Well-behaved women make history too
June 29, 2018 5:06 AM   Subscribe

Joanna Scutts asks: What gets lost when it's only the rebel girls who get lionized?
But when it comes to helping young people understand their place in history, the shallow kaleidoscope of inspirational biography can’t help but imply that the only women worth remembering are those who stand alone. This narrative obscures the realities of women’s lives, downplays the costs of rebellion, and consigns whole communities to obscurity for lacking the spirit to rebel. This heroic version of history reflects a fundamentally masculine narrative of genius and exceptionalism that is the root cause of women’s underrepresentation in history books in the first place.
posted by Catseye (32 comments total) 46 users marked this as a favorite
 
It depends on how you define "well-behaved", I guess. I think any time a woman is doing more than sitting down and shutting up, any time she's encouraging her daughters to look beyond their station, any time she's defying expectations of what women "should" do she's hardly being "well-behaved". Labor organizers easily fall into that definition.

The larger issue is a society in love with the "Great Person" view of history, where social and scientific changes live or die on the basis of The Genius/Hero/Brave One rather than building on decades--centuries--of little and big actions that lead to the right moment for someone to step in. I feel like this is a product of privilege, as often marginalized communities are all too aware of the hard work that built up to reach The Moment that ends up being the only thing written down.
posted by Anonymous at 5:49 AM on June 29, 2018


I really appreciated this article. I’m glad girls have books like these now, but I hope they also have something to teach them that a badass isn’t some magical thing you’re born to be, that there aren’t women who really aren’t ever scared and really always know what the toughest smartest thing to do is. Otherwise, it’s just one more standard to feel like they can’t meet.
posted by Countess Elena at 5:52 AM on June 29, 2018 [15 favorites]


It is more than a little thorny. HRC and Elizabeth Warren are actually INSANELY well behaved women. Brave, sure. Ambitious, sure. But both women are thoughtful, careful, fair, and strive to work within the channels of civic engagement.

I own a Nasty Woman shirt, but the fact that HRC was so consistently and baselessly demonized isn't a reflection on her rebellious nature, but on US society's rejection of a formidable female politician.

#neverthelessshepersisted is an awesome hashtag, but it originated when conservative men silenced Warren in defiance of etiquette, decency, and sense.
posted by es_de_bah at 6:04 AM on June 29, 2018 [52 favorites]


I also think, and this is what the pull-quote is getting at, that even though women have an increased visibility in places (books, movies, etc) as aspirational role models for kids, behavior traditionally coded as feminine is still sort of demonized. Because patriarchal culture still privileges behavior traditionally coded as masculine, no matter the gender of its performer. Rebel girls in history (and in popular culture) tend to be aggressive, outspoken, confident. They don't back down. They lean in. They seek out adventure with swagger and purpose. They climb mountains and fly planes and show great athletic prowess. Maybe they nurture. Maybe they empathize. Maybe those women also give people a chance to be heard and make careful, deliberate decisions that take into account the health and happiness of as many people as possible. But those qualities are rarely the ones they are celebrated for.
posted by thivaia at 6:05 AM on June 29, 2018 [40 favorites]


I was mildly concerned this article would be an argument about civility and the need to celebrate bourgeois "feminists" like Margaret Thatcher. Instead, it was great :)

"There’s a particular irony in the fact that the label “rebel girl” has its own history in early-20th-century labor activism. It was applied to, and embraced by, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a working-class Irish girl from New Hampshire who was making speeches for the Industrial Workers of the World by the age of 15 and celebrated in song by labor activist Joe Hill."

Now the David Rovic's lyric "I heard the Rebel Girl speak one night in a railway yard / I joined the union right away and got my first red card" has more context for me.
posted by AnhydrousLove at 6:07 AM on June 29, 2018 [4 favorites]


This heroic version of history reflects a fundamentally masculine narrative of genius and exceptionalism that is the root cause of women’s underrepresentation in history books in the first place.

I do not have words to describe how much I object to the characterization of narratives of genius and exceptionalism as “fundamentally masculine.” That...that is the fucking problem. I just...

