03 Apr 18 | News and features, Volume 47.01 Spring 2018
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Women of the Wild West have been omitted from popular history and culture, but they’re finally receiving airtime, writes Jan Fox “][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]
Michelle Dockery stars in Netflix’s Godless, a new show featuring the rarely seen female pioneer, Ursula Coyote/Netflix
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Netflix’s new hit show, Godless, is set in a 19th century western USA town run by women. La Belle, New Mexico, has experienced a mining tragedy, killing most of the men and putting women in charge. The cowboys are almost gone and in their place we see women brandishing guns and riding horses.
Godless turns the traditional male-dominated Western genre on its head. It has focused attention on the forgotten women who rolled across the western plains. The storyline may be fictional, but strong pioneer women playing a major part in running these frontier towns is more true to life. But often this side of the history of the west was ignored.
The term “pioneer” refers to anyone who ventured into, and settled, new lands in the USA. Starting in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607, people moved into the country’s interior and, finally, to the west coast. This history of westward exploration has been told mostly from a male angle. Western landscapes are represented by heroic men on horseback: cowboys, cavalry officers, sharpshooting sheriffs and notorious outlaws.
“In films like Shane and other Westerns, women lack real decision-making authority, and ethnic or racial women appear as prostitutes or bad influences, if they appear at all,” said Laura Woodworth-Ney, executive vice-president and provost of Idaho State University and author of Women and the American West.
It’s definitely a case of his-story, not her-story.
In response to this, the Pioneer Woman Museum in Oklahoma was born.
“I don’t remember learning anything about these women when I was at school in the 1980s, and from the visitors we get at the museum, I don’t think student textbooks are any different today. We need to change that story,” said museum director Kelly Houston. “There were many single and widowed women who went west, but they are largely ignored by history.”
For example, after the Homestead Act of 1862, people raced to claim 160 acres of free public land. Among the biggest of these land races or “runs” in Oklahoma was the one in 1893 when more than 100,000 people showed up.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”custom” align=”right” custom_color=”#dd3333″][/vc_column][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”There were many single and widowed women who went west, but they are largely ignored by history” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
“Widowed or single women could take part if they were over 21. The land runs were extremely competitive and arduous. You had to line up for days, including overnight,” said Houston.
Once a starting gun was fired, people sprinted to a free lot and literally staked a claim. They then had to go to the land registry office to have it signed into their name.
“Not many people realise that women were doing this,” Houston explained.
There were other ways in which pioneer women were key to the development of new towns.
“In Oklahoma, they were the movers and shakers of society, forming clubs and organisations. They are the ones improving school lunches, starting libraries, raising money and so on, and that often gets ignored. They also set up businesses like laundries, shops and cafes,” said Houston.
Something else that gets forgotten is the vital economic role women played in the home.
“In many cases, they were vitally important to their family’s survival through the side-businesses that they ran: raising and selling chickens, making butter, taking in mending. That income could literally save a family in a bad winter if a crop failed,” Houston explained.
A lack of historical sources is a major problem in piecing together a true picture of 19th century pioneer women, explained Woodworth-Ney. “Most working-class women were illiterate at this time, and for many minority women English was not their first language. Apart from that, they would have been too busy working to write anything down. We do have some diaries and letters from lower-middle-class and educated women, including some on the Oregon Trail. In the past 20 years, women historians have been active in shining a light on these, but they are still not readily available.
“They are hard to find because of the cataloguing practices of the late 19th and early 20th centuries when items would have been filed in the archives under the husband’s name and things like diaries and letters would have been filed in the ‘family’ section of his papers and were considered far less important. So this is not so much an intentional type of censorship, but it was hiding these women.”
Elizabeth Gillan Muir, a Toronto-based author and retired lecturer, addresses some of the reasons why pioneer women preachers have been left out of history in her upcoming book, A Women’s History of Christianity. Religion was the cornerstone of life in 19th century USA, and in the great westward expansion more than 100 women preachers travelled to new towns to help “civilise” these unregulated, and often wild, frontier communities.
Although travelling evangelists were perhaps less of a problem than women preaching from the pulpit, men still saw women as a real threat in this situation,” said Muir.
“For the most part, I think why we don’t hear about these pioneer woman preachers is that when they died, their obituaries omitted any reference to preaching activity. Pliny the Elder, writing in the first century AD, said that information about women doctors was intentionally hidden so that, after they died, no one would ever know that they had lived. This is a similar thing, erasing women preachers from history.”
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
This article is a web special ahead of the launch of the special report in Index on Censorship‘s spring 2018 issue, The Abuse of History, focusing on how history is being manipulated or censored by governments and other powers.
