Amelia Earhart, Marie Curie, Clara Barton – Women's History Month is often celebrated by focusing on women who have changed the course of history. By telling stories of women who have broken down barriers and carved their name into history books, we seek to create what is considered a more “inclusive” narrative. However, these women’s achievements (significant as they are) fit into a familiar framework of firsts – though they broke down barriers, they did so while participating in a patriarchal system. These heroic retellings of history, propagated by Women’s History Month, create a positive view of historical women. We tell the stories of women who overcame odds and succeeded in ‘masculine’ fields, who proved they could play the game and win. But rarely does the conversation around Women’s History Month ask a more critical question: why was the game rigged in the first place?   

Celebrating women’s history often sells us a falsely uplifting view of the past, one where women simply needed to be strong or daring enough to overcome the odds. It’s easy. It’s satisfying. But it doesn’t really address the deeper reality of patriarchy as an embedded social hierarchy, one which dictates expectations for all, not just those at the top. We don’t discuss the billions of women whose unrecognized domestic labour kept societies running for centuries, the women who carved out space within oppressive systems without ever being considered revolutionary, the women who were never given the chance to “break barriers” in the first place. This obsession with celebrating the rare female achievement rather than critically analysing the system they occur within speaks to a larger problem in our society: the watering down of feminism. 

The commodification of feminism has played a large role in simplifying the movement into something marketable and significantly less threatening to the status quo.  Once a radical ideology based on the dismantling of sexist systems, feminism is now often sold back to women through “feminist merchandise” or brand campaigns, presenting itself as a product instead of a force for change. The focus on representation of women, while seemingly progressive, does little to address the actual structural issues that feminism should be confronting. The “girlboss” ideal of glorifying women in positions of power fails to question what power even means, and how those positions are shaped by masculine ideals of authority. Moreover, this approach reinforces the notion that a woman’s value is only validated by fitting into predefined hierarchical structures.   

Now, I’m not trying to argue that women shouldn’t work, nor that learning about women who achieved great success is bad. However, throughout Women’s History Month we mustn't just explore womanhood in its static form. We should address feminism on a level which recognises that patriarchy is not just a buzzword for men in power, but an imbedded structure that dictates expectations for all. I’m calling for more educational focus on the exploitation of women’s labour – particularly marginalised women whose work has historically been undervalued. We should be exploring the ways women have carved out space for themselves, not only through radical resistance but also through quiet, subtle acts of resilience and autonomy. This isn’t about the “firsts”; it’s about understanding how those who could not fight back have still shaped history and navigated their realities. Feminist education shouldn’t be about heroism, but rather about recognizing the complexity and variety of women’s experiences across different cultural and historical contexts.   

Women’s history isn’t just about heroism and success. It’s about the everyday realities of struggle, endurance, and defiance, whether or not those stories fit neatly into an empowering narrative. If we want a real understanding of women in history, we must be willing to ask harder questions, even when those answers are uncomfortable.