Hello everyone,
Here’s another link to the New York Times article for Monday, Wanted: Leaders to Turn Interfaith Conflict Into Trust:
The fundamental lesson I want everyone to remember after our presentations on Monday is the importance of religion in women’s history.
History itself is an interpretation. We choose how we perceive events of the past with a modern lens, which can limit or enhance our perspective. Unfortunately, our “modern lens” is designed for a white hegemonic viewership, which then normalizes this one perception and neglects the other histories (think intersectionaltiy). Religion and women’s roles are also interpretations. Bible scholar, Helen Sterk, argues that the Bible is, “Not sexist but that society’s sexism has led to interpretations of the Bible that ignore women’s presence” (DeFancisco and Palczeweski, 219). Meaning, that the Bible and other religious scriptures may not be inherently sexist, but today’s sexist society contorts our interpretation of religious doctrines to be sexist. A stigma attached to religion is its justification to oppress women, but this justification may be a result of our contemporary ideas about women and women’s roles. The Bible or the Quran are translated to serve a misogynistic world, yet when these scriptures are interpreted by looking at their female figures religion can become a source of empowerment.Women as justified servants to men, slaves or mothers is only one interpretation of women’s roles in religious scriptures. However, when history is reread for a nonsexist audience, religion has been home to feminist ideals all along. Religion was the initial space where women could excel creatively and intellectually. Historical figures such as the 12th century German nun, Hildegarde of Bingen, became an outspoken advocate for women’s rights within the church. She was a composer, author and leader who could only accomplish her achievements by becoming of woman of the church. Women’s activism in the United States was justified by religion. Initially, women entered public activist spaces in the abolitionist movement and used religious rhetoric to justify their cause. Eventually, abolitionist like the Grimkè sisters, were compelled to defend their rights as women which then became the catalyst for the American women’s rights movement. Throughout the women’s rights movement women used religion as the basis for their arguments. Suffragists and temperance leaders relied heavily on religion to justify universal suffrage and activism. Historically, we are taught about the separate spheres men and women inhabited. Men were considered the dominant gender overall, but women were thought be supreme moral beings compared to men. Religion was the one area where women were dominant and believed to be superior to men. There are many examples of women exercising their rights through religion, such as Anne Hutchinson, Mary Dyer, Frances Willard and much more.
While you’re thinking about religion and women’s history considering some questions:
- How do we interpret women’s history today? Is it thought to be important?
- What are your experiences learning women’s history?
- How can we effectively teach women’s history and the role of religion?
- How can we undo “history” to make it more inclusive and diverse?
****UPDATE****
I thought everyone's insight today was great. I hope I emphasized that history is an interpretation and religion was an avenue for women to excel. Most importantly, religious texts are interpreted through historical and social contexts. Depending on how society interprets these texts they can change a society's values. Arguably, if female figures were highlighted from scriptures then people's perceptions of women could change. We also talked about how many women found their callings through religion, mostly because religion offered academic opportunities that were restricted from them in other areas. Activist women used religion as a means to justify their cause, because they interpreted the Bible differently from detractors.
When I asked the class, "What's your experience learning women's history?" The answers were not uncommon. Women's history is not a widely taught subject in schools. Like I previously stated, the white hegemonic, colonizer narrative is the accepted interpretation for history education. Women's history, like most histories, are neglected. However, women were (and are) part of every narrative. They were soldiers who fought in the American Revolution, the Civil War and more, yet these stories are untold. When people said they had been taught women's history it was restricted to a small handful of women. This is also a problematic and dangerous notion, because when we surmise women's history to the Susan B. Anthonys and Harriet Tubmans we lose essential parts of the narrative. History education must account for women's roles, individually and as groups. All important moments in history would be impossible without the group effort. Martin Luther King Jr. did not march through the Civil Rights Movement alone, yet history is taught with an individualistic vocabulary. This is where we see the power of historical interpretation, whose story gets told and whose does not. Which figures are emphasized and which are forgotten?
