A quote by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, a history professor at Harvard University
Updates
+1 y
The quote both acknowledges the centuries-old bias against the historical recording of the lives of regular women, and encourages women to fully express their potential in the world, even if it means defying cultural norms.
Most of recorded history is exactly that - His Story. Aside from a relatively few exceptions, women are for the most part invisible, ignored by the men who were writing history. Sadly many women with rare talent, courage, and wisdom have surely disappeared into the past.
Updates
+1 y
- Many people don’t seem to understand how the term “well-behaved” is used here. Professor Ulrich uses the term to mean women who stayed/stay within the gendered behavioral norms of their times. (Her research on such women is respectful and fascinating.)
- In most history books the lives of regular, common men have been used as the prime cultural descriptors. Women are underrepresented, misrepresented and marginalized across all dimensions. An online search provides a lot of info on this.
What do you think of the quote “Well-behaved women seldom make history”?
Although that statement looks open to speculation, common wisdom indicates that we can read in-between lines and come to the conclusion that Ms. Ulrich meant “behaving outside social norms of the time period in which a woman lives”, not the universally accepted “bad behavior” such as stealing, killing, etc.
With that out of the way, I tend to agree with her point. It is easy to say “Oh, the deserving women are also recognized by history, but men contributed more”. On the face of it, that rebuttal is also valid. There are enough women recorded in history for their deeds, some for less popular reasons than others, but they were recorded all the same… It is also true that men made more visible contributions throughout centuries and across civilizations. But, the underlying reasoning may become circular in the sense that if history (correctly or incorrectly) recorded many more male achievements, then using that to justify the validity of history becomes a moot point.
The reasons behind the abundance of male achievements make a complex topic beyond the scope of the quote under discussion. We might say it’s the biological wiring or the social conditioning, and in reality, probably a combination of both... However, whatever one’s view on that topic is, it should be realized that a historically repressed group cannot be held to the same standards of success as the dominant one. The gender duality here is just a special case of a more general dichotomy between any distinct groups of people. Someone from a minority group in a country (whatever the definition of “minority” is in the given context) often has to study/work harder to be distinguished in the larger population of the nation. It’s in human nature that we often don’t take notice of who’s calling the shots in a society if we are part of the group calling the shots.
So, yes, a woman has to go beyond the social norms of her time and environment to create something beyond the ordinary, and make an impact in history. And, yes, undoubtedly, this is also true for a man, but not by the same extent. No man in history was questioned at his first attempt in trying to do something new in a “man’s job”, well, because he was a man. Although it may seem trivial to us in our modern and more egalitarian view of the world, in the overwhelming part of human history women would first have to overcome the simplest obstacle of going beyond the expectations set for their gender. If you were chastised for speaking your mind, let alone being admitted to school, what chances could you have in doing something extraordinary, unless you defied the conventions of your society?
I think there's a lot of truth to it. I don't think it is a recommendation to behave badly. But sometimes people have to be bold, courageous and unconventional in order to bring about change. I think of suffragettes and civil right leaders. I think of women who went to college when the idea was discouraged. I think of women who were discriminated against because of their gender, but rose to high levels of academia, politics, business, science, sports and the arts. To do so, they had to challenge the status quo.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
Those that change the world and make history first see a potential for change in the world where others do not. They go against instinct and fight the fear that surrounds them moving forward with their ideas. They challenge the status quo in some way. Then they do it despite all the odds or in some cases, die trying. You can't do anything like that if you are complacent in life, are ruled by fear of the unknown, or through no fault of your own, would rather stay safe in a bubble and protect yourself and those around you.
Historically women have been pushed to the back, ignored, ridiculed for their sex, their look, and their intelligence, and made to feel like criminals if their life didn't revolve around a husband and children. To this day, the brave history makers still have to fight against this notion that women should be allowed to speak, rule, invent, or create by certain sets of men who want to hold on to their power by any means necessary rather than accept a woman in "the arena" when it comes to figuring out how to change or run this world. So absolutely, well behaved women seldom make history.
It’s true but it should be put into context. You know damn well someone is going to freak out and assume it’s trying to give permission to kill kittens and other shit it doesn’t mean.
So the context I would give it would be that sometimes it’s necessary for women to be socially untraditional or politically incorrect in order to make a positive change and to stand for a cause.
All of the prolific women in history who made positive changes for the rights of women had to make moves and be willing to be seen as “bad” or “unruly” but it eventually became viewed less that way.
MzAsh is spot on. If you're reading this quote and taking it to mean you need to be Bonnie Parker or Elizabeth Bathory to make history, you shouldn't be answering the question !! If you examine history, you'll find that most notable accomplishments are made by going outside the accepted norms, or at least challenging them. When a woman does that, all hell usually breaks loose !!
Where to begin? That is probably one of the absolute worst pieces of "advice" that women are given. It is feminist nonsense.
First of all, it's totally false. Either this ideologue has never heard of the St. Elizabeth, St. Anne, St. Theresa of Avila, Mother Teresa, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Veronica, St. Lucy, or the Blessed Virgin Mary - who has MANY churches named after Her and many devotions in Her honor (most notably the Rosary - women who enjoy great love and devotion among both women AND men... or she's way too lost in her delusional leftist lala land to think even slightly clearly or objectively about it. Or even care.
