We were discussing gender roles in an adolescent development class. I voiced that in the US, history classes over exaggerate the roles of minorities and other groups despite their relatively small significance in the era. I pointed out gender roles forced on women and men have created a male dominated history, and forcing representation of women in history undermines women's hard work in the last few decades.

For example, many textbooks have an image of a woman next to a fighter jet during World War II. This isn't an accurate depiction and sends false sense of equality of women. Women, however, did make strides in the job field, with the majority of women holding jobs at such a massive scale. Women, despite this advance, were still discriminated. I state this should be a minor focus still to something such as the strategic storming of the European front by a combined Allied team, or the shutdown of the Japanese in the Pacific theatre.

While many historians agreed, students from other fields disagreed. They said women's history is a valid history. I didn't say it wasn't, but to say that Cleopatra or Queen Elizabeth were the norms is a complete lie that fails to depict both the transgressions against women and fail to use context while using present thought, something historians know they should acknowledge and avoid.

TLDR: Women are very insignificant through most history, enraged students. Students miss the point that recent movements in social justice have allowed for better equality of women, and this shouldn't alter historiography in lessons to reflect this or else it undermines feminist's work.