Viewing women's progress through a lens of famous individuals is a red herring: far more important is the situation of women generally, their relegation to second-class status long a drag on development, their growing independence and economic role from the 18th century onward a factor in the growth that produced our modern world. Female leaders and innovators should be restored to their rightful prominence, but the big story is far broader, and history needs more attention to women's position in society and economic life generally: we're getting a better picture as more research is conducted, but much remains obscure.
The comments on this lecture are very disappointing as it is clear that very few of their authors actually listened to the whole presentation. An excellent argument about women's place in history argued eloquently with three interesting and broadly unknown examples from the medieval period. As with any corrective history, it encounters resistance from those unwilling to revise their knowledge and preconceived notions. What a shame
It seems Gresham is not moderating these comments at all - every time there's a lecture about women or eg black people in the UK, the trolls come out to play. They have not seen the lecture, they have no interest in the subject, they just spew their garbage and move on.
I agree with her on the principle of making sure women are spoken about but the truth is they are quite a bit. Joan of arc. Victoria. Catherine the great. La Malinche. Thatcher. Isabella. I mean there are loads of history documentaries and books on these figures.
@katy2176-p3m there are way more examples but of course there are more men. I mean societies were mostly patriarcal. That doesnt take away from the fact that women are spoken about and studied.
I suppose when you think most people could name 10 male artists easily even if they don’t know much about art, can the same be said for female artists? Same in most fields; scientists, historians, stand out people throughout history and so on. Yes, monarchs you mentioned will be spoken about predominantly because they are Queens. But regular women who weren’t rich, didn’t have access to world class education etc. they’re rarely heard of from history.
@@lauren25487 But random poor males do not get the same focus as monarches either unless they do something meaningful. Just like la Malinche or Joan of Arc ( they were not monarchs )
@@BasedHerodotus poor males do not get the same focus ...unless they do something meaningful" and poor women are that X 100. Women in general get almost no recognition, or in worse cases, men take credit for their achievements (Rosalind Franklin discovered the double helix of DNA, but credit went to her colleagues James Watson and Francis Crick - studies show women are less likely to get credit when co-authoring research,...you get the idea, and I'm sure you're capable of looking this up) it's fine if you personally don't care about women's contributions not being accounted for, but you should be honest about that, rather than argue in bad faith.
What is the evidence that women have been 'written out of history', who did it, and how did they do it? At around 9 minutes she does actually talk about how this might in theory be done, but does not get into detail about the extent to which it has actually happened. An obvious strategy, just to get started, might have been to look at the total extent to which women have been national rulers (e.g. percent of worldwide person-years under female rule) and compare this with words or pages on the history of these rulers available in some specified libraries or other sources.
It's really simple - historians in heavily male-dominated times downplay the time women played, or just never investigate it further. And then this bias makes its way into history books.
@@csr7080 That's the claim. What I am interested in is what evidence there is that this is true and to what extent has it happened, if at all. According to the lecture, most world leaders have been male so one would expect that to have an effect on how much is written about the actions of men as against women. So, how much is the actual bias, if any? What is the evidence for that?
@@matthewleitch1 there's plenty of evidence of male bias in history books - you could look it up and read the evidence for yourself? without checking I can recall male historians misidentified human bones and remains as men in warrior burial sites, and female authors esp in Victorian times, having to write or hide as men due to the bias against female authors, and even men taking credit for women' work. but it's all there, with one easy google search.
@@csr7080 It's not obvious. How do we know that a lot of female historical figures have to be rediscovered in the modern age? What does that mean in practical terms? Are there male historical figures that also have been or could be rediscovered and are there more or less of them than female? Have checks been done to ensure that the historical significance of the male and female figures has been allowed for or do we have female figures now being written about enthusiastically who really did not have much impact on history compared to the better known male figures? I don't know the answers to any of these questions so I am simply asking if anyone knows.