Look out for the new edition in bookshops
Jan Fox is the US contributing editor for Index on Censorship
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”From the Archives”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”70877″ img_size=”213×287″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064229108535157″][vc_custom_heading text=”Fear and loathing in San Francisco ” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1080%2F03064229108535157|||”][vc_column_text]July 1991
The law of the gun rules in Cyberspace as it did in the days of America’s ‘Wild West‘, according to American poet and internet activist John Perry Barlow in 1991[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”90649″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064220008536796″][vc_custom_heading text=”Women as censors” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1177%2F0306422013495334|||”][vc_column_text]September 2000
Mark Kenny looks at how women’s self-censorship has a long, and in most cases, honourable history[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”90965″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064229308535477″][vc_custom_heading text=”Portrait of a much abused lady” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1177%2F0306422013513103|||”][vc_column_text]January 1993
The politically correct establishment is coopting the feminist discourse to turn it back on the radicals says Marjorie Heins[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row content_placement=”top”][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”The abuse of history” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2018%2F04%2Fthe-abuse-of-history%2F|||”][vc_column_text]The spring 2018 issue of Index on Censorship magazine takes a special look at how governments and other powers across the globe are manipulating history for their own ends
With: Simon Callow, David Anderson, Omar Mohammed [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”99282″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2018/04/the-abuse-of-history/”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″ css=”.vc_custom_1481888488328{padding-bottom: 50px !important;}”][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fsubscribe%2F|||”][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
18 Oct 17 | News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”96147″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
The frazzled but happy mum, single-handedly putting dinner on the table for her boisterous family, might be an advertising cliché but it’s one we’ll no longer see on our screens. Following lobbying by feminist campaigners, the Advertising Standards Association (ASA) now prohibits gender stereotypes in adverts.
According to the ASA’s chief executive, images of women doing the cleaning or men making a mess of household chores, “reinforce outdated and stereotypical views” and “play their part in driving unfair outcomes for people”. The ban on sexist stereotypes followed the 2015 protests over Protein World’s “beach body ready” adverts and London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s subsequent promise to rid the Tube of adverts presenting “a damaging attitude towards body image”.
Feminism today appears to be more concerned with images than reality. Worse, it risks portraying women as dumb enough to confuse adverts with instructions and so fragile they wilt at the sight of a skinny model. But instead of standing up to these patronising bans and insisting women can cope with adverts, many feminists argue for yet more censorship.
Khan subsequently came under fire for not taking down a different advert from the same company featuring Khloe Kardashian. Transport for London now bans all adverts that don’t promote “body positivity” although how this is defined is not clear. Most recently Heist, a company selling tights through an image of a fit, healthy and — yes — attractive woman dancer, was ordered to cover up the woman’s naked back.
To be a feminist today is, it seems, to support censorship rather than free expression. In the name of feminism university students have banned speakers, advertisements, posters, newspapers and greetings cards as well as, most famously, Robin Thicke’s hit song Blurred Lines from campuses across the UK. The Victorian idea that men will become rapacious at the sight of bare female flesh has been updated with an assumption that girls will develop anorexia if the flesh on display is too skinny. This insults men and patronises women.
There has always been an uncomfortable relationship between feminism and free expression. Early campaigners fought for women’s rights to education, to work and to vote but many had their roots in the temperance movement and, at times, appeared more concerned with civilising men than liberating women. The sexual liberation of the 1960s and 1970s sat alongside attempts by radical feminists and conservatives alike to ban pornography. Every step of the way, the demand from some women for greater freedom has been met by calls from within feminism for free speech and free expression to be restricted. Today, a censorious strand of feminism is on the ascendancy as feminism increasingly becomes blurred with identity politics.
The notion that words and images inflict not physical but psychic harm on women assumes women are innately vulnerable and have a fragile sense of themselves; it assumes that a woman is not a robust individual so much as an ‘identity’ primarily constructed — and therefore potentially dismantled — through language. Language and images become pinpointed as the source of women’s oppression.
But this censorious feminism ultimately backfires. Women who insist on trigger warnings for literature classes and swoon at the sight of a sexist advert find it difficult to present themselves as strong and powerful at the same time. Ironically, it is often women, even women who define as feminists, who find themselves the target of disinvitation campaigns or have their talks shouted down. Over the past 12 months, notable feminists such as Germaine Greer, Linda Bellos and Julie Bindel have all been no-platformed from UK universities.
