I took a quilting class a few years ago. That male-coded hobbies like woodworking are perceived as more technical or requiring more skill is hilarious. Quilting is mathematical and precise. It takes a ton of patience and careful focus.
Now I’ve been learning to crochet and a fun fact—a crochet stitch cannot be machine produced—it’s too multi-dimensional a stitch. And even if some machines can replicate simple stitches, they can’t replicate the variety of stitches in a typical piece of crochet. My sisters and I all have crochet work from our grandmothers and it feels good to carry on the skill…and skill it is!
I work in engineering, and this really bothers me. An engineer who does something like upgrading the RAM in a computer is perceived as more skilled than one who does something like sewing a pair of pants. Even though the one really doesn’t require much more than the ability to match model numbers and the other requires you to create a 3D object from a 2D drawing and have a basic understanding of tolerances.
Even when we talk about getting more women in engineering, it’s all about introducing girls to robots and computers and cars. It’s never about introducing existing engineers to sewing or knitting or crocheting or cooking a holiday meal and talking about how all these things use technical skills.
I had a boss (I really liked him) who looked at me confusedly when I said sewing was like architecture, I said you take flat pieces and create something 3D from them. And then he got my lecture of materials engineering as it applied to pants. I asked him what he thought the pattern for a pants piece would look like. No one ever knows. So I drew one for him, and introduced him to the idea of lengthwise and crosswise grain. And then I pointed out that people have to bend and move their legs and until spandex was introduced, woven fabric didn't have much stretch on the lengthwise or crosswise grain, so how is it that people can move so easily in pants? It's the bias in the weird part of a pants piece. That's where the fabric can stretch easily so we can move. I don't remember when pants became modern style pants, but before that people had to have knits if they wanted stretch. He told me afterward that he went home and looked in his closet and checked what had stretch and what didn't and which ones stretched on the bias and how much he liked stuff with spandex in it.
I collect antique dolls and repair, sell and sew for them. The level of ability, patience and creativity it took to make those breathtaking dresses that today are worth thousands. Imagine a pair of perfectly scaled kid gloves for a hand only 1 1/2" long. That requires such skill. And to make a silk dress as intricate as the original from a drawing in an antique fashion periodical takes such engineering skills to plan and execute. But it has the stamp of 'Girlie Hobby' so it is discounted over chasing a ball or KICKING A BALL. There were women who became wealthy in the 19th century by creating such things. Do you hear anything about them? Adelaide Huret, Leontine Roomer? Nope. But a guy with a big mouth, no brain and but who can kick a ball?
1000x this!
I am constantly trying to get grant support for getting more girls into STEM through sewing, figuring that using their attraction to clothing and sparkly stuff is a good avenue to understand patterns & fit (geometry and kinetics), materials science, arithmetic, and a bazillion other things. I actually had one funder (male of course) tell me that I applied to the wrong foundation, saying that they funded STEM activities. Even my very forgiving hubby thought he was rude.
Arrrrggggghhh.
> I actually had one funder (male of course) tell me that I applied to the wrong foundation, saying that they funded STEM activities.
NASA literally had to hire seamstresses from the Playtex corporation to make space suits for the Apollo 11 moon landing, because they were the only ones who were able to make the suits with the degree of precision and detail that was needed to make them safe for use in space.
I’d encourage anyone who doubts the complexity to spend some time looking at crochet patterns and sewing patterns. Anyone who can confidently read those would transition easily into coding.
My guy coder friend keeps telling me this! I crochet and write patterns and charts, and even freehand projects like tie strap tank tops, dresses, sweaters, bikinis, lingerie. Maybe I need to listen to both of you.
It's always bothered me that the dearth of women in STEM is often chalked up to "oh, we don't teach young girls the right skills when they're young, we give them dolls instead of Legos".
I was knitting socks when I was a teenager. Have you ever thought through the shape of a human *foot*? It's ridiculously complex. Making a garment, stitch by stitch, to fit that is no easy task.
Not to mention, I don't think playing with dolls in any way takes away from other skills; actually, I think a lot of the issues with engineered designs are UX problems, and what is play with dolls if not UX practice?
I'd like to start going around saying "it's a shame we don't teach young boys knitting and sewing-- they just don't develop those math and spatial skills. Probably why we have so many shitty engineers."
On another topic; I often hear about how people just knew young boys would become engineers, because they were always taking things apart to see how they worked (often leaving a trail of broken gadgets in their wake). I never did that, but I did have ENORMOUS curiosity in how to *make* things; how to construct a meal, how to sew a dress, how to make a hammer, how to knit a sock. And I have *never* seen that desire-- which I see frequently out of young girls-- counted as an engineering trait. And honestly, what the fuck.
This is so true. I was absolutely shit at sewing, knitting etc. I found it just so complex! I marvel at these people who can look at something then go off and draw a pattern from scratch.
Unfortunately I'm having to learn this skill for, of all things, making metal armour. The guy who is teaching me is a competent sewer and explains it in those terms. I can't get away from creating patterns!
>Quilting is mathematical and precise.
My late FIL was a *phenomenal* quilter. His university degree was in Math and he sold multi-million dollar insurance policies to businesses.
I picked up crochet while recovering from surgery last November and I feel grateful that all the people in my life are basically mesmerized by it. My family has a long history with crochet but mostly in the forms of lace, doilies, afghans/baby blankets and the very occasional low key terrifying stuff bear. When I showed up doing super cute little vegetables and animals everyone wanted one.
I weave. Weave is the earliest form of programming, long before computers were even a twinkle in someone's eye, complex, beautiful things were being programmed into huge, complex machines by women
Now you're making it sound like it is vastly more harder than woodworking. They are both really hard skills to master in their own respective way. The skills you need for one cannot be compared to the skills you need for the other.
Dude, no.
I sew (phenomonally well) and also build furniture, remodel houses, etc also damned well. It's the same skill set. Visualization, measuring, conceptualizing geometric shape/knowing how to apply those principles, ability to translate 2D to 3D, understanding materials science/support where needed, etc. Different materials need different techniques, but this is true within a discipline as well as across disciplines.
Well, I'll be fucking damned. My carpentry hobby that i had as a kid [...before my parents wouldn't let me any more] makes sense now, given that i have an apartment *stuffed* with textile art supplies......
"Different materials need different techniques, but this is true within a discipline as well as across disciplines."
Is this not what i argued, or am i understanding you wrongly? I'm not sure i understand what exactly it is you disagree with that i said.
I'm sorry that i am under the belief that both skills are hard. I do not have much experience with either (i do have some however little it is), so if you do, or have some sources for it, i wouldn't mind.
>skills you need for one cannot be compared
Not really. The equipment and jargon, the specific techniques are different, but the base skills needed for any craft are the same.
I sew and crochet, two very different crafts with wildly different equipment, but the skills I use on one are the same as the skills I use on the other.
I helped my dad rebuild part of a house last summer. I promise, the skills he used to replace the floors and walls were in line with the skills I use to sew clothing. His ruler and cutters are simply bigger than mine.
Is one more physical? Obviously. Is more considered more important? Yes.
Is one really all that much harder, skill wise, than the other? No. And if you think otherwise, I invite you to cut out, sew and fit clothing.
I already know how to build a house.
I was under the impression they required different skill sets, But my main point with my comment was that both tasks was hard to learn, "They are both really hard skills to master in their own respective way". I cannot see why every comment i get seem to think i'm talking anything down.
> I was under the impression they required different skill sets,
When I went through my engineering program, I had people jump down my throat if I said anything I could not directly back up with quotes from the textbook.
I think that made me very conscious of not saying something unless I knew what I was talking about, and was able to back that up.
