Against Rose-Tinted Patriarchy

History isn’t just a study of the past, it’s an ideological battle: eulogising saviours, demonising villains, omitting awkward things we’d rather forget, and thereby iteratively affirming our values.

Most books on warcraft, scientific innovations and revolutions glorify male protagonists. They are celebrated as brilliant strategists who shaped our world. Women - though comprising half the population - were often omitted. Erasure persists even when women actually achieve great prominence. At South Korea’s national museum, women are totally obscured. The pre-Confucian Silla Queens are absolutely omitted.

Since the 1970s, Western feminist historians, anthropologists, and archaeologists have fought back - eager to demonstrate women’s ‘agency’. Disavowing presumptions of ‘passivity’, concubines are portrayed as strategically manoeuvring to advance their self-interest. A wealth of literature tries to show that women mattered.

But actually, I wish to be a little heretical… First, ‘agency’ seems uninformative. Second, rather than a ‘rose-tinted patriarchy’ that celebrates incredible women who overcame obstacles, I think we need to be more systematic and ask why were ordinary women excluded? Third, by cherry-picking powerful women from the past, we blinker ourselves to enormous 20th century progress.