There's a blog post floating around recently talking about how mass shootings are higher than they've ever been, are higher in America than anywhere else, are almost entirely perpetrated by men, and speculates that this might be related to something particular in American masculinity.

I apologize in advance for the ickiness I'm about to start, but I had some questions. Answer whatever you can or feel inclined to.

• How has American masculinity changed since, say, the second world war?
• Have there been places/periods where masculinity was markedly more violent than the places/periods around it? Where, when, and what came of it?
• Has there ever been a place/period where femininity was marked by aggressive or violent behavior?
• In places/periods where a third gender was recognized, how did gendered segregation work? Were the third genders allowed to move freely between worlds? Was it more or less restrictive? Could people pass between the two (man or woman and third) at will, or was it restricted?

Generally speaking, gender history developed as a way of conveying the "forgotten stories" of history - women's history, LGBTQ history, working class history etc. What role do you think gender studies could/should have in more traditional fields such as political and economic history?

Is work being done to apply these methods to the "great men" and to genderise the existing grand narratives of history?

It's often remarked that applying the terms like "gay" or "homosexual" to cultures like Rome, Norse Scandinavia, etc. is erroneous, because people back then did not think of their sexual preferences as a defining personal characteristic. I've heard that this practice of defining oneself by sexuality, at least in the western world, began in the Victorian era. My questions is, what can we point to to conclude when people began to identify themselves by their sexual orientation? Also, are there any examples of societies or even individual figures that took sexual orientation to be a defining characteristic that preceded the 19th century?

I was watching a video on YouTube of (IIRC) Ruth Bader Ginsberg's confirmation hearings, and (again, IIRC) she claimed that she was among the first to use the word "gender" to refer to people, rather than as a grammatical artifact in languages other than English.

Because I'm not certain of this memory, and because it's sort of beside the point anyway, my question is more general: When was the word "gender" first applied to people, as a distinct concept from "sex" (or in such a way that the multiple meanings of "sex" were, to a degree, disambiguated)? Was it a direct borrow/analogy from the grammatical sense of the term, or were the intermediary meanings?

Thanks!

I once asked a question some months back but it was moderated because it was too broad (fair enough!), but this particular AMA seems like the perfect place.

There are a multitude of examples of organizations throughout history whose name takes the form "<name> & Sons". I have never seen a "<name> & Daughters". Other than the apparent gender-bias through history, are there any examples of the latter?

I can fully comprehend that men tended to own organizations more than women back in those days, but I find it interesting that I can't think of any examples of the other sex - even at this day and age where it is commonplace for both sexes to run organizations.

Two questions, if I may:

First, what are your biggest "pet peeves?" i.e. misconceptions about your area of study that drive you up the wall?

Second, how difficult is it to identify whether a particular primary source is representative of the overall opinion at the time? That is to say, to establish whether a primary source is unusually progressive, unusually traditional, or simply a reflection of how the majority might have felt at that point. The specifics (i.e. which region, which time period, which authors, etc) are assumed to be your particular field of expertise (e.g. for /u/historiagrephour it would be assumed that I'm asking this question with regards to early modern Scottish sources)

When discussions concerning focusing on the subaltern in history, especially on reddit, you usually see comments that go along the lines of "why do we need to focus just on women? Why do we need a Black History Month? etc.." How would you answer someone who asked you a similar question, along the lines of "why do we need gender history? Is regular history not good enough?"

How did societies which used to have a different number of genders, transition to the number of genders they have now (eg two genders, three genders etc)? I understand how religion could play a part in that, but how did/does going from being known and accepted under one identity and feeling like you are that one identity, to having another identity or different ideas about identity work?

The question of whether to include both women's history and gender history in the same panel was a point of contention when I began organizing this AMA. I mentioned it briefly in my rambling introduction, but how would you describe the difference between the two subfields? Do you think that gender history has rendered women's history obsolete or do you believe that it still has a purpose?

How are third-gender, genderfluid, and/or other nonbinary people represented/discussed/studied in your area of study?

(This question brought to you by my head-tilt at the fact that the title of the AMA includes only two genders)

For /u/historiagrephour: how were masculinity and femininity defined and performed in Gaelic society? Was there a significant contrast between Gaelic conceptions of gender and those of Lowland Scots?

Hello. First, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to do this AMA.

Second, is there any book I can consult as a good introduction to the methodology and great discoveries of this field? My knowledge is basically limited to the lampooned version of gender studies degrees (which, I'm sure, is different from historian specializing in gender) found online. Definitely not an accurate portrayal, I'm sure.

Third, how is sexism treated on a theoretical level by serious historians in your field right now? I'm referring to the often repeated claim made frequently online by some who study gender (though not necessarily as historians), saying that sexism is only defined as a systemic phenomenon and thus only directed at women. Again, I'm not even slightly read up on this and the internet keeps getting flooded by claims that 'academia' is currently stating that the sole definition of sexism is systemic sexism, and thus is never directed at men.

Thanks again for doing this. I hope I can come away with a couple of ignorant misconceptions quashed.

Edit: Aaaaand I've been downvoted. I'm posting this BECAUSE I'm admittedly ignorant and want to educate myself instead of believing strawman caricatures online.

Why did so many young women have affairs with wealthy men during the Middle Ages? Would bearing a noble bastard bring any benefit to the mother, or were these women just scared of the consequences of refusing their lords' advances?

Were there any culture that were one gendered?

Thanks for doing this AMA! Has honestly been one of the most fascinating threads I've read online in a long time.

Just one question - if it wasn't until the mid twentieth-century that engaging in male intercourse would warrant your being singled out as "gay" (thereby implying that the act was to a degree normal before then), than why do we hear of individuals being so heavily persecuted for engaging in male intercourse prior to that time. Like Oscar Wilde, for instance? Surely, if men were having sex with other men in the late nineteenth century and this went uncommented on than it should have been the same for men that saw themselves as strictly homosexual also.

For /u/caffarelli I guess.

1/ There are two ways to make eunuchs, removing only the testicles or removing the penis as well. Have there been societies which used both? Did it result in different social role?

2/ Your list of eunuch traditions makes me wonder, was there such a tradition in Africa or in America?

1)Were there any cultures run by a matriarchy? If so, how were the men treated?

2)In what culture were women treated the worst/had the least rights?

For /u/TheShowIsNotTheShow: how do "pink collar" jobs fit within your studies, as "women's work" that is, in a way, not women's work, in that it happens outside the home for pay, but is still low status?

I was taught in an undergrad anthropology class that early hunter-gatherer humans, before the advent of agriculture, were far more egalitarian than post-agricultural civilizations. Is that generally true? Is there historical evidence or is it based on relating modern hunter-gatherer societies to ancient ones anthropologically?

For /u/TenMinuteHistory: what sort of arts policies in regards to gender did the Soviets have? Did they have rules for who could take part in what arts, or what sort of content you could present?

/u/cephalopodie : what are wolves and punks?

I also have a question about the field of gender history. I'm aware of modern gender studies or queer theory falling under the philosophy field. Do you think a background in philosophy is necessary to understand gender theory, or are you coming more from historical and factual roots?

/u/caffarelli : were early modern eunuchs gendered masculine or feminine, or did they occupy some transient space between the two?

we will also answer questions about the nitty-gritty of doing gender history

History has a long history of being manipulated for political reasons, entertainment and personal biases. In a touchy subject like this what steps have you taken to reduce it? Bearing in mind bias could come from fear of sexism as much as sexism.

How controversial is the following statement?

Men are generally physically stronger, this would answer a lot of questions about why men had higher social status in the past due to their greater value as agricultural laborers, soldiers etcetera.. and the basis for prejudices which became entrenched such that less physically taxing but prestigious tasks like being a merchant were mostly men. People are prejudiced because humans are irrational and possibly due to some natural instincts to create a social pecking order (humiliation, hubris). General behavioral differences between hetero men and hetero women may play a role, behavioral differences of course are due to both nature and nurture for which there is an overwhelming amount of evidence, also one must be careful not to confuse nurture with nature and likewise nature with nurture.

Reddit has a reputation for quibbles and silly rants about feminism and "SJW"s. I'd like to avoid this and get to the "nitty gritty" as promised. What is the exact state of gender history? Is it littered with this kind of thing as some might fear? Or are you objective and unbiased as I hope?

Who are in your opinion the most influential women from the late '700 until the early '900 across the western world?

By influential I mean politics, sorry Ms Curie. :)

What is your favorite example of gender history that diverts from the social accepted "norm" of what we think of as gender roles/interactions in a historical context?

If it's not too late, I hope it wouldn't be out of place to ask a question I've unsuccessfully posed elsewhere for a second time. I'm looking for an article or chapter on the emergence of the bikini swimsuit -- which I'd like to use alongside several other course readings on the nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll. The analysis can go in any direction, as long as there is some -- brief narrative histories are easy to find. I'm already using Teresia Teaiwa's piece but would appreciate suggestions very much!

My question might be kind of weird. I'm just starting out in an undergrad degree in a major I'm designing, focused on Natural History/Prehistory and nutrition. In studying natural history, with the filter of my own personality, I'm often confronted about things like... Submission, rape, and dominance in man's early development.

I see that all of the panelists are in fields related to periods that are as far from this as can be, but I am still just starting out at studying history in general. Is there a direction you can point me towards to get worthwhile speculation on the relationships and sexual patterns of early hominids and man?

I want to get better at studying history, and the structure of my classes isn't helping me a ton. Ultimately, I want to do work on prehistoric nutrition, and as I see it, I'm going to have to go far outside of what my school offers in order to, say, write a thesis on this.

So, this question I have for you is (hopefully) going to help me as a history student, rather than simply answering the question. Thanks.