Men Are Generic, Women Are Special/Headscratchers
- The existence of "Women's History Month" that celebrates influential and powerful women in history yet there is no month celebrating men's history unless they are of an ethnic minority or religion. This implies that women are special enough to have a month dedicated to their own history while male history equals generic history. (Also 'generic history' tends to ignore men's personal experience in favor of their actions; which makes 'generic history' a form of upholding men's socialization to act instead of feel. See Gender Dynamics Index.)
- Actually, its in response to the fact that "History" generally deals with great things men have done, and celebrating men's accomplishments, but ignores or only sparingly mentions great things women have done (e.g. science textbooks that will go into great deal of numerous men who have advanced science, but mention just Marie Curie, as if she was the only woman who contributed anything to science.) So really, "Women's History Month" seeks to amend the fact that men are viewed as the default players in history, and women only rarely get mentioned unless in a class specifically about Women's History.
- This would be exactly the dynamic. Instead of correcting the representation of women in regular History, women's accomplishments are singled out and made 'special' by virtue of their gender.
- It's spelled His Story for a reason, amirite?
- From the Greek historia meaning "knowledge acquired by investigation" and of no relation whatsoever to a gender pronoun derived from Middle English.
- Because there was and still is a lot of resistance to including women in "History," because there is still the view that men create "history," and women are every once in a while special enough to contribute something. So its more of a case of women and men are both special, but due to resistance women need a month to try and catch up to the other 11 that are devoted to men.
- Well perhaps the name "Feminism History Month" would avert this trope. It is a month dedicated to celebrating history of the feminist movement and feminists in history so perhaps renaming it that might get rid of any possible accusations of being sexist?
- So women can't contribute to things outside of the feminist movement?
- Ooh, let's take this one step further -- i.e. the implication that anything noteworthy a woman does is somehow "feminist" just because it's a woman doing something men normally do. Yes, there's reasons to celebrate this (especially when it encourages women to get involved in male-dominated fields), but STILL...
- So women can't contribute to things outside of the feminist movement?
- If Women's History Month is designed to disavow Men Are Generic, Women Are Special, by highlighting particular women and particular groups of women they are instead supporting the trope in the most effective way possible. With their premise it's impossible to not support the trope if they highlight women taking traditionally male roles -- which is basically everything that gets recorded in the history books. In fact if this trope is not true to life then there is no need for a women's rights movement
- Actually, its in response to the fact that "History" generally deals with great things men have done, and celebrating men's accomplishments, but ignores or only sparingly mentions great things women have done (e.g. science textbooks that will go into great deal of numerous men who have advanced science, but mention just Marie Curie, as if she was the only woman who contributed anything to science.) So really, "Women's History Month" seeks to amend the fact that men are viewed as the default players in history, and women only rarely get mentioned unless in a class specifically about Women's History.