Today’s censorious feminism encourages women to see themselves as vulnerable. It promotes a self-infantilisation that sets the clock back on equality. We need a liberation movement that promotes free speech, not censorship.
Joanna Williams is speaking at the Battle of Ideas to launch her new book: Women vs Feminism: Why we all need liberating from the gender wars. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Battle of Ideas 2017″ use_theme_fonts=”yes” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.battleofideas.org.uk%2F|||”][vc_separator color=”black”][vc_column_text]A weekend of thought-provoking public debate taking place on 28 and 29 October at the Barbican Centre. Join the main debates or satellite events.[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Political activism and protest today
Recent years have seen something of a revitalisation of political protests and marches, but just what is protest historically and today?
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Women vs feminism: Do we all need liberating from the gender wars?
In many ways, it seems there has never been a better time to be a woman. But many women consider themselves disadvantaged and vulnerable.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]Censorship and identity: Free speech for you but not for me?
Is identity politics the new tool of censorship and, if so, how should we respond?[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row]
26 Mar 15 | Asia and Pacific, China, mobile, News and features
International Women’s Day 2015 should have been a positive occasion in China. The day is a big deal in the country; women are awarded time off work and given gifts by their employers. This year also marks 20 years since 189 countries adopted the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, a roadmap for women’s rights and empowerment. And in the lead-up to the day, a Chinese official hinted at the country’s first domestic violence law becoming a reality in August.
But events quickly took an ugly turn: on Friday 6 March the Chinese government detained a number of high-profile feminist activists. Demonstrations were cancelled. Debate was effectively silenced. Several weeks later five of the women are still in custody. Two have been denied treatment for serious medical conditions.
Superficially at least, these incidents represent a major blow to China’s feminist movement, which desperately relies on a small, but increasingly vocal cohort.
Chinese women suffer from a catalogue of discrimination in the workforce, in the home, and in most other aspects of their lives. Clear indication of the need for change came in 2013, when China only managed to reach position 91 out of the 187 countries listed in the United Nations Development Programme’s Gender Inequality Index (Iran came ahead at 75).
The injustices Chinese women face largely go unchallenged. The upper echelons of the Communist Party, where policy is made, is a man’s affair. Only two women belong to the current 25-member politburo, and none made it through to the seven member politburo standing committee.
The government plays an active role in skewing gender relations, as is demonstrated through the emergence of the idea of “leftover women”. The term first entered common parlance around 2007, when newspapers became filled with cautionary tales of unmarried women over the age of 27. Its roots can be traced back to the Chinese government, as Leta Hong Fincher explained in her groundbreaking book Leftover Women: The Resurgence of Gender Inequality in China. It has had a very negative impact on women’s property and employment rights.
It is the Communist Party’s ability to control conversations that makes the feminist struggle particularly pronounced in China. Civil society is tightly controlled. Certain groups do exist to campaign for female rights, but they are limited in size and reach.
In spite of these barriers, Chinese women have in recent years shown amazing strength to stand up to injustice. Activists have paraded around in blood coated wedding dresses, occupied men’s toilets, shaved their heads to raise awareness — to name just a few examples.
Some of these measures have proven highly effective. Cao Ju, a 21-year old university graduate, raised the profile of workforce quotas when she successfully sued a company that did not employ her on the grounds of her sex. Meanwhile, Kim Lee, who was abused for years by her famous husband Li Yang, shed a spotlight on how prolific domestic abuse is in China when she uploaded photos of her bloody face to microblogging platform Weibo.
For these reasons, the detentions are incredibly significant. Chinese women can’t rely on the government to come to their aid. But when it does the exact opposite, and actually arrests them, the situation gets a whole lot worse. China’s current leader Xi Jinping has intensified a crackdown on dissent. While they have not had an easy ride, feminist activists had until this month largely been spared. These arrests send out a warning to anyone who might follow suit and are a blatant attempt to squash the country’s nascent feminist movement.
On the other hand, some prominent commentators have argued that the detentions will instead cement the feminist movement in China. In a conversation published by ChinaFile, Leta Hong Fincher argues it could be “the spark” needed, while writer Eric Fish says the government “risks planting seeds that could sprout into even greater opposition later”. Sixteen activists have already gone to a Beijing detention centre where one of the women, Wu Rongrong, is being held to demand she be given medical treatment. A petition is also calling for the release of the activists.
China watchers wait with bated breathe to see how the story will unfold, pinning their hopes on a positive outcome. After all, China desperately needs figures such as these. Without them, no one is fighting in the corner of Chinese feminism.
