History versus herstory

[JackintheGreen]

I've been knocking these words around this week, and though I have always HATED the word 'herstory' - that's right, I hate it so much I am purposefully putting within quotes to deny it's existence as a real word - I decided to look it up on Wikipedia, which actually has a fair entry on it. Good for them!

But then, on a lark, I decided to look it up on Conservapedia. Who could have guessed that it wouldn't be included? Shocking! Anyway, I think it needs to be included, but I am unwilling to forgo, even temporarily, my hatred of the word to see that right be done. So I'm thinking that maybe the smart people of DU could come up with an entry, singly or collectively, that could be submitted in an effort to rectify what is undoubtedly an unwitting oversight.

Any takers?

[slj0101]

1. I doubt anyone really uses that.

Any scholar will tell you that the word history has Greek roots, and doesn't literally mean "his story."

Like the whole Political Correctness thing, I believe this is a bullshit term someone may have once used and right-wingers capitalized upon.

[JackintheGreen]

4. Uh...well, duh...

*I* would tell you it has Greek roots, but clearly you didn't go to school at Hampshire College, and it's come up more than a few times more recently while I've been working on my diss. at Penn. What I find particularly funny about it, though, is that while it was coined in the mid-1970s as a move to highlight the perceived biases in historigraphy it ignores that fact that is many (most?) gendered languages the word for 'history' is feminine. How queer. Wait, can I say that?

[slj0101]

6. I know, I didn't mean to be patronizing.

I really do believe most PC newspeak is fabricated and/or exaggerated by detractors of women and minorities.

[JackintheGreen]

9. I didn't either. I apologize for my 'duh.'

But stereotypes - the crazy feminist, the red-faced drunk - all come from somewhere. I've known, and infuriated, more than my fair share of the former in ways that I ought to be ashamed of.

[JackintheGreen]

10. Self-delete: DUPE

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. why do you hate it so much?

[slj0101]

3. Not speaking for the OP, it's anachronistic.

"History" doesn't literally mean "his story," so the person who uses the term "herstory" looks like a complete idiot.


It would be like calling a manual a "womanual"- why must we assume that only men need technical advice from a book? :P


speaking of complete idiots, edited for spelling.

[JackintheGreen]

7. As the OP, that sums it up pretty well

Faux amis drive me crazy. That fact that certain kinds of neophyte feminists still uses the term also drives me crazy. There's plenty to be angry about, but I prefer my critiques based on fact.

And when I was ten I had a female mail carrier. I called her the "femail man." But then I was ten and though I was clever. The college underclass should know better, but alas! they do not.

[idgiehkt]

11. "drive me crazy"

I really think you should let it go. They aren't hurting anyone. Isn't it true that thousands of children starve to death every day on this planet...in the general scheme of things, that is feminist reworkings of language are incredibly insignificant. It always seems to fly all over sexist men though, even those that purport to be liberals. Maybe you should examine why your resentment level is so high about something so stupid.

:shrug:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. ...

:thumbsup:

[hippywife]

15. ...

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[jpgray]

18. I dunno--we all get irrationally upset over peripheral things

Lots of the rants in the Lounge are over trivial things.

[idgiehkt]

43. but the emotion behind it isn't trivial

otherwise it wouldn't be a 'rant'. The emotion is significant to the rantor that is ranting...so the subject of the rant holds significance. I just wonder why, because it always seems like a certain prototype of man gets upset about stuff like this.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. It strikes me as rather anti-intellectual.

People who us it seem to think that "history" actually means "his story" and that they're being clever by calling it "herstory."

I remember somewhere people complaining about the title "Children of Men." They hope it bombed at the box office, without ever having seen the actual movie. Again, anti-intellectualism reared it's ugly head. Frankly, I don't think it has much to do with feminism at all. There's nothing feminist about anti-intellectualism.

Of course, there are people who use "herstory" and are fully aware of the etymology of "history." In which case they're just using a bad pun.

But that's arguable a worse offense.

:P

[idgiehkt]

42. I don't

see anything 'anti-intellectual' about pointing out the inherent sexim in the English language, in the case of "Children of Men". I do find it amusing when people like the OP use such strong language to describe silly little word plays that don't hurt anyone. I've heard the word 'herstory' used, and I thought it was kind of cute. It didn't really register with me either way. What it does do is illuminate the sexist viewpoint of just about all of written human history, just by using a single word. I think that's clever, not anti-intellectual.

