Let me start by quoting Rosalind Miles:
"Yet some would say, why women's history at all? Surely men and women have always shared a world, and suffered together all its rights and wrongs? It is a common belief that whatever the situation, both sexes faced it alike. But the male peasant, however cruelly oppressed, always had the right to beat his wife. The black slave had to labor for the white master by day, but he did not have to service him by night as well. This grim pattern continues to this day, with women bearing an extra ration of pain and misery whatever the circumstances, as the sufferings of the women of war torn Eastern Europe will testify. While their men fought and died, wholesale and systematic rape—often accompanied by the same torture and death that the men suffered— was a fate only women had to endure. Women's history springs from moments of recognition such as this, and the awareness of the difference is still very new. Only in our time have historians begun to look at the historical experience of men and women separately, and to acknowledge that for most of our human past, women's interests have been opposed to those of men. Women's interests have been opposed by them, too: men have not willingly extended to women the rights and freedoms they have claimed for themselves. As a result, historical advances have tended to be "men only" affairs. When history concentrates solely on one half of the human race, any alternative truth or reality is lost. Men dominate history because they write it, and their accounts of active, brave, clever or aggressive females constantly tend to sentimentalize, to mythologize or to pull women back to some perceived "norm." As a result, much of the so-called historical record is simply untrue."

First, I certainly hope that I'm not the only man who's read this book. Everyone should read it. This book really shines light onto the matter, in a much better an explicit way than any other book did before. It's interesting to see how the men, little by little, step by step rose to power while putting the women down just so that they can prove that they are more "superior". I think I have an idea for another speech on gender equality. ( )

Rosalind Miles looks at history through the eyes of women, from the earliest days to where we are now. Why when we read history are notable women often excluded? Why does it appear that through time men have been the artists; innovators and primary movers of the world? Where does the idea that women are naturally subservient come from when so many restrictions were needed to be placed upon their lives and there have been so many laws and customs devoted to suppression?

This book goes some way towards rectifying the historical imbalance and is an interesting and well researched study with occasional flashes of humour but, also, a lot of anger. Throughout history women and men together have made their world; both are necessary and need to be recognised. ( )

Nonfiction history, from ancient to modern times, as it relates to women’s place in history. Spans the gamut from religious to political history, and this book is difficult to read without getting quite angry at times, me being a woman and all, and a majority of the book being about how women have been second-class citizens since, as the author wryly puts it, ‘the rise of the phallus.’ Viewed as simply man’s property for much of recorded history, women have had to fight tooth and nail for basic human rights. This is a glimpse into how things were through time, from the beginning (when women were revered) and with specific views at different cultures and microcosms. Also points out notable exceptions to the rule of the day, wherever and whenever that might be, with information about various “famous women” but also about how things were for the ‘average Jane’ of the times.

I learned a lot reading this book, but despite the author’s attempts at injecting some humor into it, I did read it in small bits rather than devour it in large chunks as it tended to get quite dry in places. A very worthwhile read, though. ( )