Second, behavior is not the standard for "making history". That idea is pure lunacy. You know what we'll have as role models if that is the case, let alone if being "well-behaved" is the less desirable standard? Debaucherous, attention-seeking sociopaths. Drunks, cheats, liars, thieves, and murderers. Crazies who think themselves the saviors of the world by wearing "cat-hats" and casting spells on the President of the United States and publicizing their dreams of blowing up the White House. People upon whom history will not look favorably or kindly. If poor behavior is the standard of making history, then I say screw making history, whether it's a man or a woman.
Additionally, this notion contradicts the "women-as-leaders-would-make-the-world-better" narrative.
Third, who cares about "making history"? It is the mark of a selfish person if they set out with the express intent of ensuring their name on the pages of history. It's one thing to know that someone is doing something few others will do, if it even has been done. Seeking glory is another. Ask some of history's greatest heroes. They'll most likely tell you they would have wanted someone else to do it.
To close, your assessment of "history" as "HIS story", a male-centered analysis of the story of human events, is intellectually and factually dishonest. The word "history" derives from a Greek word meaning "to seek out". Sex has nothing to do with it. If women can't take inspiration from men, then they should go back to kindergarten where they belong and stay there.
It would be more accurate to say that women who do not make historically significant contributions to society don't make history, nor should they.
As others have already pointed out here, and rightly so, there are plenty of examples of women who are recognized in our history books for their great achievements, but relative to men there are very few because historically women simply have made far fewer historically significant contributions than men have. That is the simple, unadorned truth of the matter.
There are a lot of reasons for that, including the fact that the realities of pre-modern life meant that women had fewer opportunities to make monumental discoveries and achievements. But the simple fact is that women and men are different, and men are simply wired in ways and motivated by things that make them far, far more likely to discover and achieve things that change the course of civilization.
And it is also not merely a matter of men and women being wired differently, motivated by different things and having different talents. There is another very significant factor at play here. It's a well known fact that the most AND least intelligent humans tend to be men. On average men and women have roughly the same level of intelligence, but the outliers are usually men. That's why 87% of the most intelligent humans alive today are men. That has always been the case and always will be. https://superscholar.org/smartest-people-alive/
Combine that with the fact that men are simply better designed and more motivated to achieve great things and it's pretty easy to understand why the vast majority of great achievements always have and always will be credited to men.
It's a fact that men are also capable of and responsible for more horrendous acts than women, and that should be no surprise to anyone. The bottom line is that men will always be credited with the vast majority of the greatest achievements and the most horrific atrocities of human history. That is simply a fact of human nature, and it has virtually nothing to do with women being "well-behaved".
Their was no bias against women, I really have no idea why this is claimed so often. Do you hear about the lives of farmers who made up over 80% of the population in the 1800s (and over 95% for most of history)? No. Is that rampant bias and descrimination against men then? No. So why would it be that their stories are ignored? Because their story is the story of every other human being, they lived, they worked, they died. So that is not a bias its just that it isn't noteworthy.
I will also state that it not being noteworthy (as women chose to be wives and mothers because they are biologically predisposed to it as well as it being far safer and easier then stepping out and taking the risks associated with "making history") does not make it less valuable. If my body is doing nothing that is note worthy my first thought isn't "Oh god something is wrong", it not being noteworthy means its doing EXACTLY what its suppose to be doing. So again, not being noteworthy or making history doesn't mean a thing.
As to the quote itself, what does that even mean? You absolutely be well behaved and make history. What are you claiming that Einstein was not well behaved? Was he a raging asshole who treated people like shit? No, he just did his thing showed that the way we where looking at the universe was actually inaccurate and then proved it. That has nothing to do with being "well behaved", it has to do with taking risks and being willing to work hard both of which many women didn't want to do (and why would you? Risks suck because they more often then not end in failure, working hard sucks because your dedicating massive amounts of time and energy into something that more then likely isn't going to bare any fruit. This is also why many men will never make history either).
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(45 Plus)
+1 y
Margret Thatcher was referred to as the Iron Lady for good reason. It's used to describe a strong-willed forceful/dominant speaks her mind woman. But the quote itself is NOT supposed to be taken literally. Thatcher merely used women because at her time such behaviour wasn't expected or even approved.
The actual quote applies to EVERYONE. The "well behaved" are sheep. People who do what is expected, who follow the crowd, who don't make waves, etc. The people who are too cowardly to voice their concerns, who are too spineless to say no it shouldn't be this way, who are too selfish or vain or fickle or again too cowardly to stand up for others, who are too self-conscious to explore an alternative means to something, who are so lacking in self-confidence & esteem that they *must* belong to the pack (the rest of the herd) simply to feel wanted, who lacking a sense of worth keep repeating what everyone else is doing or wearing or buying to be "in the in-crowd" (even if the "in crowd" is a bunch of loser celebrities & their fans) and who never try something different or unusual or even inventing.
