The classic beauty of First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy sharply contrasts with the overt sexuality of Hollywood blond bombshell Marilyn Monroe, and yet the public remembrance of their styles and beauty, as well as their connection to President John F. Kennedy, is both how and why these two women are recorded in history. Despite having starkly different styles and audiences due to their separate career paths and goals, Kennedy and Monroe illustrated how style and beauty were manipulated in order to portray the “American Dream.”

Kennedy vs. Monroe: Contrasting Icons in American History

No decade fully encapsulates the “American Dream” like the 1950s. A concept first developed by historian James Truslow Adams in his 1931 book, The Epic of America, the “American Dream” was purportedly achievable for everyone, no matter their race, class, or gender. While historical analysis clearly contradicts this view of America, especially in the 1950s and 1960s, the concept helps to explain the romanticized public view and idolization of both Jacqueline Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe.

Monroe and Kennedy represented two different ideals of American femininity in two different decades; their very existence highlights the contradictory nature of being a beloved American icon. The “American Dream” was an all-consuming conceptualization of the burgeoning cultural status of America in the 1950s and 1960s, and dominates both the public perceptions and historical legacies of one of the most culturally significant First Ladies, Jacqueline Kennedy, as well as Hollywood’s beloved “dumb blond,” Marilyn Monroe. The historical and cultural significance and remembrance of both Kennedy and Monroe are examples of revisionist pop culture history; their realities weren’t as ideal as commonly portrayed.

Marilyn Monroe suffered numerous traumas and tragedies in her life; her intelligence and talent were ignored in favor of her appearance. Jacqueline Kennedy similarly suffered many tragedies throughout her life, but unlike Monroe, her hardships seem to be all that Kennedy is remembered for, ignoring her intelligence and status. Both women have had their individuality pushed aside in favor of their cultural relevancy, as well as their relationship with the same man.

Women in the Post-War United States

To fully understand the styles and histories of Kennedy and Monroe, one must first understand the context in which these women existed. For many women, the 1950s and 60s were challenging. After years of aspiring to be the iconic and powerful Rosie the Riveter and playing a key role in the war effort, the expectation to return to their lives as mothers and housewives came as a shock. While Monroe and Kennedy may not have been on the factory frontlines with the average American woman, the two different paths that these women followed were what made them relatable or admirable to the public.

Monroe signed her first studio contract in 1946, just one year after the end of the war. Before being discovered, Monroe led a very similar life to the rest of American women—she was even working in a Radioplane factory when she was discovered. This made her seem more average and relatable to ordinary American women, who could fantasize about being discovered in a very mundane and unglamorous environment as well. Hollywood’s studio system of the 1940s and 1950s cemented Monroe as a Hollywood icon, but this was done by suppressing the actual person behind the persona, Norma Jeane.

Jackie Kennedy went through a similar sort of erasure and is today associated with one of two things by the average person: her role as President John F. Kennedy’s wife or her pink Chanel suit. JFK’s assassination, which must have been one of the worst moments of her life, is what she is the most associated with. While the role of First Lady is naturally subordinate, to further reduce her to simply a tragic, fashionable figure highlights how she is largely seen as an extension of JFK and that era. Before she met JFK, Kennedy was a highly educated and cultured multilinguist. However, like Monroe, her own achievements have been largely ignored; instead, she is widely viewed as a fashionable cultural figure rather than an intellectual in her own right.

Kennedy’s and Monroe’s opposing styles and lifestyles represent two different classes in America and two different versions of what the American Dream could be. Jacqueline Kennedy appeared to the American public as the ideal woman: a classy, family-oriented woman from a respectable WASP background, who both supported and prioritized her husband’s hopes and dreams over her own.

Monroe, despite being adored by the American public, was arguably the antithesis of Kennedy, and the contrast between the two women was furthered by the president’s controversial affair with Monroe in the early 1960s. Monroe didn’t have a privileged upbringing like Kennedy did, and Monroe’s lower-class background and ditsy persona were arguably what popularized her. These wholesome, girlish qualities made Monroe more relatable to the majority of the American public than Kennedy.

However unfair and limiting this may seem to a modern reader, these women represented the two primary aspirations that were presented to America’s post-war women: the doting wife or the sex symbol. Both Kennedy and Monroe were clearly so much more than the one-dimensional figures that they were portrayed as, as were most post-war women, but history does not remember them this way.

The All-American Family

John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Bouvier wed on September 12, 1953, and were the model of the perfect All-American nuclear family. The image of JFK as a young, devoted family man was central to his Presidential campaign, arguably to drive attention away from the Kennedy family’s questionable background. Despite his political image, JFK did not have the same respectable family background Bouvier did, with a socialite mother and a stockbroker father. There are countless outlandish rumors regarding the Kennedys, ranging from mafia connections to making their fortune bootlegging during Prohibition. While none have been proven, JFK was nonetheless very different from his presidential predecessors and had to deal with this speculation and gossip. It was Jackie Bouvier’s role to humanize JFK and to prove why he was a strong candidate and a good choice for President. Ultimately, JFK was not only the youngest president to be elected but also the first Catholic.

In many ways, Jackie Bouvier was seen as the perfect counterpart to suppress any worries surrounding JFK. From the very start, she was a beloved American icon. Not only did her pregnancy during JFK’s campaign help cement Kennedy’s image as the very epitome of the American Dream, it also showed JFK in a more positive light. There was no denying that he was a successful and persuasive politician, but having a doting, pregnant wife by his side further helped his image. It also created the appearance of the Kennedys as a power couple, prosperous in politics but also kind and caring towards their children. Furthermore, the fact that Jackie was ordered by her doctors to rest at home but ignored this advice to help with her husband’s election campaign padded her domestic image.

One controversy that arose during the election campaign was Jackie Kennedy’s wardrobe. The Kennedys as the perfect model of the All-American family was contradicted by Jackie’s love for French designers. The matter of her wardrobe and her style both aided and hindered her image. She was frequently praised in magazines for her clothes and was even seen as one of the best-dressed women in the world. At the same time, she was repeatedly criticized for spending what the American public, just decades removed from war-time scarcity, believed to be “too much” money on these clothes—comments that were known to hurt or irritate her.

The fact that she was a former debutante who had attended a coming-out ball was another disadvantage, as it suggested her high-class status and may have made her seem unrelatable. She suffered under press and media scrutiny, feeling that her debutant status was criticized just as much as JFK’s Catholicism.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy Jr. was born just a few weeks after JFK won the election in November 1960. This made Jackie the first new mother in the White House since the early 20th century. However, she could not stand the aesthetic of the iconic White House, disappointed in just how antiquated and outdated the decor seemed. The White House is a staple of American political history, but the very significant fact that it had been home to nearly all the American presidents was not lost on Jackie Kennedy. Determined to make the White House more appealing, she took it upon herself to restore the icon. Jackie was aware that it would be easy to portray her renovation of the White House as a frivolous hobby, and so to counteract this misogynistic view, she emphasized that she was not redecorating but restoring the people’s house.