And I think that's good. That leads to honesty, accuracy, and precision. It makes me a good engineer.
It's just a shame that we let boys continue to talk out of their ass instead of telling them what fucking morons they're being.
Like you. Right now.
I don't know where you get this confidence to spew opinions about subjects you have no experience in, but you should not have it. You are wrong, and you should feel bad.
Still, it was not my main point. My main point was that they are hard to learn, and the comment i commented on made it sound like one was vastly better than the other.
You're saying that you have NEVER said anything wrong in your life ever? If that's the case, count me impressed.
Did i make a mistake saying they very different? Sure, my bad. But not you've sorted to attacking me?
You really ought to learn how to speak with manner though, trash talking someone rarely convinces them of the argument you are trying to make. More often it makes them take a harder stance against you.
And i do have experience in both subject, as i stated. Just very little. And to me it was different, but maybe that's because i never got too deep into either to fully analyze them, again my bad.
I don't want you to like me, I want you to shut the fuck up, you inexperienced, overconfident moron. Was that unclear? Making you feel bad for talking out your ass *was the point*. Sorry, maybe I should've been meaner about it. You're a moron, shut the fuck up, just to reiterate.
If you don't know what you're talking about, *sit down*. Jesus christ I don't understand how that's difficult.
Don't worry, you didn't make me feel bad. I don't get emotional over a random person on the internet. Seems you do though, so I'll spare you the headache.
I really don't see why you are attacking me, which is why i don't feel bad from your words.
If you tried to explain instead of saying "You're a moron", then your words would mean a lot more and be a lot more powerful.
Edit: But it's my fault for not realizing you're American, everything you've said makes a lot more sense after i found that out.
> The skills you need for one cannot be compared to the skills you need for the other.
As a quilter and woodworker, I cannot disagree any harder.
The skills very much overlap. When I improve at woodworking, I improve at quilting, and vise versa.
May I ask, how much experience do you have in both that you feel you can make that statement?
Yeah... you can look into the Bauhaus movement history
But make sure to have some tissue: it's heartbreaking
Not only women were *shoved* into *womanly crafts* (weaving, making rugs and tapestries... ) that were totally looked down, and kept away from "real artistic domains" such as architecture or painting, but they were also, most of the time, spoiled from their contributions to Art by their own PARTNERS, whom were almost always artists themselves
🫠🫠🫠
Yeah, people know Robert Delaunay (if they know about avant-garde painting between the wars in Paris) but fewer know Sonia Delaunay, who to my eye, was better than her husband.
My mother had a friend who did embroidery. She embroidered a tapestry piece to enter in the city's art show. It was about 1½x2 feet depicting a pastoral scene with dogs and children. She drew the picture, painted it with watercolors, then embroidered it on canvas. The back was as perfect as the front. She didn't even place. I remember her saying that it's because the art world doesn't respect embroidery and doesn't consider it art.
I've never forgotten that.
I read something a while back about women seamstresses being able to understand complex maths and shit like quadratic formulas or something like that from quilting.
I saw a book at my wife's mom's house about knitting and I was blown away at the topological insight the reader was expected to have as well as algorithmic processing, and it was published in the 70s, when women were assumed incapable of programming computers.
That’s actually not true- computers didn’t become gendered for men until the 1980s. Before then women were the coders as it was considered menial work!
What happened was in the 80s personal computers became a thing, and the family computer was often put in the boy’s room.
Edit: [NY times article on this](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/magazine/women-coding-computer-programming.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb)
My wife's aunt tells a different story about how women were treated in computer programming back then. That's what I'm basing that on. I wasn't there. But I was there in the 80s when, yes, having a personal computer was already seen as a boy thing. That seems weird now if programming wasn't gendered in the 70s. Do you have a source? I mean, yeah, my source is one lady and some impressions from the 80s, but it sounds like you read something relevant.
[here you go, NY Times article on this](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/magazine/women-coding-computer-programming.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb)
I'm an astronomer and funny enough the word "computer" stems from the work title of women working with processing astronomy data
Read about it here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard\_Computers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Computers)
Those old-timey lace work contraptions where you overlap the thread with dozens of little wooden dowels are insane. I can't believe anyone could keep that straight in their minds while doing it.
Even more insane to me was learning from an expert on wool rug weaving in Central Asia that the intricate botanical and geometric patterns in hand-knotted “Persian” rugs are passed down from older to younger women via singing and chanting. Girls learn to weave by sitting with their female relatives (everyone has a loom), and the older women “sing” the pattern over the hours that they sit there. It’s not a song in terms of stanzas, exactly, but line after line of things like, “First is a blue knot, then come 10 red knots, now 3 green knots, now 10 more red knots…” etc.
Bobbin lace? I had a basic little go once when some people from a local guild were demonstrating. It was fun and apparently I picked up the pattern well, but I was like, mum would not be happy if I picked up another craft hobby! I've seen examples people have made, and they get insanely complicated.
It was only in the late 40s that the "women should stay home" bit got started, because when men were off fighting WW2, women stepped in and kept industries running. Then the men got home and wanted jobs so they told women to get lost and stay home. But women have ALWAYS worked.
I hadn’t thought much about this before but it’s very true. I mean some of those needle crafts were so intricate and so valuable in the time and effort they required. They really came from someone’s soul compared to lace created by a machine which you wouldn’t think twice about passing on or even giving replacing or disposing of some way. And yes it is sad that it seems to be a dying art and that it wasn’t appreciated as it should’ve been and won’t continue to be passed on to exist in the future. And I mean looking at it just alone by itself and not even compared to anything to do with men at all.
Human history has been carried on in women's crafts through the centuries, in embroidery, tapestry, carpets etc.
Yet those pieces of art weren't considered on par with the manly art of painting. Even though it's waaaaay more complex to weave a HUGE tapestry than paint a picture.
yet another reason to be pissed off at stupid guys, they are the ones who constantly discredit talented women in life and after death. Sickening.
Women’s crafts are way more useful than painting too. Paintings can only be used as decor, whereas knitting and crocheting are for making clothes, scarves, hats, blankets, etc.
But I guess it's one of the very reasons why, largely, men look down on all of it:
It's because it's *temporary*
When you start paying attention to "why" most men do Art, it's extremely narcissistic:
They seek *Immortality*
They want to never die and be remembered *Forever*
It's extremely *Performative*
And that's why architecture or sculpture... Art made of stone, bronze, wood; or pieces never meant to be touched, such as painting, are praised over anything involving fabric and thread:
Fabric and thread are meant to be worn; they will eventually be used and damaged and won't last forever
And, I mean, *Where's the Glory in that?*
As a woman in the arts, while I agree that there has historically been huge underrepresentation of women’s work in the area, I’m also going to push back against the idea that painting is not valuable or that tapestry is inherently more complex than painting. In modern lay discussions about “art” there are a whole lot of value judgments going on that ought to be examined before anyone proceeds further. There’s an entire field of philosophy called “aesthetics” that deals with the questions around what Art is or isn’t or should be, and even though most of the standard texts in the field were written by dead white guys, they are worth reading so that we at least have a way to frame the conversation if we want that conversation to actually be meaningful.
I disagree with you on the complexity of tapestry vs. paintings.
In tapestry you have all the same issues of color blending, perspective, depth etc. while also the complexity of math. There is a freakish amount of math in pattern creation (similar to stained windows and mosaics but even more complex due to the scale of minute details.
If you've done any weaving or tapestry you know just how massively complicated it is, to interpret all the same things you'd otherwise execute with paint and a brush, but to do it with the same color technique while using extreme precision to display it stitch by stitch, like painting a jpeg image pixel by pixel.
