Search Results

This article was originally published in issue #1 of The HERstory Project Journal and has been shared online with permission of the author. What does my MA dissertation and Katy Hessel’s 2022 The Story of Art Without Men have in common? A dedication to Baroque artist Artemisia Gentileschi and the words she wrote in a letter in 1649, “I’ll show you what a woman can do.”  Now, to be clear, that’s where the similarities end, Hessel is an accomplished art historian whose corrective work gives a fairly thorough overview of women’s place in the art world. My MA dissertation was far more amateur (and subjectively great) and focuses heavily on my interpretation that Gentileschi’s work is unfairly defined within the context of her sexual trauma. They had very different scopes. Hessel’s work for women’s art history continues to impress and intimidate, her instagram and corresponding podcast, ‘The Great Women Artists’, do more for women’s art history than, well, pretty much anything else out there, and I’m both an avid follower and listener. So it’s quite surprising that it’s taken me so long to get myself to Tate Britain to experience Hessel’s latest project, Museums without Men. Museums without Men is a multi museum and gallery project to showcase the women, or lack thereof in collections across the globe, and this is my review. I had three questions I wanted to be able to answer going into the gallery: 1. Does the audio tour reclaim women’s voices and artwork? 2. Is it engaging not only for a historian but for the public? 3. Have I learnt something? The answer to these was actually somewhat complicated, for starters, I was surprised that the ‘guide’ as it was marketed was actually seven short talks on the Tate’s audio player webpage which referred to specific artwork without telling the listener actually where they were, or how to find them. Perhaps this is a criticism of the Tate’s audio guide system, but it was difficult to understand where and when I was meant to listen to Hessel’s talks. As someone who champions accessibility in the arts and historical education, this was frustrating. It was also somewhat annoying to see that seemingly at no point around the gallery was the Audio Guide marketed. At a simple level, how can it be engaging to anybody when it is poorly constructed and advertised?  I did listen to each talk, whilst looking, in the end, at works from seventeenth century Europe. To give them and Hessel their due, each talk was engaging and informative. I would say that the talks themselves do successfully achieve all three of my questions: they reclaim (some) women’s voices and artwork; I would argue that they are engaging for both a historian and a member of the public; and I did learn something (many things!).  However, the Tate also currently has an exhibition called ‘Now You See Us: Women Artists in Britain 1520-1920’. I visited this whilst I was there too, albeit with the primary focus of seeing Artemisia Gentileschi’s La Pittura . I was struck by just how much the displays in this exhibition undermined the efforts of the Museums Without Men project. ‘Now You See Us’ is a comprehensive overview of women’s work over a huge time period; even coming in with a pretty good knowledge of women’s art history I was blown away by what I learnt.  Now, I don’t think that this is a criticism of the Museums without Men guide. The audio guide is intended to exist in the space of a permanent exhibition, something this temporary exhibition is not, so there are different struggles and parameters by which to judge the guide and the exhibition. Perhaps, it is best to ask why these works are in a temporary exhibition and not on the walls in the permanent galleries? Were many of these works introduced then Hessel’s guide might look a bit different, and rather more comprehensive. Perhaps the lack of content is really a criticism of the Tate’s permanent exhibition, which is itself, perhaps the point of Hessel’s work.  In the days after visiting the Tate and writing this review, I decided to do some extra research, and I was struck that the second thing that came up after searching ‘Museums without Men’ was an article titled ‘The Story of Art without Men: and without brains?’ This article was written by art historian Mark Stocker, and at first glance I was simply fatigued by the apparent dismissal of women’s work. Then I read the article, and Stocker has picked up on something that I couldn’t quite articulate above. That the guide does not only feel incomplete because it only covers seven pieces of art work, but it also feels incomplete because without situating these women’s lives and work within the broader context that inevitably includes the men they knew, loved and hated, we cannot understand the full picture of the art itself. Now I want to clarify that this is, in my opinion, an overstatement, we do not insist on contextualising every male artist in the context of the women they know, so why does Stocker think that this guide is irrelevant because it may not discuss the women artists in relation to their male contemporaries? (He specifies in the article that he has not listened to the guide and judges his review on Hessel’s podcast series.) Stocker’s article is a good read, and he does make some interesting points regarding the validity and value of feminist art history, something I myself have written about and criticised over both my dissertations. Yet his final paragraph undermines his argument, and consequently his criticism, by describing the current popular focus with female artists as a ‘preoccupation’ which ‘ignores’ men. Considering how much art history has ignored women in favour of men, do these female artists not deserve a little bit of positive discrimination? I think so, and that’s why you should go and check out Hessel’s Museums without Men, and whilst you’re there, ‘Now you see us’ too.

In February, the UK celebrates LGBT+ History Month. Different from June’s Pride Month, LGBT+ History Month focuses on education around and freedom for queer identities, relationships and families. The month-long event was founded by an organisation called SchoolsOut UK, an LGBT+ educational charity. SchoolsOut UK announced the commemoration of LGBT+ History Month in 2004. February 2005 was the first year of the annual event, the second anniversary of the repeal of Section 28. Section, or Clause 28 prohibited the education of anything perceived as LGBT+ in schools and libraries, as well as restricting funding to LGBT+ social causes. To mark this year’s LGBT+ History Month, this short article explores the causes, passage and eventual repeal of the act, alongside  the impact it has on LGBT+ education in the UK to this day. Discussions of queer history typically focus on the 1969 Stonewall Riots and the global impacts which followed. In the UK: The 1964 Wolfenden Report, the 1972 Sexual Offences Act and 2013’s Marriage Act often remain the focus - whilst all important, an often overlooked, yet continually damaging piece of anti-LGBT+ UK legislature was the 1988 passage of Section, or Clause 28.  The first piece of legislature in Britain to directly name homosexuality as a disease. Introduced by the Conservative Thatcher Government in 1986, Section 28 was a small line in the 1988 Local Government Act which stated that: ‘A Local Authority shall not: (a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality; (b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship Nothing above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease.’ Such censorship can be understood as a response to two factors. The HIV epidemic and a book. Firstly, let us discuss the impact of the HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) epidemic on British homophobia. The first known case of HIV in Britain occurred in 1981 in a 49-year-old gay man who frequently travelled to Florida. By 1985 HIV was listed as the cause of death of 50 individuals, and by 1987 over 1000 people were diagnosed. HIV had likely been transmitted from chimpanzees to humans sometime in the mid-nineteenth century thanks to humans in Africa hunting the animals for sport. The disease spread through Africa but it wasn’t until it became a problem in the USA in the early 1970s that popular panic set in worldwide. HIV is a (currently) incurable disease which can be spread through an exchange of bodily fluids. AIDS (Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) is often grouped into discussions of HIV, for context, AIDS is the last and most aggressive stage of the disease.  If you are HIV positive you are advised to always use condoms, as sex, both anal and vaginal, is historically the most common way in which the disease spreads. It is also spread through shared needles or syringes and other equipment used for drug taking. It is not a ‘gay disease’ and does not specifically affect homosexual people, heterosexual people were diagnosed during the height of the epidemic, and they continue to be affected by HIV. However, the number of gay men diagnosed with and dying from HIV and AIDS throughout the 1980s-1990s was disproportionate. The reason HIV diagnoses were more common in homosexual individuals is largely because although any penetrative sex can spread the disease, transmission via anal sex is easier; The walls of the rectum are thinner than those of the vagina. As most HIV patients and victims were gay men; fear and hatred towards the community mounted. This is demonstrated by surveys conducted by the British Social Attitude. These show that in 1983, approximately 50% of Brits thought that “sexual relations between two adults of the same sex” were “always wrong”. By 1987 as the epidemic picked up, the figure had risen to 64%. Sex between two consenting men over the age of 21 was  decriminalised in 1967, under the Sexual Offences Act. The age of consent for heterosexual sex was 16, a figure that would not be matched for homosexual sex for almost forty years. Despite decriminalisation, homosexuality continued to be demonised by politicians and the press. An onslaught of deaths seemingly linked to what was still commonly thought of as degenerative behaviour was too good to be true, as public fear set in, reports of a ‘gay disease’ sold papers. Common understanding of homosexuality was fairly reductive by today’s standards and people were concerned that if homosexuality was ‘taught’ then the disease would be spread further. Secondly, the book Jenny Lives with Eric & Martin was published by Danish author Susanne Bösche in 1983. Bösche’s book featured a young girl called Jenny, her father, and his boyfriend, looking to educate children about different types of families. Looking back in 2024 this is a lovely idea to normalise non-heteronormative families to young children. In 1983, the existence of homosexuality near children was blasphemous. When, in 1986 the book was reported to be on display in a library of a London primary school within a Labour Party Authority, public panic regarding ‘exposing’ children to homosexuality grew. The Education Secretary stated that the book was ‘propaganda’ and the Thatcher Government suddenly had an opportunity to attack the community. Concerns about the so-called “promotion” of homosexuality were already rife, but these two events in quick succession added hysterical fuel to the homophobic fire. A bill was first introduced in 1986, though it couldn’t get through the House of Commons due to the 1987 general election. Margaret Thatcher publicly supported the bill in her campaign for re-election, using this public fear of homosexuality to shore up both her own and the party’s popularity in the election. At a Conservative Party conference she argued that children were being “cheated of a sound start in life” due to being “taught they have an inalienable right to be gay”. Support for the Act was not restricted to the Tories, however, with Labour Party opposition also supporting the passage of the act. The Labour party does not believe that councils or schools should promote homosexuality and I hope that no one in the Committee has any doubt about that [Local Government Bill, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1987, c1211]. – Dr Cunningham Section 28 censored LGBT+ identities, families, relationships and existences. The Clause specifically targeted areas relating to children, such as schools and public libraries. However, bookshops were also encouraged not to sell LGBT+ literature, and council funds which had been directed to LGBT+ youth support, or any funding towards media which included same-sex relationships was cut. LGBT+ groups immediately came out (pardon the pun) to protest the passage of the Act. Perhaps most famously, in January 1988 during a public broadcast debating the act, Sir Ian McKellen inadvertently came out as gay live on air at 48 years old. A year later in 1989, McKellen co-founded the LGBT+ charity Stonewall. (The archive broadcast is linked at the bottom of this article and I recommend listening, but please be aware that the presenter is arguing for the Act, and McKellen is, as stated, outed without his own intention. This may be difficult to listen to so please only do so if you feel able.) A lack of education on homosexuality led to an immediate increase in homophobic prejudice, bullying, assaults, and violence. The Act justified the demonisation of LGBT+ topics, communities and individuals, and the British tabloids were unsurprisingly quick to jump on the scare tactics. Research conducted by Stonewall in 2017 shows that 52% of British teenagers had heard homophobic slurs in schools. It is thanks to this Act that several misconceptions regarding how HIV and AIDs were a ‘gay disease’ persist in public memory. For example, there are still popular misconceptions about the disease being exclusively homosexual, other popular fears include that it can be shared through food, or touch. As early as 1985 media was produced in the USA which attempted to address the stigma and fear concerning HIV diagnoses. However, there is a noticeable gap in British media until 2018 with the depiction of Freddie Mercury’s HIV diagnosis in Bohemian Rhapsody. Direct attention to the impact of the epidemic is evident  in the production of LGBT+ shows such as ITV’s It’s a Sin (2021), based on the real-life experiences of writer Russell T. Davies and his friends at the height of the epidemic. Examples of media like this are indicative that public interest has moved from discriminatory to empathetic. However the dates also demonstrate that fear of homosexuality and a reluctance to depict a human disaster which primarily affected queer individuals continued long after the repeal of the act in 2003. In face, in 2013 at least 50 schools still had policies in place which adhered to Section 28. The Act shaped the way a generation and beyond understood LGBT+ identities and issues, its effects still seen in how such issues are understood and taught today. The existence of this Act is problematic on several levels, that much has been established. Here I want to highlight the danger and the ignorance of this censorship. Under Section 28 the following could not be taught accurately, a significant impact of which is that large parts of LGBT+ history remain un-taught and under-researched. (This list is a short snippet and is not intended to be exhaustive.) Royal British History, namely Edward II, James VI & I and Queen Anne all had same-sex relationships during their reigns, which in all three cases were hugely significant to the trajectory of their political lives Alan Turing, the cryptanalysis of the Enigma machine, was chemically castrated in the years following the Second World War before dying by cyanide poisoning two weeks before his 42nd birthday after being found guilty of homosexuality Women in the military, especially those who served in the auxiliary forces in WW2 who often had secret relationships with each other, many joining the force to avoid heteronormative ideals all together English Literature/writers including Shakespeare, Oliver Wilde, Virginia Woolf, E.M. Forster, Walt Whitman and Audre Lorde. Ancient civilisations including Greece, Rome, and the Celts all had known and often celebrated same-sex relationships. In Greece, there was even an elite band within the Theban Army which consisted of 150 couples, 300 men. They were chosen and trusted because it was believed that each pair would rather die bravely for the other than allow himself to be seen as a coward by his beloved. They were undefeated from 371BCE – 338BCE. In Japanese history, in the pre-Meji period (800-1868 CE) same-sex relationships among men were considered an “honoured way of life … [that] in some respects even surpassed ancient Athens.” (Crompton, 412) Native American indigenous tribes mostly recognised at least four genders, if not more. Gender is also seen to be non-binary in Hindu Texts, a third gender is noted in the Manusmriti, a law code from approximately c.1250 BCE You may have noticed from this list that homophobia and censorship of same sex love emerge as Western Colonialism and Culture takes root. (A discussion of this nuance is important but overwhelming for this article. I recommend reading the articles listed below by María Lugones, “Heterosexualism and the Colonial / Modern Gender System”, and “The Coloniality of Gender”). By the end of the 1990s, support for the Act had waned. The HIV and AIDS epidemic had slowly begun to improve, consequently, so had public and political fear. In 1994 Conservative MP Edwina Currie introduced an amendment to the 1967 Sexual Offences Act to lower the age of consent for homosexual men to 16, in line with the age of consent for heterosexual individuals. While the act was rejected, the age of consent was lowered to 18. Crucially, Currie’s amendment had the support of then Shadow Secretary Tony Blair who stated that ‘a society that has learned, over time, racial and sexual equality can surely come to terms with equality of sexuality.’ From 1997, under Blair’s new Labour Government, efforts to change legislation were more successful. Labour MP Jack Straw was the Home Secretary for only two months in 1997 when he started to push for reform on LGBT+issues, notably around the age of consent. Part of Straw’s reasoning for this was clearly the upcoming publication of a report by the European Commission of Human Rights. Straw wanted to fix Britain’s homophobic legislation before it could be declared in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Despite his desire to pre-empt an issue, Straw’s support for ‘homosexual rights’ was not simply a proactive legal effort. To cut a long story short, Straw was successful in 2000, the bill was passed and in 2001 the law changed: the age of consent was 16. However, Section 28 still stood. Also in 2000, the Scottish Parliament voted to remove the Act from Scottish legislation 99 votes to 17. Whilst parliamentary support was not entirely unanimous (when is it in politics?) public support was fairly strong. Nicola Sturgeon, then first minister for Scotland, stated "A discriminatory and shameful piece of legislation that was imposed on Scotland by Westminster will today be repealed by the Scottish parliament ahead of other parts of the UK. That says something about the state of Scotland that we can all be proud of." Meanwhile, in Westminster, Tony Blair also brought a bill to parliament in an effort to repeal the Act. It was rejected by an alliance of Tory and Cross-benchers in the House of Lords. The Labour Government then retreated from the effort to protect themselves amid the general election. Whilst we can decry this cowardice, Blair’s re-elected government did return to the repeal. In January 2002 support for the repeal of Section 28 received backing from the unlikeliest of places, Tory Party Members. Section 28 was removed entirely from the British legal system in November 2003, but it was February 2003 that saw the abolition of the Act passed through Parliament. To mark this point of improving the education of LGBT+ issues and history, activist group Schools Out UK initiated the first LGBT+ History Month in February 2005, a concerted effort to correct almost two decades of direct censorship and centuries of criminalisation. The abolition of Section 28 was by no means the end of LGBT+ oppression in the UK but the removal of censorship has allowed for LGBT+ communities and individuals to establish themselves within a national identity, heading towards a normalisation of some sorts. Further Reading: ‘‘Coming Out Under Fire’: The Story of Gay and Lesbian Service Members’, National WW2 Museum, (25/06/2020), , [15/11/2023]. ‘18 November 2003: Section 28 Bites the Dust’, Stonewall, , [15/11/2023]. ‘1988: Clause 28 protest leaflet. Catalogue ref: FCO 82/1979’, The National Archives, (1988), , [31/12/2023]. ‘Lesbians in the twentieth century, 1900-1999, by Esther Newton and her students’, Out History, (2006), , [15/11/2023]. ‘Queer life during the Second World War’, NI War Memorial, < https://www.niwarmemorial.org/collections/blog/queer-life-during-the-second-world-war-1>, [15/11/2023]. ‘Scotland throws out section 28’, The Guardian, (22/06/2000), < https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jun/22/kirstyscott>, [15/11/2023]. ‘Sexual Offences Act: 2003’, Legislation.Government, (2003), , [15/11/2023]. ‘Third Ear - Section 28’, BBC Archive, (27/01/1988), < https://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/third-ear--section-28/zbm4scw>, [31/12/2023]. “LGBT+ History Month”, SchoolsOut, https://lgbtplushistorymonth.co.uk/, [30/01/2024]. Carlick, Stephen, ‘From Sappho to Stonewall, and beyond: how fiction tells LGBTQ+ history’, Penguin Press, (01/06/2023), < https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2023/06/fiction-lgbtq-history-novels>, [31/12/2023]. Dunton, Mark, ‘Equality of sexuality: The age of consent’, The National Archives: Records and research, (23/02/2023), < https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/equality-of-sexuality-the-age-of-consent/>, [31/12/2023]. Grierson, Jamie, ‘Tony Blair was warned repeal of anti-gay section 28 might harm election chances’, The Guardian, (19/07/2022), , [15/11/2023]. Hartley-Brewer, Julia, ‘Blair loses section 28 vote’, The Guardian, (25/07/2000), < https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jul/25/education.politics>, [15/11/2023]. Lugones, Maria, ‘Heterosexualism and the Colonial / Modern Gender System’, Hypatia, Lugones, Maria, ‘The Coloniality of Gender’, In: Harcourt, W. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Gender and Development, (Palgrave Macmillan, London: 2016), < https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-38273-3_2>, [31/12/2023]. Mark, Joshua J. ‘Ten Ancient LGBTQ Facts You Need to Know’, World History Encyclopedia, (08/06/2021), < https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1774/ten-ancient-lgbtq-facts-you-need-to-know/>, [15/11/2023]. Pyper, Douglas, Tyler-Todd, Joe, ‘The 20th anniversary of the repeal of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988’, House of Commons Library, (28/11/2023), < https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2023-0213/>, [15/11/2023]. Vol. 22, No. 1: Writing Against Heterosexism (Winter, 2007), pp. 186-209 (24 pages), , [31/12/2023]. Wakefield, Lily, Kelleher, Patrick, ‘The terrible, brutal history of Tory prime minister Margaret Thatcher’s homophobic Section 28’, PinkNews, (18/11/2022), , [15/11/2023].

Content warnings: bigotry, sexual abuse Glossary PostPomoHomo: 'Post-post-modern homosexuals' A movement of black gay artists, which inspired the likes of Deep Dickollective. Queer: Queer is a term used by those wanting to reject specific labels of romantic orientation, sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Intersectionality: the interconnected nature of social categorisations such as race, class, and gender, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage When talking about queerness and hip-hop, the conversation usually pivots between two very polarised time frames. There is the grim and disturbing vision of hip-hop’s past, when rappers dropped homophobic slurs in their rhymes like it was a joke, often intermingling their descriptions of queerness with violent and bigoted comments. Then, there is present-day hip-hop, where awareness of LGBTQ representation has become much more mainstream, while bigotry, at least to the extent to which it was seen in hip-hop’s earlier days, is frowned upon. With a number of charting hip-hop artists feeling safe enough to be open about their sexual orientations, there seems to have been some sort of turning point in the last ten years. This could be partially attributed to the political changes that have pathed the way for LGBTQ people to have more freedom, such as 2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision that guaranteed same-sex couples the right to get married in the USA. This article will focus on America’s hip-hop culture, where it all started in 70s New York, and where it still thrives following its 50th anniversary. This perceptibly sudden change in the way the industry (labels, charts, artists, distributors) has viewed queerness can also be felt through the different forms of artistic activism musicians have engaged in over the years. Frank Ocean’s coming out letter is treated as a touchstone for any article on this topic (including this article right here). I want to refrain from referring to contemporary artists, who happen to be queer, as “queer/gay/trans rap artists” or their genres as “queer hip-hop” precisely because of how mainstream and approachable these topics have become in recent times. Though this is definitely a welcome change, it has not arrived without criticism, even from LGBTQ listeners, who have problems with “performative sexuality.” There certainly are tracks, albums, and even artists who have dedicated queer themes with revolutionary goals. However, many artists today, such as Ocean, Lil Uzi Vert, Lil Nas X, Nicki Minaj and more have successfully incorporated themes of sexuality either into their mainstream song writing or their public personalities. No homo or Postpomohomo? It is a common belief that hip-hop as a whole has always been firmly anti-queer. In truth, hip-hop is not a monolithic entity, but a genre that can be tapped into by anyone with an awareness of the medium’s possibilities. Hip-hop is notorious for breaking down boundaries and being a revolutionary act of expression. Few art forms can channel righteous anger through easily accessible means as well as hip hop does. Kendrick Lamar, NWA, and Immortal Technique are but a few examples of politically engaged rappers that deliver punchy and radical lyrics. Equally, there is plenty of truth in the belief that much of hip-hop’s history is blighted by casual as well as downright aggressive homophobia. Kanye West, as crass as his public statements are now, in 2005 called against the use of homophobic remarks in hip-hop. “No homo” is one of the most tired ad-libs in all of hip-hop and even the cleanest rappers like Will Smith have anti-gay skeletons in their closet. Throughout hip-hop’s early days, queerness had only one form of expression and that was through underground artists like Deep Dickollective (stylised as D/DC). Sensational naming aside, this hip-hop group was founded upon postmodernist critique of heteronormativity and race theory. Their mission statement was to dismantle and reconstitute their intersectionality through lyricism that was often much more intellectual and engaging than what was played on hip-hop radio stations in the early 2000s. That their inspiration was drawn from niche political and poetic circles made no difference as they spoke to and for their own communities. Group members Tim’m West and Juba Kalamka first met at a screening of Tongues Untied, an experimental documentary film about black and gay love, in San Francisco’s Castro theatre. West suffered from both depression and AIDS. He found he could not talk about his experiences the way he wanted to, due to the hate he felt from the hip-hop community as well as the conflation of queerness with whiteness in the bay area at the time. When Phillip Atiga Goff joined the group, name was coined initially as a joke, a form of lexical blending of dick and collective, but it also was a way to create an empowering space for self expression, the way they saw women discuss erotica at the spoken word performances with which they were familiar. The final member to join was Ralowe Ampu and he brought his own experience in Marxist theory that provided further depth and intersectionality to their lyrics. D. Mark Wilson interviewed the group and analysed their lyrics, providing really important context for looking back at this group. Wilson surmised that the group do not rap for one identity group but address “the needs and concerns of many,” and that “if women, whites, and weirdos from around the world could rap,” then D/DC could be equally important for the changing perspectives within hip-hop. Wilson read Mariposa Prelube (another title that demonstrates the group’s social wit and humour) as a song that expands the dimensions of activism in hip-hop, a channel the group thought to be all too heteronormative. Mariposa, as explained by Juba, is a term from the Latino communities around D/DC that refers to effeminate gay men, typically as an insult. Wilson thought that if “n****” can be incorporated into hip-hop identity, then the same can be done with mariposa and queer.” The song certainly relishes in the word’s connotations, drawing allusions to the literal meaning of “butterfly” in Spanish, as the MCs imagine themselves coming out from cocoons or metamorphosing from caterpillars. Though the group only lasted eight years, they left an important blueprint and precedent behind, off which artists in the 2010s built. Case Study: Brockhampton "Brockhampton brings together a set of elements that at first seem disparate. They are gay, black, white, DIY, ambitious, all-inclusive, and would-be pop stars." This quote from Complex paints a desperately succinct picture of one of the most unique-sounding and chaotic musical acts in recent hip-hop history. Their inherently ‘queered’ sound exploded onto the indie rap scene, breaking rules on how hip-hop artists should sound and look, while their later commercial ventures came with problems relating to their off-stage issues as well as growing pains that came with working under a big label. It has been over a year since the self-professed boyband broke up and if there was one thing that remained consistent over their 12-year span, it was their radical approach to redefining hip-hop as queer. If D/DC wanted to dismantle and reconstitute, Brockhampton wanted to cradle this reconstituted whole and naturalise it. Several of their members are gay according to the band’s most prolific member Kevin Abstract, including himself. Their lyrics cover a broad range of themes and topics. Just on the album SATURATION II, the typically macho, flashy bars that aim to show-off and/or intimidate are heard with “I got my hand on an ounce, so now I got money servin’/ I just bought me a fifth and now I’m speedin’, swervin’.”These are reference to drugs and cars, emblematic of a cold appeal of life’s material wealth. Love, both for love’s sake and love as a revolutionary act against heteronormativity is most often sung by Abstract, such as in the following verse: "Why you always rap about bein' gay?" 'Cause not enough n****s rap and be gay! Where I come from, n****s get called "f*****" and killed So I'ma get head from a n**** right here And they can come and cut my hand off and, and my legs off and And I'ma still be a boss 'til my head gone, yeah. This refers to how he has faced discrimination both as a gay man in a homophobic society and as a rapper facing discrimination from the industry. There is a brutal contrast, particularly with the song's delivery in mind, between the slurs, which stresses the perceived uncanniness of gay rapping. The palpable tension between the two words draws an unsightly picture of the effort it takes to reconcile the intersectional pushback from the oppressive world a black gay man faces. Here lies the most striking similarity between Brockhampton and D/DC; representations of pluralised backgrounds and reclaiming slurs for art with wit and rhyme. Different visions of time both come up, too, through fondness or dread for the future and past (“All of my life in my past wanna haunt/ And my sight of the future begginin’ to taunt my ambition”). Religiosity and its clash with their lifestyles is also critical, as in “I speak in tongues and I arrive without a damn mention.” This refers to the Holy Spirit’s gift of being able to worship God in foreign languages, but this is cleverly interpolated into rap’s culture of getting “mentioned” and praised by your contemporaries. Abstract, however, does not get a mention, possibly due to his abnormal, anti-mainstream art and background. All these lyrics come from just one song on one album, but already show the deep intersectional substance contained within this band’s ethos. Each member brings something striking, something different to each track, sometimes bringing together disparate ideas such as very up-beat, flashy bars on wealth contrasted against a story of forlorn love. This is not even to mention the incredibly diverse production styles that the band has mastered, from horror-core on JUNKY to super poppy bangers like SUGAR, which featured the superstar Dua Lipa. The latter track’s original version (sans Dua) ended up being the band’s biggest commercial success, thanks to (and stop me if you’ve heard this before) a TikTok trend incorporating the song’s chorus into a dance routine. It charted high and shows just how mainstream such an odd-ball group can be. Granted, it wasn’t their most audacious or interesting song, but nevertheless proves that the efforts of the pioneers, such as D/DC, and contemporary artists can overcome those tired stereotypes of 'no-homo'. Brockhampton’s inclusive image was severely tarnished following allegations against one of their vocalists, Ameer Vann, that purported him to have engaged in sexual misconduct as well as having sexual relations with a minor. Though Vann denied these claims, he was quickly dropped from the roster. This, combined with another controversy that involved vocalist Dom McLennon revealing that Vann had been involved in a robbery done to a friend, severely hurt the band’s appeal. They never managed to reach the same highs as in the late 2010s and many fans stopped listening. Fans on online forums grappled over whether the actions of one member reflect the culture within the group as a whole. Some members, such as Kevin Abstract, were more keen than others to remain in contact with Vann, which was a topic discussed in the band's penultimate album, mostly a solo effort from Abstract, The Family. Queerness at large The 2010s saw the rise of other big names in hip-hop coming out as LGBTQ. His highest charting song, Lost, is about a heterosexual relationship (worth reiterating here that Frank is not a fan of strict labels on his sexuality), which is definitely surprising when many of his LGBTQ fans recall the playful, clever, and certainly homoerotic lyrics on Chanel as almost anthemic of queer representation in rap. My guy pretty like a girl, And he got fight stories to tell. I see both sides like Chanel. Ocean’s frequent collaborator Tyler, the Creator had a very different experience in coming out. In his early career years, Tyler came under a lot of fire for his use of slurs and offensive themes in his songs. However, in 2015, he called himself “gay as f***” in an interview with Rolling Stone. Like Ocean, he had never put it in plain text and often made remarks about his sexuality in comedic contexts. Many of his early public appearances and interviews were caked in irony, which meant comments on his sexuality were either interpreted as homophobic jokes or as dodged questions. In his later musical projects, he went on to be more honest and frank about his romantic past. Truth is, since a youth kid, thought it was a phase Thought it'd be like the phrase; "poof," gone But, it's still goin' on. Lil Nas X's expression of queerness through his music and public image is much different, as his music caters more to the mainstream and he came out publicly much sooner. Since then, fans and critics have retrospectively picked up on markers of a certain queer aesthetic within Old Town Road, his first big hit before publicly coming out. Industry Baby and its music