[Shakespeare]

44. I disagree.

If your pun is based upon a false premise to begin with--the complete misunderstanding of the etymology of the word--then I think the joke fails miserably.

I just don't think we have to sacrifice rationality and intellect to make a point as feminists. There are so many other, legitimate (and powerful) ways of doing so without throwing around that ridiculous non-word.

And because there are a lot of women (and men) out there who have no clue that "herstory" is based on a false etymological premise, it just comes off sounding dumb, and I have no stomach for that. It becomes a distraction, and can be turned against us more easily than it can be used in any positive way.

[idgiehkt]

45. This is the first time I've heard that word used in a very long time

And the times I have heard it used it was used in a tongue in cheek sense. It's strange because the only people I've heard use it (which I could probably count on one hand, at least until this thread) were all college educated and certainly aware of the etymology, so to speak. If something like that can be turned against feminism to the point where there are consequences, then we are in serious trouble. I just don't buy the depth of emotion behind the whole argument because I usually find it's men who are sexist to begin with, whether they admit it or not, that are most upset by it's usage.

[Shakespeare]

51. Well, hopefully it's falling out of favor.

And unfortunately, the times I've heard (and read, even worse) it used, the speaker/writer seemed completely unaware of the etymological disconnect. Maybe because I write/teach English it's especially irksome to me, but it just makes me cringe when I see it used. People can say, "oh, it's just a word," but there is real power in language, and we ignore that truth at our peril. The tendency to just brush it off is the same thing that gets me so riled over the "democrat party" misspeak. Language is a tool and a weapon, and it serves us best to use it correctly in our battles.

You kind of make my point for me when you see it's usually men who seem most upset by its usage. Because, no matter how wrong-headed and sexist a position they're coming from, they do have a legitimate point about the word's illegitimacy. I figure, why give them the ammo when it's ultimately so totally pointless? We have much better ways to achieve our goals.

[idgiehkt]

57. Good points

However, as someone who is fascinated with language and with history, I find sexist viewpoints and language in history a lot more disturbing. I don't think this word is a big deal; it's a feminist/lesbian separatist tradition to examine language and how it influences our thought processes and beliefs. I've read quite a bit of feminist theory regarding this, even Mary Daly who truly can be exhausting to read sometimes because of her parsings of sexism in language, and I have to say I appreciate their efforts and being made to think about these kinds of things, even if it's fallen out of favor in the almost reactionary 21 century.

There is so much language out there that could be said to be more cumulatively damaging to women than 'herstory' is to English, or men, or whomever the presumed victim is.

[Shakespeare]

62. I agree completely with that.

That's why the inaccuracy of the herstory thing is such a sore spot for me--there ARE other words out there that reflect serious patriarchal prejudices in language. "History" just isn't one of them, but unfortunately (at least as of 5-10 years ago), there was something pop-culture-catchy about that non-word that people gravitated to, for good and bad.

I'd like to throw that word on the trash heap along with Camille Paglia, and focus on other, better things. ;-)

Aside from an occasional GD subthread, I don't think I've ever seen this discussed on DU, and it's just fascinating, and really fascinating to see the emotions come out on all sides (my own included).

[idgiehkt]

64. It's the emotions that intrigue me

when it comes to men who have strong reactions to it. Camille Paglia...well I think she's running her own game, I really don't see much of a strong philosophy coming out of her at all, whether feminism or sexism...she just seems to be about herself. But as someone who has been in the gay community since twenty three and who has spent quite a bit of time reading work by women who love deconstructing language, I don't like to see their contributions dismissed out of hand. I enjoy their work and the contributions they've made to at least my life by illuminating just what it is I'm saying when I say what I say.

[JackintheGreen]

75. I don't deny the emotion,

but you seem to think that I haven't given this any thought whatsoever. In fact, you say "I don't like to see their contributions dismissed out of hand." I must beg to differ. I have done no such thing, and believe it or not, I am entirely capable of changing my opinion on this should I be presented with an adequate argument. I am frankly offended at the suggestion that this is a knee-jerk reaction by some kind of sub-Neanderthal chauvinist. That I may be - just present me with a convincing argument - but if so I am a sub-Neanderthal chauvinist capable of higher-level thought.