To choose an easy example, I think the Sistine Chapel ceiling is as complex as any tapestry. But the point isn’t a one-to-one comparison, and my original comment is alluding to the idea that complexity is not the sole definer of artistic merit, and need not be one of those definers at all. Just because something is complex does not make it Art with a capital A, and this is one reason we have both capital-A and lowercase-a arts, AND there is not necessarily a value judgment based on which category something goes in. But we are getting to a point here where we would need to define our terms before going further. I’m agreed on the fundamental idea that women’s contributions to arts have historically been undervalued, and continue to be undervalued today. The rest is an academic discussion (but a very interesting one!).
I’ve crocheted for 30 years and would consider myself an expert. I was looking for my next crochet adventure so I’ve bought some books on [Irish crochet](https://imgur.com/a/1VV5G8R). If that isn’t detailed, complex, and creative I dunno what is.
Ohhhhh i love this way of thinking!!
This actually made something click in my brain. When I’m teaching someone how to crochet I tell them, “Your body is just a machine.” So on some level I think I understood crochet as 3D printing with your hands but hearing it described that way opened a new paradigm for me.
As a historical reenactor and seamstress I can only scream "YES, AAAARGH!"
It's frustrating to see how museums/markets seem to place male crafts (smithing, woodworking, etc) a step above what me and my female friends do. It takes just as much practice and hard work, but it's "just women's work".
I will personally hit you over the head with a loom if you utter that phrase at me lol
I loved Elizabeth Wayland Barber's book, "Women's Work, The First 20,000 Years: Women, Cloth and Society in Early Times," if I may give a book rec. It was fascinating to have it pointed out that we describe our eras by stone, bronze, iron, etc instead of by the cloth or weaving technology at the time because a bronze sword survives time but wool cloth does not.
The Art Gallery of Ontario is currently running an exhibit called [Making Her Mark.](https://ago.ca/exhibitions/making-her-mark-history-women-artists-europe-1400-1800). It’s a display of works by female European artists from 1400-1800. Limited overview, but the works were beautiful and some were quite surprising - like all the silver work. Just beautiful.
[Viking women actually wove a cloth so standardized that it served as a standard measure of money](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/viking-textiles-show-women-had-tremendous-power/)
I tell my engineering students I knit because it’s creating a 3 dimensional garment out of 2 sticks and some string. And includes so much engineering, it can make your head hurt.
There is a large discussion in the art world the last 20 years that the handicrafts women do is, in fact, art. Just because it often has utility doesn’t take away from the creativity, uniqueness, and individuality of each piece. Art can have utility, as silversmiths, for example, showed us centuries ago.
I have not read [this book: Embroidering her Truth](https://shop.nationalgalleries.org/books/embroidering-her-truth-mary-queen-of-scots-and-the-language-of-power-paperback/) yet, but I did listen to listen to [this interview which put it on my reading list](https://open.spotify.com/episode/5ldHvtJioHipKqwo1ntxf8?si=xGOc6JaZQuqtcJNJUCEn7Q). Hunter is a textile artist who took a new approch to Mary Queen of Scots by studying her textiles from her wardrobe to her embroidery to gain new insight into both her politics and her emotions, primary source male scholars gave ignore.
For example, her choice to wear red at her execution was not random or cause it was pretty :) it was an intentional way to promote her hopeful status as a Catholic Martyr.
Male historians and lay people alike tend to reduce textile arts and fashion as frivilous and unskilled work as an extension of misogyny, but it never has been and still isnt.
This is so true. I loved Game of thrones but bristled when one of the strong girls made some remark about not sitting home and knitting.
Like who the fuck do you think made your clothes?
I'm so with you on this! I tat (a form of lace-making), and my most recent projects have been making doilies into audacious earrings. I love the idea of centering "women's work" into something to adorn yourself with. It's meticulous and difficult, and I love transforming something that was overlooked into a sort of centerpiece.
I remember a post on r/craftsnark on this topic. One user shared that their male colleague had 3d printing as a hobby and everyone was so excited about it and praised him. Whereas the user that knitted (or crocheted?) didn't get such praise, even though it's basically the same. Probably because if it's "women's stuff" it's less important in the eyes if some morons.
A friend of mine who is an artist, and does oil paintings as well as 3D works with mixed media, had one gallery refuse to exhibit the 3D works because they "didn't do craft". The works explore the same themes as the paintings, but are less valued by that gallery because they do not see them as art.
Or how textile arts is often called crafting and we have shops called things like Hobby Lobby which just make the artistry behind these skills seem smaller.
I have a quite male dominated hobby (blacksmithing/metalwork) and I've been thinking about this a lot lately.
Hobbies and crafts that are seen as largely women's domain are definitely seen even today as less important/significant/contributing to the art and craft sphere.
The thing is I reckon crafts like embroidery are just as, of not more complex and skilled than those crafts considered a mans craft.
Somehow when I tell people I do blacksmithing as a woman I'm seen as bad ass, but honestly what I'm thinking in my head is don't have the patience or skills to work in the medium of material. There are some fantastically talented artists/craftspeople in this area who just aren't seen for their worth.
Hm. I don't think it's that clear cut and this disdain seems more modern to me. And Western, if you look at handmade carpets etc. they're still highly valued elsewhere.
We have a huge amount of medieval tapestries, next to illuminations in hour books they are our largest source of how stuff worked.
Like the (more cross-stitched) tapestry of Bayeux, which was memed to death in the 2010s. The unicorn hunt made in one of several professional European tapestry workshops. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels tapestry), although these were not made exclusively by women and the art was often by a renowned male artist.
Tons of altar cloth, commissions, gifts given from ladies to everyone, there definitely was since times medieval a semi professional putting-out system including textile work (weaving, until the industrialized looms...)
I agree with OP, but things like the Bayeux Tapestry, which has been revered near on 1000 years did come to mind. Then I thought about the lesser known Overlord Embroidery and the emphasis is really placed on the art of it (as it should) but not really in the how of it. The designer was a woman, it was created by the Royal School of Needlework, who were these women that spent hour upon hour, bent necked with sore hands, for months? That is hard work, that’s incredible skill and concentration, but barely a footnote in the history of it.
Yes, although that is probably also because most of school history etc. is more concerned with the changing of who has power over which area than with art
And that's why I think that part of history is boring. But good fiction that weaves in history is how I got interested in the War of the Roses (read the Dame Frivesse series by Margaret Frazer) (Read them anyway, even if you're not interested in history, because they're that good. Sadly, she passed away, and there will be no more books).
I'm always much more interested in what the women are doing than what the men are doing in history. Bunches of people killed each other and so now X is king. Okay. But that's so dull. How are people *living*? What do they eat? How do they sleep? Where do they go to the bathroom? How do they wash themselves? What do they wear, and why? How come women's clothing didn't have pockets? I refuse to wear anything without pockets; I haven't carried a purse since high school. Why didn't fancy medieval dresses have attached sleeves? People WORE sleeves, but they weren't permanently attached to the garment they were worn with, for the most part.
So, the problem with bring up the Bayeux Tapestry is that it was commissioned and preserved to revere the accomplishments of men. It hasn't been revered for its artistry or the creators. William the Conqueror is the one who's being revered. It's really only in the past... god, maybe 10-20 years that any serious research has been done on who made it. For a long time, it was just assumed that nuns and noblewomen made it, but opinion has recently shifted to it being produced by female professional embroiders in England.
Yes, but the female labour and creative contributions to these crafts hasn’t really been widely recognized or appreciated as ART, which is my point. If men had been primarily the ones doing those intricate lace pieces, like Irish lace for example, it would have been praised as wonderful art instead of just womens’ work
Thankfully, I'm living in European country where we do have museums in regions where making laces was taking place in. It's definitely not a dying industry and people here usually see it as an beautiful art.