*monster noises*

As someone who tells stories for a living, I can also tell you that a big reason history is biased towards the rebels is that it makes for a good story. This isn’t just a matter of taste. You can tell a good story about a community, about how people might work together towards a greater goal or whatever. But this is fundamentally a different kind of story, requiring different storytelling skills, different pacing, and different modes of consumption. Novels are actually a pretty great example of a medium in which these kinds of stories can be told, and I’d be super interested in reading more about how the proliferation of the novel allowed different kinds of stories to be told, but these kinds of stories still...I don’t know how to describe it, but they feel different. They ask more investment from the audience; they demand that you sink yourself into a world for a while before you start to appreciate it. There is a certain luxury in being able to both tell and enjoy these sorts of stories. They are not as accessible, for reasons that have nothing to do with gender, and they will always be niche.

That women have been relegated by patriarchy to living the kinds of stories that are less accessible and harder to tell well does not indicate that there is a problem with the stories or the storytellers. It’s the fucking patriarchy again.
posted by schadenfrau at 6:21 AM on June 29, 2018 [21 favorites]


With a nod to schroedinger, It occurs to me now that the “Great Person” theory may be convenient for those in power, if believing it makes less powerful people less likely to try to create change. Thanks for the link.

We don’t have any of these books at home but I do think about this stuff in practical terms of how to raise a daughter. Mine has a really strong personality, the kind that makes some people laugh their asses off and others mutter disagreeable things about her social skills and/or our parenting choices. I want her to get along with people; I also want her not to make herself too small; I also worry that any expectations I have about her demeanor are tainted twice by the patriarchy, both in terms of what’s denied to women and what’s permitted to men.
posted by eirias at 6:30 AM on June 29, 2018 [4 favorites]


As someone who tells stories for a living, I can also tell you that a big reason history is biased towards the rebels is that it makes for a good story.

It's worth questioning whether the field of history, and our general sense of "history," should primarily focus on "good stories," though. I heard similar grumbling recently about journalism covering current events. We often tend to focus on one interpersonal interaction rather than examining more underlying causes or ongoing sociopolitical factors at play.
posted by lazuli at 7:02 AM on June 29, 2018 [16 favorites]


I wonder if there are girls who actually enjoy this type of book. They’ve always seemed much too on-the-nose to me - like those old-fashioned books about saints, teaching girls how to act in a way that is in accordance with their elders (albeit, feminist elders). So, be tough, strong, brave, or else... you’ll just grow up to be another of those sucky weak women and we’ll be stuck in patriarchy forever and it’ll be your fault. Inspiring? I don’t know.
posted by The Toad at 8:05 AM on June 29, 2018 [3 favorites]


There is a certain luxury in being able to both tell and enjoy these sorts of stories. They are not as accessible, for reasons that have nothing to do with gender, and they will always be niche.

That women have been relegated by patriarchy to living the kinds of stories that are less accessible and harder to tell well does not indicate that there is a problem with the stories or the storytellers. It’s the fucking patriarchy again.


Or these kinds of stories are scorned and considered unworthy of fitting into grand historical narratives because what constitutes a 'good story' is itself significantly shaped by the patriarchy. It has everything to do with gender. Women certainly are often relegated to domestic/'private'/unheroic stories but these stories are only thought of as inaccessible because they're about parts of life that in many times and places have primarily been the concern of women.

They should not be considered inherently inaccessible or sidelined by critics or storytellers in a rush to praise the stand-out heroes.

Ursula LeGuin wrote a great piece about almost exactly this, the dominance of hero narratives and particular uses of conflict, in 'The Carrier Bag Theory of Fiction': http://www.trabal.org/texts/pdf/LeGuin.pdf (a scanned PDF, only six pages and worth a read).
posted by ocular shenanigans at 8:18 AM on June 29, 2018 [17 favorites]


*puts hand up * I enjoyed these kinds of things as a kid, and yes found them inspiring. And reassuring. As a young girl who was opinionated and smart and impatient with bullshit it made me feel like it was ok (or even admirable!) to be those things. That’s in contrast with the entirety of society telling me to dumb myself down, to not talk too much, to not ask too many questions, to not take up too much space, to not be too up front about my wants and needs, to be “fair”, to always think of others first, to try and see everyone else’s side, to not outshine anyone especially if they were boys, to not be too assertive, to passively wait for other people to make my decisions, to be nurturing and patient and to do everything by consensus, not to expect too much, not to aim too high, to be “nice” at the cost of any other quality or regardless of the cost to my own wellbeing. To be pretty and quiet and gentle and nothing else. Pretty and quiet and gentle girls are perfectly fine. But they’re not the only type of girl out there. We might valorize girls with “boy” traits like bravery or assertiveness or toughness in stories. We tend to police them in real life. If you’re lucky you’re just called a tomboy. If you’re unlucky adults and your peers keep trying to make you fold yourself smaller and smaller until you’re effectively wearing a mask all the time just to get people off your back.