Scholars and women historians have established women's history as a field of academic study, but it is still developing. The National Women's History Museum, which exists only online due to lack of funding, celebrates scholar, Gerda Lerner. Lerner made it her life's work to ensure a place for women in history education. She helped founded women's history as a respected academic field of study and was a member of NOW (National Organization for Women). Her famous essay, Placing Women in History, focuses on how women's history changed from a narrative to interpretation. Lerner's work critically analyzed why women's history was neglected. She made it her mission to study accepted narratives and reinterpret them to rediscover women's roles.
https://www.nwhm.org/education-resources/biography/biographies/gerda-lerner/
When I asked the class, "What's your experience learning women's history?" The answers were not uncommon. Women's history is not a widely taught subject in schools. Like I previously stated, the white hegemonic, colonizer narrative is the accepted interpretation for history education. Women's history, like most histories, are neglected. However, women were (and are) part of every narrative. They were soldiers who fought in the American Revolution, the Civil War and more, yet these stories are untold. When people said they had been taught women's history it was restricted to a small handful of women. This is also a problematic and dangerous notion, because when we surmise women's history to the Susan B. Anthonys and Harriet Tubmans we lose essential parts of the narrative. History education must account for women's roles, individually and as groups. All important moments in history would be impossible without the group effort. Martin Luther King Jr. did not march through the Civil Rights Movement alone, yet history is taught with an individualistic vocabulary. This is where we see the power of historical interpretation, whose story gets told and whose does not. Which figures are emphasized and which are forgotten?
Scholars and women historians have established women's history as a field of academic study, but it is still developing. The National Women's History Museum, which exists only online due to lack of funding, celebrates scholar, Gerda Lerner. Lerner made it her life's work to ensure a place for women in history education. She helped founded women's history as a respected academic field of study and was a member of NOW (National Organization for Women). Her famous essay, Placing Women in History, focuses on how women's history changed from a narrative to interpretation. Lerner's work critically analyzed why women's history was neglected. She made it her mission to study accepted narratives and reinterpret them to rediscover women's roles.
https://www.nwhm.org/education-resources/biography/biographies/gerda-lerner/
When thinking about women's history education consider the following questions,
1) How can we restructure history education to include women's history?
2) How can the power of interpretation contort or censor history? (think in the women and religion context)
3) Based on your experiences in school, what other narratives would you want to include in history education that weren't taught?
4) What woman from history would you want to learn more about and why?
Thank you everyone!
Hi Allee, I first wanted to say that I really enjoyed your post and presentation, and I can tell it is a topic that you are really passionate about. To answer your first question, one way to restructure history education to teach a more accurate representation of women in history is to break apart the handful of publishing corporations that publish the majority of textbooks in the United States. One of the reasons why history is mainly taught from the hegemonic masculine perspective is because there are only a few mainstream textbook suppliers. To break up these corporations would allow for smaller historical books with more accurate representations of history and female figures make their way into the school systems. Also, the power of interpretation of religious texts can really contort both history and the present, because the powerful people who decide the widely accepted interpretations often do so in a way that keeps themselves in power. Therefore, the cycle of hierarchy continues because they use religion as an excuse to further oppress. However, reinterpreting religious texts provides the opportunity for the voiceless to be heard. If one interprets a religious document in a way that differs from the widely accepted view, but in a way that makes sense and that other people recognize, it can change the fundamental way in which people view their faith. That is how many of the religious figures that you spoke about such as Margaret Magdalen gained power. In the article that you provided, Eboo Patel said, “Religions have stunning illustrations of reconciliation and a wider sense of ‘we.’ It’s a sacred thing in many religious traditions to partner with people with whom you have deep differences. The Quran says argue with them in “the best of ways.” This shows how though people sometimes use religion to act hatefully against other groups of people, most religious texts actually have segments that promote unity with others, even with those who are different. When we are open to interpretations such as these, it opens up the potential to rethink the present moment, and not just the past.
ReplyDeleteHi Hayley,
DeleteI love your idea about breaking apart textbook conglomerates. I hadn't thought about textbook distribution as a major education variable. I think it would be a really interesting idea to see what would happen if smaller, specialized textbook companies made our textbooks. For example, if there was a textbook on just women's history or African American history or immigrant history? However, that would also be problematic because that would mean categorizing history but losing its dynamics. I think it's very important to ensure we teach students how all history is relative. We teach American history as if it happened inconsequently from the rest of the world, and as if world history was separate from America. Yet, if we look at enormous historical events like the French Revolution then we must also talk about the American Revolutionary War. The American war had a direct influence on the French, which altered Western history forever. If we turn history in genres I think we would be losing part of this fundamental lesson. So this beckons the question, how can we truly effectively teach history? I think your textbook idea is a great one though! I also like your input on reinterpreting religious texts. Like you said, if we focus on verses that emphasized unity and tolerance, our perception of religion would change.
Thanks for the comments!
Hi Allee,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your presentation! So something I thought about was the idea of the word "History." My first history professor broke down female representation in one tiny phrase "His-story" (aka. History). Realistically I do not know the origin of the word but this definitely prints it out in black and white. History is normally told via the male perspective.To reconstruct history to include womens history is a rather difficult task, especially when considering the few states that are opting to literally rewrite their history books and leave out the oppressed perspective. However, New Paltz High School and schooling system did a fairly decent job at drilling an array important female figures into our heads. The material was not covered in textbooks but the teachers still taught the material. The idea is to get the teachers to care and to get the students to start questioning what they are being taught, and why there are only male figures being taught. Along with this the power of interpretation is so important too (to answer your second question). It really depends on who's reading the text because if the clergy and he figures of a G-d and prophet are male, then you can see why it is easier to say "well men did it all and women in the bible are either promiscuous or virgins"--(Something someone actually told me in religion school). This is definitely something you're very passionate about and it made the presentation very enjoyable.
Jaci H.
Hi Jaci,
ReplyDeleteYes, I think the New Paltz history department here has done an amazing job with incorporating many narratives. However, I think a major part of the problem with history education is not that teachers don't care, but that the state forces a specific curriculum that excludes women's history. Think about the regents exams we had to take in high school, our teachers were held to a standard to teach us the basics for the test. The goal of our history education was to simply pass the test, not analyzing the content. I think more of the problem is from the state and federal standards of education because testing doesn't equate to learning. The comment that the person at your religion school said is sad, but not surprising. I believe that's what many people believe is taught in the Bible when really, it's a matter of interpretation. If spiritual leaders and teachers decided to take a more feminist perspective people wouldn't believe "men did it all." I think you have some really great insight!
Thanks for commenting!
Hey Allee,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your presentation as it brought a lot of attention to why women are not focused as heavily as men are in looking at history.I think that the reason is because our society so still so masculine centered that many do not realize just the impact all these historical women have had on our world. I think that the way that we can restructure the history education system us by including more time centered on women's contributions than just quickly glancing at them.I know personally in high school history that we did learn about historical women, but did not spend nearly as much time on them than historical men. I also think making mandatory classes on women of history could be a good idea.I think that the power of interpretation can contort or censor history as people who write and/or interpret literature such as the bible can influence how people view it or interpret it themselves. However, that is the thing about it, that so many people have different interpretations, that one cannot mandate that pieces such as the bible says one thing over another. In my school experience, I would have wanted to focus on more women of power, which was something that you were sort of touching on in your presentation. Learning about leaders such as Catherine the Great or Queen Victoria would be very interesting. Likewise,I feel I would be very interested in learning more about these women of power to see how female leadership can be different form male leadership.
Hello Jake,
DeleteThat's great to hear that your high school focused on women's history! I wish mine had done the same. I think mandating a history women's class would be a good idea, but if we mandate women's history then we should also enforce more narratives. In college I think everyone should take Black Studies, Queer Studies and Women's Studies classes as part of their GE requirements. If science is going to be forced then so should certain humanities classes. I agree with you when you write that people have many different interpretations, it's a cursing and a blessing. Different opinions and interpretations can create discussions, but it's when some opinions are silenced that they become dangerous. Women of the Bible have been generally unaccounted for or unexamined (except in the Madonna-whore complex) which is why I think it's important to expand the narrative and shift our focus. Learning about other female leaders is important; it shows women were leaders like Catherine the Great and Queen Victoria! Those are great examples of women in power, but we cannot forget the "ordinary" women. Women like us today, the mass of women who were agents of change or simply endured. I think a topic on "working women" would be important to teach, women who weren't monarchs but women who worked everyday and endured the hardships that many did not.
Thanks for commenting!
I really enjoyed your presentation as a whole and I thought you gave some really interesting insight into how history can be studied. I also think it is important to realize that history is an interpretation and that the majority of history that the majority of us have learned in primary schooling comes from one perspective only. I think the most important part of restructuring history education to include women’s history would be to highlight and emphasize the fact that women were around and participating in all of these movements that you spoke about, and that they were not simply sitting in the background letting the men do the work. Various texts should be used when teaching primary education to children, using only one source to teach children about history gives us a very narrow, singular view of what actually happened. I think that history is contorted and censored because the people who have interpreted what is accepted by the majority as the correct interpretation is done by those in power and is done in a way to keep that power.
ReplyDeleteHi Mallory,
ReplyDeleteI know! Women were never just "sitting in the background" or as my professor says, "People always think women were just sitting at home dusting all the time! No they weren't!" I think you have great insight as to why one history is the accepted version. The interpretation we learn is made by those in power and by those who want to remain in power. You are so right. The heternormative, white male narrative keeps those politicians and leaders in power because it empowers them (hmm the 2016 election is a perfect manifestation of white men needing to remain in power and empowering white nationalism) It creates this illusion that white men, white society and westernization are somehow the "heroes" that they're "better." They "civilized" places like South Africa and India, which what really happened was colonization and genocide. Yet, we aren't taught from that perspective. If we really want to learn about the "great" Victorian Empire, then we should also learn about the Indian Independence movement, with Mahatma Gandhi as an essential figure. When we learn about Native American (which is problematic in the first place because they did not want to be Americans) we learn about scalping and Wounded Knee. However, what we should really be taught is the genocide the American government sanctioned on Indian tribes. But we will never learn that Manifest Destiny was actually genocide. That's why understanding history as an interpretation is so important. We need to understand that westernization and white society doesn't mean freedom or enlightenment ideals always. It entails much more than what our we are taught.
Thanks for the great comment!
Allee,
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I wasn’t in class for you presentation- the one day I missed class.
The lack of female representation in history is definitely still evident. From my personal experience, I don’t remember learning about a lot about important female figures in history classes during high school and middle school. This semester, I took a US History till 1865 and the lessons were mainly about white men. We focused a lot on the Founding Fathers of America, Lincoln, and male authors. From all of it, students can conclude that women took no part in our history without their involvement mentioned in the textbooks they study everyday. Education plays such an important role in the lives of every individual. What we learn in school is a crucial part of how we view the world and how knowledgeable we are about history and the influential individuals who impacted the past. In textbooks, more often than not, women are not taught about as important figures in history, but rather just as a minor influencer. History textbook school have more information on women who contributed to their country's development, not on in America but everywhere in the world.
To restructure history education to include women’s history means rewriting most of the textbooks. I also agree with your statement that women’s history should be more emphasized and promoted here on campus. It would also be a good idea to provides women’s history class in high school for students who want to learn about the subject.