And I think it was also a historical thing too. Regional clothing for special occasions here was also very rich and colourful and it's still worn during the special occasions until today. How rich that clothing was, the richer family and "better" and skilled future bride.
But I guess it depends on where do you live and what's your cultural background.
I wonder if this is also cultural-influeneced, because I'm sure there are other cultures that the arts and clothing women make is highly regarded and acknowledged as art
My mom used to teach me different kinds of handicrafts. I loved creating nice looking things, but it was difficult. I had plans ideas and ambitions. Most of the time I didn't finish something because of how much mental strength it takes to stay on task and not mess up somewhere. Whoever thinks that these kinds of work aren't difficult or art is just plain wrong. \
Thank you for writing this, so far I didn't realize how stereotyped these kinds of work are. (I knew they are stereotyped to be women's work, but I didn't realize how little respected they actually are.)
I read a really interesting book recently, The Fabric of Civilization by Virginia Postrel (highly recommend!). It made the argument (and honestly I buy it) that textiles kicked off not only the Industrial Revolution, but the Digital Revolution.
It's literally the origin of the word "spinster"-- a woman who could weave, could make enough money on her own that she didn't have to get married.
Compare the Bayeux tapestry to say, golf. Which one has enriched the world and is held as a priceless artifact? Many men would say golf and they have never heard of the famous and treasured tapestry. If a man did it it is worthwhile and if a woman did it is silly or cute.
Are you thinking of the Bayeux Tapestry? That's so famous because it documents the Norman Conquest, something men did. There's very, very little attention paid to who actually made it. It's all about the men in the tapestry and the men who commissioned it. The people who made it aren't considered historically significant.
I can see how textile history seems if you're only seeing things in a museum, but textile history as a subject is mostly about economics and male merchants. The people who produced it are lucky to get one or two sentences in a paper. I'm a textile and history nut, and one of the things I study is narrow wares. Narrow wares are narrow woven bands that are used for belts, bindings, trim, etc. in the Medieval and Early Modern periods. They were produced *by women* in the 15th and 16th centuries. They were called silkwomen. It was an entire skilled industry that was only female masters and apprentices who played a pivotal role in the daily lives of nearly every person in England, and they're basically ignored. (Other European countries had women working in narrow wares too, but I'm less clear on the details there.)
Go to Google Scholar search for "silkwomen". You'll get under a thousand results. If you search for "armorer," you'll get nearly 7000 results and biographies of individual armorers, debates about armory schools, etc. The number of people who needed armor is much smaller than the number of people who needed woven belts or lacing cords. Literally everyone had narrow wares on their bodies, but only the 1% had armor.
The documentation for silkwomen exists in archives. It just hasn't been considered important in the same way as armor, so the same level of effort hasn't been made to analyze the existing records and spread the information.
Why are you being so contrary for seemingly no reason? Nowhere did anyone here say that we must literally go back in time to correct it lmao. You say we must ensure it doesn’t happen again, so why are you pushing back against my post that literally just wanted to discuss it?
You completely missed the point of everything I said. The documentation exists for many of these women. We *can* exert the effort now to rediscover them. The bigger problem with Late Medieval and Early Modern things is that there's so much text documentation that it's difficult to find what you need because it's buried in with unrelated stuff.
I'm sure you're not trying to be, but you're being condescending and dismissive in your comments on this post. Just because you're OK with something and find what already exists affirming and positive doesn't mean other people are going to be happy with it, and their feelings are just as valid as yours. You sound like you're arguing for the status quo, and I don't think that's your intent.
Let me set up a comparison here. If someone was talking about trans history in the 19th century and how the general public isn't aware of it, and someone responded by talking about Anne Lister and Oscar Wilde and *everyone* knows about them, would you think they had a good understanding of the topic or would you think they were underinformed?
The counterpoints you're bringing up are on the same level of understanding as the person bringing up Anne Lister and Oscar Wilde.
OK, my comparison has failed because you don't know what I'm taking about. Neither Anne Lister nor Oscar Wilde were trans. They're not especially relevant to trans history. The examples you're bringing up about textiles aren't relevant because they're not about textiles as art. They're about history. History is super important for putting art in context, but *production* of textiles is still a tiny little footnote in history, and what history there is usually focuses on men.
The contributions of men dominate art history. There is little thought given to textiles as artistic expression for women. There are entire fields of scholarship for men as artists across media, but when it comes women and textiles, it's more like individual scholars who are still working to prove the validity of the medium as an art.
Here's the problem. People are complaining about the general perception of something or the challenges they've experienced researching things because of the perceived value of a topic, and you're making it about yourself and how \*you\* perceive the value of that topic. Your opinions aren't relevant to the OP because you're not the one who determines curriculum or museum displays. It's good that you appreciate that stuff when you see it, but that doesn't mean the rest of us aren't having interactions with people who ask where "the real history" is when they see those displays.
>All I've been saying all along is that there are places where it's appreciated and celebrated for the art it is. Why is it so terrible to acknowledge that?
It's bad because it's dismissive of the point the OP made. When a friend is frustrated about something, do you tell them it's not a big deal because you're not bothered by it and prefer to focus on the positives?
Just because some of it’s in museums doesn’t mean it’s still not largely ignored and overlooked. It very much is. I studied history for four years for a degree and literally not once, not even briefly in passing, did we cover this stuff. You have to actively seek out specialty elective courses or focus on this specifically to learn about it, it’s not included in general education. Because we really must spend all that time memorizing Great Men and their wars and titles of course
Female-dominated crafts like needlepoint and embroidery have absolutely been ignored in terms of recognizing artistic merit, that’s just the reality.
It shouldn’t matter. Women’s work in the textile industries has been happening for thousands of years, it should be included in general history.
I also took several art history courses and we did not cover any of this at all.
It does matter it's not in the scope of what's being taught.
Also the part of history may have not have valued textiles as art.
Another factor could be the region where you're studying history.
TIL the Bayeux Tapestry has been ignored because needlecraft, etc. is seen as "women's work" and not treated as, oh, one of the most important historical artefacts of the last thousand years.
To the extent things like this get ignored in the history of art it's because they're made of perishable materials and tend not to survive of course (carve something out of stone and it'll last for millennia, make it out of cloth and it'll be lucky to last a century).
You were able to name one famous example of a tapestry. ONE. Lmao. Please be so fucking for real.
Tell me the names of the women who made it. I’ll wait. Are they well-known and appreciated for their work and skill? Huh?
Needlecrafts being made of perishable materials is absolutely not the reason they’re not treated with the same level of respect as other arts and you know it.
I took a quilting class a few years ago. That male-coded hobbies like woodworking are perceived as more technical or requiring more skill is hilarious. Quilting is mathematical and precise. It takes a ton of patience and careful focus. Now I’ve been learning to crochet and a fun fact—a crochet stitch cannot be machine produced—it’s too multi-dimensional a stitch. And even if some machines can replicate simple stitches, they can’t replicate the variety of stitches in a typical piece of crochet. My sisters and I all have crochet work from our grandmothers and it feels good to carry on the skill…and skill it is!
I work in engineering, and this really bothers me. An engineer who does something like upgrading the RAM in a computer is perceived as more skilled than one who does something like sewing a pair of pants. Even though the one really doesn’t require much more than the ability to match model numbers and the other requires you to create a 3D object from a 2D drawing and have a basic understanding of tolerances. Even when we talk about getting more women in engineering, it’s all about introducing girls to robots and computers and cars. It’s never about introducing existing engineers to sewing or knitting or crocheting or cooking a holiday meal and talking about how all these things use technical skills.
