Search Results

Born towards the tail-end of America’s infamous ‘Wild West’ era, Annie Oakley (1860 - 1929) emerged as a pioneering figure in a time when sharpshooting was highly revered, yet dominated overwhelmingly by men. The Wild West, a period marked by exploration, conflict and frontier life, witnessed the rise of sharpshooting as both a skill needed for survival, and a form of entertainment. Throughout the rugged and often lawless landscape, sharpshooters were celebrated for their precision and bravery - skills deemed exclusive to men.   Oakley, however, defied these conventions with remarkable success. Renowned for her extraordinary marksmanship, and captivating stage performances, Oakley rapidly became one of the most famous sharpshooters of her time - earning her the title of “Little Sure Shot”. Her performances were always a blend of skill and showmanship, amazing audiences by hitting targets with incredible accuracy whilst performing complex and entertaining tricks: one of her most famous acts involve shooting targets whilst holding the gun upside down. Despite the dominance of men in the field, Oakley’s achievements were nothing short of groundbreaking. She not only performed in Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show - which is considered to be the most famous Wild Western show of all time - but she also challenged the gender norms of her time by excelling in a field where women were rarely seen.   This article will explore Oakley’s remarkable journey, illustrating how she rose to prominence and cemented her place as one of America’s greatest sharpshooters. By tracing her career from her early days, through to her ground-breaking performances in global tours, this article will uncover the factors which contributed to Oakley’s legacy. Early Life Born on the 13th August 1860 in Ohio as Phoebe Ann Mosey, Oakley had a very troubled start in life. At just six years old, she lost her father (Jacob Mosey) to pneumonia. As was the norm at the time, Mosey had been the family’s breadwinner, working as a farmer in Willowdell, where he earned just enough to support his seven children, his wife, and place a deposit on some farmland. However, following Mosey’s death, Oakley’s mother (Susan Mosey) was left with no support - financial or otherwise. Mrs Mosey was forced to move to a smaller home, and when the eldest Mosey child (Mary-Jane) died also of tuberculosis, Mrs Mosey was forced to sell the remainder of her assets (including the family’s pink milkcow) to cover medical expenses and funeral costs. Throughout 1866 - 67, Mrs Mosey attempted to ease the family’s financial burden by working as a nurse at Ohio’s Darke County Infirmary - a facility which primarily housed the elderly, orphaned, and those with mental illnesses. Here, Mrs Mosey earned $1.25 per week (just under $50 in today’s money) but the financial strain remained overwhelming. Left with no other option, Mrs Mosey made the difficult decision to send Oakley to the infirmary, where she moved at just eight years old.    For Oakley, life inside the Darke County Infirmary was bleak. The infirmary functioned as a workhouse, which meant that the non-disabled inmates were forced to work long hours for little pay. Despite the owner of the infirmary, Mrs. Edington, promising Mrs. Mosey that Oakley “would have no work, [...] except to watch a three-week-old baby boy” [1] , Oakley recounted that she “was held prisoner” [2]  - being forced to wake up at four in the morning to tend to farm animals, pick fruit, harvest vegetables and hunt deer. In addition, Oakley also endured physical abuse from Mrs. Edington. In her autobiography, Oakley recalled that Mrs. Edington “struck me across the face, pinched my arms and threw me out of the doors into the deep snow and locked the door.” [3]       After six gruelling years, in 1874, Oakley managed to escape the infirmary. She returned home to live with her family, but the same economic issues still lingered - the family had very little money, leaving them frequently without food for long stretches of time.  In an attempt to rectify this, Oakley used the skills she had learned throughout her time at the infirmary - and would use her father’s rifle to hunt small animals, which she would sell to a local grocery store for small amounts of money.   Within a year, Oakley’s gunmanship improved so greatly that she was not only able to feed her family, but was also able to pay off the family’s $200 mortgage.  Even Oakley felt surprised by her abilities, remarking  “I don’t know I acquired the skill. I suppose I was born with it.” [4]     Entrance into the Spotlight By 1875, Oakley’s talents had caught the attention of a hotel owner named Jack Frost, who lived about 80 miles away in Cincinnati. Frost first became aware of Oakley’s skills after purchasing some of the game she had hunted, and was so impressed by the quality that he personally invited her to compete in a shooting contest against well-known, highly regarded marksman and performer - Frank Butler.      During the early 1870s, Butler was one half of The Graham & Butler Show, a show which depicted, and often heavily romanticised, the adventures of Wild Western cowboys. Wild Western shows like The Graham & Butler Show were not uncommon in 1870s America-  to name just a few, Texas Jack’s Wild West, 101 Ranch Wild West Show and Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show all attempted to depict life as a cowboy living through the American Frontier. Such shows regularly drew in enormous crowds (the lifetime tenure of Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show , for instance, saw the sale of more than 2.5 million tickets) due to their low cost (with tickets being as low as 25 cents) and their country-wide tours across America. However, it is worth noting that, with the exception of Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show in 1885, none of the Wild Western shows featured performances from women - reinforcing Oakley’s groundbreaking achievements.     