So I like this article and will reflect on the points it makes. And I’ll still read the Stories for Rebel girls to my daughter.
posted by supercrayon at 8:37 AM on June 29, 2018 [22 favorites]


I wonder if there are girls who actually enjoy this type of book. They’ve always seemed much too on-the-nose to me - like those old-fashioned books about saints, teaching girls how to act in a way that is in accordance with their elders (albeit, feminist elders).

I’ve had the exact same thought! Maybe it was just me, but when I was a kid it was soooo obvious which books were stories and which books were trying to teach me something disguised as a story, and I hated those books. I hated being tricked into learning a capital-L Lesson, even for things I was totally on board with (see: The Lorax).
posted by lollymccatburglar at 8:41 AM on June 29, 2018 [5 favorites]


They should not be considered inherently inaccessible or sidelined by critics or storytellers in a rush to praise the stand-out heroes.

Ursula LeGuin wrote a great piece about almost exactly this


Yes I have in fact read it, so I know she makes largely the same point I did: these types of stories are more complicated. Le Guin doesn’t make the jump to saying they are less accessible, but that is how complicated things work. They are more difficult to write and they are more difficult to read because they are not simple. Creation is more difficult than destruction; compelling drama from cooperation and social dynamics far more difficult than from conflict. Conflict is simple and immediately something anyone can identify with.

There is nothing — nothing — that requires a hero of conflict to be masculine, and Le Guin’s essay, with it’s less than subtle metaphors of carrier bags and sticks (Jesus Christ), has always seriously bothered me on this front. I would, in fact, argue that conflict is far more a feature of life as a woman than it is as a man, because we’re always have to manage or fight them or run from them. Again, I really cannot overemphasize how offended I am by the weird gender essentialism of declaring traditional heroic narratives masculine. I just...I’m going to drop it bc it’s so enraging, but good LORD.

And Le Guin’s fiction is a prime of example of the sort that is not particularly accessible. Her winding, sometimes languid, style requires greater cognitive overhead and it requires time and privacy. She is not someone most people read when they have a few spare minutes while waiting in line at the pharmacy or whatever, because when you lose the immersion, you lose everything. Because she is complex.

LeGuin is part of the canon, and deserves to be. That does not mean she writes popular or accessible fiction. (And I mean popular in a particular sense, not among SF aficionados or other nerds.)
posted by schadenfrau at 9:00 AM on June 29, 2018 [8 favorites]


I will also note that both Le Guin and Virginia Woolf, whom she quotes approvingly in that essay, and who’s work makes many of the same demands, are products of extraordinarily privileged upbringings. Woolf’s is well known; I think Le Guin went to Radcliffe and then Columbia? These are women who always had the time and, crucially, energy to luxuriate in lush, complex narratives. And in my experience, both of them are mostly enjoyed by people who enjoy similar privileges, either due to time, money, education, or just being really smart.

It is a serious mistake to conflate that privilege with gender.
posted by schadenfrau at 9:09 AM on June 29, 2018 [2 favorites]


I can't add too much to what has already been said, but I think it's valuable to point out that a lot of women in history are still totally invisible today. I have a friend and colleague who did her dissertation on women in the 19th century Army. Despite being very familiar with the Army in that period, I was completely blown away by my friend's work, because even in the best history books there is almost nothing on women. Officer's wives are sometimes mentioned (there's a great book that talks a lot about them, Ungentlemanly Acts by Louise Barnett), but the women doing the so-called domestic work are pretty much always treated as if they were never there. You may see, in a 500 page book, an offhanded reference to a soldier's wife, or a line on a map denoting where the women's quarters were. These women were at pretty much every military post, they were vital to the daily operation of those posts, and they were an important part of military social life, but they're treated as if they weren't functioning members of the garrison with their own responsibilities, paychecks, and influence. We look for great figures, but what did it mean for a woman of color to be earning a paycheck from the US government in 1871?

