Recognizing women’s historical contributions is not enough. How we frame those contributions is also crucial.
One thing that frequently makes me crazy is how headlines about women are written. Attempting to drive traffic or perhaps to place women’s accomplishments in contexts editors feel will appeal to readers, lazy headlines often default to positioning women in relation to male counterparts, instead of focusing on the women themselves.
A great recent example of this were headlines about the unveiling of a ‘Blue Plaque’ (a public recognition bestowed by English Heritage in London)* honoring Krystyna Skarbek, a spy who worked for the British Special Operations Executive during World War II.
By every account Skarbek was daring and courageous, a Polish resistance fighter who carried out dangerous missions in occupied Poland and France. But when the announcement of Skarbek’s blue plaque was made in late 2020, the headlines were typically disappointing.
Here’s how The Guardian framed the story:
“Blue plaque to be unveiled for woman who was Churchill’s ‘favourite spy'”
And here’s The Standard ‘s headline:
“Spy who inspired James Bond girl played by Eva Green honoured with blue plaque at London hotel”
Neither headline names Skarbek (though oddly one mentions the artist who portrayed her in a movie!), yet both associate her with a famous male counterpart, one real, one fictional. (And don’t even get me going on ‘girl.’)
Historian Gilda Lerner argued against relegating women to ‘compensatory’ histories – merely inserting them into male narratives. Bad headlines like the ones above consign women to supporting roles. Our mission is to name women and accurately describe their achievements.
* Only 14% of English Heritage’s blue plaques commemorate women. English Heritage has acknowledged that this needs to change and are inviting the public to nominate recipients.
Sheer Ghosts 