What do you think?
Rate this book
Gênero e História: Homens, Mulheres e a Prática Histórica
Numa perspectiva de gênero, este livro aborda um temática atual e de grande interesse, por ser um estudo meticuloso, em termos historiográficos, bem fundamentado teoricamente e que traz grandes contribuições às questões epistemológicas dos estudos históricos.
O livro rastreia a constituição do campo do historiador sob a perspectiva do gênero, destacando as historiadoras que encontravam-se alijadas num dito "amadorismo".
O livro rastreia a constituição do campo do historiador sob a perspectiva do gênero, destacando as historiadoras que encontravam-se alijadas num dito "amadorismo".
492 pages, Paperback
First published October 25, 1998
7 people are currently reading
228 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 - 11 of 11 reviews
September 7, 2021
A nice (albiet wordy) overview of the of the rise of History as a professional field in the 19th and early 20th century, and the changing nature of what a "historian" is and does during this time.
Each chapter works as a stand-alone essay on one aspect of the shifting concept of a "historian", and while all have insights, some make their point fairly early and then start to drag on, while some, like the phenomenal 3rd chapter, can include 3 distinct topics (How 19th century male historian's childhoods in boarding schools shaped their later work, the role that the wives of male historians often play in their writing and research, and how the sexual lives of historians can often shape their posthumous image) that I wish were each expanded into their own chapters.
If nothing else, I think everyone with even a passing interest in history should check out that 3rd chapter, (I can provide it as a pdf if anyone wants) and then decide if they want to follow up on the rest of the book.
Each chapter works as a stand-alone essay on one aspect of the shifting concept of a "historian", and while all have insights, some make their point fairly early and then start to drag on, while some, like the phenomenal 3rd chapter, can include 3 distinct topics (How 19th century male historian's childhoods in boarding schools shaped their later work, the role that the wives of male historians often play in their writing and research, and how the sexual lives of historians can often shape their posthumous image) that I wish were each expanded into their own chapters.
If nothing else, I think everyone with even a passing interest in history should check out that 3rd chapter, (I can provide it as a pdf if anyone wants) and then decide if they want to follow up on the rest of the book.
September 6, 2010
Although I disagree with some of the arguments in this book, it gets a high rating from me for making me think. From discussing it with other people, even those who claim to hate it, I would say that it seems to succeed at that most of the time. I remember once telling a professor about another book that I had "alternated between fascinated and outraged" as I read it; he smiled and said he believed that the author would be pleased to hear it. I suspect Bonnie Smith would feel much the same.
Smith takes the profession of history to task for supporting male dominance and suppressing female voices, and explores why this is the case. Once considered an "amateur" avocation, history has in recent centuries "professionalized" and made claims to integrating "scientific" methods to its analysis. One of the ways male historians have gained status (and tenure) has been by denigrating the work of women in history, and masculinizing the profession. Smith explores the contributions women as "amateurs" made to history, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries, finding therein a great deal of value to draw from in the creation of a new feminized & feminist history. Much of women's published writing on history in the time she studied was in the form of travel guides, and Smith explores the critiques of this format in terms of its colonialism and classism. She also draws from the diaries of early "scientific" historians to find the ways in which they distanced themselves from women and derided women's efforts to understand their work. We also learn of the ways in which female family members (especially wives and daughters) were recruited to do unacknowledged support-work for some of the "great" historians of the past, even writing portions of their research for them.
These contributions are important, and Smith's research is excellent and thought-provoking. Where there are problems, they result generally from Smith's running too far afield with her theories. On page 69, she defines masculinity as "gender privilege and the capacity for violently suppressing or devaluing other voices," which obviates any hope for useful dialogue across the genders (men must feminize to be accepted - is this not merely a call for more sexism, only now from the other side?). On the one hand, in finding value in the amateur historical work done by men and women in the past, Smith offers us wonderful new material to consider, but on the other hand, in places she ends up glamorizing the irrational. The most frequently criticized part of her argument is her chapter on "the Narcotic Road to the Past," which appears to tout drug use and addiction as a useful methodology. Enough has been written about that already, but I think the problem is most apparent in her claim that "it remains almost impossible to talk about the oppression of women by men in any way that does not seem minor, amateurish, overemotional, and uncritical." I hardly agree with this statement, but even were it so, it would be no excuse for throwing out the baby of critical thinking with the bathwater of male oppression.