[idgiehkt]

79. I'm going by your word choices

like "hatred" and "highly smug". It is also a myth that needs to be debunked that men who have problems with feminism are some kind of genetic throwback to so-called 'caveman days' (which have been historically misrepresented, but that's a whole other ballpark). All men have male privilege, and therefore can theoretically have something to lose in a more equal society, not just the dimwitted ones.

[JackintheGreen]

88. Again you're making assumptions

I do not have "problems with feminism" as such. I do have problems with certain aspects of it, just as I have problems with concepts like "unpacking the backpack of privilege" and "we must fight them there so we won't have to fight them here." That does not mean that I reject out of hand the validity of the arguments, just that I object to some of the ways in which the they are manifested.

Phrases like "highly smug" I could apply to myself at times. We all have our failings and biases that we must work through. I've just happened to alight on a particularly sensitive one.

[idgiehkt]

90. I love to hear you articulate it more, why it is so sensitive.

Really,I'm in earnest. Because that is something that is truly rare.

I do like that phrase "unpacking the backpack of privilege", that is quite clever; so I wouldn't have an objection to that but then I'm a fan of poetry and find poetic liscense delightful.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. Oh, I find it highly anti-intellectual.

Boycotting "Children of Men" for being sexist strikes me like boycotting "Harry Potter" for spreading witchcraft.

[idgiehkt]

58. It all depends on your point of view

I don't know about the former but I know the latter was done. I know little about the work you mention so I don't know if it is sexist or not; judging from the title, it certainly could be.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. The title uses the antiquated form of "man" meaning everybody...

...with poetic license. "Children of People" sounds dumb. So does "The African American of Narcissus."

People who judge things from titles are just the sort of anti-intellectuals I'm talking about.

[idgiehkt]

63. yep

but it really doesn't mean everybody, and never did. Not really, and we all know that. Like I said, I hate to judge a work based just on the title, so I really can't go any further with this particular point.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. "but (man) really doesn't mean everybody, and never did"

Well now this comes to the crux of the OP. "Man" clearly did mean both "male" and "humanity", they were synonymous, and that's hardly ancient history, as did the proto-Germanic "mannaz" and the PIE root meaning either "man," "person," or "hand."

[idgiehkt]

73. talk about not knowing etymology

Very few people are aware of what you just said. Feminists attempted to change language because they believed that sexist language reinforces sexim in the human psyche. I tend to agree.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

74. Changing languages is fine.

But to try and change history, saying "man" never meant all of humankind, is baloney.

[idgiehkt]

78. It's human nature that what it means today is what is relevant

And what it means today is men. People do not care about the etymology; as children we are programmed to accept this kind of sexim in language before we can even articulate well enough to question it. What I don't care for in arguments like this is that these women, the ones who came up with the deconstruction of sexism in language, and subsequently terms like 'herstory', were the most strident feminist activists. They were the ones that marched for civil rights, for abortion rights, for gay rights. They are not bad guys, they are progressive heroes.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

82. ...

It's anti-intellectual to take things at face value without giving it a moment's thought.

[idgiehkt]

86. what these feminists understood/understand

is that most of the world is 'anti-intellectual' and they concerned themselves with how language influences the continuation of sexism, and set about trying to change it. It's really an honorable goal, if naive, so I don't see the basis for the strong reaction against it that I see from some men.

[JackintheGreen]

29. Clearly I'm an irrational lunatic

frothing at the mouth, pontificating on all things tiny and meaningless, rather like Owl or conservative talk radio. I wasn't kicking around the term this week for fun; I happen to be in grad school, and the word actually came up in context. In my field it is a concept that still needs to be treated, whether the word itself is dismissed or not, before other projects can be undertaken. If you happen to have time to read back to my OP, you'll see that I only mentioned that I despised the term within the context of a greater project. Whatever my feeling are, they are immaterial to the project proposed: writing a conservapedia entry, which I thought might be fun to collaborate on with the all the smart people here.

But you're right, DU is a serious forum dealing with serious issues. I had *totally* forgotten about the thousands of children starving all over the world. I'll drop this and get right on that.

