Women in Law

      

In her articles “Women’s Status during the Middle Ages and Beyond” and “Difference and Medieval Women” Judith Bennett outlines categories of difference and commonality to clarify the study of women’s experiences.  Some categories that may create different experiences include: race, class, gender, marital status, religious status, legal status, ethnicity, sexual status, and region. Women can be understood as a group in terms of political structures, legal systems, social customs, and economic arrangements.  When looking at history over longer time periods, she defines three methods: change for the better, change for the worse, and change without transformation.

The “change for the better” approach allows a student of history to simplify events into a linear understanding of continuing improvement over the years. This method views modern Europe as a more developed civilization than the Middle Ages. On the other hand, “change for the worse” is a more cynical approach to history, in which a negative interpretation of any given event is made.

The author also suggests analyzing women’s diverse experiences on a more personal level of agency and/or victimhood and discusses the concept of a “patriarchal bargain”. She mentions this “patriarchal bargain” method as a way for student to see that “difference was often just different, not necessarily ‘better’ or ‘worse’” (Bennett 15). This fits in with her “Change without transformation” framework which suggests that historical developments may alter the experience of women, but not actually transform their status within society.

I appreciate her suggestion to examine women in terms of “agency” and “victimization”. Agency is a look at what extent people worked to shape their own lives – this often could be within the larger social structure they were born into. While victimization looks to see to what extent people were oppressed and whether they played a part in or allowed this oppression to continue.

It is interesting to consider cultures such as Ancient Egypt and Etruria where women were treated with relative equality before the law, compared to Ancient Greece where they were relegated to seclusion or England where they could be burned as punishment even up to relatively modern era.

There seems to be fairly constant state of women being substandard to men throughout the historic West. The patriarchal format of society that came into play following monotheistic religions gaining prominence has created a steady state and the change without transformation model seems to be a good one to analyze this era of history.

Premodern Women in politics

In the modern era, we see women in politics with increasing frequency, but they are still a clear minority within the political system. In ancient times, women were often politically less powerful than men, but there are many striking cases where women held positions of power – demonstrating their own agency and motivation to create their lives on their terms as possible within the system of their times. Two examples of female political leaders in ancient times are Queen Puabi of Ur and Pharoah Hatshepsut of Egypt.

Queen Puabi

Puabi was a Mesopotamian queen who lived in the third millennium BCE. Her tomb is dated to c. 2550-2400 BCE. She was found buried in a large tomb in the Royal Cemetery of Ur, which was located near the temple of the Mesopotamian Moon God Nanna, the patron deity of that cemetery. There is evidence from the consistency of burial styles that the cemetery rites were done as ceremonies for the moon god.

Mesopotamian society held kings as the supreme rulers and although women held some detree of social and religious equality, they were not considered the political rulers. When remains of high ranking female leaders are found they are identified in terms of the king or other man they were married to. Queen Puabi is unique, as her personal seal in her tomb identifies her as her own person, rather than as the wife of another leader. There are inscriptions in her tomb which name other Mesopotamian leaders who are known from the Sumerian King List, which does imply some degree of family ties to the royalty of the era.

Puabi was found buried with a significant and elaborate adornment set including a headdress made of gold and jewelry made of lapis and carnelian. Much of her jewelry is in the form of fruits and leaves, implying an emphasis on fertility. Her tomb is also notable for the large number of sacrificed attendants who are buried with her. Indications are that these people were not slaves. Puabi’s high level of political power and social esteem can be seen from all of these burial details. Whether she was a political leader or religious priestess is not known for certain, but her high standing and power within society is clear.

Hatshepsut

A different kind of ancient leader was Hatshepsut, a female pharaoh who ruled Egypt for twenty years during the 18^th Dynasty of the New Kingdom era. She rose to power following her husband Thutmose II’s early death. Initially appointed as regent for Thutmose III, her young nephew (and step-son), Hatshepsut was formally declared Pharoah within four years of her leadership of the country. It is theorized that her appointment was made in response to political intrigue. There are two ideas of the motivation, one posits Hatshepsut as a political power-grabber, while another idea is that she gained this position as a method of ensuring her nephew’s future legitimate claim to become Pharoah. Under Egyptian beliefs, the Pharoah was god’s incarnation on earth, so once declared to this position Hatshepsut was Pharoah for the rest of her life, until her death in 1458 BC. She appointed Thutmose III as leader of her military, a position which suited him well. After her death, many of Hatshepsut’s monuments were defaced and her image was removed in many cases. Although during her reign her power was not challenged, it is thought now that her image was removed years after her death probably out of motivation to keep the tradition of pharonic rule as a male institution. There isn’t evidence of animosity between Thutmose III and Hatshepsut or disrespect for the political and municipal accomplishments of her reign, although there is likely a drive to maintain the formal structures of Egyptian politics into the future.

There are many interesting issues surrounding Hatshepsut’s reign as Pharoah. One is of the Egyptian structure of power and inheritance. Although women didn’t normally hold the political offices in Egypt, the royal dynasties and legitimacy of royalty were traced through the mother’s bloodline. In the case of Thutmose’s family, Hatshepsut was the daughter of a pharaoh (Thutmose I), which gave her royal standing. However, the only child she bore one child by her husband Thutmose II was a daughter. As pharaoh was a male role, it went to Thutmose III, who was a son of Thutmose II by a secondary wife. After Thutmose II’s death, it could be said that Hatshepsut had greater claim to a royal title than the appointed Pharoah.  