What distinguished The Graham & Butler Show from all the others, however, was the nation-wide opportunity to partake in a shooting contest with Frank Butler. Though The Graham & Butler Show was a high-selling, and much enjoyed show, these advertisements had been in production for over five years without any audience response. Or at least, that was the case until November 1975, when Butler and Oakley went head-to-head in a competition.   The competition was no easy feat- there were twenty five shooting targets which the winner would have to hit consecutively. Ultimately, to the surprise of most, Oakley won the challenge - achieving the maximum score of twenty-five hits with twenty-five bullets, compared to Butler’s twenty-four hits with twenty-five bullets. According to Butler himself, he was a “a beaten man the moment [Oakley] appeared” [5] , explaining that he was “taken off guard” [6]  by the fact that Oakley was a woman - a fifteen year old, five-foot woman at that. As previously acknowledged, Wild Western shows did not feature women, or even dwell on the fact that women could be sharpshooters, making Oakley’s appearance even more shocking for Butler. In fact, as John Soluri points out, Oakley’s performance would have been “disturbing” [7]  for nineteenth century audiences, due to the blend of “female labour and femininity exhibited in Oakley” [8]  during a period where women were still confined to the private, family sphere.  Remarkably, Butler did not feel threatened in his masculinity by Oakley’s talents. In fact, he rewarded her with $100, and tickets to The Graham & Butler Show for her and her family. Rapidly, Butler and Oakley developed a romantic relationship, and despite a 10 year age difference (26 and 16, respectively) the couple married in August 1876, less than a year after initially meeting.    During the early stages of their marriage, Butler continued to perform with The Graham & Butler Show , and Oakley was left to be a housewife, further reinforcing the difficulties that accompanied female performers during this era: the entertainment world, much like many other sectors in the 19th century, was still deeply entrenched in patriarchal norms. Women were often relegated to supportive or background roles (if at all), and the idea of a woman stepping into a male-dominated field, particularly one as rugged and traditionally masculine as sharpshooting, was unthinkable.   But, in the spring of 1882 Oakley’s life completely changed - just a short while prior to a performance, Butler’s show-partner, Graham, had fallen ill, rendering him unable to perform. Butler, left with no other choice, invited Oakley to come on stage to take Graham’s space - albeit merely as a prop-holder, and not as a sharpshooter. Unexpectedly, Butler’s aim throughout the performance was so poor that an audience member heckled “let the girl shoot!”, leading Butler to offer Oakley the chance to demonstrate her skills. Naturally, Oakley shot every target successfully, sparking an enthusiastic response from the crowd, and marking the beginning of The Butler and Oakley Show. Over the next two years, the duo performed together, and the word of Oakley’s extraordinary talents spread rapidly.   In 1884, she worked with a new group, the Sells Brothers Circus, as the “Champion Rifle Shot”, but left after just one season. It is interesting to see here how Oakley’s identity has been stripped away - no mention of her name, or the fact that she was a woman - which was a huge contrast compared to their other acts (including “Cannonball George” and the “Ringling Brothers”) once again highlighting the difficulties which accompanied being a woman in the field of sharpshooting.   By 1885, just one year later, Oakley joined the most popular group Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show. This show depicted the Wild West as a primitive, uncivilised area, and was considered a “rodeo-drama”. It involved a number of acts, including depictions of bison hunts, and train robberies. Shooting was the main feature of the show, but animals were also used as a form of entertainment. Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show Although Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show had only been running for two years prior to Oakley joining, her impact was both immediate and significant. Oakley quickly became a standout performer, spending most of her time in the lineup as the second act - a strategic placement that allowed the audience to acclimate to the sound of gunfire. Oakley was well-regarded by the audience, and had a reputation of being a charming and caring performer. Dexter Fellows, who served as the Press Agent for Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show described Oakley as somebody whose “personality made itself felt as soon as she entered the arena.” [9] Oakley would take pride in putting the audience at ease - she would aim to not only entertain audiences, but to also challenge societal perceptions regarding women and guns. By embodying both grace and precision throughout her performances, Oakley would demonstrate to the audience, but particularly the women and girls, how guns could be both a tool for entertainment, but also an item crucial for self-defence. However, Fellows also observed the initial shock that greeted Oakley’s performances - recounting how “her first few shots brought forth screams of fright.” [10]  This was a reaction which did not stem from the volume gunshots, but rather from the shock of seeing a woman defying such deeply ingrained gender stereotypes.   