Quote

When I started researching history in the 1960s, a lot of women about whom I've subsequently written were actually footnotes to history. There was a perception that women weren't important. And it's true. Women were seen historically as far inferior to men.

Women's stories have been neglected for so long - unless they were queens. Exploring the history of women is a way of redressing that imbalance.

I think feminists are unaware of the tremendous extent of the role of women in history.

It's the 21st century. It's untenable to suggest that women had no significance and no interest and that just because they didn't vote they had no relevance to the course of our history.

I think there has been a great deal of valuable revisionism in women's history.

Women's roles are diminished for obvious reasons. It's the men whose names are on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and who were generals and soldiers.

One of the goals of the Feminist Elite is to reinforce to women the idea that men are obsolete.

It has been said that the position of woman is the test of civilization, and that of our women was secure. In them was vested our standard of morals and the purity of our blood.

There is a sense that women are more anchored than men in our society.

Most historians and other writers of what we now consider 'primary sources' simply didn't think about women and their contribution to society. They took it for granted, except when that contribution or its lack directly affected men.