 Postulates and methods of “scientific”

history:
› History’s objective existence;
› Historian’s objectivity;
› Primacy of the written, voluntary and official
document;
› Mechanistic relationship between the historian
and the source.
 Results: the History of nations, of institutions
and of “great men”.
 Professional historians are men
› Universities close their doors to women;
› Academies, Archives, Libraries do the same;
› History as master of life.
 The first women historians are viewed with
suspicion
› Marginal experiences (Jane Ellen Harrison, Eileen
Power, Lucy Maynard Salmon, Mary Beard);
› Support for husbands’ work (Athenaïs Mialeret-
Michelet, Simone Vidal Bloch, Suzanne Dognon
Febvre);
› Traditional studies, only later innovative.
 Connection with the social and political
movements of the time:
› Fight for women’s liberation
 Search for roots (suffragism: 1st wave);
 Theoretical creation: 2nd wave feminism.
 Massive entry of women into the Universities
› Academic research on women:
 Sociology (women’s press, work, trade unionism);
 History of the Family;
 History of the minorities, of marginals, of the
voiceless majority.
 Objectives of women’s history: rediscovering
them, giving them visibility.
› Thus the invention of the term “herstory” to counter
history.
 The studies on exemplar women;
 Searching for common women: the problem
of the sources
 The public/private dicotomy:
› Women acting in the public domain: religious and
union movements, work market, political parties…
› The “female culture”: sociability, maternity,
specific knowledge…
 Academic recognition
› Progress in English-speaking countries;
› Resistence in Southern Europe.
 Women’s studies added (but not
integrated) to General History.
 Questioning traditional categories
(binary oppositions, chronology, etc.).
 Emergence of the concept of Gender
(Robert Stoller, Sex and Gender, 1968; Ann Oakley,
Sex, Gender and Society, 1972):
› Sex: anatomic and biological diferences
between men and women;
› Gender: social and cultural diferences
between male ans female.
 End of biological determinism.
 End of “feminine essence”
 Opening of new fields of study :
› Gender studies(Joan Scott);
› Men’s studies;
› Transgender studies.
 Avoiding ghettoization;
 Looking more up to date, more “sexy”;
 Selling more.
 Overcoming the reducing character of
the “female experience”.
 Republican and feminist movement in the 19th
century (1st wave)
 1st initiatives on the “Woman condition” in the
years 1960
 Sensitive but insufficient progress after 25 April,
1974
› Weakness of the 2nd wave feminism
› Creation of the “Comissão da Condição Feminina”
in 1977
 Funding of historical studies (republican feminists) and
sociological studies (“woman” at work, in the social
media, the education of the “woman”…)
 In History, the first Conferences on “Woman
in the Portuguese Society” (U. Coimbra)
and “Women in Portugal” (ICS; Lisboa) took
place only in the years 1980.
 1991 Portuguese Association for Studies on
Women, journal Ex-aequo.
 1995 1st Master in Women’s Studies at U.
Aberta (interdisciplinary)
 1997 Portuguese Association for Historical
Research on Women at U. Portucalense.
 1999 journal Faces de Eva and Centre of
Studies on Women at UNL.
 2006-7 Master and PhD in Feminist Studies at
U. Coimbra.
 2011 Post-graduation in History and Gender
+ speciality in Gender History at the History
Master of FLUL.
 2018 PhD in Gender Studies at UL/UNL
 But…
› Teaching keeps being done in specific units,
without permeating the other units.
› Limited scientific production.
 DOWNS, Laura Lee. Writing Gender History.
London: Hodder Arnold, 2004.
 SCOTT, Joan Wallach, “Gender: A Useful
Category of Historical Analysis”, The American
Historical Review, 91-5, 1986, pp. 1053-1075.
 SMITH, Bonnie. The Gender of History: Men,
Women and Historical Practice. Cambridge
(MA): Harvard University Press, 1998.
 TAVARES, Manuela. Feminismos. Percursos e
desafios (1947-2007). Alfragide: Texto, 2010.
 THÉBAUD, Françoise. Écrire l’histoire des
femmes. 2e ed. Lyon: ENS Éditions, 2001.
 VAQUINHAS, Irene. Impacte dos estudos sobre
as mulheres na produção científica nacional –
o caso da História. Ex-aequo, 6, 2002, pp. 147-
174.