The broadcasting of the White House restoration in 1962 was wholly successful and drew in an audience of 56 million. The show depicted the First Lady as knowledgeable about the arts, culture, and historical preservation.

The Family Man’s Mistress

It has been well documented that JFK engaged in numerous affairs—politics wasn’t the only “other woman” in the Kennedy marriage. Another aspect that made JFK so different when compared to other American presidents, and also may explain why his presidency was so glamourized, was his Hollywood connections. His own brother-in-law, Peter Lawford, was reportedly the first to introduce JFK to Marilyn Monroe. One of the most popular depictions of Marilyn Monroe is as a woman unlucky in love. Well-known for her famous marriages and infamous spats and divorces, Monroe was divorced a total of three times before her untimely death. Her infamous affair with the President did not improve this image.

Monroe’s image could not have been more different than Jackie’s studious and motherly depiction. While Monroe was a talented dramatic and comedic actress, even studying under the famous acting coach Lee Strasburg, what she was known for during the 1950s and 60s was her figure. Monroe quickly became one of the most famous, wanted, and desired young women in Hollywood, appealing to everyone from sports stars to intellectuals.

Monroe’s 1954 marriage to Joe DiMaggio is a telling example of how her sex symbol image affected both her career and personal life. Initially captivated by her beauty and sexuality, DiMaggio grew to resent her for those very same things towards the end of their marriage. Monroe and DiMaggio were known for their turbulent relationship, with Monroe’s career and image one of the main causes of friction. Like many men in the 1950s, DiMaggio wanted Monroe at home, to be a wife and eventually a mother. However, this was not compatible with Monroe’s Hollywood image.

One of Marilyn Monroe’s most well-known and famous films, The Seven Year Itch, was ultimately the catalyst for the end of their marriage. DiMaggio was reportedly furious over the iconic subway grate scene in the film. Fans, paparazzi, and the film crew were present for this scene, and their cheering and applauding only further angered DiMaggio. The next day, Monroe came to set with bruises on her arm, and while there is no proof that DiMaggio physically hurt her, when she filed for divorce, “mental cruelty” was cited as the reason.

The date of JFK and Monroe’s first meeting is unknown; some think it was at the 1957 Waldorf-Astoria ball, while others say it was at a dinner party in Santa Monica in 1961. The only recorded event that gives any weight to rumors of their relationship came on May 19, 1962, at the President’s birthday fundraiser. Monroe sang a now-famous sultry, seductive, and personalized version of “Happy Birthday,” performed in a tight, sheer dress. For many, this was proof enough.

Two Sides of the Same Coin

Jackie Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe had different public images and perceptions, but this isn’t to suggest that they were vastly different people. Both were far more than these public personas but were reduced to sexist stereotypes. Monroe suffered from agonizing endometriosis her whole life, affecting her career and her personal life, leading to multiple miscarriages. Jackie Kennedy has been described as a “reluctant” First Lady who lived her whole life in her husband’s shadow.

Time, however, has helped reveal their true stories and allowed the public to view them as the true individuals they always were. After JFK’s death in 1963 and her second husband’s death in 1975, Jackie worked as a successful editor until her own passing in 1994. Famous American journalist Gloria Steinem once reflected on the public memory of Jackie and the shock of her pursuing a career in publishing, something neither of her husbands had worked in, and applauded her for her independence.

Monroe has also been given this second chance; she is now seen as a victim of both circumstances and the times and is remembered fondly as a fantastic comedic actress and an early feminist. While JFK may have linked these two women together, he was only a small part of their vast lives.

Despite her relatively short acting career, Grace Kelly is one of the most famous names from the Golden Age of Hollywood. Helped along by legendary directors and talented designers, she captured the attention of her audience with radiance and class.

Her story turned into a real-life fairy tale when she married Prince Rainier III of Monaco in 1956. Though the marriage put an end to her film career, Grace continued to work hard, dedicating her time to charitable causes and helping those in need.

Grace Kelly’s Upbringing

Grace Kelly was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on November 12, 1929.

Grace came from a wealthy family. Her father, Jack Kelly, had made his millions with a successful construction company. Even more impressively, he won gold medals at the 1920 and 1924 Olympic Games. Grace’s mother also came from a sporting background, having worked as a physical education teacher.

Grace was the third of four children and was raised in a Catholic household. She was a shy and fragile child, prone to sinus infections and colds. Unlike her parents, Grace didn’t have a great enthusiasm for sports, preferring to play with dolls. There was, however, a theatrical streak in the family: Uncle Walter was a vaudevillian, and Uncle George was a playwright.

In 1944, Grace’s time at Ravenhill Academy (a Catholic School for girls) came to an end, and she started at Stevens School. Here, she performed in school plays, including Peter Pan and The Taming of the Shrew. After graduating in the summer of 1947, Grace tried to get into Bennington College to study dance but failed the entrance exam. Instead, she went to study at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts in New York.

Grace graduated a few years later and obtained a Broadway role in August Strindberg’s The Father alongside Raymond Massey. She also appeared in television plays and worked as a model by advertising products and appearing on magazine covers.

Hollywood Star

Grace’s first Hollywood role was in a movie called Fourteen Hours (1951). During the production, veteran actor Gary Cooper spotted the young actress while visiting the set, and the following year, Grace starred alongside Cooper in High Noon (1952).

The success of High Noon—the film was nominated for seven Academy Awards and won four of them—gave Grace’s career a big boost. Film studios offered the twenty-two-year-old actress long-term contracts, yet she was hesitant to accept, for her initial goal was to establish herself as a theater actress. However, when Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), Hollywood’s largest film studio, offered her a contract, Grace couldn’t refuse.

Her first film with MGM was Mogambo (1953), which was filmed on location in Africa. The primary location was in Uganda, and the base camp included a police force tasked with defending the cast and crew due to the ongoing Mau Mau Rebellion in the neighboring country of Kenya. There were other problems too, with hot conditions and unpredictable lighting causing issues. Despite all this, the film was a box-office success, and Grace received an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress.

Grace’s next two films were both directed by the Master of Suspense, Alfred Hitchcock. During the making of Dial M for Murder (1954), Hitchcock wanted Grace to wear an elaborate velvet robe in the scene where her character picks up the phone and is attacked from behind. But Grace pushed back against the idea, arguing it was unrealistic to wear this item just to answer the phone. Instead, she wore a simple nightgown, adding to the vulnerability and realism of her character.

In Hitchcock’s Rear Window (1954), Grace played the romantic interest of James Stewart’s character, who is confined to his apartment with a broken leg. Designer Edith Head grew friendly with Grace during the film’s production and helped bring her character to life with a range of outfits, including glamorous evening dresses and a sleek nightgown.

