Conclusions
This acceptance of a division along gender or sex lines as appropriate subjects for courses and for study reflects a common view that traditional history is about men. I disagree. Instead, traditional history has been primarily written by men about the social institutions and interactions in which some men are the primary actors. All men have never been able to participate in all these roles, and rarely a woman can be found filling a spot. When we say that men are the subject of history, we ignore a good number of men and almost all of the women and children who are part of the society whose history we are investigating.
Courses about women have helped us look beyond these traditional confines of history into the cultures which maintain society. Being a man is also part of what defines and maintains a society, often in relation to other categories of people, such as women or children. Therefore, if our goal is to truly understand a society and to help others understand the classical world which we all have chosen to study, we must also look at ideals of gender and sexuality in relation to men.
Many instructors in classics, ancient history, and related fields are teaching inclusive courses which discuss both men and women, and for that I applaud you all. I focused on men because this inclusion was sorely lacking at Indiana University, especially for non-modern periods. One day, I hope I never have to teach a course just about women or just about men, but instead can focus on teaching and researching the past in all its complexity and confusion. That day I will be able to say proudly and confidently that I am teaching a course about classical civilization.
