had in most societies the leading roles for a long, long time. Therefore it is their history that is reflected in the textbooks – the one with power or the “winner” is always the one which writes history. The women who did make a difference tend to be forgotten, for  example:  

 http://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/debattamnen/kulturochnoje/article18382577.ab

We disagree with the way the history textbook discuss women. Women interact with the rest of the society (inhibited by the patriarchy never the less) and to discuss the question of women separately is a flawed way to portray a society. If we want a society where women are regarded as equal to men, we can’t treat women as something that don’t fit the template. As a conclusion and through a feministic perspective, we want to see women being included in our history textbook and without being “given” a separate chapter which is the case in History for the IB Diploma Authoritarian and Single-Party States by Allan Todd and Sally Waller.

Agnes Petersson
Max Palm
Alice Jansson
Leila Karic