Further Success and a Royal Engagement

Head joined Grace in her next two films: The Bridges at Toko-Ri (1954) and The Country Girl (1954), with the latter earning Grace an Academy Award for Best Actress. Given her fellow nominees included Judy Garland and Audrey Hepburn, this was a highly commendable victory for the young actress.

Grace also worked closely with a designer named Helen Rose. Having worked together previously in the aforementioned Mogambo, they reunited for Green Fire (1954). Though Grace looked as fashionable as ever, the film itself was the low point of the actress’s career, with many considering it the only bad film she ever made.

Thankfully, she returned to form with another Hitchcock picture: To Catch a Thief (1955), in which Grace played the daughter of a wealthy American oil tycoon. Head outdid herself once again, designing several stunning dresses for the film.

Rose returned for The Swan (1956), in which Grace played a young Ruritanian princess who is courted by a crown prince and a handsome tutor, and High Society (1956), in which Grace played an aristocratic woman about to remarry. Having announced her engagement to Prince Rainier III of Monaco at the start of the year, the filming of the latter took place amid a storm of publicity.

Princess Grace

The wedding took place on April 19, 1956, just one day after the release of The Swan.

With hundreds of guests in attendance, MGM capitalized on the event by filming the ceremony, which was watched by over thirty million people worldwide. They also provided Grace with a professional makeup and wardrobe team, with Rose returning to assist once again.

After the ceremony at Saint Nicholas Cathedral, Prince Rainier and Princess Grace drove to the church of Sainte Devote, where Grace placed a bouquet of lilies as an offering to the patron saint of Monaco. The prince and princess returned to the palace and joined the guests for an elegant buffet, including a five-tier cake.

After a honeymoon aboard the royal yacht Deo Juvante II, Grace had to adjust to her new life. This involved learning a new language, adapting to royal protocol, and ignoring bouts of homesickness. Her first pregnancy made the pressure of her new life even more complicated.

Princess Caroline Louise Marguerite was born on January 23, 1957. Just five months later, Grace became pregnant again, and Prince Albert Alexandre Louis Pierre was born on March 14, 1958.

With her new family underway, Grace used her position to undertake charity and social work. In December, she recorded a Christmas radio appeal for the United Nations to help refugees in Europe. In 1963, Grace founded the Association Mondiale des Amis de l’Enfance (World Association of Children’s Friends), better known as AMADE. The organization’s purpose was to protect children from exploitation and abuse worldwide.

As well as being the President of the Monaco Red Cross, Grace founded the Princess Grace of Monaco Foundation in 1964. The foundation promoted local artisans and gave scholarships to gifted artistic children. The princess helped to modernize Monaco’s hospital, enlarge the home for the elderly, and grow the Garden Club into an international festival.

The Death of a Princess

After several tragic miscarriages, Grace delivered her third and final child, Princess Stephanie Marie Elisabeth, on February 1, 1965. As the children matured, the princess returned to the world of performing arts by joining the board of Twentieth Century Fox in 1976. She also narrated a ballet documentary by Robert Dornhelm called The Children of Theatre Street (1977).

Poetry was another outlet for Grace’s creativity. To help celebrate International Wildlife Year, she toured several American cities and delivered poetry readings. She also gave a poetry performance at the London Poetry Presentation in March 1981. Here, she met with Prince Charles and Princess Diana.

Hoping to promote Monaco’s annual flower festival, Grace played herself in a short film titled Rearranged (1982). The plot involved a scientist who the princess mistakenly believes is a champion flower arranger. The film had a small premiere in Monaco and was well-received. Following a pitch to ABC-TV in America, Grace agreed to extend the film by approximately fifteen minutes to fit it into an hour-long time slot.

However, before the extra footage could be shot, Grace was involved in a fatal accident on September 13, 1982. The princess was driving into Monaco from the family home in Roc Agel when she suffered a stroke, causing her vehicle to fall down a hill and roll several times.

Grace and her daughter Stephanie, who was also in the car at the time, were taken to hospital. While her daughter managed to recover from the accident, Grace’s injuries were too severe, and she died the following evening.

Flowers sent from many different countries covered the palace grounds. Almost a hundred million people watched the princess’s funeral on television, which was attended by royals and dignitaries from around the world.

Grace Kelly’s Legacy

Many stars from the Golden Age of Hollywood had extensive careers. Grace Kelly, on the other hand, only appeared in eleven feature films, yet she still managed to cement herself as a movie legend.

While certain actresses—like Marilyn Monroe or Brigitte Bardot—were known for their striking sensuality, Grace’s appeal was subtler yet arguably more remarkable. She was capable of lighting up the screen without compromising her elegance or propriety. The work of designers like Helen Rose and Edith Head was also key to the actress’s success, helping to turn her into a fashion icon.

Grace’s long-lasting popularity doesn’t just come from her films, though. The charity work she carried out as Princess of Monaco elevated her status still further. She recognized her privilege and did her utmost to help those less fortunate.

Ida B. Wells was one of the first outspoken advocates for racial and gender equality. Born into slavery, she became a journalist and lecturer on a variety of equality issues in America. From challenging segregation laws and gender inequality, to exposing the horrors of lynching, Wells never backed down from her beliefs. She played a key role in both the early Civil Rights and women’s suffrage movements. Despite not having the name recognition of Malcolm X or Martin Luther King Jr., Wells laid the groundwork for the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s.

Early Life

Ida B. Wells was born in 1862 in Holly Springs, Mississippi, in the midst of the American Civil War. Her parents, James and Lizzie Wells, were both enslaved at the time of her birth to Spires Boling, a prominent architect of the Antebellum Era. Although freed in 1862 by the Emancipation Proclamation, Ida and her parents would remain the property of Bolling until the conclusion of the American Civil War.

Raised during Reconstruction, Ida grew up in a household that valued education, activism, and faith. Her father was active in local politics for the Republican Party and helped start Shaw University (now Rust College), where Ida would receive her early education. In 1878, Memphis, Tennessee and the surrounding cities, including Holly Springs, were struck by a deadly bout of Yellow Fever. Highly contagious, the 1878 Yellow Fever epidemic decimated many families in the area, including the Wells family. Earlier that year, Ida was away visiting family outside of the city. When she returned, she found that her parents and one brother had perished.

At just 16 years old, Ida stepped up to care for her five remaining siblings, becoming a schoolteacher to support them. The lessons taught to Wells by her parents remained long after their deaths. She began challenging injustice wherever she saw it, particularly in the segregated schools she worked in, bringing to light the disparity between white and Black institutions. In 1883, following the death of Wells’ grandmother, she and her two youngest siblings moved to Memphis, Tennessee. These early years, marked with tragedy, struggle, and injustice, shaped the future advocacy of one of the first Civil Rights advocates.

1887 Court Case: Fighting Segregation

A year after moving to Memphis, in 1884, while traveling by train, Ida B. Wells was asked by the conductor to give up her first-class seat and move to a crowded car reserved for Black passengers. Wells had paid for her ticket and refused to move.