This one left me .. scratching my head. Women are indeed almost absent in the popular histories of US America, except Mae West sorts or an occasional Annie Oakley, perhaps even a redacted pioneer for fewer children, eugenics, and ra ... well, we'll leave that last bit to the imagination. But then the Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, and Politics Centred Media of the 19th and 20th centuries did not teem with women that seemed relevant .. in those narrow fields; and, it seems, women themselves were not overly concerned with those issues .. indeed the few who were, publicly, were seen - by other women - as bossy, drawing-room majorettish, and cross-grained, angry, complainers (which a goodly number were, just like their male counterparts, getting the genuinely talented and important ladies more or less lumped in with them as .. Notable Women). Note well, two women dominated those two centuries in Britain .. Victoria and Elizabeth II, one vastly increasing the British Empire, chunk by chunk, the other losing it, bit by bit. Hmmmm ..?
Women were very much a part of the Enlightenment, though overshadowed by the male celebs, and their labour (and increased spending power) was crucial to the industrial revolution (the latter a warning against seeing such things just in terms of prominent individuals). Neither Victoria nor Elizabeth II dominated their century, both reigning as limited constitutional monarchs with little control over events: Elizabeth I towers over both as a political player, laying the basis for subsequent expansion by restoring a measure of stability that survived even the following century's upheavals. But the big story is of women's increasing independence and economic participation, without which the mass market for industrialisation might not have emerged.
The gender pay gap isn't 20% . Men work more hours. They work in filthier more dangerous jobs, therefore they are often paid more. Meaningless platitudes are irrelevant.
You don't think nurses work long hours in dangerous filthy job? They work in the REAL filth, human filth which is pathogenic, and real danger as they are assaulted physical almost daily by patients.
Viewing women's progress through a lens of famous individuals is a red herring: far more important is the situation of women generally, their relegation to second-class status long a drag on development, their growing independence and economic role from the 18th century onward a factor in the growth that produced our modern world. Female leaders and innovators should be restored to their rightful prominence, but the big story is far broader, and history needs more attention to women's position in society and economic life generally: we're getting a better picture as more research is conducted, but much remains obscure.
The comments on this lecture are very disappointing as it is clear that very few of their authors actually listened to the whole presentation.
An excellent argument about women's place in history argued eloquently with three interesting and broadly unknown examples from the medieval period.
As with any corrective history, it encounters resistance from those unwilling to revise their knowledge and preconceived notions. What a shame
It seems Gresham is not moderating these comments at all - every time there's a lecture about women or eg black people in the UK, the trolls come out to play. They have not seen the lecture, they have no interest in the subject, they just spew their garbage and move on.
@csr7080 agreed. Ironically proves the point of the lecture correct
Indeed so. Jurassic World lives!
Women over 50 that I know still don't even have aspirations and no shame you if you have them in my Midwest USA town
I agree with her on the principle of making sure women are spoken about but the truth is they are quite a bit. Joan of arc. Victoria. Catherine the great. La Malinche. Thatcher. Isabella. I mean there are loads of history documentaries and books on these figures.
so...6 women, out of dozens of male figures in history?
@katy2176-p3m there are way more examples but of course there are more men. I mean societies were mostly patriarcal. That doesnt take away from the fact that women are spoken about and studied.
I suppose when you think most people could name 10 male artists easily even if they don’t know much about art, can the same be said for female artists? Same in most fields; scientists, historians, stand out people throughout history and so on. Yes, monarchs you mentioned will be spoken about predominantly because they are Queens. But regular women who weren’t rich, didn’t have access to world class education etc. they’re rarely heard of from history.
@@lauren25487 But random poor males do not get the same focus as monarches either unless they do something meaningful. Just like la Malinche or Joan of Arc ( they were not monarchs )
@@BasedHerodotus poor males do not get the same focus ...unless they do something meaningful" and poor women are that X 100.
Women in general get almost no recognition, or in worse cases, men take credit for their achievements (Rosalind Franklin discovered the double helix of DNA, but credit went to her colleagues James Watson and Francis Crick - studies show women are less likely to get credit when co-authoring research,...you get the idea, and I'm sure you're capable of looking this up)
it's fine if you personally don't care about women's contributions not being accounted for, but you should be honest about that, rather than argue in bad faith.