Oakely’s  tricks, which included shooting backwards whilst looking into a mirror, shooting corks off bottle tops, and shooting coins and glass balls whilst they were in mid air proved to be the show’s much needed revival. It also proved, for the first time in Oakley’s career, that not only was she capable of being a solo performer, but she was also capable of being the first big female star in the ( very ) male-dominated field of Wild Western shows. In a similar vein, Glenda Riley, author of The Life and Legacy of Annie Oakley , even suggested that Oakley’s stereotypically “feminine” attire also helped to propel her fame. Riley maintains that Oakley’s distinct Victorian-era dress “made Annie acceptable and appealing to everyone in her audience, young or old, male or female, old-fashioned or modern.” By blurring the line between what was deemed “feminine” or “masculine” in the late nineteenth century, Oakley helped to assure women that they could still be both independent and employed, yet also partake in traditional values. Unlike her male counterparts, who would opt for full buckskin outfits, or trousers,  Oakley chose to wear high-necked dresses - always made by herself. Whilst the dresses were typically short, she would always ensure her legs were covered with handmade button-up socks. Further, during her time at Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, she deepened her connection to the audiences, often “entertaining them with punch, tea, and cakes”. [11]  Oakley’s niece, Fern Swartwout also noted that Oakley would “take delight” in sharing with audiences “how she packed her trunks”. [12]  Being so attentive to an audience was certainly not common, but further highlights Oakley’s dedication to her cause. Perhaps surprisingly, throughout her time as an act for Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, Oakley’s husband remained supportive of her endeavours- as historian Virginia Scharff explains: “Frank Butler understood that [Oakley] had a kind of star quality that he didn’t want to overshadow, and he didn’t have a problem with that. He adored her.” [13]  This has also been supported by Oakley, who recalls how, at one of her Buffalo Bill shows, she asked her husband to be a prop-holder, holding the photograph of “Ducky” - a man who had asked for Oakley’s hand in marriage. Ultimately, Butler did just that whilst Oakley “sent a .22 calibre bullet through the photo.” [14]  Though this wasn’t Butler’s only time on stage throughout Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, he certainly wasn’t a frequent star. He did, however, stay present in Oakley’s career - he became her manager where he would handle the show’s finances, write articles and press releases about her work. However, it is important to note that this was not reflected in the 1946 musical Annie Get Your Gun . The musical, intended as a biopic of Oakley’s life, portrayed Butler as self-absorbed and jealous - a portrayal that may have been used intentionally to reflect the stereotypical attitudes of men (especially husbands) during the nineteenth century.     Oakley continued to amaze audiences with her tricks, including splitting cards on their edges, shooting whilst leaning backwards, or hitting targets whilst her gun was upside down. Such tricks stunned audiences and royals alike - during 1877 Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show had embarked on a tour of England as part of Queen Victoria’s Golden Jubilee celebrations, and Queen Victoria was so impressed with Oakley’s talents that she coined Oakley “a very clever little girl.” [15]  Though this quote may read as being condescending, Oakley was a widely celebrated figure, and she was actually the highest paid entertainer of her time - something which encouraged her advocacy for equal pay in her later life. Oakley’s celebrity encounters continued to grow - in 1890 whilst on a tour in Berlin, Oakley invited the German Emperor, Freidrich Wilhelm II, to be part of her signature trick: shooting a cigarette out of somebody’s mouth. It is crucial to note that Oakley was reaching levels of fame and recognition seldom seen within Wild Western shows.       Throughout her sixteen year tenure as a performer for the Wild West Show, Oakley toured countries all over Europe, and simultaneously proved to men and women alike that women were capable of using firearms. Oakley’s performances proved especially popular with women and girls, and she utilised this popularity to prove that shooting was neither detrimental, nor too intense, to one’s womanhood. Likewise, she encouraged women to learn how to use pistols, and instructed that they could be kept discreetly within purses as protection. Notably, in 1898, with the outbreak of the Spanish-American War, Oakley wrote to American president,  William McKinley, offering to train a regiment of women to fight, believing that women could contribute just as much to military efforts as men. But, this proposal was ultimately rejected, reflecting the societal norms and prevalent gender biases of the time.     