The conductor and two other men forcibly removed her from the car, but not without a fight. A year prior, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the 1875 Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional, legalizing segregation on public transit. Despite not having a legal basis for the injustice shown toward her, Wells sued the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad, the owners of the train car on which she was traveling,  for discrimination. In 1887, she won the case in a lower court and was awarded $500 in damages. A sum equal to just over $16,000 today.

Though the decision was later overturned by the Tennessee Supreme Court, the fight launched Wells into the national spotlight. It also marked a turning point in her life. She began writing about her experiences and the broader injustices Black Americans faced during the era of Jim Crow. Her articles appeared in newspapers around the country, and she became one of the first prominent Black female journalists in US history. Although the case did not end in Wells’s favor, it was a watershed moment in her life, beginning her fight for racial, gender, and economic equality.

Anti-Lynching Campaign

In 1892, Thomas Moss, Calvin McDowell, and Henry Stewart were lynched in Memphis, Tennessee. Lynchings occurred for a variety of reasons during the age of Jim Crow. The root cause, however, was an apparent breaking of the South’s de facto laws of segregation. The murders of Moss, McDowell, and Stewart occurred over business competition.

Moss opened his People’s Grocery in Memphis to offer a shopping alternative for African Americans and Chinese. White grocery owners took offense at the competition that People’s Grocery created. On March 2, Armour Harris, a young Black man, offered a marbles game outside of Moss’s grocery.  After what was referred to as a tense game, Cornelius Hurst, a white male, and Harris partook in a physical altercation. Calvin McDowell and Henry Stewart, employees of the grocery, intervene on behalf of Harris. William Russell Barrett, the proprietor of Barrett’s Grocery, stationed across the street, arrived the following day with a sheriff’s deputy over the previous day’s incident. After failing to arrest Moss, Calvin, and McDowell, Barrett attacked McDowell. Following the fight, McDowell was arrested but later released.

The local white population was angered over McDowell’s release and decided to take justice into their own hands. In the early morning hours of March 9, Moss Calvin and McDowell were kidnapped by 75 white supremacists and lynched. Moss’s last words were reportedly “tell my people to go west, there is no justice here.” 

The event devastated Wells. The next day, she reiterated Moss’s statement, declaring in Free Speech and Headlight that African Americans should leave Memphis for northern cities like Chicago and Detroit. She began investigating lynchings across the South, uncovering the real reasons behind them, most of which had nothing to do with criminal acts, as was often claimed. Her reporting revealed that many victims were targeted for being successful, for resisting white supremacy, or for no reason at all.

Wells published her findings in a pamphlet titled Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases. In response, an angry mob destroyed her newspaper office in Memphis. Wells was away at the time, likely sparing her life. Friends warned her not to return, but Wells began a nationwide campaign bringing attention to the murders of Blacks in the South. Over the course of ten years, Wells documented the lynchings of 959 people. Most of what is known today about race-related murders before 1930 comes from the steadfast dedication of Ida B. Wells.

The Continued Fight for Civil Rights

After choosing not to return to Memphis at the urging of her friends, Wells moved to Chicago. Having taken her anti-lynching campaign nationwide, in 1893, she traveled to England to speak out about racial violence in America. Wells understood the power of international attention. 50 years prior, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin had drawn international acclaim and strengthened the abolitionist movement worldwide.

Wells knew that if she could make the rest of the world see what was happening in the South, it might force politicians to enforce change. Her travels helped establish her as a global voice in the fight for human rights.

More Than Just Race: The Fight for Gender Equality

Ida B. Wells was more than just a journalist—she was a force in the women’s suffrage movement, too. But her experience wasn’t easy. Many white suffragists were uncomfortable with her outspoken activism, mainly her claim that African American women should be included in the suffrage movement.

Forced out of many existing suffrage organizations, she co-founded the Alpha Suffrage Club in 1913, the first Black women’s suffrage organization in Chicago. Later that year, Wells and the ASC participated in the National Suffrage Parade in Washington, D.C. When told she would need to march in the back to avoid upsetting white participants, Wells refused. As the parade began, she waited amongst the crowd, then stepped into line with her white peers. Her role in the suffrage movement helped ensure that the voices of Black women were included in the fight for the vote.

Legacy

Ida B. Wells passed away in 1931 of kidney disease, but her legacy continues to influence generations of activists. In 2020, she was posthumously awarded the Pulitzer Prize for her work in journalism, finally receiving the national recognition that eluded her during her lifetime due to her race and gender. Today, schools, streets, and organizations are named in her honor, and monuments to her dot many southern cities. Two museums in Holly Springs and Chicago tell the remarkable story of her life and advocacy. Her story is a reminder that one voice can change the world.

Mata Hari: a name synonymous with espionage, seduction, and dance routines that could mesmerize a roomful of Parisians. But was the infamous “spy” and stage star also a belly dancer? The postcards might suggest so—those coy glances, the exotic costumes—but the reality, as always, is much more complex than a simple image could convey. Mata Hari’s highly ornamented performance drew heavily on the mystique of the “Orient,” a theatrical concoction spiced with just enough cultural references to seem authentic. Her alleged mastery of Indonesian dance styles was likely more historical fiction than studied artistry. After all, Mata Hari was no stranger to reinvention, whether on stage or in the whispered backstories delivered in her boudoir.

Who Was Mata Hari?

Margaretha Geertruida Zelle MacLeod was born in 1876 in the Netherlands to a father who made—and promptly lost—a fortune. Margaretha’s early life was a whirlwind of privilege followed by the devastation of collapse. By 13, her mother had died, her father had remarried, and the once-pampered Margaretha was shipped off to live with relatives who likely considered her a burden. Even those relations could not give Margaretha the kind of exciting life she so wanted, and she was sent to learn to teach kindergarten at a ladies’ school. This was not the sort of adventure Margaretha, dark-haired and doe-eyed, wanted for herself.

At 18, she answered a newspaper ad that may as well have read, “Abusive Colonial Officer Seeks Naïve Wife.” Enter Rudolf MacLeod, a man 20 years her senior with a penchant for alcohol and an Indonesian concubine in tow. Having such a woman, whose race made her inappropriate to marry although not to engage in relations with, was fairly common, if unethical, at the time. The more public-facing marriage of Rudolf and Margaretha was a predictable disaster, punctuated by violence, plenty of alcohol, and the tragic death of their son, Norman-John, likely from complications of syphilis—an infection the couple may have passed on. After a separation that was a long time coming and the loss of custody of her young daughter, Margaretha fled to Europe with little more than her determination and ability to adapt.

By 1903, she had landed in Paris, the city where women with tragic pasts went to start over—or so she believed. “I thought all women who ran away from their husbands went to Paris,” she quipped later, with what we can only assume was a rueful smirk. At first, the City of Lights wasn’t a miracle metropolis of salvation. Margaretha cycled through gigs, including as an artist’s model and, reportedly, circus horsewoman, though whether she actually took a turn in a ring remains murky. She did star in a circus but it was as a scantily clad temple dancer, not an equestrian.