What is the evidence that women have been 'written out of history', who did it, and how did they do it? At around 9 minutes she does actually talk about how this might in theory be done, but does not get into detail about the extent to which it has actually happened. An obvious strategy, just to get started, might have been to look at the total extent to which women have been national rulers (e.g. percent of worldwide person-years under female rule) and compare this with words or pages on the history of these rulers available in some specified libraries or other sources.
It's really simple - historians in heavily male-dominated times downplay the time women played, or just never investigate it further. And then this bias makes its way into history books.
@@csr7080 That's the claim. What I am interested in is what evidence there is that this is true and to what extent has it happened, if at all. According to the lecture, most world leaders have been male so one would expect that to have an effect on how much is written about the actions of men as against women. So, how much is the actual bias, if any? What is the evidence for that?
What do you mean, "claim"? It's pretty obvious when a lot of female historical figures have to be rediscovered in the modern age.
@@matthewleitch1 there's plenty of evidence of male bias in history books - you could look it up and read the evidence for yourself? without checking I can recall male historians misidentified human bones and remains as men in warrior burial sites, and female authors esp in Victorian times, having to write or hide as men due to the bias against female authors, and even men taking credit for women' work. but it's all there, with one easy google search.
@@csr7080 It's not obvious. How do we know that a lot of female historical figures have to be rediscovered in the modern age? What does that mean in practical terms? Are there male historical figures that also have been or could be rediscovered and are there more or less of them than female? Have checks been done to ensure that the historical significance of the male and female figures has been allowed for or do we have female figures now being written about enthusiastically who really did not have much impact on history compared to the better known male figures? I don't know the answers to any of these questions so I am simply asking if anyone knows.
Ilse Koch is a martyr for the "Believe Women" movement
LOL
This one left me .. scratching my head. Women are indeed almost absent in the popular histories of US America, except Mae West sorts or an occasional Annie Oakley, perhaps even a redacted pioneer for fewer children, eugenics, and ra ... well, we'll leave that last bit to the imagination. But then the Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, and Politics Centred Media of the 19th and 20th centuries did not teem with women that seemed relevant .. in those narrow fields; and, it seems, women themselves were not overly concerned with those issues .. indeed the few who were, publicly, were seen - by other women - as bossy, drawing-room majorettish, and cross-grained, angry, complainers (which a goodly number were, just like their male counterparts, getting the genuinely talented and important ladies more or less lumped in with them as .. Notable Women).
Note well, two women dominated those two centuries in Britain .. Victoria and Elizabeth II, one vastly increasing the British Empire, chunk by chunk, the other losing it, bit by bit.
Hmmmm ..?
Women were very much a part of the Enlightenment, though overshadowed by the male celebs, and their labour (and increased spending power) was crucial to the industrial revolution (the latter a warning against seeing such things just in terms of prominent individuals).
Neither Victoria nor Elizabeth II dominated their century, both reigning as limited constitutional monarchs with little control over events: Elizabeth I towers over both as a political player, laying the basis for subsequent expansion by restoring a measure of stability that survived even the following century's upheavals. But the big story is of women's increasing independence and economic participation, without which the mass market for industrialisation might not have emerged.
The gender pay gap isn't 20% . Men work more hours. They work in filthier more dangerous jobs, therefore they are often paid more. Meaningless platitudes are irrelevant.
You don't think nurses work long hours in dangerous filthy job? They work in the REAL filth, human filth which is pathogenic, and real danger as they are assaulted physical almost daily by patients.
Hire some Hollywood writers, plenty of them are available now.
I am sure they can make something up.
This is the cool part: they don't need to make anything up, there are countless fascinating figures in history to talk about.
Whtever
Not a fan of women, eh?
@@csr7080 Not a fan of fake history.
Which bit exactly is "fake"?
@@antonmaier5172 keep crying
@@csr7080 The conspiracy that men have been trying to erase women from history.