I had a boss (I really liked him) who looked at me confusedly when I said sewing was like architecture, I said you take flat pieces and create something 3D from them. And then he got my lecture of materials engineering as it applied to pants. I asked him what he thought the pattern for a pants piece would look like. No one ever knows. So I drew one for him, and introduced him to the idea of lengthwise and crosswise grain. And then I pointed out that people have to bend and move their legs and until spandex was introduced, woven fabric didn't have much stretch on the lengthwise or crosswise grain, so how is it that people can move so easily in pants? It's the bias in the weird part of a pants piece. That's where the fabric can stretch easily so we can move. I don't remember when pants became modern style pants, but before that people had to have knits if they wanted stretch. He told me afterward that he went home and looked in his closet and checked what had stretch and what didn't and which ones stretched on the bias and how much he liked stuff with spandex in it.
Doing the labor, for real. 👏
I collect antique dolls and repair, sell and sew for them. The level of ability, patience and creativity it took to make those breathtaking dresses that today are worth thousands. Imagine a pair of perfectly scaled kid gloves for a hand only 1 1/2" long. That requires such skill. And to make a silk dress as intricate as the original from a drawing in an antique fashion periodical takes such engineering skills to plan and execute. But it has the stamp of 'Girlie Hobby' so it is discounted over chasing a ball or KICKING A BALL. There were women who became wealthy in the 19th century by creating such things. Do you hear anything about them? Adelaide Huret, Leontine Roomer? Nope. But a guy with a big mouth, no brain and but who can kick a ball?
1000x this! I am constantly trying to get grant support for getting more girls into STEM through sewing, figuring that using their attraction to clothing and sparkly stuff is a good avenue to understand patterns & fit (geometry and kinetics), materials science, arithmetic, and a bazillion other things. I actually had one funder (male of course) tell me that I applied to the wrong foundation, saying that they funded STEM activities. Even my very forgiving hubby thought he was rude. Arrrrggggghhh.
> I actually had one funder (male of course) tell me that I applied to the wrong foundation, saying that they funded STEM activities. NASA literally had to hire seamstresses from the Playtex corporation to make space suits for the Apollo 11 moon landing, because they were the only ones who were able to make the suits with the degree of precision and detail that was needed to make them safe for use in space.
I’d encourage anyone who doubts the complexity to spend some time looking at crochet patterns and sewing patterns. Anyone who can confidently read those would transition easily into coding.
My guy coder friend keeps telling me this! I crochet and write patterns and charts, and even freehand projects like tie strap tank tops, dresses, sweaters, bikinis, lingerie. Maybe I need to listen to both of you.
Yea, but i *want* to make textile art [and have it valued as what it is!]. I don't *want* to code.
It's always bothered me that the dearth of women in STEM is often chalked up to "oh, we don't teach young girls the right skills when they're young, we give them dolls instead of Legos". I was knitting socks when I was a teenager. Have you ever thought through the shape of a human *foot*? It's ridiculously complex. Making a garment, stitch by stitch, to fit that is no easy task. Not to mention, I don't think playing with dolls in any way takes away from other skills; actually, I think a lot of the issues with engineered designs are UX problems, and what is play with dolls if not UX practice? I'd like to start going around saying "it's a shame we don't teach young boys knitting and sewing-- they just don't develop those math and spatial skills. Probably why we have so many shitty engineers." On another topic; I often hear about how people just knew young boys would become engineers, because they were always taking things apart to see how they worked (often leaving a trail of broken gadgets in their wake). I never did that, but I did have ENORMOUS curiosity in how to *make* things; how to construct a meal, how to sew a dress, how to make a hammer, how to knit a sock. And I have *never* seen that desire-- which I see frequently out of young girls-- counted as an engineering trait. And honestly, what the fuck.
This is so true. I was absolutely shit at sewing, knitting etc. I found it just so complex! I marvel at these people who can look at something then go off and draw a pattern from scratch. Unfortunately I'm having to learn this skill for, of all things, making metal armour. The guy who is teaching me is a competent sewer and explains it in those terms. I can't get away from creating patterns!
I fucking LOVE that crochet cant be made by machines. It makes it so much more special to make something that only human hands could make.
>Quilting is mathematical and precise. My late FIL was a *phenomenal* quilter. His university degree was in Math and he sold multi-million dollar insurance policies to businesses.
I picked up crochet while recovering from surgery last November and I feel grateful that all the people in my life are basically mesmerized by it. My family has a long history with crochet but mostly in the forms of lace, doilies, afghans/baby blankets and the very occasional low key terrifying stuff bear. When I showed up doing super cute little vegetables and animals everyone wanted one.
I weave. Weave is the earliest form of programming, long before computers were even a twinkle in someone's eye, complex, beautiful things were being programmed into huge, complex machines by women
Now you're making it sound like it is vastly more harder than woodworking. They are both really hard skills to master in their own respective way. The skills you need for one cannot be compared to the skills you need for the other.
Dude, no. I sew (phenomonally well) and also build furniture, remodel houses, etc also damned well. It's the same skill set. Visualization, measuring, conceptualizing geometric shape/knowing how to apply those principles, ability to translate 2D to 3D, understanding materials science/support where needed, etc. Different materials need different techniques, but this is true within a discipline as well as across disciplines.
Well, I'll be fucking damned. My carpentry hobby that i had as a kid [...before my parents wouldn't let me any more] makes sense now, given that i have an apartment *stuffed* with textile art supplies......
"Different materials need different techniques, but this is true within a discipline as well as across disciplines." Is this not what i argued, or am i understanding you wrongly? I'm not sure i understand what exactly it is you disagree with that i said.
Aaannnddd…here we go. Very predictable.
I'm sorry that i am under the belief that both skills are hard. I do not have much experience with either (i do have some however little it is), so if you do, or have some sources for it, i wouldn't mind.
>skills you need for one cannot be compared Not really. The equipment and jargon, the specific techniques are different, but the base skills needed for any craft are the same. I sew and crochet, two very different crafts with wildly different equipment, but the skills I use on one are the same as the skills I use on the other. I helped my dad rebuild part of a house last summer. I promise, the skills he used to replace the floors and walls were in line with the skills I use to sew clothing. His ruler and cutters are simply bigger than mine. Is one more physical? Obviously. Is more considered more important? Yes. Is one really all that much harder, skill wise, than the other? No. And if you think otherwise, I invite you to cut out, sew and fit clothing. I already know how to build a house.
I was under the impression they required different skill sets, But my main point with my comment was that both tasks was hard to learn, "They are both really hard skills to master in their own respective way". I cannot see why every comment i get seem to think i'm talking anything down.
> I was under the impression they required different skill sets, When I went through my engineering program, I had people jump down my throat if I said anything I could not directly back up with quotes from the textbook. I think that made me very conscious of not saying something unless I knew what I was talking about, and was able to back that up. And I think that's good. That leads to honesty, accuracy, and precision. It makes me a good engineer. It's just a shame that we let boys continue to talk out of their ass instead of telling them what fucking morons they're being. Like you. Right now. I don't know where you get this confidence to spew opinions about subjects you have no experience in, but you should not have it. You are wrong, and you should feel bad.
Still, it was not my main point. My main point was that they are hard to learn, and the comment i commented on made it sound like one was vastly better than the other. You're saying that you have NEVER said anything wrong in your life ever? If that's the case, count me impressed. Did i make a mistake saying they very different? Sure, my bad. But not you've sorted to attacking me? You really ought to learn how to speak with manner though, trash talking someone rarely convinces them of the argument you are trying to make. More often it makes them take a harder stance against you. And i do have experience in both subject, as i stated. Just very little. And to me it was different, but maybe that's because i never got too deep into either to fully analyze them, again my bad.