It's probably worth asking how our current archetypes of historical figures might be helping to continue rendering such women invisible. The article briefly acknowledged the problems with a teleological view of history, and I think that's an interesting avenue to explore with this. What are we projecting onto historical figures in the past, and what are we looking for from them? Do we risk denying the agency of women who don't fit the archetype that we're looking for? Does an emphasis on rebellion risk overlooking smaller contributions? I've already rambled on for too long, but I just wanted to point out my friend's amazing work as an example of how we're not yet at a point where we (scholars and the public alike) have even acknowledged the lives (and work and responsibilities and so on) of women throughout history. A laundress at a military fort in New Mexico was much more than just a background character in a grand historical march of progress.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 9:55 AM on June 29, 2018 [22 favorites]


@schadenfrau: I get what you mean about complexity and her stone age metaphors are definitely the sort of mid-20th century speculative anthropology that doesn't stand up well at all but... I feel uncomfortable and uncertain what to do with a conclusion of 'not sidelining large swathes of the human experience* is a sign of privilege in how we present history'.

Focusing on individual heroes and heroic narratives because they're accessible and easily-digestible doesn't just simplify history but actively obscures the collaborative networks that permitted those narratives, as well as the complex lives of the overlooked women who also changed history in individually smaller ways. So for example that would be the union women in the article who ended up being a scenic backdrop for Elizabeth Gurley Flynn's story (herself clearly and who get even less of a mention than she does.

That's a narrowing of the range of acceptable subjects for history and it is a serious loss. To toss the 'difficult' 'unheroic' narratives out of popular history or to downplay them because they're less obviously flashy is overwhelmingly to ignore the lives and stories of underprivileged people (frequently if not always women, the poor, POC). Those are the same underprivileged people who we are supposing don't have the time or education or ability to 'get' these narratives, just in a different time.

We could shrug and accept that that's the popular history game but it really feels messed up. I am not convinced it is inevitable, even for popular history. Inspirational figures have definite value but focusing on them is not the only viable model. I think Scutts is right to be concerned about this focus potentially sucking up the oxygen from other ways of talking about the past and other lives which also offer inspiration and, more to the point, are as much part of history as the famous actors.

* Communication/collaboration/'unheroic' which even if not inherently masculine or feminine, as you rightly say, have been a significant and undervalued part of women's history, as in the OP.
posted by ocular shenanigans at 10:37 AM on June 29, 2018 [3 favorites]


I was also a loudmouthed, opinionated, (sometimes foolishly) brave little girl (though I was neither the "tomboy" nor "princess" that most children's literature seemed to characterize young women as). And I'm sure I would have been a solid target for Rebel Stories for Girls. I'd just like to live in a world, where, say "Tales For Compassionate Boys"(or something) would also be available and just as widely disseminated.
posted by thivaia at 10:43 AM on June 29, 2018 [11 favorites]


I am not convinced it is inevitable, even for popular history

I don’t think it’s inevitable either, but I do think it’s a function of privilege. Or what is now privilege, but which should, ideally, just be freaking standard. We should all be allowed the luxury of nuance and complexity and narratives that require more from their audience. But that’s not the world we have right now, so...I don’t know what to do about that. I do think it’s important to identify the locus of fuckery, for lack of a better term, and doing so in gender politics is a problem for all the reasons I articulated already (or alluded to with monster noises, as the case may be).

In other words, the fact that those narratives are complex puts structural constraints on who can engage with them. The fact that complex narratives are often the stories of women is definitely about patriarchy, and is its own bullshit.

But also, with the examples given...I see plenty of potential for heroic narratives in these so called “background characters.” It’s just that, in addition to the complexity, the villains would likely be people we’re used to seeing as heroes. So. Idk. A land of contrasts.
posted by schadenfrau at 11:34 AM on June 29, 2018 [2 favorites]


I'd just like to live in a world, where, say "Tales For Compassionate Boys"(or something) would also be available and just as widely disseminated.

Dude, this is so needed. Somebody is on this, right? Unfortunately I am not a book editor.
posted by selfnoise at 11:39 AM on June 29, 2018 [3 favorites]


Maybe they nurture. Maybe they empathize. Maybe those women also give people a chance to be heard and make careful, deliberate decisions that take into account the health and happiness of as many people as possible. But those qualities are rarely the ones they are celebrated for.

I'm pretty sure as the social conservatives cement their hold over American society over the next couple decades, we'll get far more stories about women being happy with nurturing and empathizing (with their men), and taking into account the health and happiness (of their families.)

Stories of girls running off to follow their dreams will be out, in favor of stories of princesses sewing banners for their men. No more stores of Victorian women travelers or scientists, but stories of managing a Victorian household.