Reinventing herself yet again, she adopted the stage name Mata Hari—Malay for “eye of the day”—and debuted what she called her “sacred dances” in the early months of 1905. These performances were an interesting blend of cultural appropriation and risqué spectacle. Drawing on her years in the Dutch East Indies, she spun tales of being trained as a holy dancer in Java, though her knowledge of the culture seems to have been as thin as her veils. “With every veil I threw off, my success rose,” she later remarked.

Her fabricated mystique worked. By August 1905, Mata Hari was the toast of Paris, with newspaper columns raving about her “exotic” looks and “Hindu” dances. Critics called her hypnotic and sensual; audiences called her scandalous—and adored her all the more for it. She mingled with aristocrats, seduced wealthy lovers, and claimed the title of a modern-day Amazon, though the closest she likely got to battle was deflecting rumors and nimbly running from her debts, using charm as her armor.

Margaretha’s metamorphosis into Mata Hari was a triumph of survival and audacity, proving that a somehow fictional oral autobiography could be an art form in itself. “I wanted to live like a colorful butterfly in the sun,” she admitted. And for a while, she did, even if she had to paint her own cardboard wings to get there.

Did She Really Belly Dance?

No, not really. Despite being dressed in ornately jeweled costumes and signature midriff-bearing bustiers, Mata Hari mimicked culture rather than incorporated it. The only similarity to actual belly dance was that she did it for money, as did the Romani women who performed in royal courts and at weddings (though the latter certainly didn’t undress like the Dutch wife turned-performer).

Using her “temple dance,” Mata Hari managed to ensnare a devoted entourage of admirers from every corner of Europe. These affluent and socially elite suitors were drawn to her like moths to a flame, trading treasure for time with the body they’d glimpsed at one of her controversial performances. Mata Hari had a knack for embellishing reality and behaving as though she was the epitome of untouchable confidence. In truth, she harbored insecurities about her modest assets, making sure her small breasts were never fully on display. While there are many things we can’t know about the real woman after a lifetime of making up personal histories, we do know for certain that many facets of her were a paradox.

Mata Hari spun a tale about learning her dance moves from a Javanese priest as a child, though we know she was not in the Indies until her married life began. However, by 1911, Mata Hari was strutting her stuff on stage as a priestess who supposedly engaged in rituals honoring Shiva—or any other Indian deity. No matter what claims she made, historical accuracy and cultural sensitivity were not her strong suit. However, that didn’t deter eager audiences from flocking to her performances like they were witnessing the rarest spectacle known to mankind.

While she may have picked up the occasional exotic flourish during her ill-fated marriage in Dutch Indonesia, the reality of her dance education was mainly a crash course in the social ballroom dances of the era. Clearly, she had a flair for the dramatic—living in a cultural melting pot both in the East Indies and Paris suited this particular talent of hers.

Yet, if we’re looking at accurate historical dance traditions in the area, Mata Hari’s choreography bore little resemblance to the revered Saman Dance, commonly performed in Indonesia during the Dutch colonial rule. This traditional dance was about community, camaraderie, and a stunning display of intricate hand movements—performed by men, mind you! Mata Hari, on the other hand, looked nothing like her cultural counterparts and opted instead for a highly theatrical veneer.

Delving a smidge deeper into the realm of women’s dances from that time, Mata Hari could’ve showcased Serimpi. Derived from the local phrase “Srimpi Sangopati,” meaning the second in line to the throne, this masterpiece is accompanied by the enchanting sounds of tinkling music. The movements of the Serimpi are all about subtlety, performed by a few elegant ladies who’ve mastered the art of refined and harmonious grace. But, Mata Hari didn’t dance the Serimpi, and her performances were a concoction of her own making. She claimed they were deeply rooted in authentic Asian traditions, complete with sacred dances, but in an effort to call a spade a spade—her knowledge barely scratched the surface.

While she proclaimed herself a product of the Dutch East Indies, the reality of her stage persona was more akin to a first-rate striptease. The ever-so-sassy Colette, a well-known French novelist, remarked that “she hardly danced” at all when performing. Instead, the novelist stated rather bluntly, she knew precisely how to artfully shed her garments, revealing a long and lithe figure as she languidly undulated on stage, often swathed in a cascade of veils she would remove one by one.

So, while Romani women were oscillating between praise and persecution for showcasing their vibrant belly dance traditions, Mata Hari was effortlessly pocketing cash for a rather watered-down version of striptease masquerading as a spiritual rite. In the end, Mata Hari wasn’t fooled by her own vibrant rainbow of lies. “I never could dance well,” she confessed in a moment of honesty, “people came to see me because I was the first who dared to show myself naked to the public.” There you have it: a historical figure who transformed the art of seduction behind a facade of spirituality—all while wrestling with her own insecurities.

Mata Hari wasn’t good at belly dancing or, frankly, any dance at all. What she was unparalleled at was the art of surviving. Or possibly—lying. She definitely used one in service of the other.

Did She Actually Spy for France, Germany, or Anyone?

The femme fatale of dance and espionage lore, she fit the stereotype so perfectly that the world’s intelligence agencies just assumed she had to be a spy. After all, she was beautiful, seductive, and a master of fluffed narratives. The rather tragic plot twist is this: there’s no solid evidence she did any spying, especially not the kind that warranted a death sentence. To find out more, one must unravel a total mess of accusations, cloak-and-dagger theatrics, and some truly questionable judgment calls.

Mata Hari’s alleged “career” in espionage kicked off in the most dubious way. In 1915, while scraping by in Amsterdam after Germany confiscated her bank account and luggage thanks, mostly, to the air of paranoia that was infecting all the major governments on the precipice of WWI, she was approached by a German consul named Karl Kroemer. He offered her a code name, invisible ink, and a wad of cash to spy for the Germans. As established, Mata Hari was many things—bold, creative, and ambitious—but she wasn’t obviously loyal to anyone. She took the money and bought the train tickets she needed to get out of dodge, but there is no evidence she did anything spy-worthy with it. Later, she would vehemently deny conducting any actual espionage, though her accepting of German cash was enough to doom her in the eyes of her accusers.

By 1916, Mata Hari was back to living in Paris and flaunting her usual flippant attitude toward those in conventional power. French intelligence caught wind of her German “connection” and decided to reel her in, propositioning her to serve as a French spy. She was given a near-impossible first task. She was to seduce the Crown Prince of Germany, Wilhelm, and pass on his secrets to those in France who could weaponize them. According to Mata Hari, this mission never succeeded. How anyone could have thought this character would make a good spy, once getting to know her, is utterly laughable. She was the embodiment of bold and brash, never one to choose subtlety or blending in. Her approach to espionage, if you could call it that, was more “champagne-fueled flirtation” than quiet plotting and strategy.