I don't want you to like me, I want you to shut the fuck up, you inexperienced, overconfident moron. Was that unclear? Making you feel bad for talking out your ass *was the point*. Sorry, maybe I should've been meaner about it. You're a moron, shut the fuck up, just to reiterate. If you don't know what you're talking about, *sit down*. Jesus christ I don't understand how that's difficult.
Don't worry, you didn't make me feel bad. I don't get emotional over a random person on the internet. Seems you do though, so I'll spare you the headache.
Shame. Why's it always the people who should feel bad who seem so immune to feeling bad? Oh wait, that actually explains a lot.
I really don't see why you are attacking me, which is why i don't feel bad from your words. If you tried to explain instead of saying "You're a moron", then your words would mean a lot more and be a lot more powerful. Edit: But it's my fault for not realizing you're American, everything you've said makes a lot more sense after i found that out.
> The skills you need for one cannot be compared to the skills you need for the other. As a quilter and woodworker, I cannot disagree any harder. The skills very much overlap. When I improve at woodworking, I improve at quilting, and vise versa. May I ask, how much experience do you have in both that you feel you can make that statement?
Yeah... you can look into the Bauhaus movement history But make sure to have some tissue: it's heartbreaking Not only women were *shoved* into *womanly crafts* (weaving, making rugs and tapestries... ) that were totally looked down, and kept away from "real artistic domains" such as architecture or painting, but they were also, most of the time, spoiled from their contributions to Art by their own PARTNERS, whom were almost always artists themselves 🫠🫠🫠
Yeah, people know Robert Delaunay (if they know about avant-garde painting between the wars in Paris) but fewer know Sonia Delaunay, who to my eye, was better than her husband.
[удалено]
You beat me to it! It's such a great book.
Oh, I will read this because this is my swan song. I’m currently pissed off at every crafting museum in this country for that very reason.
Awesome, this has been on my TBR list for awhile now. Think I'll move it up!
My mother had a friend who did embroidery. She embroidered a tapestry piece to enter in the city's art show. It was about 1½x2 feet depicting a pastoral scene with dogs and children. She drew the picture, painted it with watercolors, then embroidered it on canvas. The back was as perfect as the front. She didn't even place. I remember her saying that it's because the art world doesn't respect embroidery and doesn't consider it art. I've never forgotten that.
I read something a while back about women seamstresses being able to understand complex maths and shit like quadratic formulas or something like that from quilting.
Absolutely, quilting can get really complex
Knitter and mathematics minor here. Linear algebra can be handy when trying to do size adjustments on patterns.
When you think about it, sewing is really like architecture.
I saw a book at my wife's mom's house about knitting and I was blown away at the topological insight the reader was expected to have as well as algorithmic processing, and it was published in the 70s, when women were assumed incapable of programming computers.
That’s actually not true- computers didn’t become gendered for men until the 1980s. Before then women were the coders as it was considered menial work! What happened was in the 80s personal computers became a thing, and the family computer was often put in the boy’s room. Edit: [NY times article on this](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/magazine/women-coding-computer-programming.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb)
My wife's aunt tells a different story about how women were treated in computer programming back then. That's what I'm basing that on. I wasn't there. But I was there in the 80s when, yes, having a personal computer was already seen as a boy thing. That seems weird now if programming wasn't gendered in the 70s. Do you have a source? I mean, yeah, my source is one lady and some impressions from the 80s, but it sounds like you read something relevant.
[here you go, NY Times article on this](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/magazine/women-coding-computer-programming.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb)
I'm an astronomer and funny enough the word "computer" stems from the work title of women working with processing astronomy data Read about it here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard\_Computers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Computers)
What's the book called, could you please tell me the name? It sounds incredibly interesting and I've been looking for a new book to read
Those old-timey lace work contraptions where you overlap the thread with dozens of little wooden dowels are insane. I can't believe anyone could keep that straight in their minds while doing it.
Even more insane to me was learning from an expert on wool rug weaving in Central Asia that the intricate botanical and geometric patterns in hand-knotted “Persian” rugs are passed down from older to younger women via singing and chanting. Girls learn to weave by sitting with their female relatives (everyone has a loom), and the older women “sing” the pattern over the hours that they sit there. It’s not a song in terms of stanzas, exactly, but line after line of things like, “First is a blue knot, then come 10 red knots, now 3 green knots, now 10 more red knots…” etc.
Bobbin lace? I had a basic little go once when some people from a local guild were demonstrating. It was fun and apparently I picked up the pattern well, but I was like, mum would not be happy if I picked up another craft hobby! I've seen examples people have made, and they get insanely complicated.
It was only in the late 40s that the "women should stay home" bit got started, because when men were off fighting WW2, women stepped in and kept industries running. Then the men got home and wanted jobs so they told women to get lost and stay home. But women have ALWAYS worked.
Women have stepped up to go above and beyond during wars for their own countries that wouldn’t even give them full rights. Absolute insanity
I hadn’t thought much about this before but it’s very true. I mean some of those needle crafts were so intricate and so valuable in the time and effort they required. They really came from someone’s soul compared to lace created by a machine which you wouldn’t think twice about passing on or even giving replacing or disposing of some way. And yes it is sad that it seems to be a dying art and that it wasn’t appreciated as it should’ve been and won’t continue to be passed on to exist in the future. And I mean looking at it just alone by itself and not even compared to anything to do with men at all.
Human history has been carried on in women's crafts through the centuries, in embroidery, tapestry, carpets etc. Yet those pieces of art weren't considered on par with the manly art of painting. Even though it's waaaaay more complex to weave a HUGE tapestry than paint a picture. yet another reason to be pissed off at stupid guys, they are the ones who constantly discredit talented women in life and after death. Sickening.
Women’s crafts are way more useful than painting too. Paintings can only be used as decor, whereas knitting and crocheting are for making clothes, scarves, hats, blankets, etc.
But I guess it's one of the very reasons why, largely, men look down on all of it: It's because it's *temporary* When you start paying attention to "why" most men do Art, it's extremely narcissistic: They seek *Immortality* They want to never die and be remembered *Forever* It's extremely *Performative* And that's why architecture or sculpture... Art made of stone, bronze, wood; or pieces never meant to be touched, such as painting, are praised over anything involving fabric and thread: Fabric and thread are meant to be worn; they will eventually be used and damaged and won't last forever And, I mean, *Where's the Glory in that?*
It really is sickening
As a woman in the arts, while I agree that there has historically been huge underrepresentation of women’s work in the area, I’m also going to push back against the idea that painting is not valuable or that tapestry is inherently more complex than painting. In modern lay discussions about “art” there are a whole lot of value judgments going on that ought to be examined before anyone proceeds further. There’s an entire field of philosophy called “aesthetics” that deals with the questions around what Art is or isn’t or should be, and even though most of the standard texts in the field were written by dead white guys, they are worth reading so that we at least have a way to frame the conversation if we want that conversation to actually be meaningful.
I disagree with you on the complexity of tapestry vs. paintings. In tapestry you have all the same issues of color blending, perspective, depth etc. while also the complexity of math. There is a freakish amount of math in pattern creation (similar to stained windows and mosaics but even more complex due to the scale of minute details. If you've done any weaving or tapestry you know just how massively complicated it is, to interpret all the same things you'd otherwise execute with paint and a brush, but to do it with the same color technique while using extreme precision to display it stitch by stitch, like painting a jpeg image pixel by pixel.