[idgiehkt]

39. I think the fact that you "despise"

something so trivial is what needs attention.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. I think the fact that you fail to realize...

he's being facetious suggests that you've used "herstory" before.

[idgiehkt]

52. No, actually it sounds clumsy to me

The level of emotion behind it, or his "hatred of the word", as he said, is what I find so curious.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Really?

Because if you were curious about it, I'd think you'd realized he was simply exaggerating a pet peeve.

[idgiehkt]

80. I'm not convinced of that

and successive posts of his seem to point in another direction.

[IA_Seth]

13. Womanual.

That made me laugh, are there really people that would use that?!

[Shakespeare]

14. You posted pretty much what I was going to say.

I'm about as hardcore a feminist as you'll find, but the "herstory" business is just stupid.

[LostinVA]

25. This is one of my pet rants

"Herstory," "womyn," etc. It drives me bonkers, and I would definitely consider myself a hardcore feminist.

[jpgray]

26. Exactly. There's so much real and ugly sexism out there, why defend this silly word?

Like any worthwhile movement, feminism has its silly aspects that are subject to criticism. Criticizing one word doesn't undermine the goals of feminism or detract from its worth in any serious way.

[LostinVA]

32. Yup, exactly

[JackintheGreen]

31. Well, I'm glad I'm not alone in this.

Things like this only detract from feminism as a whole. Makes it look ridiculous.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Gotta wonder...

if some people are just mad because they use the word themselves.

[idgiehkt]

41. no it doesn't

If someone can be turned against feminism by a play on words, they weren't much up for it to begin with.

[JackintheGreen]

46. But that's the crux of it, no?

If one small word can be used by the enemies of feminism - the penis of evil, as it were - isn't it more harmful than helpful? I don't dispute the critique in the early 70s that engendered this particular neologism, and the theorists who conceived it were undoubtedly thoughtful, very intelligent people. But the word has since been appropriated by many less thoughtful, often highly smug, feminists as a weapon to wield against the clear sexism of "his story," by which I mean the concept of "his story" as etymological provenance not historiography itself. This faux amis ends up being used as proof that history is irredeemably sexist. After all, it's written right into the word, right? But it ignores the actual root of the word, which is 'knowledge' in Greek. Clever, if irritating, puns do less to illuminate the issue than they do to obscure it, largely because they spark emotional reactions like mine and debates like this one.

[idgiehkt]

49. Gee, where have I been?

"But the word has since been appropriated by many less thoughtful, often highly smug, feminists as a weapon to wield against the clear sexism of "his story," by which I mean the concept of "his story" as etymological provenance not historiography itself."

It's being wielded as a weapon?

And just who are these 'highly smug' feminists...how dare they be smug, about a word, no less. Something is just rotten in Denmark, as far as your word choices, and it has little to do with 'history' vs. 'herstory'.

[JackintheGreen]

56. You're doubting that I've had personal contact with humans now?

Just who are these feminists? Well, you've caught me. I've made them all up in an effort to bolster my argument. I've never actually spoken to a person, but I've seen pictures of them in magazines. And hear about them on the radio all the time.

[idgiehkt]

60. That's a value judgement though

A suspicious one. "Highly smug feminists" sounds to me like you think they are infringing on your turf somehow. What's a shame is that the 'herstory' thing is a red herring and what would be really enlightening, worthwhile and original would be for you to honestly explore those feelings and write about them. I would love to read something like that, just what nerve these women are hitting, for real; instead of 'this is what they do or say that pisses me off', how about 'this is how I feel when they do that and this is why'.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. "turned against feminism?"

:rofl:

[idgiehkt]

50. you know....'detract from'

'make it look ridiculous'

in the sense of the post I was responding to...

"Well, I'm glad I'm not alone in this.
Things like this only detract from feminism as a whole. Makes it look ridiculous."

that one.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

67. I disagree

I posted my defence of Herstory below.

However in regards of "womyn" I agree with you, but its usage seems to stay in the fringe realms of ardent misandrist separatism.

[GirlinContempt]

61. Agreed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. It's a really bad pun.

That isn't even trying to be funny.

[Gen. Jack D. Ripper]

8. Never heard this term before

odd...

[LanternWaste]

16. Herstograms...

And Histograms will be changed to Herstograms. Hysterectomy will changed to Hyrstorectomy. :shrug:

But then I'm the last guy in the world that thinks A.D. was just fine and dandy-- no need to muck things up with C.E.