video, as much as it is X embracing an intoxicatingly energetic camp aesthetic, it does blend subtle elements of heteronormativity through Jack Harlow’s feature, due to the latters lyrics and suave, lady's man persona. Again, some see this as a way to downplay the homosexual themes, but it could equally be a politically significant act of making the queer hip-hop star present a utopian vision of feeling totally incorporated into mainstream culture. Through the setting of a prison in the music video, a typically dangerously chauvinistic space, the artist managed to queer it and reclaim it. The ideas within the video are not totally original, but the approach to contextualising them on queer terms is very important for how hip-hop can represent queerness. There are, of course, plenty of factors that corrupt this idealistic vision. Discrimination in and through hip-hop is not a solved issue. In 2021, DaBaby made a string of disturbing comments at Rolling Loud festival that took aim at gay people, as well as those who suffer from AIDS. This caused a lot of backlash from the media and the public. The video released in response to this by DaBaby did little to soothe over the homophobic remarks, and his album release following those events made a number of allusions to the controversy, though the rapper seemed more concerned with reminding people how much money he lost from the debacle. I was at Rolling Loud, shuttin' down a whole damn show, tried to make me have a problem with gays Mixed up my words, made a n**** lose a whole thirty million, now, I'm back and I'ma say what I say. Nicki Minaj has faced backlash for potentially being guilty of queer-baiting, an act of exploiting queer aesthetics or audiences for commercial goals. Despite recently turning down a performance in Saudi Arabia to make a stand against the country's anti-LGBTQ laws, the rapper still faces accusations of her sexuality being a performance. It is important to remember, that while sexuality is part of these artists' public lives, due to the proliferation of lifestyle media and stories, it is also something deeply personal to each one of them, too. Nicki Minaj also faces discrimination on the grounds of her femininity, often portrayed as hyper-femininity through her music videos, which is part of the important intersecting fragments of what is normal and what is not in hip-hop. This echoes what D/DC saw in hip-hop's culture years ago, how people struggle to approach or accept multiple, intersecting levels of divergence from the norm. Kendrick Lamar’s recent album also came under scrutiny for the song Auntie Diaries. The song’s use of slurs split critic’s opinions on artistic liberty. You said, "Kendrick, ain't no room for contradiction To truly understand love, switch position 'F*****, f*****, f*****,' we can say it together But only if you let a white girl say 'N****'". In this song, Kendrick reflects on the changing perceptions of queerness amongst a largely heteronormative community: his home and his family. He lingers on religion, stereotypes, and the sometimes counter-logical lessons he has learned on what being politically correct means. The song ends on something of a paradox, delivered with bluntness that refers to an incident when he lets a white girl come up on his stage and sing along to a song that used the word “n****.” Wilson posed a similar rhetorical question, and it really comes down to whether hip-hop can accept the reality of queer oppression as much as black oppression. Both histories are unique, but also filled with analogues that can bridge the communities together, and allow those who share the two perspectives to amplify their voice. Reconstituted? From D/DC's foundations, to the mainstream appeal of queer superstars of hip-hop today, rappers seem to have found the formula for expressing sexuality. However, it is easy to take this evolution for granted. Both within the industry and within the audience, hate and bigotry is still disturbingly audible. Equally, queer rappers today may not have felt as safe today, or had the same outreach, were it not for the work of their predecessors. On a more optimistic note, it is a certainty that many other queer listeners, who tune in to hear the rhymes of Lil Nas X or the flows of Tyler, the Creator, will feel inspired to share their truth in the future, however weird or unspoken it may have been until then. Bibliography Baker, E. (2015). Two Insane Days on Tour With Tyler, the Creator. [online] Rolling Stone. Available at: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/two-insane-days-on-tour-with-tyler-the-creator-233121/9/ [Accessed 10 Jan. 2024]. Chonin, N. (2001). Hip to homo-hop / Oakland’s D/DC fuses gay and black identities with eyebrow-raising rhyme. [online] SFGATE. Available at: https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Hip-to-homo-hop-Oakland-s-D-DC-fuses-gay-and-2839793.php [Accessed 10 Jan. 2024]. Coombes, H. (2019). Intersectionality 101: what is it and why is it important? [online] Womankind Worldwide. Available at: https://www.womankind.org.uk/intersectionality-101-what-is-it-and-why-is-it-important/ [Accessed 14 Jan. 2024]. Cotte, J. (2018). Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Brockhampton (But Were Afraid to Ask). [online] Complex. Available at: https://www.complex.com/music/a/jorgeicotte/brockhampton-explained [Accessed 10 Jan. 2024]. Wilson, D.M. (2007). Post-Pomo Hip-Hop Homos: Hip-Hop Art, Gay Rappers, and Social Change. Social Justice, [online] 34(1 (107)), pp.117–140. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/29768425.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3A7e078964f36b7dd47b0c3c6792079c1a&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1 [Accessed 10 Jan. 2024]. X (formerly Twitter). (2024). Available at: https://twitter.com/tylerthecreator/status/587459235706900480?lang=en [Accessed 10 Jan. 2024]. Tumblr. (2024). frank ocean: Photo. [online] Available at: https://frankocean.tumblr.com/image/26473798723 [Accessed 10 Jan. 2024]. Stonewall. (2020). List of LGBTQ+ terms. [online] Available at: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/list-lgbtq-terms [Accessed 14 Jan. 2024].

The 2024 Calendar designed by our graphics team features artwork of 12 people and events in women's and queer history. Our writing team have researched and produced a series of articles to highlight our featured artwork further. Starting off with The 2017 Women's March, which happened across the world on the 21st January 2017. The start of a new year normally brings feelings of hope and optimism; unfortunately for women and people from marginalised groups in 2017 emotions were those of dread and concern as Donald Trump was inaugurated into office. Trump represented an administration seemingly hell bent on regressing the U.S back several decades, placing more control on women’s rights and their bodily autonomy. However, Teresa Shook, a grandmother from Hawaii, decided that this was a time for action, creating a Facebook group with friends inviting them to march on Washington in protest. After the invite was shared in the Pantsuit Nation group – a group supporting Hilary Clinton – news spread and sign ups for the March climbed into its thousands, with the March becoming an organised body. What followed was the organisation of a rally and March drawing numerous participants, dwarfing those at Trump’s inauguration the day before by about three times. The March, and its sister protests occurring in countries worldwide, saw a range of notable speakers, including Gloria Steinem, America Ferrerra, Janelle Monae, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris. Organisers stated that whilst the March was in no way an anti-Trump rally, its intention was to ‘send a bold message to our new administration on their first day in office, and to the world that women’s rights are human rights’.[1] The choice of words is deliberate: it echoes those of Hilary Clinton during a 1995 speech on women’s issues in Beijing. Indeed, Trump represented the antithesis of what Clinton’s administration would have been if she won, from the first female president to a president whose campaign promises included repealing the Affordable Care Act, defunding Planned Parenthood, and appointing U.S Supreme Court justices who were against abortion rights.[2] Attendants of the March on January 21st therefore marched against an administration that presented a threat to their rights and bodily autonomy. The Women’s March detailed its commitment in its uniting policies, marching for ending violence against women, reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, worker’s rights, civil rights, disability rights, immigrant rights and environmental justice. Whilst this shows an inclusive, intersectional organisation, the foundations of some of these promises were not completely solid. The support of reproductive rights, therefore being a pro-choice march, was thrown into question when the anti-abortion group ‘New Wave Feminists’ were granted partnership status, a questionable decision by the March’s organisers when Planned Parenthood was one of the premier partners of the March. New Wave Feminists were removed as a partner after their involvement was publicised in the American magazine The Atlantic. Whilst this showed organisers had recognised the contradiction of having both pro-life and pro-choice organisations as partners, their initial granting of partnership status to New Wave Feminists throws their fight for reproductive rights into question. The March also faced questions over their diversity at the beginning as it was mainly formed of white women. However, this was quickly amended by co-founder Vanessa Wruble who brought in women of colour to serve as national co-chairs, such as the social justice advocate Tamika Mallory, ensuring the organisation of the march going forward was informed with diversity in mind. A major legacy of the Women’s March in 2017 is that of the Pussyhat Project. Created by Krista Suh and Jayna Zwieman, the idea was to create something women could physically see and hold – a material symbol of their frustration towards the Trump administration. The idea behind the project name and design of the hats are obvious, reclaiming the word ‘pussy’ against Trump who in 2005 had abused the word, stating he could ‘grab’ any woman ‘by the pussy’.[3] The impact the hats had upon the Women’s March and following marches was immense, with shortages of pink knitting yarn (the colour of the hats) being reported across the U.S due to so many being made. Many were worn by participants to represent those who could not attend, displaying their solidarity with the march despite their lack of physical presence. Whilst some activists argued the hats were too cutesy of a symbol to encapsulate the frustration and fear women felt about Trump’s presidency, Suh and Zweiman stated they were conversation starters, and refused the notion that a symbol of resistance had to be ‘plain’ or ‘serious’.[4] They were correct, the hats simple and bright design – easy to make and distribute – allowed women to unite in their protests and ensured a legacy of the Women’s March years later. Indeed, the fact that the Pussyhats are so prominent of an image allowed their integration into other parts of society - they can now be found worn on fashion runways and displayed in museums. They  became a continuing symbol of the Women’s March and feminist activism, showing the success in creating a simple material symbol to get a message across. Seven years after the first Women’s March in 2017, women’s rights and their concern over their bodily autonomy remains. The overturning of Roe v Wade by the Supreme Court a year ago serves as a prime example, with many women in America no longer being able to access abortions. Whilst Trump may not be in office anymore therefore, the legacy of the mainstream misogyny his administration perpetuated and its attempt to control women’s bodies lives on. However, what also remains is women’s fight to resist, as organisers of the Women’s March ensured the momentum of the rally didn’t slow down after 2017. After January 21st, the organisation published their campaign ‘10 Actions for the First 100 Days’ which encouraged local, small acts of activism to keep the momentum going. In October 2017, Wruble decided to bring organisers of the many nationwide Women’s Marches into a national coalition under the name ‘March On’. The organisation’s focus was to harness the energy of the original marches to ‘march’ voters to polling stations for the November 2018 midterms. The work of those behind the Women’s March has therefore continued, further evidenced by the organisation's website which shows a timeline of their work supporting women and marginalised communities. The momentum of the original Women’s March has clearly not slowed down, so whilst women’s rights to their own bodies may still be up for debate in many states, the fight to resist these archaic attempts persists. Further Reading: ‘Our Vision’, Women’s March (2023) https://www.womensmarch.com/about-us [Accessed 20 November 2023] Wendy L. Wilson, ‘Women Marching for Justice in a New Era: A Chat with Activist Tamika Mallory’, Ebony (2017) https://web.archive.org/web/20170122172604/http://www.ebony.com/news-views/tamika-mallory-womens-march-interview#ixzz4W8C7zxNe [Accessed 20 November 2023] The Pussyhat Project (2023) https://www.pussyhatproject.com/ [Accessed 20 November 2023] [1] Emily Crockett, ‘The “Women’s March on Washington,” explained’, Vox (2017) https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/11/21/13651804/women-march-washington-trump-inauguration [Accessed 18 November 2023] [2] Kristen Jordan Shamus, ‘Pussyhat Project is sweeping nation ahead of Women’s March on Washington’, USA News Today (2017) https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/14/pink-cat-ear-hats-sweeping-nation-ahead-womens-march/96584374/ [Accessed 18 November 2023] [3] ‘Transcript: Donald Trump’s Taped Comments About Women’, New York Times (2023) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html [Accessed 18 November 2023] [4] Mattie Kahn, ‘The Pussyhat Is an Imperfect, Powerful Feminist Symbol That Thousands Will Be Wearing This Weekend in DC’, Elle (2017) https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a42152/pussyhat-project-knit-protest/ [Accessed 20 November 2023]

The Historiography of Women The phrase ‘winners write history’ helpfully encapsulates how men have treated women throughout history. How is a ‘winner’ defined other than the one with control over both the pen and the sword? The idea that men have always been the main characters on the world’s stage has been upheld by one persistent system; patriarchy. This system has attempted to sideline women’s stories in all realms, be it medicine, war, poetry or art. One quotation that summarises this atavistic but sustained belief comes from Steve Biddulph’s Raising Boys; ‘In an anti-male era, it’s important to remember that men built the planes, fought the wars, laid the railroad tracks, invented the cars, built the hospitals, invented the medicines and sailed the ships that made it all happen.’ If this is to be believed, Pankhurst herself would hang her head in shame. With the fourth wave of feminism advancing through society there has been an increasing volume of historiography surrounding women’s histories and contributions to politics, culture and science. This series ‘Winners Write History: Or is it just Men?’ aims to explore this historiography and the evolving discussion on the true nature of women’s history and how it is represented. History itself arguably cannot be rewritten, but it can be better represented and better understood. In fourth wave feminism we are battling with the infinitesimal intricacies of sociopolitical equalities. It is important to remember, however, that all movements are started by and propelled by continuous questioning, even of the movement itself. How have women been treated in their lifetimes, in spite of or because of their achievements? How has this treatment impacted ongoing perceptions of these individuals and of women’s contributions to society in general? Ultimately, how have men used their control over historical narratives to shape our idea of gender in society? Alice Perrers Perrers is a lesser-known royal mistress from the mediaeval period of British history, living alongside the court of Edward III in the 14th century. Perrers is a classic example of the vilification of women in history by men who sought the power she wielded. This process was aided by her sexuality, supposed promiscuity and the enforcement of gendered expectations. A more famous example of this is the life and memory of Anne Boleyn, the ‘great whore’ whose extraordinary rise to power angered courtiers and countries alike and whose memory has been sullied continuously by misinformation spread during her lifetime. As mistress to Edward III (r.1327-77) Perrers possessed an extraordinary amount of independence in an age where women were still considered property and had little to no legal protection or rights. Perrers’ life defied these constraints on mediaeval women even in the highest of circles. This did not sit well with her contemporaries. Alice differs in an important way to the story of Anne Boleyn; her rise defies the stereotype of sexualised women elevated by men around her and simultaneously defies the image purported by her contemporaries of an evil manipulative shrew that has lasted the centuries. Historiography generally agrees that many of Alice’s contemporaries have given an inaccurate account of her character and events in her lifetime. However, the overall narrative of a manipulative woman still influences her image today. These sources, namely Thomas Walsingham and Jean Froissart, are pivotal to the depiction of mediaeval warfare, royalty and politics including the Hundred Years War, Edward III’s kingship and that of his counterpart Philip VI of France. Their understanding and depictions of women’s roles, however, is severely lacking in accuracy, let alone empathy. Alice has been depicted as a manipulative gold digger, using an ageing Edward III for her own financial gain, offending his pious queen, Phillipa of Hainault as well as the Christian sensibilities of the court. Phillipa’s