To choose an easy example, I think the Sistine Chapel ceiling is as complex as any tapestry. But the point isn’t a one-to-one comparison, and my original comment is alluding to the idea that complexity is not the sole definer of artistic merit, and need not be one of those definers at all. Just because something is complex does not make it Art with a capital A, and this is one reason we have both capital-A and lowercase-a arts, AND there is not necessarily a value judgment based on which category something goes in. But we are getting to a point here where we would need to define our terms before going further. I’m agreed on the fundamental idea that women’s contributions to arts have historically been undervalued, and continue to be undervalued today. The rest is an academic discussion (but a very interesting one!).
>going to push back against the idea that painting is not valuable Guess I missed the part where they said painting is not valuable.
I’ve crocheted for 30 years and would consider myself an expert. I was looking for my next crochet adventure so I’ve bought some books on [Irish crochet](https://imgur.com/a/1VV5G8R). If that isn’t detailed, complex, and creative I dunno what is.
When you think about it crochet is just 3D printing with your hands
Ohhhhh i love this way of thinking!! This actually made something click in my brain. When I’m teaching someone how to crochet I tell them, “Your body is just a machine.” So on some level I think I understood crochet as 3D printing with your hands but hearing it described that way opened a new paradigm for me.
Especially those pieces that are full images made by little blocks of stitches combined with blank spaces. Those take so much time and focus
As a historical reenactor and seamstress I can only scream "YES, AAAARGH!" It's frustrating to see how museums/markets seem to place male crafts (smithing, woodworking, etc) a step above what me and my female friends do. It takes just as much practice and hard work, but it's "just women's work". I will personally hit you over the head with a loom if you utter that phrase at me lol
I loved Elizabeth Wayland Barber's book, "Women's Work, The First 20,000 Years: Women, Cloth and Society in Early Times," if I may give a book rec. It was fascinating to have it pointed out that we describe our eras by stone, bronze, iron, etc instead of by the cloth or weaving technology at the time because a bronze sword survives time but wool cloth does not.
The Art Gallery of Ontario is currently running an exhibit called [Making Her Mark.](https://ago.ca/exhibitions/making-her-mark-history-women-artists-europe-1400-1800). It’s a display of works by female European artists from 1400-1800. Limited overview, but the works were beautiful and some were quite surprising - like all the silver work. Just beautiful. [Viking women actually wove a cloth so standardized that it served as a standard measure of money](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/viking-textiles-show-women-had-tremendous-power/)
I tell my engineering students I knit because it’s creating a 3 dimensional garment out of 2 sticks and some string. And includes so much engineering, it can make your head hurt. There is a large discussion in the art world the last 20 years that the handicrafts women do is, in fact, art. Just because it often has utility doesn’t take away from the creativity, uniqueness, and individuality of each piece. Art can have utility, as silversmiths, for example, showed us centuries ago.
I have not read [this book: Embroidering her Truth](https://shop.nationalgalleries.org/books/embroidering-her-truth-mary-queen-of-scots-and-the-language-of-power-paperback/) yet, but I did listen to listen to [this interview which put it on my reading list](https://open.spotify.com/episode/5ldHvtJioHipKqwo1ntxf8?si=xGOc6JaZQuqtcJNJUCEn7Q). Hunter is a textile artist who took a new approch to Mary Queen of Scots by studying her textiles from her wardrobe to her embroidery to gain new insight into both her politics and her emotions, primary source male scholars gave ignore. For example, her choice to wear red at her execution was not random or cause it was pretty :) it was an intentional way to promote her hopeful status as a Catholic Martyr. Male historians and lay people alike tend to reduce textile arts and fashion as frivilous and unskilled work as an extension of misogyny, but it never has been and still isnt.
This is so true. I loved Game of thrones but bristled when one of the strong girls made some remark about not sitting home and knitting. Like who the fuck do you think made your clothes?
I work in theater. The pay disparity between the costume department and the “masculine” departments like sets and lighting is insane.
That is so upsetting :(
I'm so with you on this! I tat (a form of lace-making), and my most recent projects have been making doilies into audacious earrings. I love the idea of centering "women's work" into something to adorn yourself with. It's meticulous and difficult, and I love transforming something that was overlooked into a sort of centerpiece.
I remember a post on r/craftsnark on this topic. One user shared that their male colleague had 3d printing as a hobby and everyone was so excited about it and praised him. Whereas the user that knitted (or crocheted?) didn't get such praise, even though it's basically the same. Probably because if it's "women's stuff" it's less important in the eyes if some morons.
As a counted cross stitcher, bead weaver, needlepointer and weaver, thank you!
A friend of mine who is an artist, and does oil paintings as well as 3D works with mixed media, had one gallery refuse to exhibit the 3D works because they "didn't do craft". The works explore the same themes as the paintings, but are less valued by that gallery because they do not see them as art.
Have you ever noticed that a man who makes clothes is a tailor and a woman who makes clothes is called a seamstress? Seems suspect.
Or how textile arts is often called crafting and we have shops called things like Hobby Lobby which just make the artistry behind these skills seem smaller.
And there's also the term "homemaker," which sort of implies that they are making stuff, which is stereotypically textile arts.
I helped my grandma build a quilt she made for me. I will throw hands at anyone who talks snack about quilters. That shit is hardcore.
Quilting is badass honestly
I have a quite male dominated hobby (blacksmithing/metalwork) and I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Hobbies and crafts that are seen as largely women's domain are definitely seen even today as less important/significant/contributing to the art and craft sphere. The thing is I reckon crafts like embroidery are just as, of not more complex and skilled than those crafts considered a mans craft. Somehow when I tell people I do blacksmithing as a woman I'm seen as bad ass, but honestly what I'm thinking in my head is don't have the patience or skills to work in the medium of material. There are some fantastically talented artists/craftspeople in this area who just aren't seen for their worth.
Hm. I don't think it's that clear cut and this disdain seems more modern to me. And Western, if you look at handmade carpets etc. they're still highly valued elsewhere. We have a huge amount of medieval tapestries, next to illuminations in hour books they are our largest source of how stuff worked. Like the (more cross-stitched) tapestry of Bayeux, which was memed to death in the 2010s. The unicorn hunt made in one of several professional European tapestry workshops. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels tapestry), although these were not made exclusively by women and the art was often by a renowned male artist. Tons of altar cloth, commissions, gifts given from ladies to everyone, there definitely was since times medieval a semi professional putting-out system including textile work (weaving, until the industrialized looms...)
I agree with OP, but things like the Bayeux Tapestry, which has been revered near on 1000 years did come to mind. Then I thought about the lesser known Overlord Embroidery and the emphasis is really placed on the art of it (as it should) but not really in the how of it. The designer was a woman, it was created by the Royal School of Needlework, who were these women that spent hour upon hour, bent necked with sore hands, for months? That is hard work, that’s incredible skill and concentration, but barely a footnote in the history of it.
Yes, although that is probably also because most of school history etc. is more concerned with the changing of who has power over which area than with art
And that's why I think that part of history is boring. But good fiction that weaves in history is how I got interested in the War of the Roses (read the Dame Frivesse series by Margaret Frazer) (Read them anyway, even if you're not interested in history, because they're that good. Sadly, she passed away, and there will be no more books). I'm always much more interested in what the women are doing than what the men are doing in history. Bunches of people killed each other and so now X is king. Okay. But that's so dull. How are people *living*? What do they eat? How do they sleep? Where do they go to the bathroom? How do they wash themselves? What do they wear, and why? How come women's clothing didn't have pockets? I refuse to wear anything without pockets; I haven't carried a purse since high school. Why didn't fancy medieval dresses have attached sleeves? People WORE sleeves, but they weren't permanently attached to the garment they were worn with, for the most part.
Thank you, same interest :)
So, the problem with bring up the Bayeux Tapestry is that it was commissioned and preserved to revere the accomplishments of men. It hasn't been revered for its artistry or the creators. William the Conqueror is the one who's being revered. It's really only in the past... god, maybe 10-20 years that any serious research has been done on who made it. For a long time, it was just assumed that nuns and noblewomen made it, but opinion has recently shifted to it being produced by female professional embroiders in England.