[slj0101]

20. To paraphrase George Carlin:

"That's the kind of thing you'd hear on 'Late Night With David Letterperson.'" :D

[jpgray]

17. What a herstrionic debate this is.

:hide:

[Book Lover]

21. All this fuss over a feminist pun?

This thread is one of the most illuminating ones I've read in a long time. Who would have thought that a punning neologism would engender such strongly negative feelings?

[PVnRT]

22. Such a cunning linguist

n/t

[Book Lover]

27. Thank you! I'll be here all week.

Tip your waitresses!

[jpgray]

28. Waitpersons

[Book Lover]

30. *smacks forehead*

What's wrong with me?!

[jpgray]

34. :D I think most people see where the defensiveness is coming from

Feminism has been attacked so often that people tend to not want to give up any ground under any circumstances, but in this instance I don't think it's that big of a deal. To go with the poster who said "what about starving children, etc." what about the really important attacks on feminism, or the real ugly sexism--those are more worth a strong defense than "herstory" is, in my opinion. But the Lounge is for debating trifles, right?

[Book Lover]

37. Let's not forget truffles!

Seriously for a sec, though, I actually really like the word herstory; I think it is useful in certain critiquing circumstances, and I think it's euphonious. But I am not prepared to defend it outside of a useful context. Like you say, this is the Lounge.

[jpgray]

38. Well yeah, I wouldn't really think twice about seeing it

But since someone brought it up, I thought to myself "wouldn't everyone love to hear my opinions on this issue?" :dunce:

[jpgray]

23. In the Lounge, Olive Garden and fried chicken engender strong opinions

Er, I mean, they "engenderequality" strong opinions.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. I can't imagine the anger the OP must be experiencing...

the unadulterated rage required to use quotation marks must be enormous.

[Book Lover]

33. Let's just be grateful he's not using double quotes

Thankfully, single quotes are strong enough to contain his rage.

[JackintheGreen]

36. 'I' 'cannot' 'tell' 'you' 'how' 'very' 'furious' 'I' 'am' 'right' 'now'

'Arrrrrgh'

:evilgrin:

[idgiehkt]

40. it doesn't

that is the facade behind which hides inherent sexism. The word is just something to hang it on, like pinning the tail on a donkey.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

66. I am a hardcore feminist, and I think the term is bullshit.

At least be factually correct with your criticism of the patriarchy. It isn't even particularly witty.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

55. With the term "herstory" a lot of people miss the point

Feminists are well-aware that history does not literally mean "his story", but the term "herstory" relates to a movement within academic feminism and feminist historiography to redress the balance when it comes to the writing of history. Feminist critiques about historiography are often that it is written from a typically phallocentric perspective, and often a white phallocentric perspective. "Herstory" is not "political correctness gone mad" but it is rather a description of the product of feminist historians who wish to readdress traditional male dominance in historiography.

[GirlinContempt]

65. Well, yeah

but it doesn't seem to be used that way. Every time someone I know has used it, it's been as a replacement for history, just like womyn or what have you. And it does come off as really, really silly. When properly used to name a specific branch of history who's sole purpose is feminist-perspective, it makes more sense.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

69. The word is being used incorrectly

if it is used as you describe it. Perhaps it is because I am from a different culture, but when I have heard and seen it written it has been in the context of its original intent.

[GirlinContempt]

70. Oh, of course.

But incorrectly seems to be far more common than correctly, at least in my experience :)

[idgiehkt]

72. it does have a 'silly' connotation

but I find it 'silly' in the goofy sense, not in a derisive sense.

I appreciate the poster above laying it out in scholarly terminology, because in my book the women that have re-cast, or attempted to, history from a female or feminist perspective are far from being bad guys in my book.

What I find disturbing is the lack of articulation on the part of males about why these terms are so offensive to them. Because I don't have a strong reaction to that word at all. And I know that lesbian separatism and strident feminism have fallen out of favor in this Paris Hilton era, but those viewpoints/movements/belief systems paved the way for a lot of things that we as women now take for granted. I do kind of cringe to hear women deriding the language of women who busted their asses to give my generation and the successive one access to freedoms that they did not have.