Smith takes the profession of history to task for supporting male dominance and suppressing female voices, and explores why this is the case. Once considered an "amateur" avocation, history has in recent centuries "professionalized" and made claims to integrating "scientific" methods to its analysis. One of the ways male historians have gained status (and tenure) has been by denigrating the work of women in history, and masculinizing the profession. Smith explores the contributions women as "amateurs" made to history, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries, finding therein a great deal of value to draw from in the creation of a new feminized & feminist history. Much of women's published writing on history in the time she studied was in the form of travel guides, and Smith explores the critiques of this format in terms of its colonialism and classism. She also draws from the diaries of early "scientific" historians to find the ways in which they distanced themselves from women and derided women's efforts to understand their work. We also learn of the ways in which female family members (especially wives and daughters) were recruited to do unacknowledged support-work for some of the "great" historians of the past, even writing portions of their research for them.
These contributions are important, and Smith's research is excellent and thought-provoking. Where there are problems, they result generally from Smith's running too far afield with her theories. On page 69, she defines masculinity as "gender privilege and the capacity for violently suppressing or devaluing other voices," which obviates any hope for useful dialogue across the genders (men must feminize to be accepted - is this not merely a call for more sexism, only now from the other side?). On the one hand, in finding value in the amateur historical work done by men and women in the past, Smith offers us wonderful new material to consider, but on the other hand, in places she ends up glamorizing the irrational. The most frequently criticized part of her argument is her chapter on "the Narcotic Road to the Past," which appears to tout drug use and addiction as a useful methodology. Enough has been written about that already, but I think the problem is most apparent in her claim that "it remains almost impossible to talk about the oppression of women by men in any way that does not seem minor, amateurish, overemotional, and uncritical." I hardly agree with this statement, but even were it so, it would be no excuse for throwing out the baby of critical thinking with the bathwater of male oppression.
September 28, 2022
I had to read this for class (sooo you better believe I'm counting it) but it was really interesting! I'm definitely glad that I got the physical book
December 3, 2023
Bonnie G. Smith earned her Bachelor’s degree at Smith College, an all women's university in Massachusetts, and her Ph.D from the University of Rochester in New York. She has taught history at a few universities including Rutgers University and her alma mater, the University of Rochester. She has done work to expand women studies and has written about women in history and feminist studies, along with her original focus of French Empire. Some of her other works include Women’s Studies: The Basics in 2013, Decentered Identities: The Case of the Romantics, History, and Theory in 2011, and Women in World History: An Overview in 2011.
Smith comes out swinging in The Gender of History: Men, Women, and Historical Practice. She all but accuses western historians of masking sexist, racist, and classist historiographical norms behind their “adherence to the scientific method.” Smith doesn’t want to wait for the white patriarchy to gradually catch up to equity in historiography, but is ready to call out any historian, including women, that intentionally perpetuates this “bad history.” Smith successfully gives anecdotal evidence of women not being taken seriously in the disciplines of history, philosophy, and science. Many of the stories are infuriating but seem all too familiar in that they are realities that we already know and are aware of, but suppress because it is easy. Smith shows that sexuality, gender norms, and the “university men” that took credit for the work of women all played a role in the “singular tale of historiography and the profession.” She ends the first chapter by calling for an acknowledgment of gender in historiography to “refurbish” our view of the past.
Smith continues with the anecdotal stories in the first chapter, stating that women considered geniuses in their professions are often written off as crazy as they challenge the norms. She tells of Germaine de Staël, an early 19th century author and historian, who took drugs to “relieve the pain of loss by geniuses.” Her character Corinne represented her and other women of the time that were cast aside and misgendered for their genius. In her historical works, De Staël interjected her own experiences in a way that was foreign to historians. De Staël’s genius was met with attempts to limit women’s education by the patriarchy that was so threatened by her work.
Smith then focuses on the amateur historian, which was not viewed as legitimate by historians that used the scientific method. Smith details how women’s published historical writings were seen as mere companion pieces to history written by men. Women authors and historians in the 19th century were treated unfairly by publishers and many were paid pennies on the dollar for their work as opposed to men. Smith spends a good portion of this chapter defining the relationship of trauma with the writings of women, and how this perspective enriches historiography. Smith shows that the amateurs were the ones that questioned the historical norms and pushed forward for representation in the public sphere. She concludes that trauma faced by women makes it almost impossible to discuss it in a way that doesn’t make it seem nit-picky, as such is the patriarchy, but that these amateurs led the way for women’s history in the twentieth century.