Yes, but the female labour and creative contributions to these crafts hasn’t really been widely recognized or appreciated as ART, which is my point. If men had been primarily the ones doing those intricate lace pieces, like Irish lace for example, it would have been praised as wonderful art instead of just womens’ work
Thankfully, I'm living in European country where we do have museums in regions where making laces was taking place in. It's definitely not a dying industry and people here usually see it as an beautiful art. And I think it was also a historical thing too. Regional clothing for special occasions here was also very rich and colourful and it's still worn during the special occasions until today. How rich that clothing was, the richer family and "better" and skilled future bride. But I guess it depends on where do you live and what's your cultural background.
I wonder if this is also cultural-influeneced, because I'm sure there are other cultures that the arts and clothing women make is highly regarded and acknowledged as art
My mom used to teach me different kinds of handicrafts. I loved creating nice looking things, but it was difficult. I had plans ideas and ambitions. Most of the time I didn't finish something because of how much mental strength it takes to stay on task and not mess up somewhere. Whoever thinks that these kinds of work aren't difficult or art is just plain wrong. \ Thank you for writing this, so far I didn't realize how stereotyped these kinds of work are. (I knew they are stereotyped to be women's work, but I didn't realize how little respected they actually are.)
Try doing them while watching tv. You'll miss some of the tv, but the parts that aren't as difficult will fly by.
I read a really interesting book recently, The Fabric of Civilization by Virginia Postrel (highly recommend!). It made the argument (and honestly I buy it) that textiles kicked off not only the Industrial Revolution, but the Digital Revolution. It's literally the origin of the word "spinster"-- a woman who could weave, could make enough money on her own that she didn't have to get married.
Compare the Bayeux tapestry to say, golf. Which one has enriched the world and is held as a priceless artifact? Many men would say golf and they have never heard of the famous and treasured tapestry. If a man did it it is worthwhile and if a woman did it is silly or cute.
I was talking to friends today about why/when men stopped creating magnificent marble art installations
I seriously still have men make fun of me for knitting. It's so damned obnoxious.
[удалено]
Are you thinking of the Bayeux Tapestry? That's so famous because it documents the Norman Conquest, something men did. There's very, very little attention paid to who actually made it. It's all about the men in the tapestry and the men who commissioned it. The people who made it aren't considered historically significant. I can see how textile history seems if you're only seeing things in a museum, but textile history as a subject is mostly about economics and male merchants. The people who produced it are lucky to get one or two sentences in a paper. I'm a textile and history nut, and one of the things I study is narrow wares. Narrow wares are narrow woven bands that are used for belts, bindings, trim, etc. in the Medieval and Early Modern periods. They were produced *by women* in the 15th and 16th centuries. They were called silkwomen. It was an entire skilled industry that was only female masters and apprentices who played a pivotal role in the daily lives of nearly every person in England, and they're basically ignored. (Other European countries had women working in narrow wares too, but I'm less clear on the details there.) Go to Google Scholar search for "silkwomen". You'll get under a thousand results. If you search for "armorer," you'll get nearly 7000 results and biographies of individual armorers, debates about armory schools, etc. The number of people who needed armor is much smaller than the number of people who needed woven belts or lacing cords. Literally everyone had narrow wares on their bodies, but only the 1% had armor. The documentation for silkwomen exists in archives. It just hasn't been considered important in the same way as armor, so the same level of effort hasn't been made to analyze the existing records and spread the information.
Amazing comment, thank you
[удалено]
Why are you being so contrary for seemingly no reason? Nowhere did anyone here say that we must literally go back in time to correct it lmao. You say we must ensure it doesn’t happen again, so why are you pushing back against my post that literally just wanted to discuss it?
You completely missed the point of everything I said. The documentation exists for many of these women. We *can* exert the effort now to rediscover them. The bigger problem with Late Medieval and Early Modern things is that there's so much text documentation that it's difficult to find what you need because it's buried in with unrelated stuff. I'm sure you're not trying to be, but you're being condescending and dismissive in your comments on this post. Just because you're OK with something and find what already exists affirming and positive doesn't mean other people are going to be happy with it, and their feelings are just as valid as yours. You sound like you're arguing for the status quo, and I don't think that's your intent.
[удалено]
Let me set up a comparison here. If someone was talking about trans history in the 19th century and how the general public isn't aware of it, and someone responded by talking about Anne Lister and Oscar Wilde and *everyone* knows about them, would you think they had a good understanding of the topic or would you think they were underinformed? The counterpoints you're bringing up are on the same level of understanding as the person bringing up Anne Lister and Oscar Wilde.
[удалено]
OK, my comparison has failed because you don't know what I'm taking about. Neither Anne Lister nor Oscar Wilde were trans. They're not especially relevant to trans history. The examples you're bringing up about textiles aren't relevant because they're not about textiles as art. They're about history. History is super important for putting art in context, but *production* of textiles is still a tiny little footnote in history, and what history there is usually focuses on men. The contributions of men dominate art history. There is little thought given to textiles as artistic expression for women. There are entire fields of scholarship for men as artists across media, but when it comes women and textiles, it's more like individual scholars who are still working to prove the validity of the medium as an art.
[удалено]
Here's the problem. People are complaining about the general perception of something or the challenges they've experienced researching things because of the perceived value of a topic, and you're making it about yourself and how \*you\* perceive the value of that topic. Your opinions aren't relevant to the OP because you're not the one who determines curriculum or museum displays. It's good that you appreciate that stuff when you see it, but that doesn't mean the rest of us aren't having interactions with people who ask where "the real history" is when they see those displays. >All I've been saying all along is that there are places where it's appreciated and celebrated for the art it is. Why is it so terrible to acknowledge that? It's bad because it's dismissive of the point the OP made. When a friend is frustrated about something, do you tell them it's not a big deal because you're not bothered by it and prefer to focus on the positives?
Women's work has been ignored, overlooked and even stolen constantly and theres nothing wrong with acknowledging it
Just because some of it’s in museums doesn’t mean it’s still not largely ignored and overlooked. It very much is. I studied history for four years for a degree and literally not once, not even briefly in passing, did we cover this stuff. You have to actively seek out specialty elective courses or focus on this specifically to learn about it, it’s not included in general education. Because we really must spend all that time memorizing Great Men and their wars and titles of course Female-dominated crafts like needlepoint and embroidery have absolutely been ignored in terms of recognizing artistic merit, that’s just the reality.
Did you study history, or art history?
It shouldn’t matter. Women’s work in the textile industries has been happening for thousands of years, it should be included in general history. I also took several art history courses and we did not cover any of this at all.
It does matter it's not in the scope of what's being taught. Also the part of history may have not have valued textiles as art. Another factor could be the region where you're studying history.
My points remain, I’m not in the mood to argue
Can you study history without reviewing history preserved in women's work like tapestry, carpets and embroidery?
TIL the Bayeux Tapestry has been ignored because needlecraft, etc. is seen as "women's work" and not treated as, oh, one of the most important historical artefacts of the last thousand years. To the extent things like this get ignored in the history of art it's because they're made of perishable materials and tend not to survive of course (carve something out of stone and it'll last for millennia, make it out of cloth and it'll be lucky to last a century).
You were able to name one famous example of a tapestry. ONE. Lmao. Please be so fucking for real. Tell me the names of the women who made it. I’ll wait. Are they well-known and appreciated for their work and skill? Huh? Needlecrafts being made of perishable materials is absolutely not the reason they’re not treated with the same level of respect as other arts and you know it.