A Short History of Queer Women

Product Information

Marie may not have been interested in her husband, but she was most certainly into the ladies, and at one time was caught drooling over English writer Mary Robinson’s tits. The incident was later reported in Mary’s memoirs: “She appeared to survey, with peculiar attention, a miniature of the Prince of Wales, which Mrs. Robinson wore on her bosom …” That was superbly frustrating. The author kept trying to inject humour in the book, which wouldn't be a problem if her sense of humour wasn't the lesbian equivalent of a horny fifteen year old boy repeating the same joke over and over (The joke was variations on "lesbians amirite"). Sorry but I'm actually so offended a history book without references even got published, you can't even get away with not referencing in high school these days. But it was the nineteen-year-old widow Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy who was Marie’s personal favourite. Marie was so charmed by Marie Thérèse Louise that she regularly showered her with gifts and made her the superintendent of the royal household, which sounds more like a punishment than anything else. Queen Anne wasn’t the only royal dabbling in the dark arts of lesbianism. Marie Antoinette, Queen of France, was at it too. Marie wasn’t exactly beloved by her people; she spent a lot of money, ate a lot of food and didn’t seem too bothered that her subjects were starving in the streets. Although to be fair, Marie didn’t really have a say in the matter, as that was the job of her husband, King Louis XVI.

I debated whether to write this review of A Short History of Queer Women once I finished it. It’s a book I have very mixed feelings about and I’m still not entirely sure that I have my thoughts straight on it, but I’ll give it a go. It’s confusing to try to superimpose gender theory, as it’s taught today, on a society that didn’t operate as such. Also, I can’t be arsed. Loehr attempts to infuse a comedic tone throughout the book and it's quite frankly extremely bizarre. I can see what she was aiming for but it was very poorly executed to the point that it just made certain parts confusing. Honestly not one attempt at comedy was remotely funny - but I guess humour is subjective. Just so you know, even though you never asked, I’m Team Sarah, but I think that might have something to do with the fact that Rachel Weisz played her in the movie. But I’ve momentarily digressed here. We were discussing the author’s decision to call all of the people who feature in this book women. These are not what you might call ambiguous examples. There are individuals who dressed as men, who lived and married as men, and who were punished for it. (There is an example of someone who wore a leather dildo (outside of sex), for crying out loud. What exactly strikes you as cis woman about that?) Loehr even decides that Radclyffe Hall, despite noting that “Radclyffe identified as male and almost always wore men’s attire”, is going to be included in this book as a woman. Even if you’re going to stop short of using trans terminology to describe them, you can at least admit that they’re not cis women as we understand those terms in a modern world (and therefore, should either not be part of this book, or the remit of this book should be expanded). Some use of modern terminology is inescapable in a book like this, but it’s interesting to see what the author chooses on a more selective basis.It’s stuffed full of glorious titbits of info, meticulously researched, deliciously contextualised and done with real flair and humour. Who says lesbians can’t be funny? Here we have much proof, along with excellent historical insights into lives lived fully openly and loving without fear, and Loehr shared the stories of some wild women who lived and loved with urgent, stunning brilliance.

I was so excited to learn a little more about queer women throughout history and the cover alone had me so hyped for this book but unfortunately it failed to meet those expectations. Sure, lesbianism as a ‘concept’ did not exist in the past, but it doesn’t mean that we can’t use it to refer to certain women. (...) We must also remember that gender theory is a modern tradition, and that applying it to a society that did not function as such is just, well… (...) a bit daft. As my first foray into learning about queer female history, this book was a flop, I'd advice anyone who wants to learn more about this topic to try literally any other book than this one - and specifically one written by an actual reputable academic or similar who understands the value and importance of REFERENCING. i keep seeing that this book is getting a lot of hate for the humorous tone, millennial jokes, lots of swearing, and endless comments about having sex. i invite everyone to lighten up!!!As this is a history book, I am dealing with people who are no longer alive and cannot tell us how they identify. There are many reasons women in the past opted out of womanhood—some would certainly have been trans, others were simply trying to live and love as best they could. But to avoid superimposing my own beliefs—and for utmost narrative clarity—I choose to refer to them how history has generally referred to them: by their birth sex. And, as we know, the past is not always indicative of the future, so please feel free to get out your red pen and edit the pronouns as you see fit and according to your understanding of them. i had the pleasure of meeting Kirsty in person for a pride event Max Minerva’s hosted last month— and i can confirm she is just as lively, funny, and flirty as she is in the book. I really enjoyed reading this book as I found it was a great introduction to queer history and it was told in an accessible and entertaining way. I think hearing Kirsty talk about her intentions with the book really helped to shape my reading experience before I went into the book, not thinking it would cover the vast history of queer women’s lives, but rather would be a small selection of certain stories which Kirsty has been researching since her MA. Without having much space, she aimed to tell intersectional stories to show queer women have always been around. Let me wrap up here then (not least because this is starting to feel less like a book review and more like an essay) and leave you with this, the list of names mentioned in the book and one final point. If the job of a nonfiction book is to make you think, this has certainly done that.