I mean we're halfway there already. We already have narratives about how certain fields are male dominated because of the inherent nature of men and women. All its going to need is a push to remove alternate viewpoints.
posted by happyroach at 11:56 AM on June 29, 2018 [3 favorites]


I don't want to derail and make a thread about girls about boys, so I'll keep it brief, but I liked this book for my son....Mightier Than The Sword.
posted by kokaku at 12:14 PM on June 29, 2018 [1 favorite]


There's a huge problem with being unable to hold multiple narratives simultaneously in our heads. We've got to be able to appreciate one kind of thing and ALSO appreciate other kinds of things.
posted by amtho at 12:55 PM on June 29, 2018 [3 favorites]


I'd just like to live in a world, where, say "Tales For Compassionate Boys"(or something) would also be available and just as widely disseminated.

not quite the same thing, but Julio Torres did give us Wells For Boys.
posted by schadenfrau at 1:02 PM on June 29, 2018 [1 favorite]


Add me to the list of girls who would enjoy this book. Because where else was I to find examples of women like me? Where else would I learn about them? They fill in the spots in history that historians historically left empty.
posted by Anonymous at 1:28 PM on June 29, 2018


I'd just like to live in a world, where, say "Tales For Compassionate Boys"(or something) would also be available and just as widely disseminated.

I mean the publishers of the Rebel Girls book also published a "Stories for Boys Who Dare to be Different" but when I took it off the shelf I spotted two sexual and physical abusers off the bat so...
posted by ocular shenanigans at 4:04 PM on June 29, 2018 [1 favorite]


This article keeps reminding me of American Girl dolls. They may be this whole problematic can of worms that I don't know about, but a few people very close to me grew up with those dolls and have spoken very fondly of them. I like what I've heard, because the emphasis on the experience of childhood means taking an approach that isn't the Great Person model of history. Daily life, the experience of hardship, the responsibilities to family and friends, that sort of thing. That's not to say positive and inspiring role models aren't important, but it seems like there was an emphasis on the seemingly mundane and "unimportant" domestic life that can be really valuable.

Like I said, there may be much more to this particular thing than I know, but I thought I'd share my thoughts if they might make sense to anyone else.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 5:39 PM on June 29, 2018


This heroic version of history reflects a fundamentally masculine narrative of genius and exceptionalism that is the root cause of women’s underrepresentation in history books in the first place.

I didn't read this as genius and exceptionalism are masculine but that they are perceived as masculine, thus the only women who are celebrated are those who act like men (from a societal point of view). So women who show traditionally feminine traits are those who are excluded from history (see shapes that haunt the dusk's comment about women on military bases). The problem is the division of excellence by gender, which causes one type to be documented and the other not. I might be wrong, but that seemed to fit with the overall article to me.
posted by cui bono at 6:13 PM on June 29, 2018 [8 favorites]


Le Guin's 1983 commencement address to Mills College also seems pertinent.
posted by biogeo at 6:42 PM on June 29, 2018


You know what? Fuck this whole idea of "X traits/behaviors are feminine, Y traits/behaviors are masculine." This is 2018, it's time to move on from all this this gender essentialism nonsense.
posted by Delia at 3:49 PM on July 1, 2018


I would agree that any individual shouldn't be assumed to have "masculine" or "feminine" traits based on their gender, but society as a whole has been coding behaviors as "masculine" or "feminine" for a long time and it doesn't make much sense to pretend the societal conditioning/approval/disapproval doesn't exist.
posted by lazuli at 4:09 PM on July 1, 2018 [1 favorite]


I mean... there are books for girls about friendship/not about the hero/rebel narrative that are very much accessible and aimed towards kids. The Junie B books, or anything by Beverly Cleary, or Mildred Taylor's books, or the Babysistter's Club, etc. I rather think there are more books along the lines of "ordinary girls just living their lives" than books about rebels.

There could stand to be more books for kids about organizing as a community, but anyone who says that female-focused books about mundane life don't exist or are inaccessible/not compelling... haven't read very many.
posted by storytam at 8:36 PM on July 1, 2018


I hope they also have something to teach them that a badass isn’t some magical thing you’re born to be, that there aren’t women who really aren’t ever scared and really always know what the toughest smartest thing to do is.

Well, hopefully that's parents. We often talk to our daughter about how being brave doesn't mean you're not scared, it means you do something despite being scared. Also how everyone makes mistakes but you try your best.

I wonder if there are girls who actually enjoy this type of book.

Our six-year-old does.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:20 AM on July 2, 2018


« Older The 2018 European carbon dioxide supply crisis   |   Craving the intention of a blazed-out drummer Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments