It is possible that early American history would be taught very differently today if based on history books such as this. To play devil's advocate, there perhaps would have been women historians who agreed with the men's decisions, women historians who did not believe in the actions of their fellow females. Those histories, too, would have had an impact on today's perspective of that period. Similarly, what would have happened if the topic of women's equality had been covered by a famous female historian who did not support the suffragist cause? The early 1900s saw some women, called the anti-suffragists, who were strongly opposed to giving the vote to their gender. These women were afraid of change and believed the family would fall apart if women could vote. They also feared suffrage would overload women already burdened by their own many responsibilities. They called the suffragists communists, among other things, and reinforced the belief that the suffrage movement was populated with bitter spinsters who wanted to ruin domestic bliss for others. For example, in the 1898 San Francisco Bulletin, Mrs. W. Winslow Crannell said that that, "above all, we are opposed to suffrage because we fear that it may ruin the home" (Sherr 179). She explained that if women do not vote in accordance with the men in their families, there will surely be incredible conflict in the home. What would be the interpretation of history by such women as Crannell?

The writing of historical events is an important element of human society. It provides people with a means of continuation from one generation from another. With hope, it helps them learn something of the past, so they do not repeat their mistakes and do repeat their successes.

However, one must remember when reading history that it is an interpretation. It is thus very difficult for history to ever be totally objective. Anyone who reads an article in several of today's newspapers can see that an event, even as inconsequential as a sports game, can be covered very differently depending on the person writing.

In...

This has three distinct but related aspects: 1) an acquaintance with the writings of historians and a knowledge of typical historical controversies, relating to the content of the course 2) an understanding that history has been written, sung, spoken about, filmed, painted and dramatised by all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons; and
3) an understanding that some histories have a high profile, others are hardly known, yet others (like the history of the differing roles of men and women) are now finding a place in the main arena of history.

Thus, when asking the question whether or not an event written by a woman will be covered similarly or differently than the same one written by a man, it is not only gender that needs to be considered. There are many other factors, such as culture and personal biases for example, that will have these individuals interpret the history alike or differently. Such things must be considered when reading history.