Gender and the Politics of History by Joan Wallach Scott contains a series of essays that look at various gender/women histories (women 's, labor, etc.) and how the perception of women and gender has changed over time. This is an updated version of the original text with an added sections further discussing the term "gender" and its definition. In the preface to the new version, Scott discusses how the term "gender" in the modern sense can be represented of five different groups: men, women, homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals (ix). This was a strong point for the author to make, but it does not get much of a discussion in any more of the text. Most of the text defines gender as male or female.
One of the more interesting discussions …show more content…
It has only been since the 1970s that women 's history was really its own subject. Women have always been in the picture, but it was not always considered important to acknowledge them. One of the prime examples of this in the text is the election of Nellie Neilson as the American Historical Association 's (AHA) first female president in 1943. While this should have been a momentous occasion for Neilson and the AHA, it was barely recognized in publications and through the organization, who basically thought that sticking one woman in a position of power should be enough (189). Another great example is women in France being recognized as amateur workers rather than actual labor workers- they were recognized but not in a true sense …show more content…
Because of its original release date in 1988, I believe that it was a diverse text of its time because it looks at various classes of women and women in the workforce. As far as comparing with modern women 's history studies, I believe there is a lack of focus on women of color as well as utilizing the new forms of women. There is an understanding that in this text the terms "women" and "gender" are pretty much interchangeable, but because of the modern connotations of the word, I believe that the title of the book should have been changed to Women and the Politics of History, or there should have been additional essays added to the text to include more
One of the more interesting discussions …show more content…
It has only been since the 1970s that women 's history was really its own subject. Women have always been in the picture, but it was not always considered important to acknowledge them. One of the prime examples of this in the text is the election of Nellie Neilson as the American Historical Association 's (AHA) first female president in 1943. While this should have been a momentous occasion for Neilson and the AHA, it was barely recognized in publications and through the organization, who basically thought that sticking one woman in a position of power should be enough (189). Another great example is women in France being recognized as amateur workers rather than actual labor workers- they were recognized but not in a true sense …show more content…
Because of its original release date in 1988, I believe that it was a diverse text of its time because it looks at various classes of women and women in the workforce. As far as comparing with modern women 's history studies, I believe there is a lack of focus on women of color as well as utilizing the new forms of women. There is an understanding that in this text the terms "women" and "gender" are pretty much interchangeable, but because of the modern connotations of the word, I believe that the title of the book should have been changed to Women and the Politics of History, or there should have been additional essays added to the text to include more