These sorts of "well behaved" people will NEVER make history because they are destined to be just part of the crowd. Part of the herd. They lack the ability to be someone more than just another nameless/faceless body. Another "number". They are not leaders, they are not game-changers, they are not explorers or inventors. They are sheep.
I love how people think this quote is so clever and insightful or inspirational. In reality it is not. It would be equally true to say "Well-behaved men seldom make history". Trump, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Wilhelm II, Columbus, Alexander the Great, Churchill, the list goes on. History makers are always outliers, but being a history maker does not make you a good person, does not mean you have made a positive contribution, and certainly does not guarantee future generations will view you favorably.
I think too many Tumblrista radfems take it too far.
Independent thought will have the potential to make history.
Too many women and girls nowadays see this and think "oh, so I get to be an utter bitch to everyone!".
And I mean, they'll make history alright. As the worst, most toxic, and highly unstable people there can be.
Being a generally good-hearted, respectful person and knowing how to break social convention without being a raging cunt is a much better option, in my opinion.
Generally that depends. What kind of history are you hoping to make? Because yeah, a lot of famous women were famous because of their extremely abnormal or unexpected behavior.
But there are also women who are famous because of how high they rose within the realm of the "well-behaved." The same as kings, knights, famous professionals and performers. The famous (in a good way) of those categories typically all behaved as they were supposed to, they just did so the the extreme of excellence.
So, to make history, I think you either have to be very very good, or very very noticable, and noticable does not have to equal bad. I'll leave it up to you to decide which is better.
I think that’s a load of bullshit there are many women in history that we’re well-behaved and a very influential Catherine the great Elizabeth the first Elizabeth the second Cleopatra Marie Curie countess Markowitz ( One of the most prominent women in Ireland during the Irish revolution she even held a Seat in the doil (Irish version of parliament) Abigail Adams restaurant on live to pass messages from one member of Congress to the other during the American revolution. There were a lot of women that were well behaved and were very influential
Maybe, but do you want to make that type of history with a bad reputation? I'd rather be 'behaved', make an impact, a positive difference and help the world for one century and be forgotten than cause destruction and make history and be remembered for that. Keeping in mind, there are also exceptions to the rule- I believe Princess Diana will make history, and will make it far better. I'd only want to be remembered for good reasons, otherwise I see no point of 'misbehaving' for the purpose of making history.
Change, or "history" is wrought in straying from the norm. So obviously to make change, you have to deviate. This is universally true.
On the flip side, poor behavior does not increase the odds that you'll become a revolutionary. You have to be motivated towards an actual goal in the right place and time. There a plenty of poorly behaved people in the world who contribute little, or nothing to history.
3
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
+1 y
There is historical truth in that statement. But it is certainly not true today. Our modern gynocentric society over-emphasizes and over-represents the achievements of women the way we do with children. The end result is that respect for women is undermined. We are well beyond the need to do those sorts of things. We need to start holding women to the same standards of achievement we do men. We need to let women's achievements stand on their own if women are ever going to deserve equal respect. Today, they simply do not deserve it.
Well behaved men don't make history either. I can't think of any historically important man who didn't have some dark secrets. Winston Churchill cheated on his wife, drank, smoked and dodged the draft. Gandhi used the N-word. Walt Disney used the N-Word. H. P. Lovecraft used the N-word, a lot!
It makes sense, especially if you subscribe to the notion that a "well behaved woman" is someone who stays at home and looks after the family. Strictly speaking if you are well behaved you often do not get noticed which is why demonstrations are not well behaved and hold their marches in places that are inconvenient or say things that are provocative. That is how people start noticing you and how you enter history.
Depending on the definition of "well-behaved" the answer is maybe.
Let's take a couple of examples: Joan of Arcadia was not "well-behaved" based on the standards of her time and location. Made history. Burned at the stake for witchcraft. Mary Curie however (I think) was "well-behaved" relative to hers. Also made history. Only person to win a Nobel prize in more than one scientific field.
Normal people, are just that normal. Extraordinary people are those who make history male or female. It takes a different mind to do something different. So this is an absolute truth for all genders. And yes people should strive to be better, to better themselves, better others and better the world.
It's absolutely true. But history can always be written for better or for worse. Not all change is good. Not all revolution is good. But many times (especially for women's rights, as history has shown), it is absolutely necessary.
I think feminazi filth take that sentence, and others, and use them as an excuse to keep being a pathetic self-victimizing attention whoring hate cult. And that's ashame, as the original feminists would vomit in their graves if they saw what these wastes of oxygen were doing in their name.
For some women negative attention is also attention so if the behaviour is really bad they for sure will not be forgotten. Women who make history are women from political scandals, women like marylin Monroe. Promoted as independent artist, actually unhappy bpd addicted promiscuous whore. So in a sense this quote is point on. I can't name one women who is remembered for her achievements. Yes Margaret Thatcher
It's a great quote! Many people don't know the history of women so it's easy to judge. Esspecially if you aren't one. But that doesn't mean men don't have struggles.
Most Helpful Opinions