[GirlinContempt]

84. Here's the thing.

Most people seem to take people way less seriously when they say silly things. It's pretty hard to take their points on feminism or the economy seriously, no matter what age or gender, if they say really silly things in a very serious way. This word isn't the only example, but it's one.

What I find disturbing is that there are feminists out there who seem to view all aspects of the 'movement' as some sort of untouchable holy grail. If you disagree, you're immediately a sexist. Or, you don't care about womens rights. Or you're a Paris Hilton. Fuck that. Any 'movement' that can't handle a little scrutiny should be disbanded anyway. If we can't even handle internal criticism and discussion, let alone external, how can any progress be made? How can we even take each other seriously? Feminism and past feminists shouldn't be on a pedestal or under a glass case. Steps forward should always be acknowledged, and respected, but idiocy doesn't deserve my respect because the non-idiotic parts paved the way for me. Part of 'paving the way' is stepping back and letting others walk it, repair the cracks, and add street signs.

I don't know how much of that applies to you, I don't know you well enough to say. But it's how I feel in general.

[idgiehkt]

87. I'm kind of different

I'm suspicious of people who have strong or serious reactions to things that are trivial. It disguises the real issues, and I want to assume that most people have the sense to discern what is important in a discussion and what it is not; i.e, allowing that just because someone uses the word 'herstory' does not make them an idiot or make everything they say thereafter irrelevant.

As far as the 'disbanding' you speak of, that is happening in this country. I know you are in Canada, but I am not. When and if American women lose (even more) access to abortion, we might be a little less willing to align ourselves with the derision that sexist men hold for feminism.

[skygazer]

91. But you're having a strong and serious reaction to something trivial

The OP stated that the word bugs the crap out of him. I'm sorry but that's trivial. And you've taken that statement and decided that he must have deeply rooted anti-feminist feelings and that anyone who doesn't appreciate your point of view here is somehow spitting on Elizabeth Cady Stanton's grave.

[idgiehkt]

94. I think there is a difference between

'bugs the crap out of' and "and though I have always HATED the word 'herstory' - that's right, I hate it so much I am purposefully putting within quotes to deny it's existence as a real word." To be bugged by something is a bit different in my book than the level of emotion behind the word hatred, but maybe that's a linguistic tic.

And the reference to 'highly smug feminists' also caught my eye as well.

I'm also not talking about feminists from the era of Elizabeth Cady Staunton, either, I'm talking about so-called 'radical feminists' that were most vocal in the late sixties and early seventies.

[GirlinContempt]

92. It isn't a conscious thing.

People tend to take others less seriously if the other person is saying stupid things. If you start an argument with a stupid point and finish with a good one, chances are your good one will be taken less seriously. Dislike it if you want, but that's been my experience. If you'd like to change it, great.

The disbanding that *I* am talking about isn't happening in your country. I'm saying if you can't self evaluate you shouldn't be around. That has nothing to do with abortion rights. And the very fact that you're equating evaluation and disagreement with sexist male talking points says a lot. I'm a woman. I think that certain aspects of feminism are meaningless, in some case misguided, and in other cases even sexist. That isn't because my brain has been taken over by sexist men, it's because that's what I think. And the idea that men who dislike or disagree with some aspect of feminism are immediately sexist is sexist in and of itself.

[idgiehkt]

95. Good points

But the 'evaluation' that you refer to isn't coming from feminists or even women, much of the time. It's a backlash toward feminism that is going on in this country, just as women here actually are losing access to abortion rights little by little by little.


To your point that "the idea that men who dislike or disagree with some aspect of feminism are immediately sexist is sexist in and of itself"...the word was not 'dislike' or 'disagree' the word was 'hate', in all caps. It was the emotion behind it that I questioned, and continue to find intriguing, because the word is not used that much, at least not outside of feminist cirles. The OP also said that the 'highly smug' feminists in question used this word to 'stick it to the man'. I asked for further articulation of that because I don't even know what that could possibly be referring to. I'm curious about the emotional reaction to something that seems so incredibly trivial.

[JackintheGreen]

85. Does this help?

For all that has been said in this thread, by me included, my objection to the word is that I have met far too many self-professed feminists who do assume the 'history' is, etymologically, 'his'+'story' and appropriate the word in this false etymology as a blunt instrument to - if you'll pardon the expression - stick it to the man.