queenship has also been used against Alice as evidence of her inferiority and immorality. The mere connotations of ‘mistress’ already have inbuilt ammunition against women like Alice who worked for their livelihoods. Alice became one of the wealthiest people during her lifetime through various means that have been erased by antagonistic contemporaries and biased historiographical works. This wealth was all but lost by her death as Edward III died before her, leaving her undefended against the Good Parliament. With modern understanding of the reality women faced in these years, Alice’s life deserves a sympathetic reassessment to better understand the complexities of mediaeval life. A Woman Born and a Woman Made Mediaeval historiography is subject to a paucity of sources remaining today to tell us about life in this period. This has made the invisibility of women in society ever more present. Little is known about Alice’s origins, even the time and place of her birth is contested with most estimating around 1348 in the south of England, possibly London. Her parentage is also unknown, but it is generally agreed (Given-Wilson, Ormrod, Tompkins) that her father was a jeweller of the Salisbury family making her suitable for a traditional education of French, basic literacy and numeracy as well as the economic abilities necessary in her family’s industry. Alice was also born in a time of economic prosperity for the mercantile class of London, so prosperous in fact that the first sumptuary laws were implemented dictating what the lower ranks of society could eat and wear so as to not compete with nobility. Alice therefore received a comparatively privileged upbringing and benefited greatly from her family’s business, making her relatively well suited for court life. English chronicler Thomas Walsingham wrote that Alice was born to a thatcher. Whilst a jeweller was not a noble profession, it did rank higher than a thatcher and this debasement of Alice’ birth has evident intentions. We don’t have to dig deep to decipher Walsingham’s bias as he calls Alice a ‘shameless, impudent harlot’ and rallies against her role at the king’s side. Criticism of royal favourites, be they mistresses, advisors or soldiers, is an age-old tactic of indirectly criticising a king himself without facing the consequences of doing so (see the fate of Henry VIII’s courtiers). Edward III has been described as the ‘perfect king’ (Mortimer) however he has also been subject to heavy criticism for his later kingship. In the years before his death Edward is criticised for his personal conduct and his military record, the time when Walsingham was writing his chronicles again furthering his bias against Edwardian rule. Walsingham was also a monk of St Albans Abbey, which became a rival of Alice Perrers in her rise to prosperity, furthering his bias against the royal favourite. Although a prominent English chronicler, Walsingham’s account of Alice’s life has largely been dismissed as unreliable. Contextual clues can also be used against this chronicler’s description of Alice, as a low-born, ill-educated woman would not be elevated to the position of lady-in-waiting to a queen. It can be concluded that Walsingham exploited societal expectations of mediaeval English women, being the categorisation of obedient, quiet and subservient Christians vs disruptive, promiscuous and disobedient ‘harlots’ against Alice in her rise to prominence. Perrers is the name by which Alice is generally known as her maiden name cannot be certified; she is also sometimes referred to as Alice de Windsor following her second marriage, however both unions left little evidence of their occurrences. Alice’s first husband was ostensibly of French descent so it is fair to say that her understanding of the language would have made her suitable for life at court, where French was the primary language until the Statute of Pleading issued by her lover Edward III in 1362. As with most royal mistresses, Alice’s husband was known to the king through his work, in this case as a jeweller offering Alice the opportunity to meet the king herself.  It was common in these times for women of the peasant and mercantile classes to marry a man of the same profession as their father. Alice had begun to exercise her knowledge of her family’s trade, carrying out business herself following her first husband’s death in 1364. Alice’s official entrance into court was as a lady-in-waiting to Queen Phillipa, to whom Edward was reportedly devoted to throughout their 41-year marriage. This role opened the door for Alice’s most rewarding career move. As a royal favourite, Alice received many gifts and, through a diversity of means, became one of the richest people in the realm. This wealth was only protected, however, by the presence of the king and after his death Alice was exiled by the Good Parliament and her lands stripped. Although this has been referred to as her fall from grace (Moorhouse), Alice went down fighting. A Career Woman The primary issue contemporaries and historians have taken with Alice is the vast wealth she amassed in her lifetime, ostensibly at the expense of Edward’s purse and pride. Some of the most infamous royal mistresses throughout history have amassed great wealth through their influence like Madame de Pompadour, Barbara Palmer, and Diane de Poitiers. In many ways Alice’s treatment in history has not been so different from her counterparts as the work of women not of the blood at royal courts is often degraded or dismissed. This is habitually achieved through the hyperfocus on the sexual life of a mistress and, although this is often a key part of such a career, it is not the backbone of its success. Palmer maintained her influence in the Caroline court through patronage, Poitiers allied herself with Henry II’s closest courtiers and Alice secured her wealth with the knowledge and skill learned through her time spent in her family’s industry. The lens through which Alice’s wealth has been assessed has been a misogynistically motivated and cynical one. Edward’s wife Philipa was ailing by the beginning of his relationship with Alice and died before they became public. Edward himself was ageing and Alice has been accused of manipulating the weakened, mourning king to her own financial gain at his expense. I argue, however, those without official power, in the feudal world, cannot manipulate those with ultimate power - the king. Undoubtedly, Alice took advantage of the situation, utilised her skills and exploited the system to her benefit but this does not warrant the image of a ‘manipulative shrew’ to which she has been subject throughout the centuries. It could even be argued that her actions in her time when an unmarried woman could not own property, stand in court, or, (God forbid) vote, is admirable. However the connotations of the profession ‘mistress’ perforates today’s understanding of women’s lives in royal and noble history. Oversexualisation of women both vilifies and victimises these women as it reduces their achievements to a sexual conquest, disenfranchising their independence or contributions to the world of politics, art, literature or economics. Alice, in addition to a romantic and sexual partner of the king, was also a skilled businesswoman and property investor using her skills and good fortune to increase her net worth and secure her independence and protection when society offered her none. The evidence that Alice formed alliances at court to protect her economic interests following the uncertainty of her early widowhood has been used to represent alternating portrayals of her life and personality. As always in historical analysis, context is key. Alice undeniably used her sex to her advantage, utilising her close relationship with the king to line her coffers. Yet she had already amassed a considerable fortune relative to her birth and made her family proud with her position in the queen’s court as a lady-in-waiting. Men born into similarly modest backgrounds throughout history have faced starkly different treatment from society and historians alike. To quote Reese Witherspoon, ‘ambition is not a dirty word’, but when it comes to women in the royal court, their successes have not been treated kindly. Instead, they are often debased and slandered in an attack on women outside of biblically archaic expectations of a meek and modest woman; ‘That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands’ -  Titus 2:4-5 Drawing from Fiona Tolhurst's insights, royally associated women have faced unjust criticism and condemnation for exhibiting traditionally masculine traits like ambition, financial autonomy, and intellectual prowess—qualities that are often commended in men. Where Edward VI’s 1st Duke of Northumberland had a ‘determined ambition’ as he worked to control the young king and implement the soon-to-be Nine Day Queen, Jane Grey. Meanwhile, Tolhurst helpfully encapsulates the plight of women’s characterisations in history through the lens of Empress Matilda, who for modern historians is ‘both too feminine in her weaknesses and too masculine in her aggressive exercise of power.’ Witherspoon’s speech at the Glamour Women of the Year awards is obviously from a wildly different context than the life of Alice Perrers, yet serves to illustrate the way in which she has been remembered. Her ambition was her cause for success but also her adverse memorialisation. Hollman’s biography of Phillipa and Alice illustrates the sympathetic approach to women’s history we should be taking today with our understanding of the realities these women faced without an icon like Witherspoon to inspire them. Without looking at Alice through rose-tinted glasses, we can remove the ‘caricature’ recognised by Hollman and assess the mediaeval figure through a less biassed criteria. It can be argued that mistresses throughout history have partaken in one of the most controversial jobs in society. They exchanged sexual relationships for wealth and protection and used the position this work gave them to further their interests and those of their friends, families and allies. The narrative of a rapacious, manipulative, vindictive woman is based on the shame associated with sex work. Even the word ‘mistress’ pertains certain connotations around femininity and promiscuity despite the many successful careers shared by women in countries across the world (Hürrem Sultan, Madame de Montespan). Looking at the context of her time, Alice had very limited pathways to bettering herself. Alice’s supposed promiscuity has made it all too easy to dismiss her meteoric rise as a misuse of her feminine virtues and thus she has been treated harshly throughout history. Alice was involved in the business of her family, her husband and later for herself when she became a widow in 1364. The beginnings of Alice’s extensive property portfolio began in Kent with a deal exchanged between herself and John de Mereworth, a knight at Edward’s court. A major part of economic and social success in these courts was to be seen to be successful and owning property such as this would have significantly aided Alice onto her path of wealth and fortune. Behind the scenes, this land deal was even more impressive and is highly indicative of Alice’s hidden potential as a financial investor and property manager. This deal was the beginning of Alice’s independent income and has no relevance to her relationship with Edward; the introduction was made through her role at Phillipa’s court attained through her own means. This business attitude was sustained throughout her time at Edward’s side as she only became richer and richer until his death. Bothwell has described the role of ‘mistress’ as a passive one whose ‘position, her wealth, and even her fate were dependent upon the will of the king’. If this is to be proven true, should Alice not be heralded as the ultimate ‘girlboss’ who navigated these constraints and surpassed all expectations? Woman to Woman The feudal system of Edward’s reign thrust high expectations of mediaeval kingship upon him. Chivalric values embodied by the Order of the Garter formed by Edward in 1348 demanded military prowess, achieved at the Battle of Crecy, and domestic domination, achieved through the obtainment of an obedient wife. In Edward’s case this was the pious and loyal Phillipa of Hainault, who herself deserves a historical re-analysis. Jean Froissart, a French chronicler of the Hundred Years War described Phillipa as the ‘most gentle Queen, most liberal, and most courteous that ever was Queen in her days’ and this has been the general consensus of Phillipa’s queenship since her death (Hollman). Our old friend Thomas Walsingham similarly described Phillipa as ‘the most noble woman’ from which we can infer an additional motivation behind his slander of Alice’s name. If one meets the societal expectations of womanhood and femininity, one must fall short to perpetuate general masculine superiority. Phillipa’s maternal, beautiful, charitable queenship heightens the standard by which Alice is contrasted, painting an image of a white sheathed maiden angel on one shoulder and a red cloaked horned devil on the other. Comparing women in order to maintain power over them is an age-old strategy of the patriarchy that remains present in modern society; think Olivia vs Sabrina or Haley vs Selena. Evidently the standards to which Alice and Phillipa were, and continue to be, held vary greatly from today’s modern pop icons. Gentle femininity and obedience have been key characteristics of the ‘perfect woman’ for centuries in most cultures; the fact that Phillipa was able to publicly meet these requirements has served as fuel for the fire surrounding the continuous deformation of Alice’s character when compared to the pious queen. Alice has also been vilified through the victimisation of Phillipa in her final years as she watched her once faithful husband conduct his affair with the decades younger Perrers. To this, I refer to my earlier argument that those without official power in the feudal world, cannot manipulate those with ultimate power, such as the king. This means that Alice did not ‘steal’ her husband from her and should not be cast in the role of master manipulator. By separating these women as individuals whilst simultaneously recognising their coexistence we can better assess their characters, faults and virtues. Gemma Hollman’s comparative work on Phillipa and Alice seamlessly highlights the two women’s characters including their respective flaws without using either to elevate or vitiate the other. The Queen and the Mistress exemplifies changing attitudes towards women in history and especially those who lived in a time with strongly enforced gender expectations with a more empathetic analytical approach. The Rise and Fall of an Empire The evidence of Alice’s shrewd cunning is apparent on multiple fronts, not least in the physical manifestations of her wealth. Her portfolio of 56 properties across 25 counties by the time of her lover’s death made her one of the richest people (not just women) in England, transcending all gender expectations. This manifestation of wealth has been used as evidence of her ‘greed’, rather than her immense success (Ormrod). Notably, 15 of her manors were gifted to her by Edward III while the remaining properties were acquired through Alice’s own financial acumen by Alice herself owing to intricate land deals, agreements and negotiations. Alice's tale is a fascinating account of a woman’s ambition, fortune, and the prejudices that often accompany the elevation and memory of successful women. This success, however, inevitably stirred resentment, leading to a concerted effort from her adversaries to strip her of the wealth she had meticulously accumulated and fought to protect as she foresaw the vulnerability Edward’s death would expose her to. The Good Parliament was formed in 1376 in response to Alice’s excessive accumulation of landed wealth. Mediaeval historiography faces the challenge of a great paucity of sources due to the obvious problem of time. Most material has decayed in centuries past and so few people were literate, written sources are also scarce. This has meant a heavy reliance on sources with ostensible biases, including court documents, chroniclers as aforementioned and religious material. In Alice’s case the primary sources on her life come from the former, namely documentation of the trials of the Good Parliament and her demise. These trials represented public sentiment towards the royal mistress who had achieved so much in her lifetime. Alice’s contemporaries resented her for the wealth she had amassed with the aid of Edward III, who for so long had been the figurehead of chivalric kingly values as Froissart wrote ‘his like had not been seen since the days of King Arthur’. There is little evidence that Alice had any real parliamentary or military influence and although she was better educated that most would give her credit for, she was not so politically inclined. The influence she is accused of wielding over Edward was primarily financial as she exploited her position to benefit her coffers, arguably conflicting with the chivalric dictum of domestic control i.e. control over one’s household, including its women. Edward has been recorded as the ‘perfect king’ and this deference to a woman, a low ranking one at that, did not suit this narrative of a great and noble king (Mortimer). This was unacceptable to a proud and patriotic community as the English. Alice represented a threat to traditional masculine and chivalric values, further transcending gendered expectations of strict feudal society. Edward’s politicians and courtiers also blamed her for his later downfalls including ill health, military losses in France and costs to the royal coffers. The Good Parliament, so named after their desire to reform the corrupt royal house, exiled Alice from the realm and seized her worldly goods. By this time Alice had secretly married Sir William Windsor in order to protect herself from what she saw coming as her lover was dying and those in power despised her. This marriage was further ammunition to use against the royal mistress as a supposed betrayal of the king’s love. A targeted decree was made against Alice declaring; some women have pursued various business