resurrectionsong

April 07, 2004

Why I Am Not a Student of "Herstory"

From the UConn's Daily Campus:

For the past month UConn's Women Center honored Women's "Herstory" month. The theme for March was women inspiring hope and possibility.

The month had various activities including lectures, activities and guided meditation which celebrated women, more specifically women who have changed and inspired history.

Setting aside my belief that guided meditation isn't really the best methodology for teaching history; I think the value of any reputable educational institution teaching "herstory" is limited at best.

In the same sense that I don't think there is a problem with studying specific movement and moments in history (let's just use the proper word, shall we?), I think there is actually value in studying feminism and women's contributions to science, arts, and politics. Of course, I also think that the value comes not in studying those things in isolation, but in context with other historical events and movements.

What I don't like is the typical sense of victimization and the antagonistic undertones of the events. The foolish need to re-style "history" as "herstory" simply makes it seems as if there are separate versions of historical events and that women have to define themselves outside of anything in that flow of events that might be masculine in nature. Perhaps it's just my view, but that comes out as a pretty us against them attitude.

"I hope they learned a lot about the women who contributed to our history," LeBel said, "It's all too often in history classes that women get left out. This month was really dedicated to educating people about women's history."

And if that isn't quite good enough for you, you might also be interested in Black Herstory.

Don't get me wrong--I think the idea of celebrating women's contributions to our society is wonderful. I just don't like the sense of isolation in the event that I think engenders that adversarial attitude in academia. Focus instead on bringing that recognition into the general curriculum.

But, please, leave the guided meditations at home.

Read the story.

PS—Congratulations to the Huskies for winning both the men’s and women’s basketball tournaments. Amazing.

Posted by zombyboy at April 7, 2004 08:26 PM | TrackBack

Comments

I soooo agree. E brough home a book called Herstory. I saw it and told her that I would prefer to read it first. I rarely do that, but something about the title made me a bit skeptical. I happened to be right on the money. I read it and then explained to E that I would be happy to point her in the direction of biographies of famous women, but this one wasn't appropriate for her to read (full of liberal ilk). I told her why and being the staunch little Republican gal that she is (she once won a round of "Apples to Apples" by playing Bill Clinton to "unscrupulous"), she accepted what I had to say about it. Now, when she is a few years older, we will peruse it together and discuss the women and their "accomplishments."

Posted by: Rae at April 7, 2004 08:46 PM

"Bill Clinton to 'unscrupulous.'"

Nice. Very nice.

Posted by: zombyboy at April 7, 2004 09:04 PM

What's Apples to Apples?

Posted by: Patrick at April 7, 2004 10:33 PM

I really hate to see people misusing history.

History is not about finding role models.

History is a series of facts in conjunction with assertions about causes and effects. I do think we over-emphasize the person, but I can see that we often study the individual who did something because we want to understand the influences on that person that led to his (Yes, Stan, or her) accomplishment, invention, or atrocity. But still, does it matter more that Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation or that it was issued? Does it matter more that the powered flight in a heavier-than-air craft was first done by two white male Americans or that it was finally accomplished?

To scour history to find the best "female" (or whatever minority you wish) writers or inventors or whatever is just silly. A person was either influential, or not. Madame Curie and George Washington Carver showed that what mattered was the mind and the effort, not the gender or the skin color.

Hmmm... If I had a blog, I could have linked this article and used my own bandwidth instead of wasting yours. Okay, back to blogspot I go...

Posted by: nathan at April 8, 2004 09:08 AM

Apples to Apples is a very fun game, Patrick.

Best described here.

I have several Out of the Box games and absolutely love them-much better than any Milton Bradley game; they are for thinking people.

Nathan-No blogspot! Go to MuNu. I can't say enough good things about the people there and all the terrific help you get.

Posted by: Rae at April 8, 2004 09:22 AM

Um, I'm guessing MuNu costs money? I'm going for the Free services right now, because I can't really justify the expenditure to my financial partner, She Who Holds the Purse Strings. At least, I can't justify it right now.

Posted by: nathan at April 8, 2004 09:43 AM

Free!

Posted by: Rae at April 8, 2004 10:05 AM

Thanks Rae!

Posted by: Patrick at April 8, 2004 10:14 AM

Very welcome, Patrick.

Posted by: Rae at April 8, 2004 10:45 AM

Rae,
Can you get my work email from ZB and contact me about this "off-line"? Thanks,
Nathan

Posted by: nathan at April 8, 2004 12:23 PM

Setting aside my belief that guided meditation isn't really the best methodology for teaching history

Some of these people are in desperate need of guided medication.

Posted by: McGehee at April 8, 2004 05:47 PM

lol-McGehee-whew!

Z-please send me Nathan's work e-mail.

Posted by: Rae at April 8, 2004 05:57 PM