For poor Mata Hari, things took a darker turn and her run of unbelievable luck ran out. French authorities intercepted German messages, written in a code they knew had been compromised, that painted Mata Hari as a cunning double agent. Historians have since taken the stance that these messages were likely sent deliberately to frame her. In these early war years, France was desperate to boost morale during a conflict killing an entire generation of men and pinning their struggles on a treacherous, scandalous foreigner seemed like just the distraction they needed.

Distraction and spectacle it was, too. When her trial began in 1917, Mata Hari’s fate was all but sealed. The evidence was circumstantial at best, with much of it revolving around her lifestyle as a courtesan rather than any documented espionage activities. She wasn’t allowed to call witnesses who could have testified to her innocence, leaving the totality of her defense on her own shoulders. She was a convenient scapegoat who seemed at many points to not grasp the severity of the allegations against her. As the Washington Post later revealed, French authorities needed someone to blame for their military failures, and Mata Hari—with her daring dances and unapologetic lifestyle—was the perfect target.

Did she spy for Germany? Doubtful. Did she spy for France? Not effectively. Did she spy for anyone? Honestly, it seems more likely she was just trying to survive in a world that was more interested in her body than her brain. “I did what I could for France,” she reportedly said, but the reality is she was a free agent caught in a deadly game she never fully understood.

In the end, Mata Hari stood before a firing squad at dawn in 1917, refusing a blindfold and facing her executioners with an unflinching poise. She was convicted as a spy, but the real crime might have been society’s relentless need to turn her, a woman who lived by her own rules, into a villain. Maybe that is her legacy: a woman who dared to live on her own terms in a world that couldn’t handle her audacity.

Did Mata Hari Do Anything for Dance or Fashion?

Mata Hari wasn’t just a performer—she was a walking, twirling, scandalously-draped revolution in both dance and fashion. While she may not have mastered ballet or even win over the most critical connoisseurs, Mata Hari undoubtedly knew how to command a stage—and a much coveted Vogue spread. Her legacy in these fields may not be as tangible as her contemporaries, but her impact is a blend of bold creativity, what we’d now call cultural appropriation, and a level of self-promotion that is easily on par with a modern Instagram model.

When Mata Hari burst onto the Parisian scene in the early 1900s, she wasn’t your typical prima ballerina. And therein lay her genius. Mata Hari understood that most privileged audiences wanted spectacle, not technical perfection. She wrapped herself in veils, borrowed liberally from the fad of orientalism, and transformed her performances into a heady mix of sensuality and mystery. This wasn’t just dance—it was theater, marketing, and cultural commentary all rolled into one appealing package.

Fashion, of course, was an integral part of Mata Hari’s allure. She was a muse for the great designer Paul Poiret, whose bold creations often blurred the line between art and fashion. Poiret’s designs, like his infamous “lampshade” dress, helped define the opulence and daring of the maximalism of the Belle Époque, and Mata Hari was a perfect model for his aesthetic. She was photographed in luxurious, clinging gowns that pushed the boundaries of good taste. While her contemporaries like Isadora Duncan and Maud Allan gained fame for their artistry, Mata Hari gained attention for her style and daring. In a 1913 Vogue fashion spread, she stunned in one of Poiret’s creations, cementing her place as a controversial fashion icon of her era.

Yet, Mata Hari’s career in dance and fashion wasn’t without its challenges. She was compared—sometimes unfavorably—to contemporaries like Duncan and Allan, both of whom were considered more serious artists. Isadora Duncan, for instance, dismissed Mata Hari as an imitator, while Maud Allan’s performances were praised for their grace and modernity, even as critics lampooned her “kitsch” habits while on the stage. Despite this, Mata Hari carved her own niche, proving that performance art didn’t have to follow the rules of tradition.

Mata Hari’s story is as much about timing as talent. She rose to fame during a period of radical change in dance, fashion, and society. Her costumes and performances captured the zeitgeist of orientalism—an era obsessed with the exoticism and the “mystery” of the East, fueled by Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes and a growing fascination with non-Western aesthetics. At the same time, fashion was shedding its restrictive corsets and embracing freer, more daring silhouettes, thanks to designers like Poiret and years later, Coco Chanel. Mata Hari rode this wave of cultural change, becoming a style icon who blurred the lines between dancer, courtesan, and muse.

By the time World War I broke out, however, Mata Hari’s star was dimming. Modernist dancers like Duncan and Allan had taken the spotlight, and the extravagant orientalism that had defined Mata Hari’s performances began to feel out of step with the leaner, wartorn times. Her attempt to dance with Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes fizzled, and her pricey engagements dwindled. Yet her legacy endured—not necessarily for her technical skill but for her audacity, her ability to captivate an audience, and her talent for making heads turn.

In the end, Mata Hari’s contributions to dance and fashion may not have been groundbreaking in the traditional sense, but they were undeniably impactful. She showed the world that art isn’t just about study and knowledge; it is equally about imagination, reinvention, and knowing how to master the spotlight. For a time, no one owned it quite like Mata Hari.

Egyptology is often remembered through its most dramatic moments: an archaeologist in the field, a tomb uncovered, a discovery entering the history books. But behind those moments were women whose notes, correspondence, teaching, research, and relationships helped build the field.

In this episode of TheCollector Podcast, we speak with Dr. Kathleen (Kate) Sheppard, professor of the history of science at Missouri S&T and author of Women in the Valley of the Kings and Tea on the Terrace. She explores the overlooked contributions of women in Egyptology and the social networks that shaped the field, revealing a history that looks very different when we move beyond its most famous names.

Historians weren’t necessarily looking for the women behind the resources. They were looking at what happened on a site, rather than asking who took the notes, who preserved the records, and whose work made it possible for us to know what happened there.

Women in Egyptology and the Making of the Field

Modern Egyptology took shape in the 19th century as scholars learned to read ancient Egyptian texts and archaeologists developed new ways to study and record the past. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Egyptology was drawing a swath of enthusiastic scholars, archaeologists, and travelers to Egypt.

Women were always part of this burgeoning field. Because Egyptology was still taking shape institutionally, women had unique opportunities to participate through research, teaching, and fieldwork. Still, many of their contributions aren’t mentioned in the most famous stories from the field, which tend to focus on headline-grabbing discoveries made by men.

In the episode, Dr. Sheppard shares her research on these women, the records they left behind, and the networks that supported their essential work. She also considers Egyptology’s ties to European imperialism and colonialism, offering a fuller picture of how the field developed and who helped shape it.

The Stories Hidden in Egyptology’s History

Dr. Sheppard’s research brings many of these overlooked figures back into view. In Women in the Valley of the Kings: The Untold Story of Women Egyptologists in the Gilded Age, she introduces us to Egyptologists like Margaret Murray and Caroline Ransom Williams. Their stories show why seemingly ordinary records can matter so much to historians. In some cases, the careful records women kept are the reason we know what happened at all.