The third chapter aims to define a historian. Smith argues that most historiography views the household sphere of family life as irrelevant and refers to politics as the “meat and potatoes” of great history. The men that would become historians were taught language without historical context, were made to reject emotions as it related to their families, and were routinely abused by teachers in an effort to instill patriarchal values. What resulted was a group of men that resented women for their intellect. This led to men that used their wives intellect on their own historical works, never giving them credit. Smith argues that until now, the historian has been seen as masculine, but that this must change.
The fourth chapter sees Smith taking on the foundation of history as a science. She argues that gender is at the very heart of the scientific method which has led to a male dominated enterprise. She shows that even the practice of the historical seminar is rooted in elite masculinity that dominated the century. With origins as an all male gathering by invitation only, the seminar “rejected the femininity of the public lecture or salon” for a men’s club that strengthened fraternal scholarship. Interestingly, the seminar led to historians obsessing and fetishizing documents which may or may not lead to accurate interpretations and had mixed value for historical science. Women, of course, were often not allowed access to critical documents for historiographical purposes, furthering the divide in women and their ability to influence historical science.
The fifth chapter shows how the work that came from seminars was seen as high quality, scientific work while the amateur work was deemed lowly as if insignificant. She shows that as men had the power, they continued to write about men with power, effectively documenting a single vision of history. The historian, a loner fixated on the scientific method in search for the truth, was not female. This was the norm until the amateur saw an appreciative readership by end of the nineteenth century. In chapter six, Smith argues that this shift was seen as a form of antimodernism. Many of these amateurs were part of the women’s movement and ushered in a period of High Amateurism. Still, these women were often shrugged off as bad housewives and mothers.
In chapter seven, Smith tells of how women historiographers were reduced to writers of trauma, connecting her thoughts from the second chapter. Smith successfully argues that, as they were discouraged from participating in education and history on an international level, women scholars were “not even part of a second sex; they were a third sex.” In chapter eight, the woman had entered the professional world by the first World War. Some male historians were already beginning to question and change historical science. Historians were beginning to consider the social part of everyday household life as an important aspect of historiography. This shift was met with more attempts to solidify the patriarchy as the sole vision of history but the damage was done. Although women and amateurists have made gains in redefining historical methodology, they have not been made equal and haven’t been fully accepted. Smith calls for historians to simply have the dialogue, to see that gender, race, and ethnicity enriches scholarship.
I really enjoyed Smith’s thoughts on gender in history. It is not something I have thought about much so I appreciated the challenge. Smith’s work is scholarly but easily accessible for general readers. She employs many primary sources including letters and quotes. She relies heavily on secondary sources of other historians including her own work on the subject. I would like to read more on this subject from other perspectives but I think Smith has revealed some inconvenient truths in her work that must be discussed. I recommend the book for anyone interested in gender in history and specifically in the way it has shaped the historical method.
Smith comes out swinging in The Gender of History: Men, Women, and Historical Practice. She all but accuses western historians of masking sexist, racist, and classist historiographical norms behind their “adherence to the scientific method.” Smith doesn’t want to wait for the white patriarchy to gradually catch up to equity in historiography, but is ready to call out any historian, including women, that intentionally perpetuates this “bad history.” Smith successfully gives anecdotal evidence of women not being taken seriously in the disciplines of history, philosophy, and science. Many of the stories are infuriating but seem all too familiar in that they are realities that we already know and are aware of, but suppress because it is easy. Smith shows that sexuality, gender norms, and the “university men” that took credit for the work of women all played a role in the “singular tale of historiography and the profession.” She ends the first chapter by calling for an acknowledgment of gender in historiography to “refurbish” our view of the past.
Smith continues with the anecdotal stories in the first chapter, stating that women considered geniuses in their professions are often written off as crazy as they challenge the norms. She tells of Germaine de Staël, an early 19th century author and historian, who took drugs to “relieve the pain of loss by geniuses.” Her character Corinne represented her and other women of the time that were cast aside and misgendered for their genius. In her historical works, De Staël interjected her own experiences in a way that was foreign to historians. De Staël’s genius was met with attempts to limit women’s education by the patriarchy that was so threatened by her work.
Smith then focuses on the amateur historian, which was not viewed as legitimate by historians that used the scientific method. Smith details how women’s published historical writings were seen as mere companion pieces to history written by men. Women authors and historians in the 19th century were treated unfairly by publishers and many were paid pennies on the dollar for their work as opposed to men. Smith spends a good portion of this chapter defining the relationship of trauma with the writings of women, and how this perspective enriches historiography. Smith shows that the amateurs were the ones that questioned the historical norms and pushed forward for representation in the public sphere. She concludes that trauma faced by women makes it almost impossible to discuss it in a way that doesn’t make it seem nit-picky, as such is the patriarchy, but that these amateurs led the way for women’s history in the twentieth century.
The third chapter aims to define a historian. Smith argues that most historiography views the household sphere of family life as irrelevant and refers to politics as the “meat and potatoes” of great history. The men that would become historians were taught language without historical context, were made to reject emotions as it related to their families, and were routinely abused by teachers in an effort to instill patriarchal values. What resulted was a group of men that resented women for their intellect. This led to men that used their wives intellect on their own historical works, never giving them credit. Smith argues that until now, the historian has been seen as masculine, but that this must change.
The fourth chapter sees Smith taking on the foundation of history as a science. She argues that gender is at the very heart of the scientific method which has led to a male dominated enterprise. She shows that even the practice of the historical seminar is rooted in elite masculinity that dominated the century. With origins as an all male gathering by invitation only, the seminar “rejected the femininity of the public lecture or salon” for a men’s club that strengthened fraternal scholarship. Interestingly, the seminar led to historians obsessing and fetishizing documents which may or may not lead to accurate interpretations and had mixed value for historical science. Women, of course, were often not allowed access to critical documents for historiographical purposes, furthering the divide in women and their ability to influence historical science.
The fifth chapter shows how the work that came from seminars was seen as high quality, scientific work while the amateur work was deemed lowly as if insignificant. She shows that as men had the power, they continued to write about men with power, effectively documenting a single vision of history. The historian, a loner fixated on the scientific method in search for the truth, was not female. This was the norm until the amateur saw an appreciative readership by end of the nineteenth century. In chapter six, Smith argues that this shift was seen as a form of antimodernism. Many of these amateurs were part of the women’s movement and ushered in a period of High Amateurism. Still, these women were often shrugged off as bad housewives and mothers.
In chapter seven, Smith tells of how women historiographers were reduced to writers of trauma, connecting her thoughts from the second chapter. Smith successfully argues that, as they were discouraged from participating in education and history on an international level, women scholars were “not even part of a second sex; they were a third sex.” In chapter eight, the woman had entered the professional world by the first World War. Some male historians were already beginning to question and change historical science. Historians were beginning to consider the social part of everyday household life as an important aspect of historiography. This shift was met with more attempts to solidify the patriarchy as the sole vision of history but the damage was done. Although women and amateurists have made gains in redefining historical methodology, they have not been made equal and haven’t been fully accepted. Smith calls for historians to simply have the dialogue, to see that gender, race, and ethnicity enriches scholarship.
I really enjoyed Smith’s thoughts on gender in history. It is not something I have thought about much so I appreciated the challenge. Smith’s work is scholarly but easily accessible for general readers. She employs many primary sources including letters and quotes. She relies heavily on secondary sources of other historians including her own work on the subject. I would like to read more on this subject from other perspectives but I think Smith has revealed some inconvenient truths in her work that must be discussed. I recommend the book for anyone interested in gender in history and specifically in the way it has shaped the historical method.
April 6, 2017
The Gender of History by Bonnie G Smith present a complex argument about the role gender has played in history, and about the genderization of history. In the introduction, Smith cites the work of Joan Scott and her contribution to the social construction of gender. Throughout her work, Smith is influenced by the works of Scott, and uses those works as the basis for her discussion of the role that gender has played in historical writing. Smith argues that history is dominated by a masculinity that has consistently portrayed the female or feminine version of history as inferior. Smith re-conceptualizes historiography through the lense of gender, and introduces the reader to the idea that history has been influenced by ideas of gender and sex. As history became an increasingly professionalized field, it continued to cling to a masculine identity, and leading historians paid little attention to the work of female historians, or the lives and contributions of females throughout history.
July 22, 2025
Smith's book is a standard work in its field. It rereads historiography in the context of gender and interrogates the way in which gender served to create the professional historian. I think setting up the dichotomy of amateur/professional as female/male is a penetrating exploration of what history as a discipline and profession mean. Smith is working to not only prove her thesis, but to recover the work of women historians who have largely been excluding from historiography. A necessary and exciting corrective.
The chapters feel like stand-alone essays to the point that there are strange overlaps in some chapters. Moments of Deja-vu feeling like I've read this statement about this historian before. There is also a bit of a disconnect between the first chapter, exploring the narcohistory and erotics of Germaine de Stael and the rest of the book. while she undoubtedly creates the template for the amateur historian, I felt like a lot of the theorizing, especially the narcohistory piece, is more or less dropped from further chapters.
I found the second half of the book the most engaging, especially the chapters that cover the development of "Modernism" with in history from roughly the 1890s-1940s. The way in which "high amateurism" develops the relativist critique of the objectivity of "historical science." This then leads to the growth of professionally trained women historians, who Smith argues constitute a "third sex" between female amateurs and male professionals. The final chapter explains how professional history was able to exclude major change in gendered understandings by absorbing some of the main attributes of amateur history. This "exclusion by absorption" argument echoes how Peter Novick discussed New Left Historiography in That Noble Dream.
I struggle with the theory and jargon at point, but the book is more than worth it. It covers such different territory than the other books I've read as part of this project. I do wander about Male amateur historians. While Smith talks at length about Henry Adams' career long straddling of the amateur/professional line as a provocation and as a real harbingers of historical modernism, but what of the earlier generation of American "Gentleman Historians." Where does a George Bancroft or Francis Parkman fit into this picture. They were amateurs, who often wrote in an idiom much closer to De Stael than the first generation of professional historians. Regardless. Essential.
The chapters feel like stand-alone essays to the point that there are strange overlaps in some chapters. Moments of Deja-vu feeling like I've read this statement about this historian before. There is also a bit of a disconnect between the first chapter, exploring the narcohistory and erotics of Germaine de Stael and the rest of the book. while she undoubtedly creates the template for the amateur historian, I felt like a lot of the theorizing, especially the narcohistory piece, is more or less dropped from further chapters.
I found the second half of the book the most engaging, especially the chapters that cover the development of "Modernism" with in history from roughly the 1890s-1940s. The way in which "high amateurism" develops the relativist critique of the objectivity of "historical science." This then leads to the growth of professionally trained women historians, who Smith argues constitute a "third sex" between female amateurs and male professionals. The final chapter explains how professional history was able to exclude major change in gendered understandings by absorbing some of the main attributes of amateur history. This "exclusion by absorption" argument echoes how Peter Novick discussed New Left Historiography in That Noble Dream.
I struggle with the theory and jargon at point, but the book is more than worth it. It covers such different territory than the other books I've read as part of this project. I do wander about Male amateur historians. While Smith talks at length about Henry Adams' career long straddling of the amateur/professional line as a provocation and as a real harbingers of historical modernism, but what of the earlier generation of American "Gentleman Historians." Where does a George Bancroft or Francis Parkman fit into this picture. They were amateurs, who often wrote in an idiom much closer to De Stael than the first generation of professional historians. Regardless. Essential.
July 30, 2019
O texto de Bonnie Smith é excelente para compreender o papel das mulheres historiadoras (sejam amadoras e profissionais) na historiografia. Paralelamente, serve como um excelente panorama da historiografia contemporânea.
July 11, 2025
The author complains of bias and propaganda in historiography while peddling bias and leftist dog whistles. I’ll give one star for calling out the propagandizing of academia. The author rambles on and on for pages when the message can be put forth effectively in a paragraph. It made me wonder why they felt the need to do that. If you can’t state it plainly it raises some serious red flags. Why?
December 20, 2019
A radical New Left view of historiography.
August 18, 2016
Look at the title. It's written by a woman. You know what you're getting. And we need and deserve it.
Read
November 28, 2016deze raad ik aan
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews