The significance of women’s history initially back to seventies of the twentieth century, after a group of French researchers and historians emphasized that women’s history is men’s history. This means that men have written and spoke about women’s history, whether it was political or social or economic. From here, it has been cleared that the presence of women in history was a marginalized existence.
Although common history is a great history of men, but men despite their influence, do not express the whole history. We can say that (the neglected in history) plays a great role in creating history and directing its movement, therefore, the history of women belongs to the context of neglected history. In the past, they watched at the roles of women only in a birth, bringing up children, motherhood and home building… That’s why women were more marginalized in history and their fate was with their men’s history.
Did not women played an essential role in history? To answer this question, we must go back to men’s voices and writings because we cannot find a direct answer from women. This means that women did not have methods to express themselves, especially writing, because priorities were for men and they have decided to learn and teach women.
From here again we should re-reading of women’s history, because if we do not take into account the influence and existence of women, there will be no such thing as women’s history. Moreover, we must not forget the fact that men and women work together in social events, changes and create history. One of the most important examples of this type of women’s history is the history of French history (Jeanne Bécu, countess of Barry 1743-1793) known as “Miss Dubari” means (lover of Luis 15). This woman could make some changes in the history of women, who could become a public figure in the history of French. Then her roles led to make French revolution.
Finally, we can say that women’s role in politics, which was men’s activity since the history has sometimes directed men, kings and the states as well. Also it tells us that it is possible (emotion) not (mind), (love) not (hate) to direct history. It might be a political decision made under the influence of the king’s emotion and this story is showing a situation how and to what extent the king is under the influence of his feelings and issue the political decisions of the country in that perspective.