What do you think?
Rate this book
Who Cooked the Last Supper: The Women's History of the World
Men dominate history because they write it. Women’s vital part in the shaping of the world has been consistently undervalued or ignored. Rosalind Miles now offers a fundamental reappraisal that sets the record straight. Stunning in its scope and originality, The Women’s History of the World challenges all previous world histories and shatters cherished illusions on every page.
Starting with women in pre-history the author looks beyond the myth of ‘Man the Hunter’ to reveal women’s central role in the survival and evolution of the human race. She follows their progress from the days when God was a woman through to the triumphs of the Amazons and Assyrian war queens: she looks at the rise of organised religion and the growing oppression of women: she charts the long slow struggle for women’s rights culminating in the twentieth century women’s movements: and finally she presents a vision of women breaking free.
This brilliant and absorbing book turns the spotlight on the hidden side of history to present a fascinating new view of the world, overturning our preconceptions to restore women to their rightful place at the centre of the worldwide story of revolution, empire, war and peace.
Spiced with tales of individual women who have shaped history, celebrating the work and lives of the unsung female millions, distinguished by a wealth of research, The Women’s History of the World redefines the concept of historical reality.
Starting with women in pre-history the author looks beyond the myth of ‘Man the Hunter’ to reveal women’s central role in the survival and evolution of the human race. She follows their progress from the days when God was a woman through to the triumphs of the Amazons and Assyrian war queens: she looks at the rise of organised religion and the growing oppression of women: she charts the long slow struggle for women’s rights culminating in the twentieth century women’s movements: and finally she presents a vision of women breaking free.
This brilliant and absorbing book turns the spotlight on the hidden side of history to present a fascinating new view of the world, overturning our preconceptions to restore women to their rightful place at the centre of the worldwide story of revolution, empire, war and peace.
Spiced with tales of individual women who have shaped history, celebrating the work and lives of the unsung female millions, distinguished by a wealth of research, The Women’s History of the World redefines the concept of historical reality.
352 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1989
1713 people are currently reading
42429 people want to read
About the author
Rosalind Miles
71 books421 followersRosalind Miles is an author born and raised in England and now living in both Los Angeles and Kent, England. She has written both works of fiction and non-fiction. As a child, Miles suffered from polio, and had to undergo several months of treatment. After being accepted to a junior women's college, Miles acquired a working knowledge of Latin and Greek, along with developing her life-long love of Shakespeare. At seventeen, she was promoted to St. Hilda's College, Oxford where she studied English literature, Anglo-Saxon, Middle English, Latin and French. She obtained five degrees in all, ending with a Ph.D. from the Shakespeare Institute at the University of Birmingham.
Miles later on became interested in jurisprudence, which resulted in her sitting as a lay magistrate in the English criminal and family courts, and eventually on the bench in a superior court in Coventry. She is also a regular commentator on the BBC, on Canadian Radio, and in The Times.
Miles later on became interested in jurisprudence, which resulted in her sitting as a lay magistrate in the English criminal and family courts, and eventually on the bench in a superior court in Coventry. She is also a regular commentator on the BBC, on Canadian Radio, and in The Times.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 666 reviews
August 8, 2016
Overall, this book was full of interesting information, stories & facts. Unfortunately, the interesting bits could have been strung together much more artfully, and with a more nuanced perspective on race and colonialism.
I couldn't help but notice that this women's history was primarily a history of white women, though Miles never explicitly says this. Women of color are discussed throughout, but predominantly as an afterthought. This is most noticeable when Miles discusses what it was like to be the wife of a colonizer and, after waxing poetic on their troubles, finally gets to discussing the brutality and degradation that the colonized face, but only discusses the women affected briefly.
Most importantly, though, her conception of first world v.s. third world/Western v.s. Eastern is mind-blowingly condescending. She explicitly says in the introduction that "Western" women are much better off than "Eastern" women, and here is why, and here's what "Western" women should do to help. This sort of white savior thinking is oddly less present in the main text of the book, but Miles' strong tendency to gloss over the roles of racism and orientalism (if not outright ignore them) on women's lives is unmistakably thread throughout. In short, not all women are white women, and Miles ability to conceptualize & tell the stories of women all around the world without subtly (and explicitly) prioritizing the experiences of white, "Western" women, was lacking.
Overall, I'd recommend reading through this book for the facts and primary accounts of women throughout history - it is truly fascinating, and I look forward to digging into her list of references for more reading. Please skip the introduction - it's worthless. And if you really want an even-handed history of women around the world, this isn't the place to find it.
I couldn't help but notice that this women's history was primarily a history of white women, though Miles never explicitly says this. Women of color are discussed throughout, but predominantly as an afterthought. This is most noticeable when Miles discusses what it was like to be the wife of a colonizer and, after waxing poetic on their troubles, finally gets to discussing the brutality and degradation that the colonized face, but only discusses the women affected briefly.
Most importantly, though, her conception of first world v.s. third world/Western v.s. Eastern is mind-blowingly condescending. She explicitly says in the introduction that "Western" women are much better off than "Eastern" women, and here is why, and here's what "Western" women should do to help. This sort of white savior thinking is oddly less present in the main text of the book, but Miles' strong tendency to gloss over the roles of racism and orientalism (if not outright ignore them) on women's lives is unmistakably thread throughout. In short, not all women are white women, and Miles ability to conceptualize & tell the stories of women all around the world without subtly (and explicitly) prioritizing the experiences of white, "Western" women, was lacking.
Overall, I'd recommend reading through this book for the facts and primary accounts of women throughout history - it is truly fascinating, and I look forward to digging into her list of references for more reading. Please skip the introduction - it's worthless. And if you really want an even-handed history of women around the world, this isn't the place to find it.
December 5, 2009
Every girl, and every boy, should have to read this as a textbook at school. Women have changed the world. Someone's just forgotten to write it down.This is one of my top 3 books of all time. It is entertaining, horrifying, unbelievable and well-researched. Women need to take back the power that patriarchal society and religion has taken from them. Miles does not flinch as she unravels a history that too few know about.
January 3, 2019
I’m going to tackle this one a little differently, but hopefully this format will be most helpful...
4.5 Stars
Who should read this book? If you're still not convinced, it's Women's History Month so take a chance.
Genre: Non-fiction/World History/ Women’s History/Gender Studies
What does this book cover? This book is organized into 4 sections with 3 chapters each.
Part one (“In the Beginning”) covers “the first women”—detailing prehistoric women’s roles and importance; “the great goddess”—discussing early women centric beliefs; and “the rise of the Phallus”—discussing sexuality and setting the stage for the overthrown of female rights, bloodlines, and worship.
Part two (“The Fall of Woman”) covers “God the father”—documenting how the organization of monotheist religions established unequal balances of power; “the sins of the Mothers”—exposing the abuses inflicted upon women because of their bodies; and “a little learning”—exploring how the development of literacy offered escapes as well as further suppression of women.
Part three (“Dominion and Domination”) covers “women’s work” —exposing the myth that women not only did less “work” than men but also the difficulty and unpleasantness of much of her manual labor; “revolution, the great engine” —looking at distinctly different types of revolutions yet how they both failed to usurp the status quo; and “the rod of empire” —exposing how imperialism further served to oppress and abuse women and extend the patriarchy.
Part four (“Turning the Tide”) covers “the rights of women” —discussing the modern developments that continues to oppress women and the beginnings of the women’s movement; ”the body politic” —discussing the role of contraception; and “daughters of time” —further detailing the advancement of contraception as well as the strides of the second wave of the women’s movement.
Triggers:
Religion—readers who are unwilling to see past the inherent misogyny in major world religions will have issues with this. My advice to readers—keep an open mind and check your own affiliations at the door.
Abuse—physical, psychological, sexual; you name it, it’s documented here. Violence including rape, genital mutilation, female infanticide, and murder. Oh and some ridiculous contraception ideas. It’s not pretty, but it’s women’s history without all the whitewashing. My advice to readers—bring tissues and don’t eat lunch first.
Controversies: At times, does the author belittle and reduce the importance men played in not just history but the advancement of the human race? Absolutely, but isn’t that what traditional history has done to women? Until an edition of world history where the sexes are presented equally becomes the mainstream text, readers are going to have to accept that as long as sexism exists a universal human history is out of reach.
Historical Accuracy: I am not a historian so I can’t comment on the complete accuracy of every incident and historical event referenced in this text. However, I think an objective historian would agree (and many have) that a vast number of history texts out there aren’t accurate either, whether through omissions, hero-making, and/or outright misrepresentations. It’s interesting though how those texts were accepted for so long, yet let a women offer up a book on history that proposes that it was the female of the species who had the greatest role in the continuation of the human race, and so much of her credibility and the credibility of the text is called into question.
It is alsointeresting disturbing how some readers see bias in this work but not the work of the male dominated texts on the market and utilized in the public school systems. That alone says a lot about the extent that sexism is so subconsciously rooted in society. We’ve somehow been trained to accept HIStory but not hers. And this is a large problem which I believe the text addresses. History has been shaped and documented through various fields of study where women were not only ignored and dismissed but consciously omitted by men in favor of a pro-male view where man is more important to the survival of human kind than women. Accepted history texts lack the incorporation of women’s role, if not their very existence, throughout places in history. Once you accept that women and their story have been suppressed, one must pose the next logical question of why. Miles attempts to answer this.
Shortcomings: There are certainly places in the text where sources and exact time periods could be clearer in a wider context and background, as well as a fuller picture of the examples would be beneficial. The author assumes the reader has a developed formal education and prior knowledge of people, incidents, and events in history.
There are admittedly also places where Miles’s word choice might be going for effect but at the same time distorts her claims. For example, a good editor might have recommended that she substitute “only” with “largely” when referring to Jackie O and Lady Di’s fame and accomplishments via their “royal” men. Were their life’s accomplishments solely tied to their husbands? No. But would they be the historical icons they are had they not married those men in the first place? Nope.
In another instance, replacing “no” with “minimal” when asserting men’s function and significance under Goddess culture might be help avoid the obvious contradiction that comes a few paragraphs/pages later.
How I felt reading this book: Some chapters made me feel proud to be a woman and inspired to work towards advancing equality. Some chapters made me angry—the injustices, the abuses—it’s a gut-wrenching history pill to swallow. Some chapters l was holding back the tears. This isn’t a light read nor should the subject matter be taken lightly, but it is important to understand.
Is this a feminist text? By definition (cited here from Merriam-Webster dictionary) and largely from a scholarly theorist perspective feminism is “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes as well as organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests.” This book offer theories (along with and backed by research from various fields of study) of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes so in that frame of reference it’s a feminist text. But bear in mind that over the years the term feminism has taken on a variety of negative connotations (often the work of its opposition in an attempt to discredit it), but I’m not going to give recognition to those distortions.
Why this text is still relevant:
The lack of a women’s history or women studies discipline in general education curriculums have left a large crux of 21st century women and men uninformed and misinformed. And though originally published in 1988, and thus the last nearly thirty years are not included, this book not only documents women’s struggles through the ages, but also points to issues still at the forefront today.
Women and men living in 2017 should possess a basic understanding of how history has swayed backwards and forward through slow transitions and difficult strides towards equality. We can’t assume that because it’s been won, that it can’t be taken away.
From the very beginning of time, women weren’t affronted with inequality; instead they descended to it. Many rights that were won in the 20th century were given freely in earlier civilizations. Women’s equality has not historically been a linear progression, but more a series of setbacks and advances as societal conditions change.
Women’s oppression, while universal and unrelenting for millenniums, varies widely by class, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and religion. There is no one answer to fix all ills.
Bottom Line /Hard Truths: If you are looking for a fluff piece highlighting well known women through the ages, this is not one of them. This text looks at historical trends and attempts to offer viable explanations (through what little evidence and unbiased scholarship there is on certain time frames) as to not just what women were doing while men were getting all the credit, but why they were omitted in the first place. And I suspect that might be what some readers struggle with—the idea that it became a conscious effort to suppress women’s voices and women’s contributions. It’s mind boggling really that one can acknowledge women’s absence from traditional text but still refuse to admit there is a long standing patriarchal bias that made it that way in the first place. It’s as if some readers want to know what’s missing but don’t want to face the disturbing realities of its absence.
How I got this book/Why I read this book/My background: I ordered this book (paperback edition) from Amazon after browsing several books on the subject for consideration for my kids’ educational studies. I read it first and made a chapter by chapter study guide for our lessons. I have a background in English literature with a concentration in women’s literature and feminist criticism so the general subject matter wasn’t previously unfamiliar, but I still found the details moving and the overall thesis an enlightening and essential read.
4.5 Stars
Who should read this book? If you're still not convinced, it's Women's History Month so take a chance.
Genre: Non-fiction/World History/ Women’s History/Gender Studies
What does this book cover? This book is organized into 4 sections with 3 chapters each.
Part one (“In the Beginning”) covers “the first women”—detailing prehistoric women’s roles and importance; “the great goddess”—discussing early women centric beliefs; and “the rise of the Phallus”—discussing sexuality and setting the stage for the overthrown of female rights, bloodlines, and worship.
Part two (“The Fall of Woman”) covers “God the father”—documenting how the organization of monotheist religions established unequal balances of power; “the sins of the Mothers”—exposing the abuses inflicted upon women because of their bodies; and “a little learning”—exploring how the development of literacy offered escapes as well as further suppression of women.
Part three (“Dominion and Domination”) covers “women’s work” —exposing the myth that women not only did less “work” than men but also the difficulty and unpleasantness of much of her manual labor; “revolution, the great engine” —looking at distinctly different types of revolutions yet how they both failed to usurp the status quo; and “the rod of empire” —exposing how imperialism further served to oppress and abuse women and extend the patriarchy.
Part four (“Turning the Tide”) covers “the rights of women” —discussing the modern developments that continues to oppress women and the beginnings of the women’s movement; ”the body politic” —discussing the role of contraception; and “daughters of time” —further detailing the advancement of contraception as well as the strides of the second wave of the women’s movement.
Triggers:
Religion—readers who are unwilling to see past the inherent misogyny in major world religions will have issues with this. My advice to readers—keep an open mind and check your own affiliations at the door.
Abuse—physical, psychological, sexual; you name it, it’s documented here. Violence including rape, genital mutilation, female infanticide, and murder. Oh and some ridiculous contraception ideas. It’s not pretty, but it’s women’s history without all the whitewashing. My advice to readers—bring tissues and don’t eat lunch first.
Controversies: At times, does the author belittle and reduce the importance men played in not just history but the advancement of the human race? Absolutely, but isn’t that what traditional history has done to women? Until an edition of world history where the sexes are presented equally becomes the mainstream text, readers are going to have to accept that as long as sexism exists a universal human history is out of reach.
Historical Accuracy: I am not a historian so I can’t comment on the complete accuracy of every incident and historical event referenced in this text. However, I think an objective historian would agree (and many have) that a vast number of history texts out there aren’t accurate either, whether through omissions, hero-making, and/or outright misrepresentations. It’s interesting though how those texts were accepted for so long, yet let a women offer up a book on history that proposes that it was the female of the species who had the greatest role in the continuation of the human race, and so much of her credibility and the credibility of the text is called into question.
It is also
Shortcomings: There are certainly places in the text where sources and exact time periods could be clearer in a wider context and background, as well as a fuller picture of the examples would be beneficial. The author assumes the reader has a developed formal education and prior knowledge of people, incidents, and events in history.
There are admittedly also places where Miles’s word choice might be going for effect but at the same time distorts her claims. For example, a good editor might have recommended that she substitute “only” with “largely” when referring to Jackie O and Lady Di’s fame and accomplishments via their “royal” men. Were their life’s accomplishments solely tied to their husbands? No. But would they be the historical icons they are had they not married those men in the first place? Nope.
In another instance, replacing “no” with “minimal” when asserting men’s function and significance under Goddess culture might be help avoid the obvious contradiction that comes a few paragraphs/pages later.
How I felt reading this book: Some chapters made me feel proud to be a woman and inspired to work towards advancing equality. Some chapters made me angry—the injustices, the abuses—it’s a gut-wrenching history pill to swallow. Some chapters l was holding back the tears. This isn’t a light read nor should the subject matter be taken lightly, but it is important to understand.
"In the whole of the vast fun-house of history's jokes and tricks, there can be few greater ironies than the spectacle of women embracing and furthering systems that would all too soon attack their autonomy, crush their individuality and undermine the very reason for their existence" (Miles 89).
Is this a feminist text? By definition (cited here from Merriam-Webster dictionary) and largely from a scholarly theorist perspective feminism is “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes as well as organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests.” This book offer theories (along with and backed by research from various fields of study) of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes so in that frame of reference it’s a feminist text. But bear in mind that over the years the term feminism has taken on a variety of negative connotations (often the work of its opposition in an attempt to discredit it), but I’m not going to give recognition to those distortions.
Why this text is still relevant:
"Millions of women who publicly disclaim feminism have nevertheless reached out with both hands for the chance it has opened up for them (Miles 10).
The lack of a women’s history or women studies discipline in general education curriculums have left a large crux of 21st century women and men uninformed and misinformed. And though originally published in 1988, and thus the last nearly thirty years are not included, this book not only documents women’s struggles through the ages, but also points to issues still at the forefront today.
Women and men living in 2017 should possess a basic understanding of how history has swayed backwards and forward through slow transitions and difficult strides towards equality. We can’t assume that because it’s been won, that it can’t be taken away.
From the very beginning of time, women weren’t affronted with inequality; instead they descended to it. Many rights that were won in the 20th century were given freely in earlier civilizations. Women’s equality has not historically been a linear progression, but more a series of setbacks and advances as societal conditions change.
Women’s oppression, while universal and unrelenting for millenniums, varies widely by class, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and religion. There is no one answer to fix all ills.
“Every country held, too, peculiar challenges for feminism; the struggle worldwide consisted not of imposing a set of general principals from nation to nation, but of winning what could be won from local conditions and national conventions” (Miles 240).
Bottom Line /Hard Truths: If you are looking for a fluff piece highlighting well known women through the ages, this is not one of them. This text looks at historical trends and attempts to offer viable explanations (through what little evidence and unbiased scholarship there is on certain time frames) as to not just what women were doing while men were getting all the credit, but why they were omitted in the first place. And I suspect that might be what some readers struggle with—the idea that it became a conscious effort to suppress women’s voices and women’s contributions. It’s mind boggling really that one can acknowledge women’s absence from traditional text but still refuse to admit there is a long standing patriarchal bias that made it that way in the first place. It’s as if some readers want to know what’s missing but don’t want to face the disturbing realities of its absence.
How I got this book/Why I read this book/My background: I ordered this book (paperback edition) from Amazon after browsing several books on the subject for consideration for my kids’ educational studies. I read it first and made a chapter by chapter study guide for our lessons. I have a background in English literature with a concentration in women’s literature and feminist criticism so the general subject matter wasn’t previously unfamiliar, but I still found the details moving and the overall thesis an enlightening and essential read.
February 18, 2017
2 stars
An outdated, white-feminist history of the world heavy influenced by the author's belief in a bullshit, disproved, mythology of of a prehistoric matriarchal utopia. Gets more interesting (but also more western-focused) as it reaches the more modern sections dealing with women's suffrage and contraceptive rights.
There is a lot of bad history here, a number of factual mistakes, cultural ignorance, and a lack of intersectinslity. BUT, I do appreciate that this was written back in 1988 (making it the same age as me) and is in most ways a product of it's time. Thankfully the discourse around these issues has changed hugely within my lifetime.
While all that makes this book an interesting one to read for someone interested in history, feminism, and the history of the feminist movement, it doesn't actually make it a good history book.
An outdated, white-feminist history of the world heavy influenced by the author's belief in a bullshit, disproved, mythology of of a prehistoric matriarchal utopia. Gets more interesting (but also more western-focused) as it reaches the more modern sections dealing with women's suffrage and contraceptive rights.
There is a lot of bad history here, a number of factual mistakes, cultural ignorance, and a lack of intersectinslity. BUT, I do appreciate that this was written back in 1988 (making it the same age as me) and is in most ways a product of it's time. Thankfully the discourse around these issues has changed hugely within my lifetime.
While all that makes this book an interesting one to read for someone interested in history, feminism, and the history of the feminist movement, it doesn't actually make it a good history book.
December 11, 2016
Already in the introduction, there are some ridiculous passages about how, unlike women, male black slaves weren't raped (sis...), and neither were men during the Bosnian genocide (have I got news for YOU).
She engages in some oppression Olympics ("the Taliban laws for women were worse than the Nazi laws for Jews!").
And weirdly dismisses the achievements of Jacqueline Onassis and Lady Di as "famous only through the men they married, and not for any talent of their own" (direct quote). Listen, I'm no Jackie or Diana fangirl, but even I know that Jacqueline did REMARKABLE work during her brief period as First Lady, entirely remaking the White House as a sort of living museum and collecting and preserving historically significant pieces of American history (she made a whole campaign of it!). She also changed the way diplomatic receptions were held in the White House (and, of course, she was an apt diplomat herself) and was a patron of American arts. And later in life she also had her own publishing house. And Diana, do I even have to mention her activism?? Like do you know how many people she helped and how many causes she fought for??
The author also subscribes to the myth of the prehistorical matriarchy. You know, the hippie belief that in the Stone Age women were footloose and fancy-free, and "God was a woman". There is some very shallow picking and choosing of "evidence" with no real context for the societies, everything is mixed in order to support this thesis but you finish reading and you won't really know anything new about any of the subjects.
I want to read a women's history of the world, but this clearly isn't it. (Probably because the author isn't a historian, but an English scholar)
She engages in some oppression Olympics ("the Taliban laws for women were worse than the Nazi laws for Jews!").
And weirdly dismisses the achievements of Jacqueline Onassis and Lady Di as "famous only through the men they married, and not for any talent of their own" (direct quote). Listen, I'm no Jackie or Diana fangirl, but even I know that Jacqueline did REMARKABLE work during her brief period as First Lady, entirely remaking the White House as a sort of living museum and collecting and preserving historically significant pieces of American history (she made a whole campaign of it!). She also changed the way diplomatic receptions were held in the White House (and, of course, she was an apt diplomat herself) and was a patron of American arts. And later in life she also had her own publishing house. And Diana, do I even have to mention her activism?? Like do you know how many people she helped and how many causes she fought for??
The author also subscribes to the myth of the prehistorical matriarchy. You know, the hippie belief that in the Stone Age women were footloose and fancy-free, and "God was a woman". There is some very shallow picking and choosing of "evidence" with no real context for the societies, everything is mixed in order to support this thesis but you finish reading and you won't really know anything new about any of the subjects.
I want to read a women's history of the world, but this clearly isn't it. (Probably because the author isn't a historian, but an English scholar)
August 25, 2023
(قال أنا خير منه خلقتني من نار وخلقته من طين)
قد قالها إبليس قبلا، ثم اتبع خطواته من بعدها كثير من الرجال والنساء وصار هذا منطقهم في الحكم
فالانصاف عزيز وثقيل على النفس
كنت أحسب هذا الكتاب دراسة تاريخية عن الحياة الاجتماعية زمن السيد المسيح ولذلك سعيت إليه
وعنوانه الأصلي والفرعي جميل وذكي
(من طبخت العشاء الأخير؛ تاريخ العالم كما ترويه النساء)
ليتبين لي أنه لم يكن في الكتاب ما هو جميل إلا عنوانه هذا، وأنه لا هو كتاب في التاريخ ولا هكذا تروي النساء التاريخ، (وقد علمنا أن الراويات في التاريخ الإسلامي كن معروفات بالضبط والصدق فلم يشتهر منهن وضاعات وطبعا المؤلفة وهي تخبرنا عن تاريخنا لم تسمع بوجودهن حتى)، و إنما هو اختراع تاريخ من التاريخ، وأن المؤلفة تحسب نفسها كل نساء العالمين، وأن تاريخ الغرب هو المقياس الذي يقرأ من خلاله تاريخ العالم برمته
بل حتى لا أدري لم كتب على غلافه دراسة، ولا وجود للدراسة والتحليل والاستنتاج، بقدر ما هو تجميع لمقتطفات من المعلومات من الشرق والغرب بشكل مشوه ومن دون أي ترابط بينها وتوليفها وإخراجها وكأن هناك قصة واحدة، وكأن النساء شيء واحد وماهية واحدة واهتمامات واحدة عابرة للأزمنة والقارات
فإن كانت المعلومات التاريخية عن تاريخنا التي أعرفها مشوهة ومجتزأة وتبدو غربية بحتة، مما جعلني أفقد الثقة ببقية ما لا علم لي به، وهذا أمر مؤسف ومحزن، إذ فيه الكثير من المعلومات، بيد أني وضعت ميزانا أنه ربما المعلومات من تاريخها الغربي أقرب للصحة حتى لو مجتزأة بينما عن بقية العالم فمشكوك به
وكان من الممكن أن أقرأه على أنه ليس بدراسة فعلا وإنما تأملات انطباعية نسوية غربية عن التاريخ من دون أن يثير امتعاضي
لولا أنه أقرب ليكون خطاب إيديولوجي تعبوي شعبوي متطرف، فلا أنت فهمت التاريخ ولا كان في الكتاب محاجة متوازنة لرفع المظالم عن النسوة حتى ولا رفعت من سوية الخطاب الموجه للمرأة
عموما لست معجبة بالخطابات التقليدية الموجهة للنساء ولا أقربها، وأرى فيها الكثير من التسطيح والتنميط، وأحب قراءة الكتابات النسائية التي تملك الحجة والمكتوبة برصانة والتي من الممكن أن تدخل معها في حوار، وهو ما يفتقده هذا الكتاب
فللأسف الكتاب رديء، بنفس مستوى رداءة الكتابات الذكورية سفاهة وبذاءة، هذه الأفكار النرجسية التي توهم المرء أنه على شيء لمجرد كونه ذكرا أو أنثى والبحث عن رفعته بجنسه وبحطة الجنس الآخر
وما سعي واحدهم الدائر حول جنسه وتبعاته لهاثا إلا سعي في ضلال
كمثل وهم الشيطان
هذا جزائي لأنه قد مضى زمن وأنا أقرأ دراسات جميلة وجيدة عن النساء في التاريخ الإسلامي ولا أتحدث عنها
ومنذ زمن لم يخب أملي في كتاب خيبة كبيرة، خيبة كبيرة بقدر جاذبية اسم الكتاب، سيما وأني أوصيت عليه من بيروت خصيصا
وللأسف خرجت من الكتاب كما دخلت لم أستفد شيئا بفهم الحياة الاجتماعية زمن السيد المسيح عليه السلام
قد قالها إبليس قبلا، ثم اتبع خطواته من بعدها كثير من الرجال والنساء وصار هذا منطقهم في الحكم
فالانصاف عزيز وثقيل على النفس
كنت أحسب هذا الكتاب دراسة تاريخية عن الحياة الاجتماعية زمن السيد المسيح ولذلك سعيت إليه
وعنوانه الأصلي والفرعي جميل وذكي
(من طبخت العشاء الأخير؛ تاريخ العالم كما ترويه النساء)
ليتبين لي أنه لم يكن في الكتاب ما هو جميل إلا عنوانه هذا، وأنه لا هو كتاب في التاريخ ولا هكذا تروي النساء التاريخ، (وقد علمنا أن الراويات في التاريخ الإسلامي كن معروفات بالضبط والصدق فلم يشتهر منهن وضاعات وطبعا المؤلفة وهي تخبرنا عن تاريخنا لم تسمع بوجودهن حتى)، و إنما هو اختراع تاريخ من التاريخ، وأن المؤلفة تحسب نفسها كل نساء العالمين، وأن تاريخ الغرب هو المقياس الذي يقرأ من خلاله تاريخ العالم برمته
بل حتى لا أدري لم كتب على غلافه دراسة، ولا وجود للدراسة والتحليل والاستنتاج، بقدر ما هو تجميع لمقتطفات من المعلومات من الشرق والغرب بشكل مشوه ومن دون أي ترابط بينها وتوليفها وإخراجها وكأن هناك قصة واحدة، وكأن النساء شيء واحد وماهية واحدة واهتمامات واحدة عابرة للأزمنة والقارات
فإن كانت المعلومات التاريخية عن تاريخنا التي أعرفها مشوهة ومجتزأة وتبدو غربية بحتة، مما جعلني أفقد الثقة ببقية ما لا علم لي به، وهذا أمر مؤسف ومحزن، إذ فيه الكثير من المعلومات، بيد أني وضعت ميزانا أنه ربما المعلومات من تاريخها الغربي أقرب للصحة حتى لو مجتزأة بينما عن بقية العالم فمشكوك به
وكان من الممكن أن أقرأه على أنه ليس بدراسة فعلا وإنما تأملات انطباعية نسوية غربية عن التاريخ من دون أن يثير امتعاضي
لولا أنه أقرب ليكون خطاب إيديولوجي تعبوي شعبوي متطرف، فلا أنت فهمت التاريخ ولا كان في الكتاب محاجة متوازنة لرفع المظالم عن النسوة حتى ولا رفعت من سوية الخطاب الموجه للمرأة
عموما لست معجبة بالخطابات التقليدية الموجهة للنساء ولا أقربها، وأرى فيها الكثير من التسطيح والتنميط، وأحب قراءة الكتابات النسائية التي تملك الحجة والمكتوبة برصانة والتي من الممكن أن تدخل معها في حوار، وهو ما يفتقده هذا الكتاب
فللأسف الكتاب رديء، بنفس مستوى رداءة الكتابات الذكورية سفاهة وبذاءة، هذه الأفكار النرجسية التي توهم المرء أنه على شيء لمجرد كونه ذكرا أو أنثى والبحث عن رفعته بجنسه وبحطة الجنس الآخر
وما سعي واحدهم الدائر حول جنسه وتبعاته لهاثا إلا سعي في ضلال
كمثل وهم الشيطان
هذا جزائي لأنه قد مضى زمن وأنا أقرأ دراسات جميلة وجيدة عن النساء في التاريخ الإسلامي ولا أتحدث عنها
ومنذ زمن لم يخب أملي في كتاب خيبة كبيرة، خيبة كبيرة بقدر جاذبية اسم الكتاب، سيما وأني أوصيت عليه من بيروت خصيصا
وللأسف خرجت من الكتاب كما دخلت لم أستفد شيئا بفهم الحياة الاجتماعية زمن السيد المسيح عليه السلام
April 8, 2013
I think those who have claimed this book as biased are missing the forest for the trees. Of course it's biased. It's called "The Women's History of the World." Most accounts of history are biased in some form or another.
This book is mild in its bias; I've read other books that are far more scathing of the opposition.
That said, this was refreshing in its unforgiving nature. It's made me look at all accounts of history with a sharper eye.
For example, just last night, after finishing this book, I was watching a historical documentary on the Greeks. The only time women were even mentioned were to say that they were banned from participating and even watching in the Olympic Games. A single woman was mentioned later (they didn't even give us her name, for goodness sake): she was "given" to the Spartan king by her husband (an aristocrat trying to win favor), which helped him seal the Spartan's help in seizing the throne in Athens from another monarch. (This was on Netflix--The Greeks: The Crucible of Civilization narrated by Liam Neeson.)
This book is mild in its bias; I've read other books that are far more scathing of the opposition.
That said, this was refreshing in its unforgiving nature. It's made me look at all accounts of history with a sharper eye.
For example, just last night, after finishing this book, I was watching a historical documentary on the Greeks. The only time women were even mentioned were to say that they were banned from participating and even watching in the Olympic Games. A single woman was mentioned later (they didn't even give us her name, for goodness sake): she was "given" to the Spartan king by her husband (an aristocrat trying to win favor), which helped him seal the Spartan's help in seizing the throne in Athens from another monarch. (This was on Netflix--The Greeks: The Crucible of Civilization narrated by Liam Neeson.)
July 23, 2016
No, really, who did cook the Last Supper?
Okay, spoiler-alert. You don't actually find out who cooked the Last Supper. Bummer, I know. But that's not really the point. The point is that women have been a part of the historical landscape across the world for-freaking-ever, and no one really thinks about it that much because, well, they're not really portrayed that often in the Bible as any central characters - they're just slaves and whores and shit. And so often the history books (written by a bunch of white men) remove the true history of a lot of the world's famous women because, as I've stated before, strong, infamous women are super scary and are basically witches, so they cannot be trusted.
Rosalind Miles is a wickedly smart woman who wanted to give voice to the many women that history has ignored. It's not just a bunch of name-dropping, which I found to be a relief, because I didn't want a book-formatted Wikipedia article about a bunch of women. I wanted to know about them, yes, but also what they were up against, what they accomplished, why are they ignored so much in our society even today, and what can we do about that. And in that vein, Miles came through for me. (Because it's about me. It's always about me.)
As a self-proclaimed well-read woman myself, I like to think I have a finger on the pulse of a lot of quality information about women in history and shit, but even so I learned a lot from reading this book. Unfortunately it was long overdue at the library and so I no longer have a copy of the book here in front of me to be able to pinpoint some of the more interesting things I learned, but let it be known that I appreciated this book and felt okay with the fact that I held onto it like a week or two longer than I should have. I've had overdue library books before, but I can't remember the last time I actually got a reminder email saying "No, really, this book is overdue, will you please return it" (albeit in nicer librarial terms than that). Eventually I will even go back and pay the library overdue fee. Lazy-butt, here.
This should be read by everyone - not just women, but men too, because it's not just all about you guys, there's this whole other accomplished population out here and we shouldn't be ignored, not because we are witches and will hurt you, but because we're also humans and we have voices and talents and thoughts and valid beliefs. We're not as scary as everyone likes to make us out to be.
Okay, spoiler-alert. You don't actually find out who cooked the Last Supper. Bummer, I know. But that's not really the point. The point is that women have been a part of the historical landscape across the world for-freaking-ever, and no one really thinks about it that much because, well, they're not really portrayed that often in the Bible as any central characters - they're just slaves and whores and shit. And so often the history books (written by a bunch of white men) remove the true history of a lot of the world's famous women because, as I've stated before, strong, infamous women are super scary and are basically witches, so they cannot be trusted.
Rosalind Miles is a wickedly smart woman who wanted to give voice to the many women that history has ignored. It's not just a bunch of name-dropping, which I found to be a relief, because I didn't want a book-formatted Wikipedia article about a bunch of women. I wanted to know about them, yes, but also what they were up against, what they accomplished, why are they ignored so much in our society even today, and what can we do about that. And in that vein, Miles came through for me. (Because it's about me. It's always about me.)
As a self-proclaimed well-read woman myself, I like to think I have a finger on the pulse of a lot of quality information about women in history and shit, but even so I learned a lot from reading this book. Unfortunately it was long overdue at the library and so I no longer have a copy of the book here in front of me to be able to pinpoint some of the more interesting things I learned, but let it be known that I appreciated this book and felt okay with the fact that I held onto it like a week or two longer than I should have. I've had overdue library books before, but I can't remember the last time I actually got a reminder email saying "No, really, this book is overdue, will you please return it" (albeit in nicer librarial terms than that). Eventually I will even go back and pay the library overdue fee. Lazy-butt, here.
This should be read by everyone - not just women, but men too, because it's not just all about you guys, there's this whole other accomplished population out here and we shouldn't be ignored, not because we are witches and will hurt you, but because we're also humans and we have voices and talents and thoughts and valid beliefs. We're not as scary as everyone likes to make us out to be.
May 2, 2022
This book gave me too much power. Reading this with my bestie Bonnie, I was stopping every other sentence to declare I KNOW THAT'S RIGHT!! every time the book talked about how women were previously the most powerful gender in society. I liked some chapters in this book more than others, and sometimes the sentence structure could be so long and convoluted that the author's message was lost. But her tone was so hilarious and it made me really interested in picking up more books on this subject.
As a book from the 1990s there were a few things I think could've been modernized if the book were rewritten today, like a bigger focus on non-Western/white societies and better intersectionality. The N word was used in the last chapter, and it was in bad taste to cite white authors talking about abolitionism and civil rights rather than Black writers. My rating more reflects the first half of the book where I highly enjoyed learning about women's roles in society previous to modern times and before industrialization.
As a book from the 1990s there were a few things I think could've been modernized if the book were rewritten today, like a bigger focus on non-Western/white societies and better intersectionality. The N word was used in the last chapter, and it was in bad taste to cite white authors talking about abolitionism and civil rights rather than Black writers. My rating more reflects the first half of the book where I highly enjoyed learning about women's roles in society previous to modern times and before industrialization.
August 27, 2022
كتاب ثقيل جدا في قراءته ومعلوماته
كنت متوقعه الكاتبة تصل لوجهة نظرها بأسلوب أبسط من ذلك
الكاتبه أردات عرض حقائق عن طمس المرأة من كتب التاريخ فاتخذت من الهجوم سبيل لتقلب الطاوله علي نفسها بعد أن كان من المفترض أن تعرض حقائق
أكره الادب النسوي الهجومي البحت ولا يعجبني القراءة فيه
نجمتين لأن الكتاب مبذول فيه جهد كبير من عرض النظريات ولا شئ آخر
كنت متوقعه الكاتبة تصل لوجهة نظرها بأسلوب أبسط من ذلك
الكاتبه أردات عرض حقائق عن طمس المرأة من كتب التاريخ فاتخذت من الهجوم سبيل لتقلب الطاوله علي نفسها بعد أن كان من المفترض أن تعرض حقائق
أكره الادب النسوي الهجومي البحت ولا يعجبني القراءة فيه
نجمتين لأن الكتاب مبذول فيه جهد كبير من عرض النظريات ولا شئ آخر
March 24, 2015
I had one reservation about the book that stopped me from giving it the five stars that it deserves. In the chapter about religion as a form of oppression against women, the author had taken quotes and stories from Islam out of context, and without any evidence, using it to prove her point. As a Muslim, I can only speak about Islam, however it seemed that author was blatantly against any form of religion and made it her mission to talk about how it oppressed women. I became skeptical of most of her arguments. Nevertheless, I took it not with a grain, but a handful of a salt. The author did make some interesting and valid points throughout the rest of the book. I thought individual women's stories would be told, however the author's portrayal of women collectively, made it easy to understand the context of history with women's roles finally being acknowledged.
October 9, 2022
يجيب «من طبخ العشاء الأخير؟» على التساؤل الذي يخطر في بال كثيرين حول سر انزواء النساء من كتب التاريخ. فالرجال، عند مايلز دائماً، يهيمنون على التاريخ، لأنهم يكتبونه، وهم عمدوا بقصد أو بحكم مرجعياتهم الآيديولوجية إلى تجاهل المساهمة الحيوية للمرأة في تشكيل العالم أو التهوين من شأنها
Want to read
August 23, 2023saw this on tiktok (@l.vesick’s page!) and i quite literally need to read it right now
March 31, 2024
Exploring roughly one half of human history that has often been left out of curriculums and other texts, Rosalind Miles attempts to wrangle all of women’s history, ever, into 287 pages (not including notes etc) covering prehistoric women’s more egalitarian human experience all the way through to women of the 1980s, when this book was initially published.
Miles discusses early societies in which humans revered the woman’s ability to create life, before the connection with men’s role in fertility was fully understood. She explains the previous rule of ancient Goddess worship worldwide and the eventual overtaking of phallic worship and its linkage to fertility that initially led men down a path of claiming superiority that was catapulted to new heights with the development of major world religions. From there, she explores the ways in which men have used science, health, politics and religion to control women’s bodies, autonomy, and rights for centuries and barred so many women from contributing to the development of society in many ways, and from proper recognition of those contributions they were able to make regardless of those barriers.
This book was unnecessarily complicated in its writing style and was also too anecdotal for my personal preference. To me, the revised title of “Who Cooked the Last Supper?” (The original title was simply the second half, “The Women’s History of the World”) was misleading; I took it to mean it may explore the stories of specific women or times in history. I also agree with other reviewers of this book that it is very Western in its perspective and I was hoping for a bit more of a balanced and thorough history of women worldwide. It was clear the author tried to do this, but I think today this book would be written very differently.
That being said, I am still glad that I read this book, even though it often felt extremely dated and narrow in scope as far as intersectionality is concerned. It certainly offers a perspective of history that I hope people continue to become increasingly curious about as we evolve to be more and more feminist the world over. It sparked an interest in many topics that I hope to pursue in better books!
Miles discusses early societies in which humans revered the woman’s ability to create life, before the connection with men’s role in fertility was fully understood. She explains the previous rule of ancient Goddess worship worldwide and the eventual overtaking of phallic worship and its linkage to fertility that initially led men down a path of claiming superiority that was catapulted to new heights with the development of major world religions. From there, she explores the ways in which men have used science, health, politics and religion to control women’s bodies, autonomy, and rights for centuries and barred so many women from contributing to the development of society in many ways, and from proper recognition of those contributions they were able to make regardless of those barriers.
This book was unnecessarily complicated in its writing style and was also too anecdotal for my personal preference. To me, the revised title of “Who Cooked the Last Supper?” (The original title was simply the second half, “The Women’s History of the World”) was misleading; I took it to mean it may explore the stories of specific women or times in history. I also agree with other reviewers of this book that it is very Western in its perspective and I was hoping for a bit more of a balanced and thorough history of women worldwide. It was clear the author tried to do this, but I think today this book would be written very differently.
That being said, I am still glad that I read this book, even though it often felt extremely dated and narrow in scope as far as intersectionality is concerned. It certainly offers a perspective of history that I hope people continue to become increasingly curious about as we evolve to be more and more feminist the world over. It sparked an interest in many topics that I hope to pursue in better books!
September 12, 2019
Oh boy.
RTC once I’m no longer fuming (spoiler alert: there are so many historical inaccuracies in this book which, yeah, while I understand it’s nearly 30 years out of date, are inaccuracies that come from deliberate misquotation of sources, repetition of myths without concrete evidence, and the construction of a historical argument based on said inaccuracies which do the unfortunate job of turning a fascinating argument based on 60% truth into one that’s VERY difficult to take seriously because of the 40% that’s blatantly false, a stretch, or else an oversimplification)
RTC once I’m no longer fuming (spoiler alert: there are so many historical inaccuracies in this book which, yeah, while I understand it’s nearly 30 years out of date, are inaccuracies that come from deliberate misquotation of sources, repetition of myths without concrete evidence, and the construction of a historical argument based on said inaccuracies which do the unfortunate job of turning a fascinating argument based on 60% truth into one that’s VERY difficult to take seriously because of the 40% that’s blatantly false, a stretch, or else an oversimplification)
July 17, 2008
I have always believed in equal rights/opportunites for everyone, regardless of race or gender, but I have never been a raging feminist. I felt like one when reading this book!! It made me so proud to be a woman, so appreciative of those that came and fought before me... It was nice to see what all (in a nutshell) women have contributed to mankind's society and culture.
June 10, 2022
Unfortunately, I couldn’t bring myself to finish this read and only got 20% through it. Not only did I struggle with the disjointed writing style, I couldn’t overlook the overtone of a white feminist history.
The introduction and first few chapters lack a deeper understanding of race and culture. The portrayal of “non-Western” history seemed to fall into stereotypes with little nuance.
The introduction and first few chapters lack a deeper understanding of race and culture. The portrayal of “non-Western” history seemed to fall into stereotypes with little nuance.
March 31, 2013
Hands down the most entertaining and illuminating book I've read on women's history. I have gone back to it often & highly recommend it. Read it with a highlighter in hand if you are a history buff, you will find many women's lives vibrantly outlined here and you'll want to explore some in more detail. A far reaching view of human history from women's perspective. Miles' generous humour is peppered throughout making this a fun read - and so a terrific book for the young feminists (of any gender) in our lives.
"Women are the greatest race of underdogs the world has ever known" - Rosalind Miles
"Women are the greatest race of underdogs the world has ever known" - Rosalind Miles
September 22, 2025
⭐ ونصف
توقعاتي عن الكتاب كان إنه بيحكي عن نماذج شاركت في كتابة التاريخ و إنجازاتهم وكنت متخيلة إن الكاتبة في كل فصل هاتحكي عن شخصية ما تم إغفالها من قِبل المؤرخين فقط لكونها امرأة.
لكن الكتاب عن النسوية و ليس بمعناها العقلاني بالنسبة لي وفي كل فصل فقرات قليلة لنماذج تدعم وجهة نظر الكاتبة المتحيزة والمهووسة وبنزعة الـ white supremacy عن المرأة ومعاناتها!
فإذا كنت تبحث عن كتاب تاريخ فلن تجد هذا هنا.. ربما يكون الكتاب لا بأس به في حالة اهتمامك بالنّسوية أو العالم من وجهة نظر نسوية في وقت كتابة الكتاب تقريبا عام 1988.
لماذا لا يعد هذا كتاب تاريخ في رأيي لسببين :
أولهم :
تحيز الكاتبة بشكل مهووس لنفي أي إنجاز قام به الذكور لأنه في الأصل من إنجاز المرأة المقهورة التي تم دهسها تحت سطوة ذكوريته المتعفنة..
مما جعلني أشعر بالازدواجية في كثير من الأحيان اتجاه كلامها وانعدام الموضوعية (على الرغم من صحة بعض الأشياء و الأراء التي ذكرتها والتي أتفق فيها مع الكاتبة)
إلا إنها كانت تود التحرر من أي سلطة سواء كانت دينية أو أخلاقية أو مجتمعية لأنها من اختراع الرجل! 🙄
ولن أتحدث عن كلامها عن الأديان الذي يتسم بالسطحية وبالنظرة القاصرة (وبشوية شطحات كدة إنما إيه).
وفي رأيي.. أي رأي متحيز لأي من الجانبين بالشكل المتطرف الموجود هنا فهو عقيم ولا يغني ولا يسمن من جوع.. وفي أثناء هذا الصراع العقيم تُهدر الكثير من الحقوق والقضايا التي تفيد النساء فعلا.
ثانيهما:
عدم دقة المعلومات التي ذكرتها خصوصها في نصف الكتاب الأول وفيما يتعلق بالشرق الأوسط والعرب..
على سبيل المثال استعانت بأقوال "مؤرخة" على حد قولها معروفة ومشهورة إسمها (فاتنة صبّاح).. هذة المؤرخة المشهورة عندما بحثت عنها لم تظهر لي أي نتائج بحث!
حتى chat gpt (اللي بيميل للفتي ومابيقولش على حاجة مايعرفهاش) لم يستطع إيجاد مؤرخة بهذا الاسم!
وللحق موضوع الشخصيات التي وجدت بالفعل تحسن في الجزء الأخير من الكتاب لأنه يعتبر تاريخ معاصر ويمكن من أول التاريخ الإستعماري والتوسع الإمبريالي وما إلى ذلك.
-الكتاب تم بذل مجهود لا بأس به لكتابته أكيد لكنه كان قراءة غير موفقة بالنسبة لي.
ربما أعجبني فصلين من الكتاب أو ثلاثة ( الثورة الصناعية، التعليم ، العمل) وذلك لأن نبرة الكاتبة التواقة للمقارنة ولإثبات الأفضلية هدأت وحلّ محلها قليل من الموضوعية والحقائق.
النجمة ونصف لتلك الفصول و للمعاناة الفعلية التي مرت وما تزال تمر بها النساء في كل أنحاء العالم.
توقعاتي عن الكتاب كان إنه بيحكي عن نماذج شاركت في كتابة التاريخ و إنجازاتهم وكنت متخيلة إن الكاتبة في كل فصل هاتحكي عن شخصية ما تم إغفالها من قِبل المؤرخين فقط لكونها امرأة.
لكن الكتاب عن النسوية و ليس بمعناها العقلاني بالنسبة لي وفي كل فصل فقرات قليلة لنماذج تدعم وجهة نظر الكاتبة المتحيزة والمهووسة وبنزعة الـ white supremacy عن المرأة ومعاناتها!
فإذا كنت تبحث عن كتاب تاريخ فلن تجد هذا هنا.. ربما يكون الكتاب لا بأس به في حالة اهتمامك بالنّسوية أو العالم من وجهة نظر نسوية في وقت كتابة الكتاب تقريبا عام 1988.
لماذا لا يعد هذا كتاب تاريخ في رأيي لسببين :
أولهم :
تحيز الكاتبة بشكل مهووس لنفي أي إنجاز قام به الذكور لأنه في الأصل من إنجاز المرأة المقهورة التي تم دهسها تحت سطوة ذكوريته المتعفنة..
مما جعلني أشعر بالازدواجية في كثير من الأحيان اتجاه كلامها وانعدام الموضوعية (على الرغم من صحة بعض الأشياء و الأراء التي ذكرتها والتي أتفق فيها مع الكاتبة)
إلا إنها كانت تود التحرر من أي سلطة سواء كانت دينية أو أخلاقية أو مجتمعية لأنها من اختراع الرجل! 🙄
ولن أتحدث عن كلامها عن الأديان الذي يتسم بالسطحية وبالنظرة القاصرة (وبشوية شطحات كدة إنما إيه).
وفي رأيي.. أي رأي متحيز لأي من الجانبين بالشكل المتطرف الموجود هنا فهو عقيم ولا يغني ولا يسمن من جوع.. وفي أثناء هذا الصراع العقيم تُهدر الكثير من الحقوق والقضايا التي تفيد النساء فعلا.
ثانيهما:
عدم دقة المعلومات التي ذكرتها خصوصها في نصف الكتاب الأول وفيما يتعلق بالشرق الأوسط والعرب..
على سبيل المثال استعانت بأقوال "مؤرخة" على حد قولها معروفة ومشهورة إسمها (فاتنة صبّاح).. هذة المؤرخة المشهورة عندما بحثت عنها لم تظهر لي أي نتائج بحث!
حتى chat gpt (اللي بيميل للفتي ومابيقولش على حاجة مايعرفهاش) لم يستطع إيجاد مؤرخة بهذا الاسم!
وللحق موضوع الشخصيات التي وجدت بالفعل تحسن في الجزء الأخير من الكتاب لأنه يعتبر تاريخ معاصر ويمكن من أول التاريخ الإستعماري والتوسع الإمبريالي وما إلى ذلك.
-الكتاب تم بذل مجهود لا بأس به لكتابته أكيد لكنه كان قراءة غير موفقة بالنسبة لي.
ربما أعجبني فصلين من الكتاب أو ثلاثة ( الثورة الصناعية، التعليم ، العمل) وذلك لأن نبرة الكاتبة التواقة للمقارنة ولإثبات الأفضلية هدأت وحلّ محلها قليل من الموضوعية والحقائق.
النجمة ونصف لتلك الفصول و للمعاناة الفعلية التي مرت وما تزال تمر بها النساء في كل أنحاء العالم.
February 15, 2012
This may be the most unorganized, poorly thought-through book I've ever read.
That would sum up my review, but I feel that I should be more descriptive.
When I bought this book, what I thought I was getting was a look behind the male-centric view of history. The title seemed to be saying this...and even the back says "Here is the history you never learned--but should have."
But this isn't the book I got. Instead I got a rant of epic proportions using carefully and selectively chosen research loosely strung together using in chapters that only differed in content by the heading. Often I would find myself reading on a subject and think "Oh, I thought I finished this chapter" only to look up and see indeed I had. The chapter title had changed but the subject matter hadn't. In a chapter seemingly on "Women and Empire" and supposedly about how women during the age of colonialism fared (both native and colonial), women who ran bordellos in America's wild west were discussed...at length.
Also the author seems convinced that men have conspiratorial cabal lasting centuries to think of ways to enslave women. I don't doubt that men have gained, but I really doubt that there were meetings of "hey, let's get rid of these mother goddess and get a guy as the head god." Unfortunately, the way it's told here, it seems to be a conscious effort, put in place specifically to enslave women. There's plenty to be angry about in world history if you're a woman, we don't need to be looking for conspiracies and the New World Order.
By the end, I just felt yelled at by a crazy drunk on the street. Sure, he might have something interesting to say, but there's no following his train of thought, and in the end...why bother?
The sad thing is that I still want to read the book that I thought I bought, and I would catch small vignettes of interesting details...then she'd go off again. Women's history is a vibrant and much needed area of study. This book does it no favors.
That would sum up my review, but I feel that I should be more descriptive.
When I bought this book, what I thought I was getting was a look behind the male-centric view of history. The title seemed to be saying this...and even the back says "Here is the history you never learned--but should have."
But this isn't the book I got. Instead I got a rant of epic proportions using carefully and selectively chosen research loosely strung together using in chapters that only differed in content by the heading. Often I would find myself reading on a subject and think "Oh, I thought I finished this chapter" only to look up and see indeed I had. The chapter title had changed but the subject matter hadn't. In a chapter seemingly on "Women and Empire" and supposedly about how women during the age of colonialism fared (both native and colonial), women who ran bordellos in America's wild west were discussed...at length.
Also the author seems convinced that men have conspiratorial cabal lasting centuries to think of ways to enslave women. I don't doubt that men have gained, but I really doubt that there were meetings of "hey, let's get rid of these mother goddess and get a guy as the head god." Unfortunately, the way it's told here, it seems to be a conscious effort, put in place specifically to enslave women. There's plenty to be angry about in world history if you're a woman, we don't need to be looking for conspiracies and the New World Order.
By the end, I just felt yelled at by a crazy drunk on the street. Sure, he might have something interesting to say, but there's no following his train of thought, and in the end...why bother?
The sad thing is that I still want to read the book that I thought I bought, and I would catch small vignettes of interesting details...then she'd go off again. Women's history is a vibrant and much needed area of study. This book does it no favors.
May 19, 2024
محض هراء.. أشعر بالشفقة تجاه الكاتبة!
كل ما استخدمته من أدلة هي أدلة واهية من توقعات حصلت قبل آلاف وملايين السنين و تعتبرها "أرشيف ضخم من الأدلة"!
جل الكتاب يعتمد على الأساطير.
أيضا يحتوي معظم الكتاب على أفكار مغلوطة عن العرب و المسلمين و أفكار تتعارض مع الإسلام أو بمعنى أصح التي تجهل الكاتبة - ومن ثم الكثير من النسويات - تفسيرها و أسبابها و نتائجها من وجهة نظر الدين الإسلامي حيث أننا كمسلمين نسلم بما نصه القرآن والسنة فقط.
كما أن الكاتبة تستند إلى معلومات من نظرية التطور - التي لا نؤمن بها كمسلمين- على أنها مسلمات و معلومات علمية مثبتة وليست نظريات.
أنظر ص ١١٩، ص ١٢٠.. خرافات بينة عن الإسلام و الكعبة وسيدنا محمد عليه افضل الصلاة والسلام ، تقول بالنص "ذلك الراعي الأمي المصاب بالصرع"... ألا لعنة الله عليك. 😠
كل ما استندت عليه من أحداث عن الإسلام هو كذب بين و افتراء.
تدعي الكاتبة في الكتاب كله إلى أن نصرة المرأة و استرداد حقوقها يتم عن طريق العودة إلى عبادة الإلهة الأم وليس الإله الذكر المذكور في الأديان السماوية.
كل ما تعرضت له المرأة ف العصور القديمة على حسب كلام الكاتبة يجعلك تقول سبحان الله و الحمد لله على نعمة الإسلام الذي كرم المرأة و رفع شأنها ومنحها حقوقها.
أنا لا أحب النسوية المعادية للرجل.. او النسوية الغربية الغير إسلامية بشكل عام.
أنا مع حقوق المرأة و واجباتها و حقوق الرجل و واجباته التي نصها الإسلام.. فيما عدا ذلك فلا آبه حتى.
كل ما استخدمته من أدلة هي أدلة واهية من توقعات حصلت قبل آلاف وملايين السنين و تعتبرها "أرشيف ضخم من الأدلة"!
جل الكتاب يعتمد على الأساطير.
أيضا يحتوي معظم الكتاب على أفكار مغلوطة عن العرب و المسلمين و أفكار تتعارض مع الإسلام أو بمعنى أصح التي تجهل الكاتبة - ومن ثم الكثير من النسويات - تفسيرها و أسبابها و نتائجها من وجهة نظر الدين الإسلامي حيث أننا كمسلمين نسلم بما نصه القرآن والسنة فقط.
كما أن الكاتبة تستند إلى معلومات من نظرية التطور - التي لا نؤمن بها كمسلمين- على أنها مسلمات و معلومات علمية مثبتة وليست نظريات.
أنظر ص ١١٩، ص ١٢٠.. خرافات بينة عن الإسلام و الكعبة وسيدنا محمد عليه افضل الصلاة والسلام ، تقول بالنص "ذلك الراعي الأمي المصاب بالصرع"... ألا لعنة الله عليك. 😠
كل ما استندت عليه من أحداث عن الإسلام هو كذب بين و افتراء.
تدعي الكاتبة في الكتاب كله إلى أن نصرة المرأة و استرداد حقوقها يتم عن طريق العودة إلى عبادة الإلهة الأم وليس الإله الذكر المذكور في الأديان السماوية.
كل ما تعرضت له المرأة ف العصور القديمة على حسب كلام الكاتبة يجعلك تقول سبحان الله و الحمد لله على نعمة الإسلام الذي كرم المرأة و رفع شأنها ومنحها حقوقها.
أنا لا أحب النسوية المعادية للرجل.. او النسوية الغربية الغير إسلامية بشكل عام.
أنا مع حقوق المرأة و واجباتها و حقوق الرجل و واجباته التي نصها الإسلام.. فيما عدا ذلك فلا آبه حتى.
December 15, 2024
أعلم جيدًا ما سأقوله سيثير الجدل والأقاويل لكن بكل جدية المرأة لم تأخذ حقها كما يجب، نعم قد حصلت على بعض الامتيازات كما يقولون لكن لم تأخذ حقوقها كاملة وإن ظننت لوهلة أن الحصول على حق الانتخاب أو وجودها في سوق العمل -وبالمناسبة حتى وجودها فيه يعتبر جريمة في حق الذكور- أو حقها في التعليم وأن هذه حقوقها كاملة فأعذرني عزيزي القارئ تحتاج أن تقرأ كثيرًا عن النساء والمتطلبات الحقيقية التي تريدها النساء وأن تسمع النساء جيدًا وهذه هي المشكلة الحقيقية؛ أننا لا نستمع للنساء بل نهاجمهم بلا عقل ونختصر كل هذه ��لأحاديث الفارغة في " هما عايزين ايه اكتر من كده مش كفاية واكلين، شاربين، نايمين، وعايشين أحسن عيشة. أما حال الستات دول غريب يا جدع ومصطلحات غريبة زيهم نسوية وسوسية وحاجات غريبة يا رب ارحمنا برحمتك..". هقولك يا حاج مصطفى ( دي شخصية من وحي خيال المؤلف وإن كان وجود الحاج مصطفى حقيقي في بعض المجتمعات) أن الحاجات اللي قولتها دي كلها دي احتياجات إنسانية لا علاقة بها بذكر أو أنثى كما تعتقد وكون أن النساء شاربين نايمين واكلين لا يعني بالضرورة إحساسها بالأمان والحصول على حقوقها كاملة فده تفكير سطحي اوي يا حاج مصطفى ربنا يباركلك في عيالك ركز في الشيشة وسيبني اكمل كلامي.
الكتاب بيعرض لنا حال النساء منذ العصور القديمة بداية من أسطورة الرجل الصياد وأنه المسؤول بشكل كامل عن القبيلة وأسرته وأن المرأة ليس لديها دور غير العويل والأكل ثم ننتقل إلى مرحلة المرأة كونها أداة لممارسة الجنـس فقط لا غير ( والحقيقة _لا أريد أن أقول ذلك_لكن ما زال الأمر مستمرًا حتى الآن..) واستحقاقية الرجل لأنه لديه ما يميزه عن المرأة -دون دخول في تفاصيل- ثم أصبحنا في مرحلة أن المرأة سلعة يتم بيعها لأول عابر سبيل ( الحاج مصطفى يقول: تقصدي ايه بكلامك ده يا استاذة احنا بنتنا يندفع فيها شيء وشويات اه لكن نرميها لأي حد كده ولا ايه.. لا مش أصول يا حاج مصطفى اه لازم يندفع فيها مهر غالي) ثم ندخل على مرحلة عمل المرأة والتي تعتبر لا أهمية لها والست مكانها البيت وتحديدًا المطبخ ( الله اكبر عليكي يا استاذة هو ده الكلام اللي يفتح النفس صحيح) ثم تعرض الكاتبة انقلاب التيار وكيف أصبحت المرأة ما هي عليه الآن.
الكتاب بيعرض أفكار كتير تخص المرأة ومراحل تحررها عبر العصور ولكن في ذات الوقت بيعرض أفكار سيئة لا تناسب عقيدتنا نحن كمسلمين، كما أن الكاتبة قعدت تخبط جامد في الأديان السماوية ومعلوماتها ليست كافية وذلك جعلني لا أثق بها فيما بعد أثناء قراءة الفصول، ولدي مشكلة أيضًا مع الكتاب رغم استمتاعي بالفصول والمواضيع التي تم طرحها إلا أن الكاتبة قعدت ترغي كتير على الفاضي وكان ممكن نختصر الكتاب في ٢٠٠ صفحة بالمصادر.
الكتاب بيعرض لنا حال النساء منذ العصور القديمة بداية من أسطورة الرجل الصياد وأنه المسؤول بشكل كامل عن القبيلة وأسرته وأن المرأة ليس لديها دور غير العويل والأكل ثم ننتقل إلى مرحلة المرأة كونها أداة لممارسة الجنـس فقط لا غير ( والحقيقة _لا أريد أن أقول ذلك_لكن ما زال الأمر مستمرًا حتى الآن..) واستحقاقية الرجل لأنه لديه ما يميزه عن المرأة -دون دخول في تفاصيل- ثم أصبحنا في مرحلة أن المرأة سلعة يتم بيعها لأول عابر سبيل ( الحاج مصطفى يقول: تقصدي ايه بكلامك ده يا استاذة احنا بنتنا يندفع فيها شيء وشويات اه لكن نرميها لأي حد كده ولا ايه.. لا مش أصول يا حاج مصطفى اه لازم يندفع فيها مهر غالي) ثم ندخل على مرحلة عمل المرأة والتي تعتبر لا أهمية لها والست مكانها البيت وتحديدًا المطبخ ( الله اكبر عليكي يا استاذة هو ده الكلام اللي يفتح النفس صحيح) ثم تعرض الكاتبة انقلاب التيار وكيف أصبحت المرأة ما هي عليه الآن.
الكتاب بيعرض أفكار كتير تخص المرأة ومراحل تحررها عبر العصور ولكن في ذات الوقت بيعرض أفكار سيئة لا تناسب عقيدتنا نحن كمسلمين، كما أن الكاتبة قعدت تخبط جامد في الأديان السماوية ومعلوماتها ليست كافية وذلك جعلني لا أثق بها فيما بعد أثناء قراءة الفصول، ولدي مشكلة أيضًا مع الكتاب رغم استمتاعي بالفصول والمواضيع التي تم طرحها إلا أن الكاتبة قعدت ترغي كتير على الفاضي وكان ممكن نختصر الكتاب في ٢٠٠ صفحة بالمصادر.
April 21, 2024
DNF @ 20%
I have so many issues with this book already after the introduction. Below are some direct quotes:
"In Afghanistan, the hideous Taliban have instituted a vicious war against the entire sex, driving women out of jobs and torturing and killing them for supposed infractions of their religious laws, laws harsher than those the Nazi imposed on the Jews during the Holocaust."
Seriously? What kind of ridiculous oppression Olympics is this?
Jacqueline Onassis and Princess Diana "were famous only through the men they married, and not for any talent of their own".
I know almost nothing about Jacqueline but does the author seriously think that Princess Diana's fame only came from her marriage from Prince Charles? For one, she was way more popular than Charles, which caused immense jealousy from Charles. Her work with charities and her activism were legendary, which the author completely disregarded. Moreover, even if she got some of her fame from her marriage to Charles, it's not a form of misogyny. It's because he comes from the royal family. By the same logic, Prince Philip was only famous because of his marriage to Queen Elizabeth. Except he was much less beloved than Diana, precisely because of "talent of her own".
The author claimed that most of the hunter gatherer women died in their 20s, which showed her lack of understanding of how life expectancy works. A life expectancy of 25 - 30 years, typical of the hunter gatherer society, doesn't mean that most people drop dead in their 20s. The human race would't survive in that scenario. Instead, life expectancy is maths of averages. Due to the high infant and childhood mortality rate, the life expectancy is dragged down. In other words, the life expectancy of a 50-year-old and a baby who died at 1 is 25.5.
The author also seems to believe in the matriarchal utopia in ancient civilisations. While I don't know enough about prehistorical times and every single ancient civilisation to refute this claim completely, I can tell you that it's NOT true in ancient Egypt and ancient China, two periods of history that I do have some knowledge about.
Don't get me wrong. Ancient Egypt was ahead of its time when it comes to female rights. Women had fewer restrictions compared to their contemporaries in other cultures (or even current day women in some cultures). They had the rights to their own property, which stayed with them after the divorce. Their statues in the mortuary temples were only slightly smaller than their male counterpart, in accordance with the natural physical differences between the two sexes. They had the freedom to choose their work, as long as it wasn't in a position of prestige and power. But here's the kicker: women were still very much not in a position to wield power in ancient Egypt. Yes, there were quite a few queens who co-ruled with their husbands/brothers/sons/fathers. But that was still not the norm. If there was a male heir, the male heir would be the principal ruler. And you would be hard pressed to find any female scribes, one of the most important and prestigious positions in ancient Egypt. So to imply that ancient Egypt is a matriarchal utopia is just farsical.
In the section about the queens/goddess who ruled, the author stated "The power of the Goddess was inherited, passed from mother to daughter, a direct line. A man only became king when he married the source of power. He did not hold it in his own right." She then proceeded to give the example of Thutmose I, the third pharaoh of the 18th dynasty of ancient Egypt, who had to "yield the throne on the death of his wife to his teenage daughter Hatshepsut, even though he had two sons."
This is factually wrong on many levels, even with the very limited evidence. First of all, Ahmose's wife was never called a King's Daughter, casting doubt on her royal family connection. The title she did hold was King's Sister, implying that she could be the sister of her husband Thutmose I, a very common practice back in ancient Egypt. So the idea that the power of Thutmose I came from her only because of her royal blood is most likely not true.
An even more glaring factual error is that Thutmose I was actually succeeded by his son Thutmose II, NOT his daughter Hatshepsut. Not only that, but Thutmose wasn't even the son of Queen Ahmose, but the son of Thutmose I's minor wife Mutnofret. As a result, Thutmose II married his half sister Hatshepsut, who was the daughter of Queen Ahmose, partly because of the brother sister marriage tradition, partly to increase his legitimacy. Hatshepsut was crowned the Great Royal Wife of Thutmose II. After his death, she initially ruled as regent to his step son Thutmose III, and THEN became the co-ruler of Thutmose III after several years of regency.
Oh, and the author's statement "even though he had two sons" is also laughable. Yeah, Thutmose I had two sons, Amenmose and Wadjmose, with Ahmose and neither succeeded him to the throne. Not because ancient Egypt preferred queens as the author seemed to think, but because both Amenmose and Wadjmose predeceased Thutmose I, making it a tad difficult for them to inherit the throne...
Also, her interpretation of the section on marriage and home from the Maxims of Ptahhotep is not accurate. While there aren't that many glaring errors this time, the subtle differences change the tone of the text drastically. The author interpreted the text to mean that a husband needs to worship his wife and fulfils all her wishes. Otherwise if she leaves him, it will be his downfall. In reality, the text did say to love, provide for, and cherish one's wife, but all under the context of protecting/controlling her ("Distance her from power, restrain her." "Your quelling her, is water."), which is not dissimilar to the misogynistic rhetorics of later times and even today's society in certain parts of the world.
After this, I really cannot continue with the book. It might have some very good points about feminism but how can I trust anything the author says? My issue with the author is that she has a preconceived idea before researching for this book so all her "history" and interpretations were used to fit that idea. That's not how you write a factually accurate history non-fiction book.
It's such a shame because the topic is fascinating and so important. When there are people who genuinely believe women are inferior to men because all great inventions/events in history were made by men, we desperately need books who actually explore the stolen or neglected history of women. But this one is not it for me.
I have so many issues with this book already after the introduction. Below are some direct quotes:
"In Afghanistan, the hideous Taliban have instituted a vicious war against the entire sex, driving women out of jobs and torturing and killing them for supposed infractions of their religious laws, laws harsher than those the Nazi imposed on the Jews during the Holocaust."
Seriously? What kind of ridiculous oppression Olympics is this?
Jacqueline Onassis and Princess Diana "were famous only through the men they married, and not for any talent of their own".
I know almost nothing about Jacqueline but does the author seriously think that Princess Diana's fame only came from her marriage from Prince Charles? For one, she was way more popular than Charles, which caused immense jealousy from Charles. Her work with charities and her activism were legendary, which the author completely disregarded. Moreover, even if she got some of her fame from her marriage to Charles, it's not a form of misogyny. It's because he comes from the royal family. By the same logic, Prince Philip was only famous because of his marriage to Queen Elizabeth. Except he was much less beloved than Diana, precisely because of "talent of her own".
The author claimed that most of the hunter gatherer women died in their 20s, which showed her lack of understanding of how life expectancy works. A life expectancy of 25 - 30 years, typical of the hunter gatherer society, doesn't mean that most people drop dead in their 20s. The human race would't survive in that scenario. Instead, life expectancy is maths of averages. Due to the high infant and childhood mortality rate, the life expectancy is dragged down. In other words, the life expectancy of a 50-year-old and a baby who died at 1 is 25.5.
The author also seems to believe in the matriarchal utopia in ancient civilisations. While I don't know enough about prehistorical times and every single ancient civilisation to refute this claim completely, I can tell you that it's NOT true in ancient Egypt and ancient China, two periods of history that I do have some knowledge about.
Don't get me wrong. Ancient Egypt was ahead of its time when it comes to female rights. Women had fewer restrictions compared to their contemporaries in other cultures (or even current day women in some cultures). They had the rights to their own property, which stayed with them after the divorce. Their statues in the mortuary temples were only slightly smaller than their male counterpart, in accordance with the natural physical differences between the two sexes. They had the freedom to choose their work, as long as it wasn't in a position of prestige and power. But here's the kicker: women were still very much not in a position to wield power in ancient Egypt. Yes, there were quite a few queens who co-ruled with their husbands/brothers/sons/fathers. But that was still not the norm. If there was a male heir, the male heir would be the principal ruler. And you would be hard pressed to find any female scribes, one of the most important and prestigious positions in ancient Egypt. So to imply that ancient Egypt is a matriarchal utopia is just farsical.
In the section about the queens/goddess who ruled, the author stated "The power of the Goddess was inherited, passed from mother to daughter, a direct line. A man only became king when he married the source of power. He did not hold it in his own right." She then proceeded to give the example of Thutmose I, the third pharaoh of the 18th dynasty of ancient Egypt, who had to "yield the throne on the death of his wife to his teenage daughter Hatshepsut, even though he had two sons."
This is factually wrong on many levels, even with the very limited evidence. First of all, Ahmose's wife was never called a King's Daughter, casting doubt on her royal family connection. The title she did hold was King's Sister, implying that she could be the sister of her husband Thutmose I, a very common practice back in ancient Egypt. So the idea that the power of Thutmose I came from her only because of her royal blood is most likely not true.
An even more glaring factual error is that Thutmose I was actually succeeded by his son Thutmose II, NOT his daughter Hatshepsut. Not only that, but Thutmose wasn't even the son of Queen Ahmose, but the son of Thutmose I's minor wife Mutnofret. As a result, Thutmose II married his half sister Hatshepsut, who was the daughter of Queen Ahmose, partly because of the brother sister marriage tradition, partly to increase his legitimacy. Hatshepsut was crowned the Great Royal Wife of Thutmose II. After his death, she initially ruled as regent to his step son Thutmose III, and THEN became the co-ruler of Thutmose III after several years of regency.
Oh, and the author's statement "even though he had two sons" is also laughable. Yeah, Thutmose I had two sons, Amenmose and Wadjmose, with Ahmose and neither succeeded him to the throne. Not because ancient Egypt preferred queens as the author seemed to think, but because both Amenmose and Wadjmose predeceased Thutmose I, making it a tad difficult for them to inherit the throne...
Also, her interpretation of the section on marriage and home from the Maxims of Ptahhotep is not accurate. While there aren't that many glaring errors this time, the subtle differences change the tone of the text drastically. The author interpreted the text to mean that a husband needs to worship his wife and fulfils all her wishes. Otherwise if she leaves him, it will be his downfall. In reality, the text did say to love, provide for, and cherish one's wife, but all under the context of protecting/controlling her ("Distance her from power, restrain her." "Your quelling her, is water."), which is not dissimilar to the misogynistic rhetorics of later times and even today's society in certain parts of the world.
After this, I really cannot continue with the book. It might have some very good points about feminism but how can I trust anything the author says? My issue with the author is that she has a preconceived idea before researching for this book so all her "history" and interpretations were used to fit that idea. That's not how you write a factually accurate history non-fiction book.
It's such a shame because the topic is fascinating and so important. When there are people who genuinely believe women are inferior to men because all great inventions/events in history were made by men, we desperately need books who actually explore the stolen or neglected history of women. But this one is not it for me.
June 7, 2024
Excellent research in every way. Tremendously documented.
I am better off for having read this.
I am better off for having read this.
January 29, 2011
This spoke to me more than I expected it would. It revealed alot of fascinating history that I knew very little about. It also profoundly influenced and solidified my views of religion. It's the sort of thought provoking book that I wish everyone would read, especially intelligent women.
Surprisingly, it does not contradict the philosophy of Ayn Rand (whose writing I discovered at the same time as reading this book). Infact it compliments it. Rosalind Miles is a "feminist" but so was Ayn Rand (in a different way). Rosalind Miles is an atheist (and so was Ayn Rand). I read "Atlas Shrugged" immediately after this book, and was fascinated by the similarities in philosophy. This book is very well written, witty, funny, enjoyable to read, as well as very well researched
Surprisingly, it does not contradict the philosophy of Ayn Rand (whose writing I discovered at the same time as reading this book). Infact it compliments it. Rosalind Miles is a "feminist" but so was Ayn Rand (in a different way). Rosalind Miles is an atheist (and so was Ayn Rand). I read "Atlas Shrugged" immediately after this book, and was fascinated by the similarities in philosophy. This book is very well written, witty, funny, enjoyable to read, as well as very well researched
March 6, 2022
عمل يستعرض تاريخ المرأة و " الصراع " مع الرجل حول الريادة .
Read
March 29, 2024tw: sigmund freud
January 16, 2024
أولاً الترجمة جميلة جداً, أشكر المترجمة د. رشا صادق على هذا المجهود
"من طبخت العشاء الأخير؟ تاريخ العالم كما ترويه النساء"
إن كتب هذا الكتاب ذكر سيكون الكتاب ذكوري, وإن كتبت هذا الكتاب أنثى سيكون الكتاب نسوي
أعتقد أول مرة أقرأ كتاب يتحيز لجنس وبكل صراحة لا أحبذ الميل لجنس وتسفيه الآخر
الكاتبة نقلت تاريخ المرأة وكأنها ضحية في كل الحقبات من الناحية الدينية, الطبقية, السياسية و التاريخية وأسهبت في الجزء الأخير جداً
المرأة لا تستطيع أن تدلي بصوتها في الانتخابات البرلمانية في الكويت سابقاً إذاً كانت المرأة الكويتية ضحية
المرأة البريطانية صورتها مشوشة إلى أن أتت الأميرة ديانا إذاً المرأة البريطانية كانت ضحية
شهادة المرأتان في الإسلام تعادل شهادة رجل واحد, إذاً المرأة المسلمة ضحية
وكثير وكثير من الأمثلة على هذا النمط المبني على فكرة "الجندر"
تمنيت بصراحة تتطرق الكاتبة للفرق بين الذكر والأنثى بيولوجياً لكن ذكرت بشكل مبسط عن بيولوجية الأنثى من ناحية الطمث, الحمل والولادة.
أيضاً ذكرت ظلم المرأة في الديانات السماوية الثلاث, كما قلت لكم المرأة ضحية يا للأسف (من وجهة نظرها طبعاً), والحمدلله ذكرت مشاركة المرأة المسلمة في الغزوات وذكرت دفاع الرسول -عليه الصلاة والسلام- عن المرأة وأيضاً لم يعجبها. النقطة التي لفتت انتباهي هي مدحها للمرأة في المذهب الصوفي من غير ذكر أي شيء سلبي
ماعلينا, لو كان فيه تأدب من ناحية سردها في الجانب الديني لـ قلت شكراً لهذه الدراسة لكن طمس جنس آخر بكامله وكأن النساء هم من عمّروا الأرض وحدهم فـ هذه أضحوكة
طيب ما علينا؟ المبكي المضحك في آخر صفحة ذكرت الكاتبة كما يلي, "تحتاج المرأة الجديدة إلى رجل جديد, وهو أمر لا غنى عنه, لكنها لن تكرّر الخطأ ذاته الذي ارتكبته في الماضي, بأن تعهد بحريتها ومستقبلها إلى الرجل وحده."
ختاماً وحبيت أختمها بسؤال, هل نحن نساء أم مضطهدات؟ أترك التعليق لكم
"من طبخت العشاء الأخير؟ تاريخ العالم كما ترويه النساء"
إن كتب هذا الكتاب ذكر سيكون الكتاب ذكوري, وإن كتبت هذا الكتاب أنثى سيكون الكتاب نسوي
أعتقد أول مرة أقرأ كتاب يتحيز لجنس وبكل صراحة لا أحبذ الميل لجنس وتسفيه الآخر
الكاتبة نقلت تاريخ المرأة وكأنها ضحية في كل الحقبات من الناحية الدينية, الطبقية, السياسية و التاريخية وأسهبت في الجزء الأخير جداً
المرأة لا تستطيع أن تدلي بصوتها في الانتخابات البرلمانية في الكويت سابقاً إذاً كانت المرأة الكويتية ضحية
المرأة البريطانية صورتها مشوشة إلى أن أتت الأميرة ديانا إذاً المرأة البريطانية كانت ضحية
شهادة المرأتان في الإسلام تعادل شهادة رجل واحد, إذاً المرأة المسلمة ضحية
وكثير وكثير من الأمثلة على هذا النمط المبني على فكرة "الجندر"
تمنيت بصراحة تتطرق الكاتبة للفرق بين الذكر والأنثى بيولوجياً لكن ذكرت بشكل مبسط عن بيولوجية الأنثى من ناحية الطمث, الحمل والولادة.
أيضاً ذكرت ظلم المرأة في الديانات السماوية الثلاث, كما قلت لكم المرأة ضحية يا للأسف (من وجهة نظرها طبعاً), والحمدلله ذكرت مشاركة المرأة المسلمة في الغزوات وذكرت دفاع الرسول -عليه الصلاة والسلام- عن المرأة وأيضاً لم يعجبها. النقطة التي لفتت انتباهي هي مدحها للمرأة في المذهب الصوفي من غير ذكر أي شيء سلبي
ماعلينا, لو كان فيه تأدب من ناحية سردها في الجانب الديني لـ قلت شكراً لهذه الدراسة لكن طمس جنس آخر بكامله وكأن النساء هم من عمّروا الأرض وحدهم فـ هذه أضحوكة
طيب ما علينا؟ المبكي المضحك في آخر صفحة ذكرت الكاتبة كما يلي, "تحتاج المرأة الجديدة إلى رجل جديد, وهو أمر لا غنى عنه, لكنها لن تكرّر الخطأ ذاته الذي ارتكبته في الماضي, بأن تعهد بحريتها ومستقبلها إلى الرجل وحده."
ختاماً وحبيت أختمها بسؤال, هل نحن نساء أم مضطهدات؟ أترك التعليق لكم
March 8, 2014
Cannot recommend this book enough! STRONGLY RECOMMEND. It will be required reading for my daughters once they are older. Is it always easy to read? Nope. Saw a review that was less than favorable, claiming it was depressing, and Ms. Miles detailing of FGM made them want to get sick. To that I say- "I'd hope so."
It is 2014 and it is too late in the history of the world to close our eyes to the very real atrocities that continue to go on. FGM, gender selective abortions, female infanticide, domestic violence, and more continue to go on all over the globe.
Dramatic? Disturbing? Yuh- Saw a review that claimed that not all was factual. Huh. Well don't know if all but I sure as hell know a lot of it is, and it lets me know that there's still a lot of work to be done.
140 million women are alive today, in 2014, who have suffered FGM. That alone, tells me that more attention needs to be brought to women. Whether it's through Who Cooked The Last Supper, Half The Sky, or diligent searching in the news.
I write a blog, Sadie's Gathering that I post "a little dab of this and a little dash of that." It's eclectic, but I do my best to increase awareness on issues that affect women; thus all of us. Stop by if you think it might be your cup of tea. www.sadiesgathering.blogspot.com
It is 2014 and it is too late in the history of the world to close our eyes to the very real atrocities that continue to go on. FGM, gender selective abortions, female infanticide, domestic violence, and more continue to go on all over the globe.
Dramatic? Disturbing? Yuh- Saw a review that claimed that not all was factual. Huh. Well don't know if all but I sure as hell know a lot of it is, and it lets me know that there's still a lot of work to be done.
140 million women are alive today, in 2014, who have suffered FGM. That alone, tells me that more attention needs to be brought to women. Whether it's through Who Cooked The Last Supper, Half The Sky, or diligent searching in the news.
I write a blog, Sadie's Gathering that I post "a little dab of this and a little dash of that." It's eclectic, but I do my best to increase awareness on issues that affect women; thus all of us. Stop by if you think it might be your cup of tea. www.sadiesgathering.blogspot.com
February 23, 2023
It IS like other reviewers say. Everyone needs to read this. Too often the extent of women's oppression is brushed over in history courses, and that blindness to the past has contributed to the current trad wave of young women neglecting their educations and choosing instead to be stay at home mothers or, God forbid, stay at home girlfriends (with no legal protection). I wish I could hit them over the head with this terrible knowledge of how it used to be. Stuck in the same four walls every day with no one to talk to, your husband creating more chores for you to do so you don't become "idle," instead working from 3am to 9pm every day. To have your sole companion inflict that on you, to have sex ruined for you because you're too injured from your fourth baby in four years to risk another (and any contraception is forbidden, because all sperm not given a chance at knocking you up are really dead babies), to be crippled for life by a prolapsed uterus after fourteen back to back births...women need to wake up. There's a reason men give you so much validation when you tout yourself as a happy slave. Deep down, they are laughing at you, even as they approve.
Definitely don't eat while you read this one. Very graphic. Had no clue about the sex slave female convicts back in early America ☹
Definitely don't eat while you read this one. Very graphic. Had no clue about the sex slave female convicts back in early America ☹
Displaying 1 - 30 of 666 reviews