By 1901, following a train accident which permanently injured Oakley’s back, Oakley had decided to retire from Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show. As a result, in an attempt to live a more quiet life, Oakley began an acting career. In 1902, she starred in The  Western Girl, a play written specifically for Oakley. Here, she played the character Nancy Berry who would use pistols, rifles, and ropes to outsmart gangs of outlaws. Sadly, unlike her previous ventures, The Western Girl did not achieve significant commercial success. The play ran for a few months, and did not become a long-running hit, in part because the play’s storyline did not match the high-energy performances given by Oakley previously. In 1911, Oakley resumed her Wild Western performances by joining The Young Buffalo Show. Although critics found The Young Buffalo Show entertaining, its tenure was short and it ended in 1914. The entertainment business was seriously struggling at this time, with even Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show succumbing to financial troubles, and officially disbanding in 1913.       Late Life and Legacy At the dawn of World War One, although Oakley was reaching her 60s, she still continued to sharpshoot, and began to  advocate more stringently for women’s rights. She continued to push for equal pay, and attempted to educate women on the importance of self-defence. On top of this, she adamantly proved that she still had her sharp skills by beating new records, including successfully shooting 100 consecutive targets at the age of 62.   In 1917, she repeated her attempt to train a regiment to use guns. She wrote to the American Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, and offered to both fully fund and train a regiment of female volunteers to fight, as well as teach and train existing soldiers to accurately shoot. But, again, her offer was declined.  The repeated decline of Oakley’s offers highlights the limitation of her influence despite her fame. Oakley’s expertise was clearly still not enough to overcome the entrenched gender bias, and this further illustrates the broader struggles for women in the twentieth century in overcoming institutionalised sexism.     Oakley continued touring until 1925, when she fell ill with pernicious anaemia - an autoimmune condition. Not long after World War I, in 1926, Oakley passed away, and her husband, Butler, also died just eighteen days later.   Although Oakley may not be a household name, her iconic abilities cannot be forgotten: she remains a poignant inspiration for women in the world of sharpshooting, which is still primarily dominated by men, and as an advocate for women’s equality and safety. Throughout her life, it is believed that she helped more than 15,000 women to use guns for self-defence, and has been recognised for such ability by both the National Cowgirl Museum and the Hall of Fame in Texas, as well as the National Women’s Hall of Fame, in 1993. Likewise, Oakley’s life has inspired a number of stories, including the 1937 film ‘Annie Oakley’, and the 1946 Broadway musical ‘Annie Get Your Gun’, which was later - in 1950 - turned into a film.   Though the image of ‘cowgirl’ and ‘sharpshooter’ has, in many ways, evolved since Oakley’s time, Oakley remains the original embodiment of what it meant to live in these roles throughout the American Frontier. Not only this, but Oakley remained an inspiration to women of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries - setting a great example of being both the breadwinner, whilst still presenting as a traditional woman.     [1]  ‘Frequently Asked Questions about Annie Oakley’, Annie Oakley Center, (2024) < https://www.annieoakleycenterfoundation.com/faq.html > [27-08-24]. [2]  Ibid. [3]  Ibid. [4]  Martin, Emily, ‘The True Story of Annie Oakley’, National Geographic, (2022), < https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/the-true-story-of-annie-oakley-legendary-sharpshooter > [28/08/2024]. [5]  ‘Biography: Frank Butler’, PBS, (2019) < https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/oakley-butler/ > [06/08/2024]. [6]  Ibid. [7] Soluri, John, ‘Reviewed Work: Farming across Borders: A Transnational History of the North American West. Connecting the Greater West Series Sterling Evans’, Western Historical Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 4, P. 491, JSTOR < https://www.jstor.org/stable/26783083 > [28/08/2024]  [8]  Ibid [9]  Reece, Amy, ‘Annie Oakley, Calamity Jane, and the Myth of the West’, Digital Repository, (2011) < https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=hist_etds >, P. 57 [29/08/2024] [10] Ibid. [11]  Ibid, P.56 [12]  Ibid. [13]   Annie Oakley, directed by Riva Freifeld, (WGBH Educational Foundation, 2006), online film recording, Amazon < https://www.amazon.com/American-Experience-Annie-Oakley-PBS/product-reviews/B00UGQ9AO > [29/08/2024]. [14]  Buffalo Bill Centre for the Wild West, Annie Oakley in her Own Words, online video recording, YouTube,18th May 2012, < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25HMhne2nj4 > [30/08/2024] [15]  Johnston, Winifred, ‘Passing of the Wild West: A Chapter in the History of American Entertainment’, Southwest Review, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 35-40. JSTOR < https://www.jstor.org/stable/43462218 > [30/08/2024]. Further Reading   ‘Biography: Frank Butler’, PBS, (2019) < https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/oakley-butler/ > [06/08/2024].   ‘Annie Oakley: Biography’, Sky History, (2024) < https://www.history.co.uk/biographies/annie-oakley > [07/08/2024].   Hunt, Kirstin, ‘How Annie Oakley Defined the Cinema Cowgirl’, Daily JStor, (2020) < https://daily.jstor.org/how-annie-oakley-defined-the-cinema-cowgirl/ > [07/08/2024].   McGrath, Ann, ‘Being Annie Oakley: Modern Girls, New World Woman’, Frontiers: A Journal of Women’s Studies, Vol. 28, No.1, pp. 203 - 231. JSTOR, < https://www.jstor.org/stable/40071957 > [08/08/24].   Riley, Glenda, ‘Life and Legacy of Annie Oakley’, First Edition, University of Oklahoma Press, Oklahoma: 2002.

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]

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]