and disputes in the king’s courts by way of maintenance, bribing and influencing the parties, which thing displeases the king; the king forbids any woman to do it, and especially Alice Perrers, on penalty of whatever the said Alice can forfeit and of being banished from the realm. Gesta abbatum Monasterii Sancti Alba This declaration showcases Alice as a conniving gold digger defying the rules of femininity set out by the mediaeval patriarchy and feudal system that demanded a strict hierarchy in society that placed women in the lowest ranks. The ‘bribing and influencing’ found in the royal courts has been rife throughout all of history and is arguably what the nation is built on. The reason for the direct attack on Alice for these crimes which all courtiers and politicians were guilty of, is plain (misogyny, if you weren’t sure). It is a disappointment but not a shock, then, that this depiction has been the one to stand the test of time. The seizure and exile were not so effective in reality as planned. Under Richard II parliament again rallied to condemn Alice for her manipulation of the ageing king and misuse of royal power. In this court Alice was tried as a femme sole as she was believed to be unmarried and as such was not granted the protection offered to married women (a wife could not be tried as an individual as she was the property of her husband, along with all her worldly goods). This fact was not unbeknownst to Alice. It is unclear when she married for a second time but following her conviction William Wyndsore petitioned the result of the court on the basis of an unfair trial (Ormrod). Perrers had secretly married Wyndsore, Lieutenant of Ireland. A risky move, as it ostensibly painted Alice as a disloyal mistress betraying the love and kindness of the late king. Then again, Alice anticipated the danger of being an unmarried woman at the court of her lover’s son, now king, surrounded by enemies and wannabes. After constant petitioning, Wyndsore secured a substantial portion of his wife’s lands. Without this marriage Alice would have been left with nothing. It is this alliance that prevented her from total ruin in the end, although she suffered great losses at the hands of a vengeful consortium of men masquerading as a parliament. The image these courts aimed to paint of Alice as a universally hated seductress and gold digger, responsible for the depletion of royal treasury is contradicted by the circumstances of the bloody Peasant’s Revolt close by to Alice’s homestead. Alice’s properties were not attacked unlike many of those similarly convicted by the Good Parliament and Alice herself was never threatened with violence unlike her counterpart Richard Lyons who was killed in the street by leader Wat Tyler. The artistic licence taken with Alice’s reputation by her contemporaries reached levels of absurdity when it was rumoured she thieved the rings off a dying Edward’s fingers when left alone with him on his deathbed. This can be easily disproved by the apparent fact that no king would be left alone on his deathbed, unguarded especially  by such a loyal and loving family as Edward’s had proved to be. Walsingham has proven to be more of a dramatist than a chronicler as Alice supposedly; ‘artfully removed from the royal hands the rings, which the king wore on his fingers to display his royalty… so, in this way bidding the king farewell’ Yet, no such rings existed and no such action was taken. Alice was no thief in the night and had more foresight than to act on whim. Undeterred by vicious hearsay, legal constraints and feudal expectations, Alice fought fiercely against the forces determined to dismantle the empire she had worked decades to build. She bore losses to the wealth and honour of her children by the king, her own capital and reputation but died having lived an astoundingly affluent life. The resulting legacy is one of tenacity, wisdom and cunning tragically tinged by misogynistic rumour, false accusation and outright attacks on her wealth and character both in her lifetime and years after. Conclusion The aim of this article has not been to perceive Alice Perrers through rose-tinted glasses or to resituate her as a heroine or tragic victim of her time or the androcentric narrative of mediaeval history. Feminist history does not seek to put women on a pedestal. Rather, by employing the facts and information available, we can evaluate women like Alice in a manner akin to the treatment men have traditionally received, with a degree of empathy, respect and even sympathy for the times in which they lived. Alice did not live as a victim and should not be remembered as one, although the men who envied her success threw everything they had at her to take it. While Phillipa led a life of piety and ‘womanly’ obedience, Alice defied these constraints of femininity yet neither better or worse than the other. Both experienced loss, affluence, and even a degree of power. Both have been subject to the gendered bias of their contemporaries and historiography that followed. There is one question left to ask in light of this. If Alice manipulated Edward III, used him for her own gain, rinsed him for all he was worth and lied and cheated to protect herself, in a time where women had so few rights or protection, would that be so bad? Bibliography Biddulph, Steve, 2015, Raising Boys, Thorsons. Bothwell, James, 1998, ‘The management of position: Alice Perrers, Edward III, and the creation of a landed estates, 1362–1377’, Journal of Medieval History, Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 31-51. Dawson, Ian, 1993, The Tudor Century 1485–1603, Nelson. Given-Wilson, C., 2004, Perrers [other married name Windsor], Alice  (d. 1401/02), ODNB. Hollman, G., 2022, The Queen and the Mistress: The Women of Edward III, The History Press, Cheltenham. Holmes, G., 1975, The Good Parliament, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Lewis, Jone Johnson, 2020,  Alice Perrers,  ThoughtCo,  Accessed November 2023. Lewis, K., 2013, Kingship and Masculinity in Late Medieval England, Routledge. Moeslein, Anna, 2015, ‘Reese Witherspoon's Moving Speech at Glamour's 2015 Women of the Year Awards: 'Like Elle Woods, I Do Not Like to be Underestimated’, Glamour. Moorhouse, D., The Hundred Years War: Alice Perrers, Accessed November 2023. Mortimer, Ian, 2006, The Perfect King. The life of King Edward III, Pimlico. Ormrod, W.M., 2006, ‘Who was Alice Perrers?’, Chaucer Review 40, 219-229. Ormrod, W.M., 2008, ‘Alice Perrers and John Salisbury’, EHR 123, 379-392. Ormrod, W.M., 2008, ‘The Trials of Alice Perrers’, Speculum 83, 366-396. Ormrod, W.M., 2004, Edward III, Accessed November 2023. The Royal Women, Alice Perrers: The Manipulative Mistress, Accessed November 2023. Thompson, E.M., 1874, [T. Walsingham], Chronicon Angliae, ab anno Domini 1328 usque ad annum 1388, Rolls Series, 64. Tompkins, L., 2015, ‘Alice Perrers and the Goldsmiths’ Mistery: New Evidence Concerning the identity of the Mistress of Edward III’, EHR 130, 1361-1391. Westminster Abbey, Edward III and Philippa of Hainault,  Accessed November 2023.

Trigger Warning: Images of Human Remains & Mentions of Rape/Necrophilia Glossary Deviant - Deviating from normal social, etc., standards or behaviour. Hundred - a subdivision of a county or shire, having its own court; also formerly applied to the court itself Perimortem - At the time of death Wergeld - the price set upon a man according to his rank. This would be paid as compensation in the event of death, harm, or a broken oath. Isotopic Analysis - analysis of isotopes that are taken from archaeological remains to provide details on how old the remains are, where the individual lived at birth and later in life, and further information “The dead are not all remembered equally.” - Howard Williams, 2011 It is the 1960s in Oakridge, Basingstoke. The solitary cranium of a young female is uncovered by a construction crew at a roadside. Oakridge is an exceedingly rare site in that the remains are singular and exhibit a show of brutal punishment and mutilation at the time of death. This is considered to be “the first case of formal facial mutilation” as the evidence is frequently limited due to the deterioration or loss of the soft tissues and a lack of marks left on the skeletal structure. The discovery of this site provides the opportunity for further understanding of local law, mob mentality, as well as legal action that is usually lost on the archaeological record, especially in reference to the Anglo-Saxon period which is dated from 410 AD to 1066 AD. It is theorised by archaeologists that this mutilation was not intended to kill her, but done as an extreme form of humiliation and debasement. This belief is based on analysis undertaken on the perimortem cut marks, which are multiple and precise. This mutilation does not align with a single law, rather is an accumulation of several, which leads archaeologists to believe that this is the work of local people rather than a formal judicial action, and was done as a way to mark her for an offence - a form of scarlet letter. It is remarked upon that the aim was to ensure that these criminals, and in this instance this young girl, ‘lost face’. Her isotopic results and tooth analysis have revealed that she was between 15 and 18 years old and was not local to the area. Her remains have been radiocarbon dated to between 920 - 946 AD. There is extreme perimortem trauma to her nose and mouth, with no remodelling, further proving that this was inflicted at the time of death. Only the skull was recovered, and it is possible that decapitation was included as part of her humiliation and punishment but this cannot be confirmed. This site is a rare occurrence that aids in the understanding of local law, mob mentality, as well as revealing legal action that is usually lost on the archaeological record due to the loss of organic materials. The cranium itself was found 80 metres south of a parish hundred boundary, as well as near an Iron Age site, which would have been used as a reference point within the landscape. The repeated use of a site over successive stages of occupation and having these earlier connections allows this case to stand out further as it implies some form of ritualism or reverence of space, time, and the ancestors. Anglo Saxon Legal Codes Legal texts are among some of the oldest written documents that survive from many different civilisations across time. In reference to Anglo-Saxon communities specifically, Andrew Reynolds (University College London) comments that whilst legal texts are significant and provide a lens through which to see these communities, that it is also pertinent to be aware that the enforcement of these laws and the standard to which they are upheld will differ depending on where and when you are in the territory. It is also critical to consider that regional and local laws would likely also have been in use and may not feature on the national legal records. Moreover, many laws may have communicated through oral tradition rather than viewing these laws in their entirety in a written form. Law and order saw a change throughout the Anglo-Saxon period with laws being introduced on a national scale, and Christianity becoming a major factor within the formation of new laws and the upholding of new Christian ideals. This is reflected through burial evidence across the UK. These changes also coincide with the major change of the conversion to the Catholic Church in the 9th century. At this time, there was a sharp increase in the country’s lawmaking and the enforcement of laws, with gallows being placed at ports, entrypoints, and they are thought to have been placed within the majority of large towns. Several laws themselves lay out punishments, usually in reference to wergeld (or ‘man’s price’). These laws commonly focus heavily on the male experience, and later also encompass religious and ecclesiastical laws which are held to the very highest standard. It is thought that women sometimes evaded the law due to the legal codes being heavily tailored towards male perpetrators. This is also seen within the archaeological record where the majority of the deviant remains found are those of young men. Mutilation was a form of punishment undertaken by the judiciary, short of execution. Many Anglo-Saxon laws decree scalping and mutilation as the primary punishment as wergeld appears to have been a tangible honour to the Saxon peoples and its right must be upheld. Moreover, King Cnut’s clause 53 (a law) shows a female adulterer losing her nose and ears as punishment, a code that aligns with the damage seen on the cranium at Oakridge. This could also be implemented for thievery, such as with the idea that thieves lost their hands, as well as through activities such as branding, that would not be evident in the osteological record due to the loss of the soft tissues. Despite these being seen as kinder punishments than execution, many likely would have lost their lives due to complications and infections from the mutilation site. Grave Reopenings Historically, the reopening of graves was primarily for the purpose of grave robbing. However, new research by Aspöck has shown that graves from the Anglo-Saxon period were opened relatively close to the date of internment and that it is likely that some of the bodies had not finished decomposing by the time their grave was opened. This brings forth new considerations into the treatment of the dead, as well as how the dead were treated and remembered. In the case of these deviant cemetery sites it is likely that these graves were reopened as a secondary form of punishment where they are once again humiliated after death. The opening and viewing of decomposing remains reinforces fear and allows for the punishment of the deceased individual to be felt within the community for an extended period of time, maintaining fear and order within the population. There is some consideration that this may have been a ritual occurrence to revisit the deceased, however, the movement of bodies and in some cases, the removal of parts of the remains from the grave, present this as an abusive and degrading act. The reopening of graves may not always be obvious and it is unknown how many graves would have been opened during the Saxon period. Some theories show that these graves, mostly of younger women, were reopened for nefarious means, specifically for the further debasement and rape of these women. This is theoretical and based on the positioning of the remains, as well as the times of reopening. The graves were cut to the size of the individual, however, after they were reopened the bodies were pushed far up to the head-end with legs akimbo. Rape and necrophilia are unsettling but very real considerations in this instance. Grave desecration was outlawed within the Anglo Saxon code, and these offences may have resulted in legal action themselves. The reopening of deviant burials is a further aspect of deviance that requires further analysis. These instances of desecration are highly motivated, and by understanding these motivations archaeologists can produce a clearer understanding of the societal and cultural driving forces that allow deviancy to be so prevalent. What does this tell us? Throughout the period, women were needlessly debased and defiled, even after death. These instances build an image of a society where women were clearly second class citizens who were not even important enough to factor into the legal codes. However, this is not always the case as there are many instances of Anglo-Saxon men championing their female counterparts, such as King Edward the Elder building and endowing an abbey for his daughter Elflaeda. Women of all echelons, with a few exemptions, were not afforded the same opportunities or respect as their male counterparts. Despite these occurrences, it is clear that Anglo-Saxon attitudes were not kind to women and heavily favoured men and even young boys who were considered to be adults around the age of 10! This is again reinforced by the likely mob action against this teenage girl, which resulted in her losing her nose, ears, and her scalp. Further Reading: Aspöck, E. (2011). Past ‘Disturbances’ of Graves as a Source: Taphonomy and Interpretation of Reopened Early Medieval Inhumation Graves at Brunn Am Gebirge (Austria) and Winnall II (England). Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 30(3), pp.299–324. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0092.2011.00370.x. Aspöck, E. (2015). Funerary and Post-Depositional Body Treatments at the Middle Anglo-Saxon Cemetery Winnall II: Norm, Variety – and Deviance? In: Death embodied: Archaeological Approaches to the Treatment of the Corpse. [online] Oxbow Books, pp.86–108. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1989441.7 [Accessed 19 Apr. 2023]. Cole, G., Ditchfield, P.W., Dulias, K., Edwards, C.J., Reynolds, A. and Waldron, T. (2020). Summary justice or the King’s will? The first case of formal facial mutilation from Anglo-Saxon England. Antiquity, [online] 94(377), pp.1263–1277. doi:https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.176. Hough, C. (2021). Early English Laws: Women and Law in the Anglo-Saxon Period. [online] Earlyenglishlaws.ac.uk. Available at: https://earlyenglishlaws.ac.uk/reference/essays/women-and-law/ [Accessed 29 Jan. 2023]. Lucy, S.J. (1996). Housewives, Warriors and slaves? Sex and Gender in Anglo-Saxon burials. In: Theoretical Archaeology Group, ed., Invisible People and processes; Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology, Theoretical Archaeology Group. Leicester University Press, pp.150–168. Reynolds, A. (2011). Crime and Punishment. In: H. Hamerow, D. Hinton and S. Crawford, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.238–259. Reynolds, A. (2013). Judicial culture and social complexity: a general model from Anglo-Saxon England. World Archaeology, 45(5), pp.699–713. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2013.878524. Reynolds, N. (1988). The rape of the Anglo-Saxon women. Antiquity, 62(237), pp.715–718. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003598x00075141. Williams, H. (2011). Mortuary Practices in Early Anglo-Saxon England. In: H. Hamerow, D. Hinton and S. Crawford, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.238–259.

