What do you think?
Rate this book
Herstory: A Woman's View of American History
Surveys the major periods of American history in terms of the lives, experiences, thoughts, and achievements of American women.
- GenresNonfictionFeminism
448 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1974
3 people are currently reading
29 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 21, 2025
A TEXTBOOK FOR 'WOMEN’S HISTORY’ CLASSES IN THE 1980s
June Sochen (b. 1937) is professor of history at Northeastern Illinois University. (This 1981 book was our textbook for a ‘Women In American History’ class in 1982.)
She wrote in the Preface, “[This book] is both an ambitious and a modest effort to present the woman’s side of the American past. It is ambitious because it contains a lot of forgotten material about half of the human beings who lived in and built the United States of America. It is modest because it includes so many restrictions, limitations, and boundaries upon the material… The possibilities in women’s herstory are rich and endless. My discussion concentrates upon two broad areas: upon the IDEOLOGY held concerning women, children, blacks, American Indians and foreigners upon the REALITY of their lives…
“Among my particular concerns in the following pages is the similar treatments WASMs (white Anglo-Saxon males) gave to all human beings other than themselves, as well as to the environment. There are more similarities than differences between the white male attitude toward women, Indians, black slaves, forests, and wildlife than historians have realized. Thus, the following chapters, though largely concerned with women’s lives and thoughts, also include material about these other less privileged humans and about the preyed-upon environment… The intention… is to point out multiple examples of WASM consistency of attitude and behavior throughout the American past.”
She wrote in Chapter 1/Introduction, “Technically, the word ‘history’ means the story, the record, of the past. It does not signify the masculine perspective or only male history. However… the overwhelming majority of evidence, of persons, and of events described in history narratives is about male exploits, male accomplishments, and male failures. This phenomenon derives from the fact that most human cultures have defined public actions as the most noteworthy; and since women’s lives have been lived in the private, the domestic, sphere of life, their activities have not been immortalized in the record books. Men became the first literate sex and wrote down the ideas and events they deemed worth remembering. Women generally accepted this state of affairs. They did so because they shared their culture’s views and agreed that although homemaking, childbearing and -rearing, harvesting and preserving food, and making clothing were essential human tasks, they were not tasks that deserved public recognition.” (Pg. 1)
She reports, “The settlers in both Virginia and Massachusetts agreed that their communities would be run by men---white men. Women, children, Indians, and (later) blacks would not… be considered a part of the ruling or participating class… The basic cultural, political, and economic patterns that were to govern all future generations were thus firmly set in the 1600s. Politics was the man’s business; his was the power to run the affairs of the colony. Women, like children, should be seen and not heard, be respectful to their fathers and husbands and dutiful in all domestic chores.” (Pg. 13-14)
She notes, “the church had [an] important function for women: it allowed them sociability… There, in a socially approved setting, women could gossip, talk about their worries and their pleasures, enjoy the sisterhood of other women, and be temporarily freed from their daily responsibilities.” (Pg. 18)
She states, “Spinsterhood was regarded as a fate almost as bad as death. An unmarried woman had to rely on her parents, brother, or married sister for her home and sustenance… They might have earned their keep, and more, but in the eyes of society they were tolerated rejects.” (Pg. 29)
She observes, “[Ben] Franklin’s words of wisdom were directed exclusively toward men. Time was not money for women. They were not paid for their numerous hours [in homemaking]… they could not vote… The American model for success was a male model.” (Pg. 46)
In the 1800-1860s, “One of the popular myths … was rugged individualism … Women were not included in this popular mythology. There no heroines who went from rags to riches… A female success story … was the clever, poor, but beautiful young woman who married the successful industrialist.” (Pg. 84)
