# European feminisms, 1700-1950: A political history

> 분류 체계에 의한 정보의 파편화. 남성이 중요하게 여기는 분야 위주의 분류로 인한 페미니즘 관련 정보의 파편화:

분류 체계에 의한 정보의 파편화. 남성이 중요하게 여기는 분야 위주의 분류로 인한 페미니즘 관련 정보의 파편화:

> What I discovered in American libraries and archives was that-much like women's history-the history of feminisms has never been accorded a place in existing taxonomies of knowledge. In libraries, for instance, whether under the older <Dewey Decimal System> or the now hegemonic Library of Congress classification system, there is still no separate classification for feminism, as there has long been for male-dominated sociopolitical movements-<socialism>, <anarchism>, <communism>, and so on. Socialism, for example, is classified under the category "J," for <political science>, while "women" are lumped together as "HQ," under "H" for <social sciences>. One can locate books about [feminism](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Feminism.txt) and other, parallel women's movements scrambled together with a wide range of other studies under the "social science" category "Women," but they also can be found, somewhat randomly, under many and varied rubrics among the humanities (including literature, music, and the arts) and social sciences (sociology, anthropology, psychology), as well as in specialized libraries on law, medicine, biology, business, economics, education, or on war and peace. In short, materials concerning men's sociopolitical movements and issues have been far more deliberately and carefully classified.