An integral part of our military history is the remembrance of those who lost their lives and gave their service to defending others. Towns and villages more often than not have a traditional war memorial from World War I or II taking centre stage in churchyards and cenotaphs. The names of local men carved on each Commonwealth or private grave remind us of their sacrifice. Yet how many women’s names have you seen? There are lots of important women in global services, however, men still greatly prevail when one thinks of the Army, Navy, or Royal Air Force. As someone with a very minor role in the armed services, in this article I aim to showcase the roles and dedication of women in World War I & II using their (lack of) memorials around the UK, specifically focusing on the British Army. A Woman’s Role: Women in front line combat is still statistically flat-lined despite it being legal to join all the Armed services in the UK. Recruitment targeting women for front line roles arguably falls short of standards. Only 12% of the British Army specifically, is female, with aims of increasing it to 25% in the next 10 years. Within this statistic; 9% are in non-combat positions (e.g. HR, logistics, catering, medical, and other auxiliary roles). These roles are the backbone of the military in any country no question. Without the men and women in these jobs, front line soldiers in combat simply would not function! It’s a small statistic, but women hold positions in support more than anywhere else in the army. It was only as recently as 2018, when the British MOD (Ministry of Defense) allowed women to serve openly in all branches of the army, with a previous law being overturned in 2014 stating women were only allowed in ‘supporting roles’, i.e. auxiliary roles, as they had been for centuries beforehand. In my opinion, this overturning of law is shockingly late considering the demanding and dangerous jobs women did during WW I & II. Prior to WW I & II there have been monuments, art, and literature dedicated to women about warfare and achievements. Often only individual achievements. We can see Roman and Greek praise and dedications to wives, sisters, or mothers, in funerary items, or to statues or plaques to Empresses, Queens, or Pharaohs. Cleopatra’s needle, Hatshepsut’s mortuary temple and hieroglyphics, Nefertiti’s tomb, and more are all types of monuments to women. However, women’s successes have been dismissed, buried, and overlooked by the men who ruled afterwards. This can mirror society today in part; War memorials tend to be male centric, forgetting the often unseen work of women which I explore more as the article progresses. Way back when, we were doing similar jobs to today’s 9% during in WW I & II. During both conflicts, you could be a nurse in the Queen Alexandra Imperial Nursing service, or join FANY (First Aid Nursing Yeomanry). In 1917 the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps was formed to solve the manpower decline, or join the ATS (Auxiliary Territory service). In 1941, women were then legally conscripted into supporting roles. Those who were physically able to work (even if they were married) were employed in munitions, the Land Army, nurses for the Red Cross or other, textile factories, and the auxiliary. By the end of WW II, 450,000 were employed by the armed forces (excluding Infantry roles). Over 74,000 British women were serving in anti-aircraft units near the front lines in the ATS. However, close combat roles remained off-limits. Members of the ATS were known as ‘Ack Ack girls’ who supported reconnaissance, finding and locating enemy pilots and camps, getting bearings, and observing enemy aircraft, but were barred from pulling the trigger on weaponry. This is demonstrated by the 93rd Searchlight Regiment: an all-female unit part of the Royal Artillery conducting anti-aircraft operations, based in Southern England. Unbelievably, the ATS was not recognized as a military regiment until 1941. A trial run of 54 ATS members was conducted in order to test a woman’s ability in dealing with the same physical and emotional conditions male soldiers suffered in wartime. This was the ‘Newark Experiment’ orchestrated by General Pile (General Officer Anti-Aircraft Commander-in-Chief). Sent to Wales, the experiment was a great success; ‘they showed themselves more effective, more horror inspiring and more blood-thirsty with their pick-helves than many a male sentry with his gun’ and ‘the girls lived like men, fought their fights like men and, alas, some died like men’ wrote Pile on the work of the ATS and subsequent formation of the 93rd Regiment. They were given uniforms after 1941, and a higher rate of pay was to be in order if women were doing the same job as male soldiers. However, they were not personally armed, and originally did not have the authorization to pull the trigger or give the fire control order on weaponry as mentioned. Each unit had a male soldier integrated who could actually fire the mortar based off the woman’s calculation. Units were based around the South West and East of England, with some in Western Europe. Around 389 of these women were killed in bombings. This is a staggering figure for women who were essentially considered as supporting non-combat roles in the law’s eyes. Memorials The vast majority of memorials are specifically for male infantry soldiers who deserve to be memorialized for their actions in warfare. Women’s achievements and dedications for their time are often forgotten – even in Remembrance services. Yet women both on the front lines or behind the lines, were equally important. This is why the ‘Women in World War II’ memorial was created. In 2005, the towering bronze memorial was unveiled on the 60th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day by the Queen, in the center of Whitehall near Downing Street. This was the first dedicated pride-of-place monument in the UK to all women during World War II, named the ‘Women in World War II memorial’. It commemorates the women who served and survived, or lost their lives in the war. 22 feet high and 16 feet long, it depicts the outfits and uniforms of all the services and police, munitions garments, the Land Army, welding gear, farming, Air Wardens, pilot goggles and aviator jackets. ATS uniforms are also included thanks to General Pile’s efforts in 1941. 17 total uniforms are on display on sculpted hooks – as if they were hung up ready for another working day. The monument was designed by John W. Mills, whose mother was a firefighter in WW II. It remembers the 7 million plus women UK wide who were involved in wartime efforts. Baroness Boothroyd expertly remarked at the unveiling: “(women) hung them up and let the men take the credit”. The Baroness’ remark encapsulates the public and general opinions. Having seen the monument in person, the dedication is imposing and bold. Black with gold lettering for the title, a huge literal block statement, of which I found to really force the public to view and understand the gravity of war and who was involved. It is not the typical memorial such as crosses and plaques, but it is successful in creating a powerful statement on the impacts of war on women. However, this was unveiled in 2005 when women were not permitted in front line combat roles. Hypocritical much? Rather the ‘Women in World War II’ memorial commemorates the dedicated women of their time period, despite the lack of actual combat the majority saw. In hindsight, this hypocrisy crumbles. But like usual there was and still is tension over this memorial concerning its glorification of war, heightened because it is a women’s only memorial which brings its own criticisms. The memorial names no women either despite there being numerous key figures at play such as women code-breakers in Bletchley Park, or spies of the SOE (Special Operations Executive), and nurses killed in bombing raids. It displays their empty shells – their uniform. Seen to represent all women, but there are no statues or depictions of individual women unlike the majority of statues that show male soldiers; depicting faces and figures. Women are not a tangible entity, with some arguing the ‘Women in World War II’ memorial is a denial to the real women who represented our country as their bodies and faces are not visualized. On the flip side, I’m simply liking that there is a proper dedicated monument in Whitehall! Looking further back, WW I has a few low status memorials, for example a reworked 13th century stained glass window in York minster church. A commemorative plaque titled ‘Women of the Empire’, was made and unveiled in 1925. The Bury War memorial in Lancashire also features depictions of women in Land Army uniform, commissioned in 1924. There are few and far between female names added in inscriptions on male dominated plaques and crosses, one has to dig for and peer closer to see the sparse female names at the bottom of memorials. Moreover, I like how this plaque acknowledges all women in the empire, and not solely British women. Leading for it to be pretty inclusive. Women of all backgrounds, races, and ethnicities were expected to help the war effort, and the memorials in Whitehall and York portray this because they picture the uniforms any woman would have worn. Bletchley Park has a Roll of Honour memorial which is constantly being added to, as new information is being discovered after society’s interests in feminine history has increased in popularity. 75% of those who worked at Bletchley were female. When VE Day hit, almost all gave up their career to marry and resume relative normality with most never revealing what their true role was. In 2011, the Queen further unveiled a memorial dedicated to Alan Turing – who worked at Bletchley as a lead code-breaker. His untimely suicide in 1954 brought attention to LGBTQ+ rights and perspectives. It was not just the women who worked behind the scenes during war. This lead to perspectives changing on equality in warfare, and the fact that both men and women should and have taken public credit for what they achieved. Yet, this usually comes well after the lifetime of the individuals involved are over. Although in my opinion, the work of spies is to remain unseen - maintaining secrets. Therefore, no war memorial or public accreditation is to be erected. However, more individual contributions have been recently recognized such as respected British spies Pippa Latour and British-American Virginia Hall aka ‘A Woman of No Importance’. Other notable women include Winston Churchill’s youngest daughter Mary Churchill, who served in the ATS. Plus, we all know that future Queen Elizabeth II was also a member of the ATS. She worked as a mechanic and driver, making her the first female head of state to actively participate in conflict. Women now From 1938-45, women employed in industrial jobs increased from 19% to 27% as a percentage of total British female population. British women in the Tri-service auxiliary roles during this time were estimated to be 640,000 by 1945, compared to over 5 million British men total in all combat and non-combat roles. A further 3 million coming from Allied nations (excluding the Soviet Union). Leaving the male total to be about 8.5 million. By these figures, just 2.13% of British women involved in the war effort overall were auxiliary personnel in the Army, Navy, and RAF combined. If split equally for the purposes of this article only, we get an estimate of 0.71% of females in each service total. This is vast if we think to today where 12% of the total British army itself is female, remembering that the 2.13% in WW II is women in all three services! Women were a small percentile, but were involved in the main backbone of the war effort. As discussed, nowadays 9% of serving females are in non-combat army roles, with the remaining 3% being combat and front line infantry. We have jumped from 0.71% to 9% in non-combat, and 0 to 3% in combat roles since the end of World War II. But what makes it more impressive is recently, the British Army has shrunk from 2.9 million soldiers in 1945, to about 82,000 infantry soldiers today. Totaling 112,000 in other roles - regular and reserve and excluding officers (a further 150,000 total if we include the Navy and RAF). A lot of numbers, but in terms of female representation; we have excelled in the ratio. The army has depleted, but female numbers have increased. If we choose to look deeper into the breakdown of gender in each regiment in the present day, the Queen Alexandra’s Royal Army Nursing Corps has 520 women serving compared to 300 men, and the Royal Army Dental Corps of 130 women to 90 men. They are the only two regiments which have a majority of females. Statistics are taken from a 2016 survey completed on diversity and gender in the army. These figures may have changed since the survey, but provide a good insight into gender breakdowns in the army. Since both regiments are auxiliary, women are still attracted and accepted into these roles, just as they were in WW II. However, there is huge variation in figures I have found whilst researching British women involved in WW II, but the fact remains the same; millions of women worldwide were killed and injured no matter how you count. Conclusions Women were vital to the war effort in both World Wars, but some argue it was simply expected to serve selflessly and perform duties during a time of conflict. The Newark Experiment by General Pile proved that women were capable of operating the heavy anti-aircraft machinery, had the physicality, and emotional intelligence to consistently do so. They contributed to the war effort and earned the ATS a place in military history, causing a perspective shift in the way we view a woman’s ability in battle. By having the ‘Women in World War II’ memorial forever display their uniform, we can preserve and celebrate those women publically. The memorial is great example of showcasing women’s achievements without exaggerating them for attention, which is what the developing ‘woke’ media can so often do. In my mind, the uniforms show an accurate portrayal of women’s roles at the time, and do precede similar duties undertaken today. The ‘Women of the Empire’ memorial window was specifically reworked and rededicated to all the women of WW I, showing an appreciation of servicewomen in a time when women did not have the right to vote until just after the war ended in 1918. The 9% of women today in non-combat, and 3% in front-line combat roles, show us the progress we have made in the army. Men are still the majority overall and are often thought of first when thinking of a war memorial, as more men did serve and die in battle. But, to have female auxiliaries commemorated during the world’s largest conflict to date, dictates how important women were and still are in war. Both in roles supporting men, or in their own right. There are a few other war memorials dedicated to women, but none generate the same prestige as the two I have discussed in this article. Women in WW I & II were thanked for their services in small and large capacities, and I hope we can continue to show our gratitude to more servicewomen and important individuals in the future. A Timeline of Women in the army 1899-1902: The Queen Alexandra’s Imperial Nursing Corps founded and expanded. 1907: FANY (First Aid Nursing Yeomanry) was formed. A crucial link between the front-lines and field hospitals, with ambulance drivers and Red Cross first aiders. 1915: A Women’s march in London was conducted in order to persuade the government to allow women in the workplace for the war effort. Undertaken before women had the right to vote. 1917: The Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps is used in response to the manpower crisis and supports duties in France and Belgium. 1917-18: Over 100,000 women are employed in industries which support the war effort. The number is most likely higher. 1938: ATS (Auxiliary Territorial Service) formed (originally named the Queen Mary’s Army Auxiliary Corps). 1941 July: The ATS is recognized as a military service and its members are no longer volunteers – they are now paid service personnel. 1941 December: National conscription for women aged 20-30 years of age begins. In 1943, the age limit is increased to be most women of working age (generally 18 - 50 years of age) including married women. 1945 February: Future Queen Elizabeth II joins the ATS as a driver and mechanic. 8 May 1945: VE Day (Victory in Europe Day). Over 190,000 women are part of the ATS. 1949: The ATS was disbanded, and the WRAC (Women’s Royal Army Corps) is formed as its successor. In 1952 they are aligned with the British army ranks and standards. 1975: The Sex Discrimination Act is introduced – which continues the upholding of women in auxiliary and supporting roles only, despite petitions to change the law allowing women to serve in combat roles. 1991-92: Private Ellie Walton becomes the first female soldier to patrol with an arms and explosive dog in Northern Ireland. 1992: WRAC is disbanded and members join other regiments such as the Adjutant General Corps. 