Philomena Goodman in her book, Women, Sexuality and War, writes a rebuttal against those historians who dismiss women's war and oral history as reputable and worthwhile. In the introduction Goodman spends a lot of time justifying her use of oral histories in her book. Stating that 'critics of oral history suggest memory is an unreliable source of information'. She refutes it with the argument, 'oral history is not a transparent representation of experience or a reproduction of reality, but it can represent and priviledge women's words and act as a potential challenge to dominant accounts'. This is possibly an attempt to dispute critics of oral history who disagree with its evidential use. Probably arising out of previous work in which Goodman was reprimanded for its use and is therefore using this book as a defense mechanism. She also places alot of emphasis on the need for gender analysis of war and the need to eradicate androcentrism from historical accounts, aimed at silencing the critics of women's war history.
John Goodman
Oral history day 006
Oral History Society Logo.pngShe goes as far as to tell off historians that have neglected women's history;
Women's lives are different from men's and have been neglected as the starting point for research and evidence for, and against, truth-claims. They can serve as a critique of dominant knowledge claims based on the lives of dominant male groups. It is necessary to listen to women's accounts of their lives and experiences, to begin from the bottom of the social hierarchy -- namely, women's lives - combining this knowledge and these accounts with observations and theories of social relations.
These points although valid were overstressed and places the book inside a negative framework. These comments would have been more befitting in the conclusion after her arguments had been made, because their place in the introduction detracts from...