She acknowledges, “there was a serious difference of opinion among the reformers as to what was meant by women’s rights…. liberalizing of divorce laws… when proposed by Elizabeth Cady Stanton… lost her the support of many members of the women’s rights movement… To [some reformers] equality for women meant eliminating inequitable laws and allowing women entry into institutions of higher learning; but to most women … it did not mean changing the family framework.” (Pg. 120)
She notes, “Women writers… gained an economic independence and a power over their own lives that were unknown to most of their women readers… Since their message was essentially conservative, it also provided readers with a neat, predictable universe.” (Pg. 123-124)
She reports, “Reformers… often spent more time fighting among themselves than uniting against the common enemy… Stanton, a thoroughgoing feminist, insisted that the focus be on women’s issues, which included suffrage, the divorce question, help for working women, and censure of the church for its unfeminist perspective. Lucy Stone, on the other hand… wanted to focus on woman’s suffrage after the emancipation of the slaves had been accomplished. She did not want to deal with such socially explosive issues as divorce; neither did she wish to antagonize the church…” (Pg. 145)
In 1900-1914, “more and more girls were completing high school, going on to college, and getting jobs. On the surface, women’s rights seemed to be making progress---but only on the surface. Most employed women worked at low-paying jobs, and most wives followed essentially the same life pattern as did their mothers.” (Pg. 217) She adds, “The Socialist Party of America was the first political party to recognize women’s rights and, in theory, equal rights for black Americans. But the party DID little to express its support of either cause.” (Pg. 218)
During World War I, “both sexes… assumed that women, as the custodians of life and preservers of culture, naturally abhorred war. Since, as mothers, they created life, they would be repelled by its wanton destruction … Members of the Woman’s Peace Party, therefore, legitimatized the party’s existence by asserting their traditional maternal role.” (Pg. 241)
She reports, “Working-class women whose husbands had gone off to fight relaced them in their jobs… Many women took over jobs previously designated as ‘male,’ and performed them competently and efficiently… As had happened in the past and would happen in the future, they were commended for their patriotism but were replaced when the war was over.” (Pg. 245)
She recounts, “In 1946… Life’s editors noted that … although American women made up the majority of voting citizens, they did not vote as a bloc, did not get elected to political offices in proportion to their numbers, and did not exert a leading influence on political life. But the editors did not know what to make of these facts, and could suggest no concrete reforms… Women had contributed to the building of the nation but always within socially approved spheres. Furthermore… women’s work never received recognition.” (Pg. 315)
Being nearly 50 years old, this book as it stands would not work as a modern “textbook,” but it still contains much useful historical information.
June Sochen (b. 1937) is professor of history at Northeastern Illinois University. (This 1981 book was our textbook for a ‘Women In American History’ class in 1982.)
She wrote in the Preface, “[This book] is both an ambitious and a modest effort to present the woman’s side of the American past. It is ambitious because it contains a lot of forgotten material about half of the human beings who lived in and built the United States of America. It is modest because it includes so many restrictions, limitations, and boundaries upon the material… The possibilities in women’s herstory are rich and endless. My discussion concentrates upon two broad areas: upon the IDEOLOGY held concerning women, children, blacks, American Indians and foreigners upon the REALITY of their lives…
“Among my particular concerns in the following pages is the similar treatments WASMs (white Anglo-Saxon males) gave to all human beings other than themselves, as well as to the environment. There are more similarities than differences between the white male attitude toward women, Indians, black slaves, forests, and wildlife than historians have realized. Thus, the following chapters, though largely concerned with women’s lives and thoughts, also include material about these other less privileged humans and about the preyed-upon environment… The intention… is to point out multiple examples of WASM consistency of attitude and behavior throughout the American past.”
She wrote in Chapter 1/Introduction, “Technically, the word ‘history’ means the story, the record, of the past. It does not signify the masculine perspective or only male history. However… the overwhelming majority of evidence, of persons, and of events described in history narratives is about male exploits, male accomplishments, and male failures. This phenomenon derives from the fact that most human cultures have defined public actions as the most noteworthy; and since women’s lives have been lived in the private, the domestic, sphere of life, their activities have not been immortalized in the record books. Men became the first literate sex and wrote down the ideas and events they deemed worth remembering. Women generally accepted this state of affairs. They did so because they shared their culture’s views and agreed that although homemaking, childbearing and -rearing, harvesting and preserving food, and making clothing were essential human tasks, they were not tasks that deserved public recognition.” (Pg. 1)
She reports, “The settlers in both Virginia and Massachusetts agreed that their communities would be run by men---white men. Women, children, Indians, and (later) blacks would not… be considered a part of the ruling or participating class… The basic cultural, political, and economic patterns that were to govern all future generations were thus firmly set in the 1600s. Politics was the man’s business; his was the power to run the affairs of the colony. Women, like children, should be seen and not heard, be respectful to their fathers and husbands and dutiful in all domestic chores.” (Pg. 13-14)
She notes, “the church had [an] important function for women: it allowed them sociability… There, in a socially approved setting, women could gossip, talk about their worries and their pleasures, enjoy the sisterhood of other women, and be temporarily freed from their daily responsibilities.” (Pg. 18)
She states, “Spinsterhood was regarded as a fate almost as bad as death. An unmarried woman had to rely on her parents, brother, or married sister for her home and sustenance… They might have earned their keep, and more, but in the eyes of society they were tolerated rejects.” (Pg. 29)
She observes, “[Ben] Franklin’s words of wisdom were directed exclusively toward men. Time was not money for women. They were not paid for their numerous hours [in homemaking]… they could not vote… The American model for success was a male model.” (Pg. 46)
In the 1800-1860s, “One of the popular myths … was rugged individualism … Women were not included in this popular mythology. There no heroines who went from rags to riches… A female success story … was the clever, poor, but beautiful young woman who married the successful industrialist.” (Pg. 84)
She acknowledges, “there was a serious difference of opinion among the reformers as to what was meant by women’s rights…. liberalizing of divorce laws… when proposed by Elizabeth Cady Stanton… lost her the support of many members of the women’s rights movement… To [some reformers] equality for women meant eliminating inequitable laws and allowing women entry into institutions of higher learning; but to most women … it did not mean changing the family framework.” (Pg. 120)
She notes, “Women writers… gained an economic independence and a power over their own lives that were unknown to most of their women readers… Since their message was essentially conservative, it also provided readers with a neat, predictable universe.” (Pg. 123-124)
She reports, “Reformers… often spent more time fighting among themselves than uniting against the common enemy… Stanton, a thoroughgoing feminist, insisted that the focus be on women’s issues, which included suffrage, the divorce question, help for working women, and censure of the church for its unfeminist perspective. Lucy Stone, on the other hand… wanted to focus on woman’s suffrage after the emancipation of the slaves had been accomplished. She did not want to deal with such socially explosive issues as divorce; neither did she wish to antagonize the church…” (Pg. 145)
In 1900-1914, “more and more girls were completing high school, going on to college, and getting jobs. On the surface, women’s rights seemed to be making progress---but only on the surface. Most employed women worked at low-paying jobs, and most wives followed essentially the same life pattern as did their mothers.” (Pg. 217) She adds, “The Socialist Party of America was the first political party to recognize women’s rights and, in theory, equal rights for black Americans. But the party DID little to express its support of either cause.” (Pg. 218)
During World War I, “both sexes… assumed that women, as the custodians of life and preservers of culture, naturally abhorred war. Since, as mothers, they created life, they would be repelled by its wanton destruction … Members of the Woman’s Peace Party, therefore, legitimatized the party’s existence by asserting their traditional maternal role.” (Pg. 241)
She reports, “Working-class women whose husbands had gone off to fight relaced them in their jobs… Many women took over jobs previously designated as ‘male,’ and performed them competently and efficiently… As had happened in the past and would happen in the future, they were commended for their patriotism but were replaced when the war was over.” (Pg. 245)
She recounts, “In 1946… Life’s editors noted that … although American women made up the majority of voting citizens, they did not vote as a bloc, did not get elected to political offices in proportion to their numbers, and did not exert a leading influence on political life. But the editors did not know what to make of these facts, and could suggest no concrete reforms… Women had contributed to the building of the nation but always within socially approved spheres. Furthermore… women’s work never received recognition.” (Pg. 315)
Being nearly 50 years old, this book as it stands would not work as a modern “textbook,” but it still contains much useful historical information.
Displaying 1 of 1 review