History has largely been written by men. Many of the contemporaneous records were written by men whose views on race, gender, class structure, etc was framed within their (privileged) positions. Traditionalist views on all these complex human experiences in modern writing is just as irritating to me as modern conventions in historical settings.
Women have largely been written out of history, so much so that fresh historian eyes are writing books about how that came to be. There's some revision redressing some of that, including greater recognition of the roles played by women in the Easter Rising, War of Independence (Ireland). The French Resistance wasn't by any means a boys' club and good luck writing ancient Rome without dealing with very powerful women. They may not have been in the Senate, but they were still hugely instrumental.
Don't forget the fact that although William the Bastardly Conqueror grabbed all the headlines in 1066, the Bayeux Tapestry was largely woven by nuns -- and English nuns, at that.
Here's a fun fact: during World War II, the Nazis (especially Heinrich Himmler) were obsessed with the Bayeux Tapestry, and it was at risk of being destroyed or lost. The Nazis tried to steal it several times, but the Resistance thwarted them. They also tried to use it as a propaganda tool by transporting it across France, which put it at risk of damage. Luckily, it survived and was eventually returned to Bayeux after the war.
Of course women played a huge role in history. The Minoan civilization on Crete are famous for women holding a significant and prominent role in daily life, more so than in many other ancient societies. Evidence suggests a society where women were highly respected.
The medieval Norse, too, are a riddle. Outwardly, they appear to be a little boys' club. But their sagas mention plenty of heroic women too, and their priestesses (known as völvas) served as intermediaries between humans and the gods. They were highly respected, even by the gods, and wielded significant power through their ability to practice s
eidr, a type of shamanic magic.
Things were different back then, but I'm not sure human nature was. People resisted the restrictions imposed on them, whether by outward social activism or inward turmoil. I'm pretty sure Henry VIII's wives weren't just sitting around waiting to see what he might do next. Like all writing, interesting historical fiction will reveal the characters and not just the posed photograph of everyone looking stern and stoic in their formal suits.
Ha! Just the phrase "everyone looking stern and stoic in their formal suits" reminds me of the Victorians. And here's the thing: lots of people think the Victorians were intensely prudish, even to the point of covering up table legs. (Oh no! I said "leg"! The sky is falling!) =P
But those Victorians were randy buggers. =P Anyone who thinks otherwise only has to think about it: if the Victorians never had sex, how did the Edwardian age happen?
