Historiography Essay - Gender Perspectives on Women's History
LATN 6003 – Historiography
University of Cincinnati
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
The history of gender has integrated experiences of men and women together, illuminatingtheir
relationship and providing improved understandings of both sexes in a profoundly new
way.The issue, however, when addressing the relationship between gender history and the study
ofwomen specifically is that it is not definitive — the move towards a gender encompassing
approachto history was a vital step required in the historiographical field to highlight new
perspectives ofwomen by comparing them to their male counterparts, yet this step arguably
occurred too soon,preventing the study of women to flourish and develop in a meaningful way
before advancing to thestudy of both genders comparatively. Thus, this essay will argue rather
that gender history hasilluminated new understandings of female experience by comparison to
men and not obscuring thestudy of women, yet equally encouraging the emergence of the study
of masculinity which, to anextent, proved counter-productive to the early aims of women’s
history.The 1960s witnessed the emergence of public history acknowledged smaller, oppressed
andignored groups, including women, in historical analysis, and although the emergence of
genderhistory in the 1970s impacted the study of women and its significance, it would be a
mistake toignore its progress and the substantial impact it had upon perceiving women in
history. Studyingwomen of the past was crucial in laying the groundwork for pursuing a study
of gender morebroadly, and endeavouring into the study of gender history left women’s history
vulnerable to beingneglected, allowing it to become somewhat “lost in history, to history.”1
Yet, despite these concernsbeing based on legitimate grounds, these separatist views have only
encouraged the ghettoisation ofwomen’s history which proved to be an increasing criticism of
women’s history. What was requiredwas the integration of women’s and feminist history into
mainstream history to prevent historiansanalysing “distorted pictures” of the past.2 It is
challenging to mainstream women into a maledetermined framework, and thus, Murphy
claims, it would have been “academically unsound” tohave a separate women’s history.3 It is
more productive to look at gender as opposed to just women;gender history is not
incompatible with or opposed to the study of women; historians are notconfronted with
a choice of one or the other; both subjects complement one another and therefore,gender
history has highlighted unique historical perspectives and understandings of
women.4Gender history actually improved, rather than obscured women’s history, with the
existence ofstudies of masculinity emphasising understandings of women through comparison
of their male counterparts. Wallach-Scott emphasises the productivity of evaluating ‘gender’,
as opposed to justwomen.5 This expansion in historical thought was fuelled by
acknowledgement of the lack ofreference to and existence of women in historiography by
the American Civil Rights Movement andthe French Annales school, of which both advocated
broadening historical perspective from thenational, political, military and intellectual approach
to history, strictly adhered to previously bymale historians.6 Despite the emergence of women’s
history in the 1960s and 70s, the move towardsgender history subsequently caused feelings of
neglect on behalf of men’s history, thus encouragingthe emergence of studies of
masculinity by the likes of John Tosh and Michael Roper, whoemphasised the
importance of the home and emotion in defining masculinity, redefining thestereotype
of what were initially components associated with women and thus the two are
mutuallycompatible, emphasising the relationship between the two, rather than
women’s history beingobscured by developments in the study of masculinity.However, it is
also crucial to analyse the relationships within the sexes as well as betweenthem; in the case of
women — between housewives and female servants, mothers and daughters,between mothers,
wet-nurses and midwives.7 Stone claims “Thou shalt not write about womenexcept in relation
to men and children.”8 He fails to acknowledge women are not solely conditionedby relations
with men; their identity and experience are also influenced by their relationship withother
women too. Ross discusses the importance of survival networks in Edwardian Britain
amongstmothers of the working-class, and the relationships founded between women, and how
they usedthese relationships with other mothers to support one another through motherhood to
make theirlives more enjoyable.9 This reflects wider ideas about the importance of studying
relationshipsbetween women in order to understand their experience, one which
cannot be understood orcomprehended by men of the time or understood in necessary depth
with the existence of menwithin the same category and the emergence of gender history
bringing men back into the attentionof historical narrative, preventing women’s history from
properly developing.Edwardian motherhood exemplifies the biases of historiography which
emphasise the needfor women’s history singularly as well as gender history. During the period
of history wherebymany women lacked political, marital and social rights or class status; the
emergence of genderhistory has brought women into relation to men, which although crucial,
cannot allow historians to account for experience of women individually in the past. For
example, Newman’s publication ofInfant Mortality: A Social Problem in 1907 blamed lower-
class women for the early deaths of theirchildren due to ignorance and neglect of childcare.10
The source is produced by a male who has noconcept or understanding of being a mother and
the evaluation of these sources by a male historianwho too, cannot understand or empathise
with mothers of this period, stresses the importance ofstudying women individually. Indeed
approaching history from a gendered perspective is crucial inappreciating the evolution of
femininity through a historical narrative as a feminist one.11 Yetwomen’s history is just
as complex as mens’ and feminist perspectives are equally important12 —men and women’s
history share similarities in that neither are logical or cohesive, however thestudy of women
is entirely different to men’s history through differing experiences and “theexperience
of time itself.”13 The history of women can only be understood in the plural, not as asingular
concept; women’s experiences differed depending on class, financial situation and
socialhierarchies. Murphy stresses the importance of not only analysing new sources but re-
reading oldsources from a different perspective, for example, analysing diary entries of
Edwardian mothersinstead of solely evaluating official state documents produced by
male politicians, which areimmediately biased due to the gender and class
affiliation of the source.14 History has beencharacterised by male scholarship and
thus, studying individual groups of women such asprostitutes, servants, peasant women
and in this case, working-class mothers, have been analysedthrough a biased and notably
restrictive lens, analysing women from an angle which has obscuredunderstandings of female
experience for centuries.15 Gender history has to a large extent improved, rather than obscured
the study of women,intertwining studies of women into the study of gender and thus,
integrating women into thehistorical narrative, resolving previous criticism of the
ghettoisation of women’s history. Femininitycan only be truly understood and comprehended
in its full capacity in a relative context throughcomparison to masculinity; gender history
has also illuminated gaps in the study of women,bringing to light areas which
have not been covered and thus pushing forward historicalunderstandings of women
and providing fruitful directions for further research. Although onecannot deny the
overpowering nature of male studies in the historical narrative which havedominated
gender history and fuelled desire for studies of masculinity that have, rather
thanconcealing women’s history, drawn attention away from its importance and have thus
somewhat undermined its initial aims of bring women’s history to an equal level to
understandings of men inhistorical analysis. The blurred differences between gender
history and women’s history havecaused many studies of women to be obscured by labelling
research under the category of genderhistory when, in fact, it is actually a study of women.
This cannot be believed to have hidden thestudy of women entirely, for it is still in existence,
but has merely been placed under a differentlabel.