1999: Another petition is unsuccessfully launched against the Sex Discrimination Act, 1975. 2002: The Ministry of Defence (MOD) conclude that women are not fit for active service in close combat roles and women can affect ‘unit cohesion’ between men. 2009: The MOD states there was no statistical evidence for their earlier claims but continue to exclude women from close combat roles. 2014: The Women in Close Combat review lifted the ban on women employed only in supporting roles, with it coming into force in 2015. In 2018: Women are allowed in all branches of the military, including Special Forces and the Infantry. 2020 - 2023: Private Addy Carter, Captain Rosie Wild, and Lieutenant Hannah Knapton become the first females to pass P Company (Parachute Regiment), regarded as one of the toughest selections within the British army. Bibliography Women and War: A Historical Encyclopedia From Antiquity to the Present Vol. 2 [ONLINE] available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Women_and_War.html?id=lyZYS_GxglIC&redir_esc=y [Accessed 21 September 2023] 93rd Searchlight Regiment. 2022. [ONLINE] available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/93rd_Searchlight_Regiment [Accessed 10 October 2023] Brigstock. K., 2007. Royal Artillery Searchlights. Royal Artillery Society Winter Meeting. Minutes from. [ONLINE] available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20160304090443/http://www.army.mod.uk/images/images-microsites/RA/RASearchlights-Text-Final.doc [Accessed 10 October 2023] Tammy. P., 2003. Female Intelligence: Women and Espionage in the First World War. [ONLINE] available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-british-studies/article/tammy-m-proctor-female-intelligence-women-and-espionage-in-the-first-world-war-new-york-new-york-university-press-2003-pp-205-3500-cloth/CAF221B1955E538224D836759D2150DE [Accessed 28 September 2023] Shaw. G., 2021. World’s oldest war memorial may have been identified in Syria. The Art Newspaper. [ONLINE] available at: https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2021/05/28/worlds-oldest-war-memorial-may-have-been-identified-in-syria [Accessed 1 September 2023] Imperial War Museum. 2023. Women of the Empire – WW1 Window. [ONLINE] available at: https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/30648 [Accessed 2 September 2023] Named Non-Royal Women. 2023. Public Statues and Sculpture Association. [ONLINE] available at: https://pssauk.org/women/categories/named-non-royal-women/page/3/ [Accessed 2 September 2023] Pruitt. S., 2023. Women in WWII Took on These Dangerous Military Jobs. History Channel. [ONLINE] available at: https://www.history.com/news/women-wwii-military-combat-front-lines [Accessed 1 September 2023] Atlas Obscura. 2019. Memorial to the Women of World War II. [ONLINE] available at: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/memorial-to-the-women-of-world-war-ii [Accessed 4 September 2023] National Army Museum. 2023. A timeline of women in the Army. [ONLINE] available at: https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/timeline-women-army#:~:text=Women%20play%20a%20crucial%20role,even%20further%20back%20in%20time. [Accessed 2 September 2023] Nowaki. R., 2014. Nachthexen: Soviet Female Pilots in WW2. University of Hawaii. [ONLINE] available at: https://hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/hohonu/volumes/documents/Nachthexen-SovietFemalePilotsinWWIIRochelleNowaki.pdf [Accessed 9 October 2023] Acknowledgments SUOTC for inspiration. Archaeology department University of Southampton.

Stuck for where to find that all important source? Not sure where to look for an article or portrait? This page encompasses a number of databases and websites which are useful starting points for historical research, this list is not exhaustive, so expect additions as and when they are found - if you have a suggestion please send in a submission. When looking for research articles or foundational historiographic literature, learning how to search the internet is a slightly tricky habit to get into. Firstly, don't just restrict yourself to your regular search engine - Google Scholar will become your best friend if you let it. Don't search for a long question, such as 'to what extent did Anne Boleyn meddle in Tudor Politics in 1529?', try 'Anne Boleyn politics'. If you know the name of the article you need, or the name of the author, search for the title in Google Scholar, this should bring up the title you're looking for on a number of sites and databases, and most likely several similar publications. Now at this point, it can get a little overwhelming, look for one of these databases as your first port of call, you should have either free access or free access via your institution. Jstor -digital library for articles, chapters, books and primary sources, you can use an institutional login to access the sources ODNB - The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, a cumulative database for biographies of British individuals and British adjacent individuals. ProQuest - a cumulative database for research papers and articles generally - log in via your institution Shibboleth login will enable you to log in to a variety of University libraries in order to access their collections, this will typically pop up as an option once you have found a source online. Archives/primary sources (Most UK universities, libraries, museums, galleries and archives will now have fairly comprehensive databases of their collections available to view for free - some have licensing fees or processes to use images of these objects in your work so please check the details yourself. Here I have listed a few particularly useful sites.) The National Portrait Gallery - portraits/images can be downloaded for free under different licensing agreements. The Royal Collection Trust - items and objects (primarily art) held within the Royal Collection Victoria and Albert Museum - items and objects held within the V&A collections The British Museum - items and objects held within the British Museum collections Institute of Historical Research Collections - a huge range of objects and items available through this library The National Archives - access 1000s of documents, including newspapers and legal documents The proceedings of the Old Bailey - legal documents and trial transcripts from the Old Bailey, London's Central Criminal Court, 1674-1913 Step one in your personal research journey should be double checking facts for yourself. That's all for now, this list will be updated as and when and all sources used for articles and content on this site will be cited in the article itself.

Glossary Antiquarians - The predecessors to modern archaeologists; mostly collectors who maintain no scientific principles or in depth recording systems. Ancient DNA Analysis - The analysis of DNA taken from the bones of ancient human remains to provide details on sex determination. Inhumation - A standard burial with a body lying flat in a rectangular cut grave Sexing - The scientific act of analysing a skeleton and assigning it a binary sex based on bone morphology and characteristics. These are mostly found within the skull and the pelvis. Sex determination within archaeological human remains begins from the moment the grave is uncovered. Grave goods, clothing, burial orientation, and location can all influence the primary informal sex determination. Unfortunately in antiquarian days, the analysis often stopped there and no further work was undertaken to accurately determine sex. There are several key examples of female remains being misgendered, and it poses the question as to whether other powerful figures of the past were actually women, as well as how many other powerful women we are yet to discover. The term ‘sex’ is used in an archaeological setting as opposed to ‘gender’ due to the binary biological markers that are seen on the skeleton and within the DNA, although it is critical to understand that these factors cannot relate to how this person would have identified within themselves during their life. It is entirely feasible that these individuals were buried with these supposedly gendered honours due to them expressing their own gender identity in life that has then been respected by their peers. However, this cannot be seen through the remains and therefore, sex determination remains a binary undertaking. It is incredibly important for us as a modern audience to rethink archaeological sex determination based on informal characteristics such as grave goods. It is imperative that the social structures of the period in which the remains date is considered alongside formal scientific methods to ensure that we are correctly determining sex and providing these individuals with the respect that they deserve. The Birka Burial A detailed archaeological drawing of the Birka Burial to show how the grave would have looked before it was filled in with soil. This is often the most important view as it shows the modern viewers how her contemporaries wanted her to be seen in death. Uncovered in 1878 in Birka, Sweden, these were the remains of an exceptionally highly respected Viking warrior who was elaborately buried in a chamber tomb. These remains were considered to be of a male until new research was undertaken in 2017 (a shocking 139 years after her discovery) proved otherwise. This is especially poignant as during this stretch of time, over 50 papers were published corroborating this mistruth as no one thought or cared to look deeper into the facts. The misgendering of female remains is a critical issue as the lives of powerful women are being disregarded and new insights into the social and cultural structure of the past are being lost due to the modern prejudices and societal systems. The burial was furnished with a multitude of weapons, shields, a chariot, and two horses. She was also dressed in silks with silver threads - a burial of extremely high status. These factors led the primary archaeologist, Hjalmar Stolpe, to determine that the remains were male without any further tests or investigation. Modern conceptions of gender and what it means to be a man or a woman have heavily influenced this prognosis, a flaw that is seen in the reanalysis of many sites. This was not fully called into question until archaeologist Charlotte Hedenstierna-Jonson completed an analysis of the remains themselves and determined them to reveal heavily female characteristics. This was decisively proven in 2017 by Neil Price and his team when they undertook genetic testing. This reanalysis of the Birka Burial has allowed for female success and the idea of an elite female force, such as the Valkyrie, to be admitted as more than just historical fiction; it opens up the discussion for it being historical fact. The infamous Osberg boat burial in Norway also provides some insight into the ideas of women warriors with the tapestry found within the burial depicting female warriors with weapons and shields. Hierarchical systems have been taken from more modern times and transplanted onto the figures of the past, but these systems likely do not reflect the reality and intricacies of life in ancient times. Discovering high status female burials is imperative to understanding women’s history and the development of our modern social systems. The Kazakhstan Burials The Valkyrie are not the only women warriors of legend! The Amazonians are also a well known group of female warriors, however, there has never been any strong evidence found to support their existence… or has there? Recently, a burial area in Kazakhstan was uncovered that dates to the 6th-4th centuries BCE and contains the burials of several women warriors who were laid to rest with arrowheads, swords, daggers, and other militaristic goods. These burials are contemporary to the period it is presumed the Amazonians lived and were active. At an average height of 5 '6", these women were far taller than the average height for the period and were also stockier, lending some credence to the legend of elite female warriors. Interestingly, at least one of the remains shows signs of bowleggedness from horseback riding! Despite this being an incredible find that is revolutionising the way we consider ancient women, for some time these remains were considered to be males based on the first interpretation given from the grave goods analysis. It is imperative that archaeologists’ and historians' opinions on the sexual determination of remains are not influenced by a burial containing militaristic grave goods as a male determination is not always accurate. There is currently limited published work on this site, but hopefully as more work is released we will understand more about these enigmatic ‘Amazonian’ warriors. The Ivory Woman An artist's interpretation of the Ivory Woman and her tribe, where she is a wise figure who teaches those around her. Her beads and body paint show her to be a high status figure. New research (published 6th July 2023!) proved decisively that the highest status individual in Copper Age Iberia was in fact a woman, rather than a man as previously assumed! Archaeologists have determined through contextual markers including other graves, grave goods, and the surrounding archaeological sites, that no man in fact came anywhere close to her level of influence. Her burial was highly elaborate and contained ivory tusks, rock crystal daggers, and ostrich eggshells. To have a single inhumation burial that is so lavishly furnished in this period indicates that she was indeed an extremely high ranked individual. She is now referred to as the ‘incomparable’. At the time of her discovery, her remains were considered to have belonged to a young man between 18 and 25. The remains were marked out as such due to the high status burial, as well as the burial itself being a lone burial as opposed to the multiple burials that characterise the period and area. This new research is fascinating as the only other high status burials in the area of the same period are also all women. Due to this, researchers are calling for the reanalysis of the political and social structure of Copper Age Iberia and how women fit into this system. Modern conceptions of sex and gender are highly rigid and have misguided antiquarians and archaeologists in the past. This call for reanalysis may radically change the narrative that modern society has presented to us and allow for more stories from many different cultures to be told. The Problems with Sexual Determination There are many dangers to informal sex determination that is based on grave goods and perceived societal structure, and they are seen very clearly through the mistakes made at Birka and in Iberia. The misgendering of remains allows for the role of women in the past to be diminished and for the more modern patriarchal narrative of history to be far more prevalent than is likely to be true. It is critical that these burials be carefully examined to allow for the importance of women and the multifaceted role of sex-gender in ancient social systems to be observed. Sexual determination is based on a set of characteristics that are not always diagnostic and have to be interpreted from a selection of factors. Sex estimation is primarily undertaken by studying the morphology of the pelvis and the skull, and these are the bones that reveal the most definitive sexual characteristics. These determinations can nearly never be absolutely certain without additional DNA analysis. Ancient DNA analysis is a relatively new field of study, but it is critical that it develops and is used across more sites as it can decisively prove biological sex and provide further detail regarding lineages and the movement of peoples. Moreover, sexual determination of remains may also undermine a group or societies beliefs regarding gender and how it is expressed in each person. This is particularly pertinent in reference to some Native American burials, where certain tribes follow or followed a system of non-binary gender within their communities. Further historical anthropological work, as well as ethnographic work, should be undertaken to determine how early communities viewed and worked with sex-gender systems to allow for a high degree of cultural respect to be placed on all remains that are uncovered. Moreover, assigning these burials a biological gender may inhibit the living descendants' ability to honour their ancestors and also allows for the removal of traditional cultures and for the cisgender narrative to be the only narrative presented to the public. Further Reading: Blair, Z. (2022). ‘Hail, Ye Givers,’ Sex and Gender in the Viking Age: A Discussion of Sex and Gender in Birka 581 and the Oseberg Burial. University of Chicago. https://doi.org/10.6082/uchicago.4095 Cintas-Peña, M., Luciañez-Triviño, M., Montero Artús, R. et al. (2023) Amelogenin peptide analyses reveal female leadership in Copper Age Iberia (c. 2900–2650 BC). Sci Rep 13, 9594 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-36368-x Hedenstierna-Jonson, C. (2020) ‘Warrior identities in Viking-Age Scandinavia’, Vikings Across Boundaries, pp. 179–194. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429346194-12 Price, N., Hedenstierna-Jonson, C., Zachrisson, T., Kjellström, A., Storå, J., Krzewińska, M., Günther, T., Sobrado, V., Jakobsson, M. and Götherström, A. (2019) “Viking warrior women? Reassessing Birka chamber grave Bj.581,” Antiquity. Cambridge University Press, 93(367), pp. 181–198. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2018.258 Wilford, J.N. (1997). Ancient Graves Of Armed Women Hint at Amazons. The New York Times. [online] 25 Feb. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/25/science/ancient-graves-of-armed-women-hint-at-amazons.html [Accessed 15 Jul. 2023]. Yablonsky, L.T. (2010). New Excavations of the Early Nomadic Burial Ground at Filippovka (Southern Ural Region, Russia). American Journal of Archaeology, [online] 114(1), pp.129–143. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20627646

This project aims to highlight women’s histories, that much is probably clear from the term “herstory”. However, “herstory” should also be understood as a critical term, one which suggests that history doesn’t do much for gender equality. The HERstory Project focuses on the question, “hey, where’s ‘she’ though?” because whilst history does tell us an awful lot about men, women tend to be pushed to the side. Even those histories which are about women somehow actually end up being about men, don’t they? When we talk about Henry VIII’s wives we acknowledge them because of the man they married, rather than for being the women that they were: a successful wartime leader, religious patrons, foreign women who made England their home, an abused child, and the first woman published in English under her own name. Truth is, those six women have very little in common other than all being the wife of one man, and the only reason our collective historical consciousness actually cares about them is because of his actions. My point is if you read histories of women they will often tell you about the important and the wealthy, the martyred and the evil, but I want to explore, very plainly, women. The exciting and the mundane. What did they do? Where did they go? What did they achieve? History needs to approach women in the same way that it does men. Now if you just wanted the answer to “what the hell is this about?” you can stop reading here, the first article will be out soon and so will the first of the Into the SPOTLIGHT feature. However, if you want a lovely long discussion of women’s and gender history as researched and understood by me over the past four years of my academic life, as well as a more in-depth explanation of the purpose of this project, then read on… (A short disclaimer: I am not the first historian, nor the first person to broach the subject of women’s histories and attempt to push their experiences into the spotlight of historical or public attention. At the bottom of this article, you will find a list of useful resources which you can and should check out for more information about this topic. This list isn’t exhaustive but they are the pieces and individuals who have informed and encouraged this project thus far.) Why is a focus on women in history necessary? Women’s place in history is often contentious, those whose names we know we often know for bad reasons and those who we don’t know are assumed to have been nothing worth remembering. But that’s not really fair. If women make up approximately 50% of the global population we cannot all have been bad or insignificant. I could list for several pages women who deserve to be remembered, celebrated and studied, but that’s the point of this project, not this article. This article intends to explain a few important points and theories to help you understand this project and the following questions. Why are these histories important to study thematically? What can we learn not just from a successful individual but from the experiences of women generally? What does the ignorance of women's histories teach us about the history of them? It will be useful to break this large topic into smaller bite-sized chunks, this should also serve as a resource, if you need to clarify why something is significant, refer back here first. What is women’s history? Women’s history is the study of women, what they did, who they were and what they achieved throughout history. It is about women in history. Simple. it’s not quite the same as gender history, but there is some overlap which will feature in this project - read on for that. Why is there women’s history but not men’s history? Because just history tends to be men’s history, so there has never been a need for a specific focus on male experiences, women on the other hand often don't seem to exist even when and where they were fundamental to an event. This is an everyday example of the effects of a patriarchal society (and as we will touch on in this project, Western colonialism). It’s complicated but you can think of it like this, in genealogy upon marriage, the wife has typically taken the husband’s name and is thereon known as Mrs-husband’s-name. (This is not the case in all societies but similar trends of the eradication of women’s identities have occurred in most, often due to colonialism). In legal documents, women would cease to exist. History has kind of done the same thing, it has assumed that if there is a woman there is nothing she could do or be other than the wife of x, daughter of x etc. There are exceptions to this, but they are quite rare and until fairly recently, historians didn’t really know how to talk about these histories. Since the second wave of feminism historians have acknowledged these women on a more balanced scale but there’s a lot we still don’t know and there’s quite a lot of latent misogyny in earlier women's histories which has carried through into how we write and think about women, and into the histories available to us. Tell me, have you seen any historians claim that Thomas Cromwell or James VI & I were incapable or dangerous because of their fatherhood or promiscuity? You mentioned gender history isn’t the same as women’s history, what is it then? Gender history has been described as a sort of outgrowth of women's history, whilst the latter looks specifically at women and their experiences, gender history considers the perspective of gender and tries to understand events and occurrences according to this disparity. To simplify this, gender history might provide a comparison of how an event affected men and then how it affected women, as according to gender disparities in societies and cultures they will have had differing effects and thus reactions. This perspective needs to be understood in order to correctly gauge the impact of an event. Gender and women's history are not then the same thing, but they are connected and you will see gender history used throughout work on this project. Okay so, is the history we know about women wrong? Not necessarily, but it might be slightly twisted. Historians (this one included) have a tendency to create villains or heroes of their subjects, let’s consider Anne Boleyn as an example. Historians either love or hate Anne and they write her accordingly. Some place emphasis on the belief that she never wanted the position she got and was the victim of a sociopathic king, yet, she still managed to do good as the king’s wife. Or they focus on the caricature of the scheming bitch, the bad she did in meddling in politics, disrupting the king’s marriage, effectively killing Katherine of Aragon and supposedly wearing yellow to the funeral (on the same day as Anne likely was suffering an 8-month miscarriage). She’s either a villain or heroic victim, feminist or pariah. But Anne Boleyn, like all women, is more complex than that, when in the position that she was faced with (the subject of distrust and disdain) it is likely that she did try to be a good queen, to influence the king to supporting the factions which supported her (she had managed to do so before they were married after all) and she was probably a good mother. But she was also not educated in politics, thus, long-standing beliefs that she meddled in court politics intentionally but dangerously are probably at least partially true. It is impossible to fit any person into a single archetype, historical figures included. If you created a character with as little nuance as some historians have suggested for Anne Boleyn your creative writing tutor would probably tell you that she was too unrealistic. If we think about Anne for a little bit longer, what we know about her is actually extremely slim, so maybe she was as George Bernard has suggested, a mindless feature of Tudor Court Politics, nothing compared to Thomas Cromwell’s majesty, or perhaps she was as Hayley Nolan argues, a victim of the sociopathic Henry VIII. Maybe she was even a feminist ahead of her time, a lot of historical women could be considered this if their efforts to stay alive and achieve some educational variety are considered. But the bottom line is, Anne Boleyn is a key example of how women are both vilified and heroised by historical study. In a way that their male counterparts are not, Cromwell, for example, is the feature of several nuanced histories debating the good and bad of his political efforts, attempting to understand his morality and his actions. Women are rarely given the same complexity, even Elizabeth I is treated like a sort of confused subhuman heroine in both scholarly and popular culture. The point of this rant is to demonstrate that history, especially women’s history rarely gives women the sort of celebration, criticism and attention for their actions in the same way that men are, there is a lack of complexity. Women’s and gender historians have made huge efforts over the past couple of decades in an attempt to address this failure, to redress the balance. We’re still working for that. The HERstory Project intends to contribute by providing a space for resources and discussion about women’s, gender, and sexuality histories, spotlighting individuals whose contributions, lives and experiences have been overlooked. I’m confused, you’re called The HERstory Project but you’re going to look at all types of history? Yes, the focus will be women and gender history, but history is a multidisciplinary area of study. Women have been involved in culture, religion, art, science, politics and war, so we will look at a huge variety of histories and spotlight women who deserve your attention (that’s everyone we can get to). We will also look at anyone who has been overlooked because they were transgressive in their gender or sexuality identities and discuss how queer histories can be understood when individuals might not have had the freedom nor vocabulary to have communicated their identities as we do now - is it fair to call Anne Lister a lesbian when we don’t know if she would have used this identity herself? There are several individuals who are quite elusive and it will be interesting to consider these people too. These individuals just happen to be mostly women… So, are there any women you won’t talk about? I doubt it, we will try not to give you the same discussions of the women who saturate historical study and historical fiction (excusing the use of Anne Boleyn above) but sometimes these women are worth discussing - why are they so popular and is the information we have accurate? How can we get involved? A significant point of this project is to create a space for women's, queer and under-represented histories, we need researchers, writers and editors, no qualifications required, to get involved. If you love history, and want to help us build a meaningful community for these histories, please get in touch! You can fill out the Join Us form at the bottom of the website, or email us at herstoryproj@gmail.com That’s all from me for now, thank you for reading. You can follow The HERstory Project on Insta and Twitter, search for @herstoryproj on both. See you soon! Abby Bibliography/Useful resources: On the value and definitions of women’s and gender as themes for study: Butler, Judith, 'Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomelogy and Feminist Theory', Theatre Journal, Vol.40, No.4 (1988), pp.519-531, < https://doi.org/10.2307/3207893 , [30/12/2022] Butler, Judith, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, (New York: Routledge, 1990) Meyerowitz, Joanne, 'A History of "Gender"', The American Historical Review, Vol.113, No.5, (2008), pp.1346-1356, < https://www.jstor.org/stable/30223445 >, [30/12/2022] Scott, Joan W., ‘Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis’, The American Historical Review, Vol.91, No.5, (1986), pp.1053-1075, < https://www.jstor.org/stable/1864376>, [26/12/2022] Scott, Joan W., Gender and the Politics of History, (New York: Colombia University Press, 1999) On Women's history generally: Amussen, Susan Dwyer, An Ordered Society, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988) Davies, Natalie Zemon, ‘Women in Politics‘ in A History of Women in the West, eds. Davis, Natalie Zemon, and Farge, Arlette (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1993), pp.167-185 Davis, Natalie Zemon, ‘Women on top’, in Society and Culture in Early Modern France: Eight essays, ed. Davis, Natalie Zemon, (Stanford: Stanford university press, 1975), pp. 124-51 Davis, Natalie Zemon, and Farge, Arlette, ‘Women as Historical actors’ in A History of women in the West, eds. Davis, Natalie Zemon, and Farge, Arlette, (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1993), pp.1-7 Eales, Jacqueline, Women in Early Modern England, 1500-1700, (London: UCL, 1998) Fletcher, Anthony, Gender and Subordination in England, 1500-1800, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995) Fraser, Antonia, The Weaker Vessel, (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1984) Greer, Germaine, Medoff, Jeslyn, Sansone, Melinda and Hastings, Susan (Eds.) Kissing the Rod, (London: Virago Press, 1988) Hufton, Olwen, The Prospect before her, (London: Harper Collins, 1997) Jay, Nancy, ‘Sacrifice as Remedy for having been born a woman’, in Castelli, E.A. (eds) Women, Gender, Religion: A Reader, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001), pp.174-195, Laurence, Anne, Women in England, 1500-1780, (Great Britain: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1994) Melman, Billie, 'Gender, History and Memory: The Invention of Women's Past in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries', History and Memory, Vol.5, No.1, (1993), < : https://www.jstor.org/stable/25618641>, [30/12/2022] Nguyen, Athena, ‘Patriarchy, Power, and Female Masculinity’, Journal of Homosexuality, Vol.55, no.4, pp. 665-683, [22/11/2020] Paechter, Carrie, ‘Masculine femininities/feminine masculinities: power, identities and gender’, Gender and Education, Volume 18, No. 3, (May 2006), pp. 253-263, [23/11/2020] Sommerville, Margaret R, Sex and Subjection, (London: Arnold, Hodder Headline, 1995) Wiesner, Merry E., Women and gender in early modern Europe, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) Wiesner-Hanks, Merry, ‘Women’s Authority in the state and household in Early Modern Europe’, in Women who Ruled, ed. by Annette Dixon (London: Merrell Publishers LTD, in association with The University of Michigan Museum of Art, 2002), pp. 27-39 On Anne Boleyn, Tudor Politics and the other wives of Henry VIII: Beer, Barrett L., ‘Jane [née Jane Seymour], (1508-1537)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (2004/2008) < https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/14647 >, [27/12/2022] Bernard, G.W., Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010) Davies, C.S.L., ‘Katherine [Catalina, Catherine, Katherine of Aragon], (1485-1536), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (2004/2011), https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/4891, [27/12/2022] Ives, E. W., ‘Anne Boleyn, (c.1500-1536), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (2004), < https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/557 >, [27/12/2022] Ives, Eric, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn: The Most Happy, (London: Wiley-Blackwell, 1986) James, Susan E., ‘Katherine [Kateryn, Catherine] [née Katherine Parr]’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (2004/2012), < https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/4893>, [27/12/2022] Leithead, Howard, ‘Cromwell, Thomas, earl of Essex, (b. In or before 1485, d.1540), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (2004/2009), , [27/12/2022] Wernicke, Retha M., ‘Katherine [Catherine] [née Katherine Howard], (1518x1524-1542)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (2004/2008), , [27/12/2022] On James VI & I: Wormald, Jenny, ‘James VI and I (1566-1625)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (2004/2014), < https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/14592 >, [27/12/2022]