Why Do We Never Talk About Women? by Marline Brink

Anyone who has taken Introduction to Art History probably recalls the stress of studying for the final exam and having to remember every single artwork in the textbook. I remember flipping through The Story of Art, desperately trying to memorise all the paintings and sculptures, and slowly coming to a realisation. Of the approximately 370 artworks depicted in this book, covering almost the entire history of Western art, there was only one single artwork made by a woman. Conveniently, we never ended up discussing this work in class. When I did a quick Google search afterwards, I found out that this artwork was only added in the more recent versions of the book, after the author received criticism for not including a single woman. 

The lack of discussion on female work is a problem in more disciplines. Last week, in my Introduction to Philosophy class, the teacher decided to spend five minutes of his presentation on naming some female philosophers. He did this because the rest of the semester-long course was spent on male philosophers. Apparently, women deserved only five minutes out of a sixteen-week-long course. The teacher justified this by simply explaining that “there were no influential female philosophers.” 

It’s disappointing to see, but not surprising. I think most UCU students are aware that when discussing history, contributions by women are often sidelined. In education, women and their work don’t tend to fall within the scope of what’s considered important. In the arts and humanities, where the person behind the work can be just as important as the work itself, it’s especially discouraging to see that women are often neglected. 

The claim that I often hear is that women didn’t work in these fields or didn’t have any influence. I admit, there’s something resembling truth in that. Women were (and are) frequently not given the opportunity to do research, write, or create art. If they did manage, their work was often not taken seriously or awarded the same platform as that of men. However, to claim that in the entirety of history, there were no important women in fields such as art, philosophy, or literature is a step too far. There were certainly women who, against all odds, were successful in these fields, yet are still pushed into obscurity. 

I don’t claim that the people designing our education hate women. The real, more complex issue is that a certain canon of important figures has been established and that the impression is given that it’s unchangeable. However, we must become aware that our vision of the past is neither objective nor static. Take art history as an example. Johannes Vermeer, one of the most iconic Dutch artists and painters of the Girl with a Pearl Earring, was entirely forgotten after his death until he was revived and raised into fame by a 19th-century French art historian. On the other hand, an artist like Adriaen van der Werff was incredibly successful in the 17th  century, but he is not well known anymore by those who did not take Reflections on Dutch 17th Century Painting in spring. 

Therefore, we have to reconsider what the task of universities is. When we teach about history, we aren’t just telling what happened, but also deciding what will shape the future. If male artists can be revived out of obscurity by 19th-century art historians, why can’t we do the same with female artists, thinkers and writers? Women’s work has been structurally ignored and suppressed. Because this limited their influence, later generations similarly neglected their work. This created a cycle which 

perpetuated the sentiment that women had little to no meaningful impact on art and scholarship. By ignoring women in our education, we feed into the exact same cycle. Historically, women have not always had a lot of influence; however, shouldn’t we be the ones to change that? After all, creating an open-minded and tolerant generation starts in education. 

If we continue to ignore women, we teach future generations not to take them seriously. We limit our scope to art and scholarship and stop students from letting themselves be influenced by the thoughts of women. Besides, we discourage female students and perpetuate the idea that they are not as important as their male peers. Furthermore, we restrict our understanding of history by presenting a version entirely determined by white upper-class Western men. When I ask us to talk more about women, I also ask us to talk about other marginalised groups. Work by that white Western male elite is important, but why can’t we include other voices as well? So yes, let’s keep teaching about Michelangelo, Monet, and Sartre, but don’t forget to also include people like Gentileschi, Morisot, and De Beauvoir. Because when going through the entire history of a discipline, isn’t it a shame to pretend that women don’t exist?