In Tea on the Terrace: Hotels and Egyptologists’ Social Networks from 1885–1925, Dr. Sheppard examines social environments like hotels where Egyptologists gathered, revealing how informal social networks shaped the discipline. Together, these studies offer a broader picture of Egyptology—one built not just on famous discoveries, but on the conversations, correspondence, and invisible labor that made those moments possible.

Women were not always allowed to participate in politics or even vote. It was a long fight for women to have their voices heard. Even today, in some parts of the world, women are seen as less than their male fellow citizens. Throughout history, many pioneering women had to fight hard, risk their lives, and even willingly sacrifice to achieve equal rights. This article will explore the inspiring lives of four fascinating women in political leadership who left an everlasting legacy on global politics and shaped our world.

1. Cleopatra VII (69-30 BCE)

In antiquity, one of the most fascinating women in leadership was Cleopatra VII Philopator. She was a legendary ruler, one of the most influential political leaders, and the last active ruler of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt, which faced the aggressive expansion of the Roman Republic.

The Ptolemaic dynasty, Macedonian by descent, ruled the Kingdom of Egypt after the death of Alexander the Great. After Cleopatra’s father, Ptolemy XII, died in 51 BCE, the Kingdom of Egypt faced a power struggle between Cleopatra and her younger brother, Ptolemy XIII. It was then that Cleopatra realized that she would need to develop her diplomatic skills and find strong allies.

She saw a perfect opportunity in the Roman ruler, Julius Caesar. During the political conflict with her brother, Cleopatra fled Egypt to Syria, where she gathered an army to fight her brother. It was at that time that she allied with Caesar. According to some legendary tales, she was smuggled to her meeting with Caesar, arriving rolled up in a carpet. She partnered with the Roman leader and secured her throne in Egypt.

In addition to forming a military and economic partnership with the Roman Republic, Cleopatra and Julius Caesar became lovers. They were a power couple, bettering each other and securing their political stances. According to Plutarch, they welcomed a child together and connected two powerful states in every sense. However, their happiness and partnership were short-lived due to Caesar’s assassination in 44 BCE. Cleopatra was in Rome at the time.

With Caesar’s assassination, Cleopatra lost the father of her child and a powerful ally. Faced with an unstable situation, she had to be decisive and secure the future of her state. She found a new ally in Mark Antony, a famous Roman general and member of the Second Triumvirate.

Mark Antony found Cleopatra to be a fascinating woman. They formed a powerful allyship but also a passionate romantic relationship. Together, they were a strong political and military unit. Cleopatra saw a downfall with the rise of Octavian (the future emperor Augustus), the political nemesis of Mark Antony. Octavian defeated the couple in the naval Battle of Actium in 31 BCE. A year later, Cleopatra committed suicide. According to most Classical authors, she took her life with the help of an asp, a venomous snake.

Cleopatra not only made strong political alliances but was also an astute policymaker. She was determined to boost the Egyptian economy and education. Cleopatra encouraged international trade and guided her people through an extremely challenging period. Although she ultimately did not secure her state’s independence, she refused to surrender without a fierce fight and chose to end it on her terms. Cleopatra is one of the most recognized and fascinating political leaders.

2. Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603)

Queen Elizabeth I was one of the strongest English monarchs, changing the course of world history. Her life was far from easy, and solidifying her position and authority was challenging. She was the last ruler of the famous Tudor dynasty, and her reign is considered a golden age of English history, also known as the Elizabethan Age.

Elizabeth was the daughter of one of the most controversial royal couples in history, King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. Due to the multiple marriages of her father and the beheading of her mother, Elizabeth’s childhood and teen years were difficult.

Elizabeth became a queen at the age of 25, and her legitimacy was questioned every step of the way. Being a woman in the leading role, especially considering her family history, was quite uncommon at the time. However, Elizabeth proved her political opponents wrong.

Elizabeth inherited the English throne and crown during a tumultuous period, with religious and political conflicts raging across the kingdom. However, she successfully resolved the dispute between Catholics and Protestants, establishing herself as a strong monarch, the epitome of absolute monarchy. In 1559, the Elizabethan Religious Settlement (composed of the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Uniformity) led to a more moderate and tolerant tone to the Church of England, ultimately bringing religious stability to the land.

Elizabeth was also a pragmatic leader, knowing when to turn to diplomacy and when to wage a war. She famously defeated the Spanish Armada sent by King Philip II and turned England into a naval power. During her reign, the Kingdom of England started to explore unknown lands, paving the way for the future colonial empire. Elizabeth chose not to get married and was remembered as the “virgin queen” bringing religious and mythical elements to her persona. She may have been the last Tudor sitting on the English throne, but she is one of history’s most influential monarchs.

3. Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1964)

Eleanor Roosevelt was one of the most influential political voices in the United States’ contemporary history. She was the first lady and wife of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Besides her political and social advocacy, she is credited with being the first president’s wife who changed the role of the first lady from being ceremonial to being more proactive and influential. Indeed, she was involved in many causes, from women’s rights to civil rights.

Eleanor Roosevelt was a woman who was not afraid to speak her mind. During the presidential campaign and after, she frequently visited different media outlets and discussed causes and issues she supported. She also wrote and held press briefings, ensuring women’s voices were heard and acknowledged. Eleanor, for example, was among the first women in such a public space to discuss gender equality and rights.

Besides being a women’s champion, Eleanor Roosevelt was also a civil rights advocate. She opposed racism and was against the ongoing segregation. In 1939, her resignation from the Daughters of the American Revolution organization due to its refusal to allow American singer Marian Anderson to perform was widely reported in the media, drawing attention to the issue of racism. After stepping down from the organization, Eleanor invited the singer to perform at the Lincoln Memorial.

When her husband died in 1945, Eleanor Roosevelt continued to be involved in American politics. Because of her experience and skills, President Truman appointed her a delegate to the United Nations, where she excelled and greatly influenced important policies and declarations. She was a member of the UN when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed in 1948.

Through her groundbreaking work, Eleanor Roosevelt left an undeniable legacy and influence. Even after her time at the UN, she continued to work on various human rights causes and fight for a better and brighter future.

4. Angela Merkel (1954- )

Angela Merkel is a German politician and one of the most influential people in modern and contemporary politics. She was the German chancellor from 2005 to 2021, becoming the first woman to hold the office and the longest-serving since Otto von Bismarck. Merkel broke many barriers for female political leadership and left an everlasting legacy in Germany and world politics.

Angela was born in East Germany (the DDR) during the extremely challenging Cold War years when the Berlin Wall divided the country into two political entities. She showed various interests in science from a young age, so it’s not surprising that she became a physicist. Her scientific background and analytical mind made her a strong, pragmatic, and fact-based political leader.

When she decided to enter the political scene, her approach was methodical and decisive. In 2000, she joined the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and became its leader. By working hard and spreading her party’s program regarding economic and social strength, Merkel quickly became one of Germany’s most respected politicians and, finally, the German chancellor in 2005.

