Can you help me articulate something?

[icepole]

Someone posted on a Facebook page for writers that they are writing a book about women in medieval history and he wanted to know if he should work with his wife because he is writing about women. I said it would make a difference to me to see a woman's name on the there too but I have been ripped to shreds for saying it and told I am sexist.

I can't articulate it. I just feel it matters to have women historians talking about women's history. Or are they right?

Is his wife a historian? Your OP doesn't say. I'm assuming she must be, unless he thinks that she should co-write solely because she's a woman, which does sound slightly odd.

Let's say he was writing a history of black people in mediaeval Europe. And he's white. But his wife is black (and a historian). Would he want to involve her in the project? I think it would be natural to want to do so. I think I'd pose the question of my wife and not of a Facebook group, mind you! Surely it's her choice.

I have no doubt that a good male historian could write an excellent book about women's history, and a good white historian could write an excellent book about black history. But the history of oppression has been about silencing our voices so we'd quite like to speak for ourselves now we can.

He said she is yes, and an author too. I am getting a lot of can only black people write about black people comments, wish I had kept my mouth shut.

Well, he suggested it, it's not as if you told him he should. I think it's nice if he values his wife's imput, though that sounds patronizing as I write it.

I don't know if this is a populist or academic book, but my impression is that there aren't as many woman historians writing one medieval woman as there might be. His project is, presumably, partly intended to redress a historical imbalance, that is, that women don't get much attention. It's in keeping with that if he wants to redress another imbalance, that women tend not to be so visible as historians either.

I reckon if you ask most people for names of medieval historians, sure, they'll probably come up with Alison Weir, and quite a lot of woman writers. But they'll also come up with people like David Starkey, who thinks women tend to be idiots.

In academia, it's not unusual for writers on medieval women's history to be men. This is fine, but I think it's valid to consider whether more woman would choose it as a career if they had more role models to show it's normal.

I would have thought that it would definitely be a good idea to co-write with/get advice from his wife.

I have an 'academic' friend who writes about women's sexuality - it always feels slightly like mansplaining to me, but I'm not sure if this is justified or not.

People who accuse women of being sexist because we want to hear women's voices in public, as well as the usual male ones, are just stupid.

Perhaps that's unfair. Not stupid, just unaware of the politics of privilege - the fact that we constantly hear the voices of middle class white men and then they bleat on about sexism if someone says they'd rather hear another voice - it just exasperates me. But I must remember they're not stupid, just not very interested in equality issues.

Just stick to your guns. You are not sexist, they are for telling you that you are sexist for not accepting the male middle class white POV as being the default and for wanting other voices in there.

It just shows how strongly ingrained their prejudices are, that they go mental when you agree with someone wanting to make a POV more diverse.

And you note they're savaging you, not him. Point that out.

Any historian brings a bias to the table when they write a work, even very good historians. This is as much in what they choose not to include every bit as much as what is. In fact works themselves contain bias inasmuch as how narrow the focus of the particular work is.

Howard Zinn's excellent A People's History of the United States examines U.S history from the perspective of its people, as opposed to the traditional top down model of historical works. So this includes minority ethnic groups, women, workers etc.

A good history book seeks to add to the academic discussion of any particular era, and in this case examining the Medieval Era from the perspective of women adds much that has hitherto been ignored up until very recently (and this goes for an awful lot of scholarship unfortunately).

I find it perfectly reasonable to find a woman's name accompanying the title a comfort, especially when it comes to prior academic bias against women's part and contributions to the world throughout academic scholarship. That is not to say a man could not contribute meaningfully in this area of study, nor that a woman would automatically write something that was, but I for one am always I interested in the study of history from different perspectives, and as long as the research and references are sound it is worth adding to the academic discussion.

It is occurring to me, I hope his wife can point out it could come across as pretty arrogant to think he's doing something groundbreaking by writing about women in the medieval period. I've been turning this thread over in my mind ... just thinking how it's become such a popular topic recently, a little bit of me would be cynical about a man jumping on the bandwagon?

How did the debate go, or did it fizzle out?

It did and I was glad, I had't expected such a strong reaction.

Whew!

It does sound a bit odd ... I think some people really feel strongly about it sexism against men.

Yes funny that - they tend to be the same people who don't even notice outrageous sexism against women...

How true.
Isn't that peculiar?