Why oh why must the women’s history texts I read focus exclusively on bizarre theories of sex and sexuality?  Sorry,  but I do not want to read 50 pages about some weird, almost neo-Freudian theory that the early modern witch trials were rooted in a ‘perverted, sexualised view of the mother figure’.  

Ugh, I feel like I’m in some parallel universe where the role of historians is to play with extended metaphors until they’re blue in the face, not actually explain complex phenomena.

I’m actually very interested in women’s history, too.  Just… not this.

5 Notes/ Hide

  1. wackybihistorian said: And this is why this field needs to start evolving, stat.
  2. htmlwings posted this