I do not object to the word as a theoretical construct. What I object to is the wrong-headed mythology of the word that has become accepted fact by too many (usually) neophyte feminists. Maybe they are later disabused of this. The fact that I cannot say for sure makes my position, at the very least, somewhat untenable.

[idgiehkt]

89. it's just a freaking word, though

The way you characterize the feminists that say it as 'highly smug' makes me sense that more than just their use of that word has offended you.

And I can't understand this phrase at all: "and appropriate the word in this false etymology as a blunt instrument to - if you'll pardon the expression - stick it to the man."

What are they doing with the 'blunt instrument'...I can't imagine what actions they are taking with the use of that word that might be so offensive but I am not in your environment. How exactly are they 'sticking it to you', so to speak? Maybe that is the problem, I just don't understand what it is they are doing to you with it, so I can't appreciate the level of distress you feel about it.

:shrug:

[jpgray]

76. Yep

[JackintheGreen]

71. Too many are not aware of it at all

You are absolutely correct in defining the motivation behind the term, but I feel that you are far too kind in assuming that all feminists are aware of history's etymological roots. Many do, but I have run across many who do not. They simply haven't interrogated the term in any meaningful way. The intervention of the word herstory was perhaps a necessary one, but I find it remarkable that - to borrow a phrase used by idgiehkt - there is a certain prototype of feminist (I would suggest the term archetype) who accepts certain assumptions about feminism without questioning them. This is no different than accepting the assumption that underlay historiography for too long. There has been a great deal of work that has questioned the foundational assumptions of historiography - for example the subaltern studies project - but even these are fraught. There were, for example, a great many new histories written about tribal groups in India (the colonial term, not mine) in the late 1990s that sought to reassert agency to marginalized groups. But even though they treated the marginality of these groups with great sensitivity they often neglected the role of women in their constitution. Does this make them worthless? Of course not. But what it highlights is a kind of hyperreal trap that has thus far proved nearly impossible to escape from, a kind of historiographic event horizon.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

77. Thanks for your response

"the intervention of the word herstory was perhaps a necessary one, but I find it remarkable that - to borrow a phrase used by idgiehkt - there is a certain prototype of feminist (I would suggest the term archetype) who accepts certain assumptions about feminism without questioning them."

My main interactions with other feminists has been in a academic setting so regarding this point, my experience has been rather different. I would reject the term "archetype" since it does bring negative connotations and suggests that feminists are typically unthinking. I find most feminists to be highly-considered articulate individuals, but obviously I can't claim to override your experience.

"Does this make them worthless? Of course not. But what it highlights is a kind of hyperreal trap that has thus far proved nearly impossible to escape from, a kind of historiographic event horizon."

Yes I appreciate this point, but contemporary feminist historiography doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater either. The criticism will likely be "why were women neglected in the study, and what can be done about it?" rather than a wholesale rejection of the study as lacking any merit.

[JackintheGreen]

81. Agreed

>I would reject the term "archetype" since it does bring negative connotations and suggests that feminists are typically unthinking. I find most feminists >to be highly-considered articulate individuals....

But this is why I reject 'prototype.' As I read these words, prototype suggests to me the root from which all others have followed. Archetype (to me) suggests that the umbrella term "feminist" can be divided in sub-categories, of which one is the type "who accepts certain assumptions about feminism without questioning them." If this is instead the prototype feminist, then it suggests to me that all feminists who follow in that mold (what choice do they have? It's the prototype, after all) will be similar.

Just my reading of these two terms.

My experience is also in the academic environment, but I don't find it at all odd that our experiences have been so different. I appreciate your accepting my experience as valid.

[Shakespeare]

83. This thread rocks.

After some initial jousting, this has settled into an excellent discussion. :thumbsup: to all involved.

[ismnotwasm]

93. How about this?

http://www.suppressedhistories.net/

Great site.

I don't use the word, but I also don't spell women (ie, womyn) differently. I do defend the rights of others to do so. What I do like about the word, is it's a kind of in your face statement. I think it could and has-- have it's uses. Topic specific paper or class title, tee shirt theme, stuff like that.

I don't think it needs to replace "history" in a general discussion

[idgiehkt]

96. very nice link

thanks for posting that.