little steps in the right direction?

[gorionine]

DD1 (y7) had a history project to hand in today. It was about medieval life. The last task of the project was called "History or Herstory?" They had to compare the condition of women and men in the mediaval days but in their conclusion had to reflect (shortly) on what it was like nowadays and whether equality had been achieved between genders.

I thought it was fantastic to get them start to reflect on this issue at this age.

Here is DD's conclusion, I was quite impressed by it [biased mum emoticon]

""Nowadays, men and women have the same rights and can choose the profession they want, regardless of their gender. Never the less, it is not uncommon for women to be paid less than men for the same job. Despite the fact that women very often work in paid jobs outside the house, the running of the household still mainly depends on them. However, this is slowly changing and some couples share the work they have inside and outside of the house. It is clear that women get a much better deal and have a lot more freedom and independence that they used to, but total equality has not yet been achieved.""

Keeping in mind that this task will have to be completed by both boys and girls I think it is a step in the right direction for the next generation. A bit of hope that even though as Dd says "women have a much better deal now" there is still room for improvement and starting to reflect about it in high school is very positive.

dittany, I've said I agree women were oppressed? I don't see where the wishful thinking comes in: we agree here.

What I mean about 'historical identity as victims' is that I think this kind of teaching that women are victims (as opposed to oppressed survivors) reduces all women to nothing more than victims. This to me seems both incorrect, and disrespectful to the memory of these people. It's never a good idea to reduce one group, be it women or an ethnic minority or a social minority, to a single stereotype.

The factual inaccuracy I've explained before. It's a minor point perhaps, but it seems this class were told that women who had property or businesses lost them to their husbands on marriage. In fact, unless these women were widows, they couldn't own property/have businesses in their own names anyway. I can see in a way why a teacher might think this is a small detail and not worth getting right, but I imagine it felt like a big deal to real people at the time. It does matter to get women's history right.

I'm really surprised we're disagreeing about this - to me it seems such a fundamental point that we should respect women even if they are long dead, and that is what I think the big issue is here.

I've said before and I'll say again, I don't feel anything but impressed by the girl's essay itself - it sounds great.

I think there is a big difference between teaching that women have always been victims, and teaching that women have been oppressed but have responded in many different ways and have not quietly accepted their status as victims. That's the difference I'm getting at.

I would want to teach that women have been oppressed throughout history, and I would want to teach that accurately, not getting details wrong or generalizing about 'women's history', because to do so implies that women's history deserves a lower standard of accuracy than any other kind of history.

I would want to explain that some women have always been aware of their fundamental equality with men. I'd show exactly what these women were struggling against, and what they had to do to make themselves heard. This would show that women are not just a passive category, a category of people to whom things are done and who have no agency. I do not believe that 21st century feminism came out of nowhere. I think feminism has long roots in the efforts of thousands of women (and men).

If we're getting into specific examples, I would want to teach children like gorionine's daughter that although most medieval people couldn't read at all, those people who could read were taught first by their mothers. So, women were crucial to education, and we should remember that when idiots make cracks about how everything was better when women were less educated than men. I'd want to teach that women did fight in battles, so the next time some idiot tells me that the British Army is going to fall apart because of women, we can tell him he's talking rubbish. I'd want to challenge the idea that women's work has always been domestic (that's a subject that often comes up on this forum).

As I see it, the more we learn about women in history, the more we can deconstruct the flawed, sexist history that we're presented by society. A lot of sexist ideals rest on a fictionalized history in which women have only recently been 'allowed' education, jobs, or intelligent thought. Just look at that (stupid) comment by David Willetts - he's pretending that women wanting to work and be treated as equal is a new thing, a sudden thread to a long-established, stable world order. This is simply not true. This whitewashed history that stresses women's oppression but ignores their achievements and their individuality is a really strong weapon for misogynists.

I take your point that the teacher can't do everything, of course. But I don't really see the difficulty of balancing the teaching about women's oppression with a quick example of women who fought against that oppression. All I can see is that this doesn't happen often enough, and I don't want to blame a single teacher doing a single lesson, but I do think it's a fault in the curriculum.

Glad that we're coming closer to agreement though - I don't explain well when I'm fired up about something, so I'd put it very badly before.

Btw, I have to go out now so if you do reply, don't think I'm ignoring you.

Cross-posted - totally agree we should teach far more about some areas of oppression. I was absolutely gobsmacked to find that when my parents bought their first house, at that time my mum would have had to have a man's co-signature on a mortgage loan if she'd been buying a house as a single woman. I wish children were taught more about this sort of stuff, and maybe then we wouldn't have this crap about feminism being unnecessary because oppression is 'all in the distant past'.

I mean, you don't have to teach children about medieval England in order to find a more sexist society to contrast with today's.

It would appear your DD has a good teacher there OP [applaud]

Can I just chip in to applaud Gorionine's dd too. And her teacher.

Maybe we could say that teaching of women's history is on an upward curve towards the present.

LRD - Interesting about the reading. I was talking to a medieval historian the other day who said some of her colleagues denied that nuns read Latin until she pointed out that several had their names (as the owners) in latin books.

chaotica - I expect your friend and I know the same people, then! I admit I've got a bee in my bonnet.

"I wish children were taught more about this sort of stuff, and maybe then we wouldn't have this crap about feminism being unnecessary because oppression is 'all in the distant past'."

IMO that is exactly what the teacher did by asking them to reflect on whether things were different now.

This discussion has mystified me - not because of incorrect assumptions made by many historians about women's roles and activities in past epochs - but by the assumption that gorionne junior's teacher did so! There's absolutely nothing in the OP to suggest the class was taught that mediaeval women had no worth / lives /voices /whatever you've assumed, LRD. "Herstory" is hardly a revolutionary invention - the word is often used to make a point quickly, especially to younger audiences. I like what the teacher did - incidentally, my own teacher did the same, 45 years ago, and my essay was nothing like as good as OP's DD's

I'm doing a slow project (personal) on amazing women of the Middle Ages, if anybody fancies posting a few favourites.

garlic, the OP is pretty clear. The essay was written in comparative terms, it's in the OP. Then gorionine further clarifies. Sorry, but it is pretty clear.

I did also say in my first post that I don't like this kind of history teaching because of what I've seen of similar elsewhere. I think the OP's daughter wrote a cracking essay and I'm not trying to run her down. I just get nervous when the whole focus is one comparative progress.

(cor, can you tell I've not had my coffee today? sorry about all the repertition)

:)

Thanks!