Politically, Hatshepsut was a remarkably strong leader and Egypt entered into a period of great peace and prosperity while she was in power. Early in her career, she prioritized trade and municipal building projects. Her temple is considered one of the Wonders of the Ancient World and her trade expeditions throughout the Middle East and Africa – solidified diplomatic and economic ties throughout the ancient world while also creating great wealth for the Egyptian kingdom.

Conclusion

Women throughout prehistory, history, and modernity have held unique positions of power. When women have the opportunity and personal skills to create opportunities of political position, they can be seen as people of great accomplishment and held in esteem and respect in their societies.

 

Women in the Home

     From ancient through Medieval times, women have had diverse roles in the home and within society. Attempts to generalize experiences or define roles seem to fall flat when looked at from different scholarly perspectives, including demographic studies, contemporary anthropological studies, and economic analysis.

      In Neolithic times and throughout hunter-gatherer cultures, women played a strong role as economic contributors in their households. When analysis is made of the time needed to prepare foods, manufacture clothing, and gather a significant percentage of a family’s foodstuffs, the woman’s contribution to the household can been seen in a concrete way, exhibiting some degree of equality with their male counterparts.

      This sharing of duties and household responsibilities can also be seen in working class Medieval households, with women still responsible to prepare food, spin fibers, create clothing, etc. At the same time, in more elite households, women begin to be put aside – as in Greek culture where elite women were not allowed out into public except for funerals or formal occasions. Slavery has been a reality throughout history, often with women in disproportionate numbers, and with a role as domestic laborers, but this often included sexual slavery as well.

      Throughout these times and cultures, women’s greatest role, however, is that of perpetuating the human population. As childbearers, women have a special status. In earlier cultures it seems that women’s role as childbearers is held up as worthy of respect and veneration – as we can see in goddess worship throughout early civilizations. It seems that there is a common trend as societies develop into models that value private property, women’s role as childbearer changes character. Earlier societies portray the feminine in many ways as a celebration of fertility and life. However, as property concerns gain importance, the greater importance is placed on women as a vessel to produce heirs for inheritance to direct descendants. It has been noted that as religions shift toward monotheism, women’s egalitarian status declines.

Sources:

• Bennett, Judith M. Women’s and Gender History in Global Perspective: Medieval Women in Modern Perspective. Washington, DC: American Historical Association, 2000. Print.
• Hughes, Sarah Shaver and Brady. Essays on Global and Comparative History: Women in Ancient Civilizations. Washington, DC: American Historical Association, 1998. Print.

National Women’s History Museum

The question of whether a National Women’s History Museum belongs on the Washington Mall has been under discussion for many years. There is currently a bi-partisan movement within Congress to pass legislation authorizing a museum to be built, funded entirely by private sector donations. Led by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), HR 863 calls for a commission to create fundraising strategy and define a location on or near the Mall for establishment of such a museum.

For reference, here is a map of the landmarks on and around the National Mall:

Source: http://www.nps.gov/nama/planyourvisit/maps.htm

The National Women’s History Museum non profit fundraising organization was founded in 1996 and has already raised $12 million toward this cause. On the Jan. 12, 2014 episode of MSNBC’s Melissa Harris Perry program, Rep. Maloney discussed the need for this museum. She mentioned women’s underrepresentation in textbooks and conventional histories, including statistics for national recognition. Of 210 National Monuments currently, only twelve are of women; similarly, of National Historic Sites, only 5% are in honor of women.

Rep. Maloney also noted that the Women’s History Museum as proposed would be built entirely with private funds, as opposed to all of the other national museums which were built with federal money.

The National Women’s History Museum states its mission on their website:

“The National Women’s History Museum affirms the value of knowing Women’s History, illuminates the role of women in transforming society and encourages all people, women and men, to participate in democratic dialogue about our future.” (Source: http://www.nwhm.org/about-nwhm/faq/general-questions)

On the MSNBC program, Rep. Maloney points out further that the museum can act as a “repository for contributions which have largely been ignored.”  One feature the National Women’s History Museum organization has already created is a diverse selection of online exhibits on topics including Chinese immigrants, spies, and factory workers.

         

Source: http://www.nwhm.org/online-exhibits/

I believe that the need to write women into history is very real, both women outstanding in their fields – such as Sally Ride in aerospace, Georgia O’Keefe in art, Geraldine Ferraro in politics, Marie Curie in science – as well as every-day women – such as indentured servants in Jamestown, slaves in the south, Civil War nurses, pioneer families, factory workers, and educators to name just a sample. There is a famous quote that states, “Well-behaved women rarely make history.” The historian Laurel Thatcher Ulrich said this in an attempt to recognize the importance of every-day women in history, as both “products of history but also agents of history,” as historian Leigh Ann Wheeler stated it in her “Ted Talk” at Binghamton University in March of 2012. Any women’s history that is developed needs to take this point of view into account, I believe.

To me, it is important for a women’s history museum to take an approach that doesn’t just include what’s been called a “we too” approach to history, or more formally “contribution history” or “compensatory history.”  In these methods women are featured whose individual achievements or breakthroughs don’t differ significantly from men’s accomplishments. I think featuring the biographical type stories of individual women’s achievements are important, but that they need to be within a larger context of what’s been called “transformative women’s history.” Authors Margaret Strobel and Marjorie Bingham define this difference in their article “Theory and Practice of Women’s History and Gender History in Global Perspective”:

“The most difficult task is that of writing transformative women’s history in which the fundamental understanding of a period (or periodization) is reshaped by taking women into account. The difference between contribution and transformation in the difference between ‘add women and stir’ and reconceptualizing history.”

I think a museum and archive which can take this approach to history would be a great asset.