This article was posted at Index on Censorship on 26 March 2015 | An modified version of this article appears at Huffington Post
26 Feb 15 | mobile, News and features, United Kingdom
(Illustration: Shutterstock)
There is, I am told, a war going on in feminism. A war between “intersectionalists” (I think) and TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, as far as I can tell).
I am not about to stick my oar into this particular boating lake, for two reasons:
Reason 1. Self-awareness. I am a white middle class western European media professional, north-London dwelling male, born in a time when there is little chance of conscription. I am practically the most privileged thing that ever existed, and the last thing people struggling for equality need is me, turning up, cheerily shouting “Only me!!!” like Harry Enfield’s Mr-You-Don’t-want-to-do-it-like-that, and telling people how to do a real feminism. That is not to say I do not have a right to have an opinion, but…
Reason 2: lurking in that apparently placid boating lake are piranhas, reading to chew up and spit out any oarsman (or woman) who does not know every ebb and eddie of the lake.
It’s a horrible sight to see. Every so often some poor naive jumps in their little pleasure boat, having been assured by the man that it’s perfectly safe, and rows happily to the middle of the lake. You watch from the shore. They wave back. What’s that sound? They’re singing Sister Suffragette from Mary Poppins, their rowing keeping a brisk beat with the jaunty marching tune. “Shoulder-to-shoulder” and-stroke-and-stroke.
Unbeknownst to them, the piranhas have smelled blood. They row on. Gleefully, they reach the crescendo: “Our daughters’ daughters’ will adore us…”. They raise their hands to punch the air. An unattended oar slips into the water. The piranhas stir. Daughters? That sounds like determinism. The water begins to froth. The poor unsuspecting oarsman (or woman) is still singing. Eventually they catch the commotion in the corner of one eye: they hear it grow louder, under the boat, which now seems irresponsibly flimsy.
They sing still, but now in trepidation: “No more the meek and mild subservients we!”.
The frenzy grows stronger, at what was certainly a slight on members of the BDSM community (well, the Ms anyway). Stronger and stronger. Our rower tries to resist, we can see, but the boat is now falling apart, as if rotten, under their feet. Our previously carefree rower feels first a nip, and then a rush. They are simultaneously drowning and being eaten alive.
A final defiant shriek from a the near-eviscerated pleasure seeker, and then there is nothing. The waters are calm once more.
We tut, from the shore. Such a shame, such a loss. Did you see the cowbell dog?
That’s one version, but then try to see it from the fishes’ point of view. Fish have got to live. Piranhas have been, for years, maligned as a generality by the mainstream. The very word “piranha” is thrown around as an insult. Piranhas are irrational, illogical, even abominations against nature. And of course, there is more than one type of piranha, and not every piranha has the same experience of what it’s like being a piranha. Piranha identity is complex, to say the least. But that doesn’t mean piranhas shouldn’t bond together and work together. What outsiders view as a “feeding frenzy” is actually the best – only – way piranhas can continue to exist safely.
Besides, the piranhas grew up in this lake. They know it like the back of their fins – how to navigate, how to communicate. If anyone’s in a wrong place in the boating lake, it’s not the piranhas.
This is not an unreasonable case. The question then (and here’s where the horrendous tortured boating lake analogy comes to an end, you’ll be pleased to know) is: Was George Bush right? Can the human beings and the fish coexist peacefully?
The issue emerged again recently with a terse exchange of letters in the Observer newspaper, which followed the cancellation of a show by comic Kate Smurthwaite at Goldsmith’s college. Smurthwaite said she’d been banned because some university feminists who are pro sex work were threatening to protests against her anti sex work views, and the college security didn’t want the hassle.
A letter was put together, as letters are, decrying campus censorship and the narrowing of debate (with specific mention of the National Union of Students’ policy of “no-platforming” feminist Julie Bindel for statements on trans people). There was a response, disputing the facts of the first letter and suggesting that there are bigger campus free speech issues – around student protest for example – than whether certain already powerful people can take part in a panel debate or a comedy show.
The problem here is the commodification of free speech: who is allowed it and who isn’t, and, in hierarchical societies (i.e. pretty much every society we’ve come up with so far) who grabs it as theirs and who should be granted more in order to even things out, and who can “use” free speech against whom.
This is to treat free speech as a weapon rather than a space. There is not a limited amount of free speech to go round: rather, there is a (hopefully) ever-expanding free speech arena in which we can argue. The signatories of both letters have actually identified the same problem, the narrowing of the space, particularly in education. Perhaps it would be beneficial for them to defend the space in which to argue rather than trying to push the other side overboard.
This article was posted on 26 February 2015 at indexoncensorship.org