Her time as a counselor was far from easy. Germany and Europe faced several challenges, including the Eurozone crises (2009-2012), which caused many markets to crash. Angela Merkel handled the situation well, seeking to stabilize the Euro and the economy in Germany and other countries that were part of the economic bloc and dependent on each other.

Another challenging moment Merkel faced as the German chancellor was the 2015 refugee crisis. She supported the so-called “open door policy” which meant allowing people seeking safety and fleeing their country because of wars, destruction, and famine to find refuge in Germany. Her humanitarian decisions showed her empathetic side and awareness that political leaders have to take responsibility and model humanitarian behavior that would become the standard in world politics.

While Merkel was praised for her political decisions, her “open-door policy” provoked a backlash from right-wing groups, highlighting the polarizations dividing Germany’s political landscape.

Angela Merkel achieved so much during her time in office that countless books and documentaries have been made to express admiration for her and her political legacy. She stepped down in 2021, leaving a legacy of economic success and political integrity. She deservedly earned the nickname Mutti, or Mother.

These four women in leadership lived in four different eras of human history. They faced various difficulties and discrimination but persevered and successfully challenged existing political establishments. Their determination and fight for women’s place in political leadership inspired and paved the way for women to have more agency and participate in political decision-making.

Although the 14th and 19th Amendments to the US Constitution had seemingly put women on equal legal status with men in the United States, the reality was that sexism was deeply entrenched in all parts of life. However, the growing successes of the Civil Rights Movement (1948-1965) inspired women to launch their own movement for greater equality. In the 1960s, women began organizing and protesting for equal rights in the areas of employment, marriage, health care, and personal finance. During this era, women were often denied access to many jobs, forced to remain in unhappy or oppressive marriages, and had to receive their husbands’ or fathers’ approval for certain medical care or financial transactions.

Setting the Stage: Early Feminists Urge Equality

There was little gender equality in early America, but there were still many individual women who fought hard to make positive changes in this area. Perhaps the original American feminist was Abigail Smith Adams, wife of the second US President John Adams. Remembered for her famous quote to the Founding Fathers to “remember the ladies,” Abigail Adams was an intelligent and hardworking woman who handled her family’s business affairs while her husband was away from home as a diplomat. In a rarity for the time, Adams deeply appreciated and respected his wife’s advice on political affairs.

More widely known as an original feminist is Susan B. Anthony, who was born around the time of Abigail Adams’ death. Anthony believed in equality and was an abolitionist who argued passionately against slavery. She and Elizabeth Cady Stanton held conventions beginning in the late 1840s to advocate for women’s suffrage, or the right to vote. The most famous of these, held in 1848 by Stanton and fellow suffragist Lucretia Mott, was the Seneca Falls Convention in New York. This event is considered the first Women’s Rights event in the United States.

Setting the Stage: The Suffrage Movement

Despite the best efforts of Susan B. Anthony, who passed away in 1906, the suffrage movement faced staunch resistance from social conservatives. However, Anthony’s death occurred during the Progressive Era, when American society was more receptive to government and social reforms. Suffragettes were well-organized during the early 1900s and had the support of many Progressive Era reformers. Many individual states began granting women the right to vote, though most Southern states did not.

Although a US Constitution amendment to grant women the right to vote had been proposed as early as 1878, shortly after Anthony and others cast their own ballots in violation of the law, women’s groups were only firmly united behind passing this amendment in the 1910s. In 1917, the changing of New York state law to allow women to vote swayed US President Woodrow Wilson to support the women’s suffrage amendment and created a critical mass (necessary minimum to grow) of support behind the amendment. Three years later, in 1920, the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified by the states, granting women the right to vote in all elections.

Setting the Stage: World War II and Factory Labor

Sadly, the right to vote did not significantly change women’s positions in society as many suffragettes and progressives had hoped—at least not very quickly. There was slow progress in increasing women’s ability to work outside the home, which reached approximately 50 percent of single women by 1930. However, only 12 percent of married women worked outside the home, and most were relegated to domestic employment (household help), nursing, or clerical work (typing and other secretarial tasks). During the Great Depression, women’s employment prospects were actually harmed as jobs went to men, who were seen as the default breadwinners for families.

World War II erupted in December 1941 with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and swiftly pushed the United States into full mobilization for war. As men entered the military, their jobs needed to be filled to maintain industrial production and keep society running. For the first time, large numbers of women took on industrial jobs and skilled positions, proving they could handle such tasks with distinction. In both World War I and World War II, the legal basis for equal pay for equal work was established but was often ignored or manipulated by factories to underpay women. Despite lower pay, women worked admirably and constituted 37 percent of the civilian labor force by 1945.

1946-1950s: Women Forced Back Into Domesticity

When World War II ended in September 1945, millions of men returned from military service and retook their previous positions in industry. Women were forced out of jobs, and many employers that had hired women during the war changed their policies to only hire men. If women did remain employed, they sometimes saw their pay reduced due to changing job descriptions. Part of this reversal of women’s employment was due to fears of men being underemployed (working jobs with lower pay or lower skill), and part was due to Cold War societal pressure on women to become homemakers to contrast with working women of the Soviet Union.

An economic boom during the 1950s reduced the need for most white women to work, and most sources of influence on young girls—educators, mass media, and political leaders—pushed the narrative that women should quickly get married, have children, and stay home to run the household. However, women continued applying political pressure to be included in government and given equal pay for equal work. Underneath the positive imagery of the 1950s economic boom, many low-income and minority women did not enjoy what the media depicted and were forced to work outside the home for unfairly low pay. However, their feelings of oppression were about to be met with two tools: a powerful social movement and increased education that provided tools for change.

1963: The Feminine Mystique Sparks a Movement

The Civil Rights Movement, considered by many to have begun in 1948 when US President Harry S. Truman desegregated the military, became widespread in the South during the 1950s. Black men and women used peaceful protest to demand desegregation and equal treatment and slowly achieved victories through boycotts, sit-ins, marches, and lobbying public officials. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was the first federal law regarding equal rights for minorities since the Reconstruction Era after the American Civil War. Women saw these victories and questioned their own condition of being treated as less-than-equal.

In 1963, author Betty Friedan published a book that received a small initial printing of 3,000 copies: The Feminine Mystique. The book was the result of research Friedan had conducted on women college graduates and the lives of women, including media portrayal, during the late 1950s. Women found the book groundbreaking, as something finally detailed their feeling unfulfilled due to societal expectations of domesticity, and it triggered demands for equality. The fight for women’s equality surged to unprecedented levels since the suffrage movement, and US President John F. Kennedy added women’s rights to his civil rights platform.

Late 1960s: Women Seek Liberation From Oppressive Standards

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, proposed under Kennedy and signed into law by his successor, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, included gender as a protected class. This was a major legal victory for women’s equality and complemented the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Unfortunately, some business leaders resisted and argued that it was costlier to employ women. While women had won political and legal victories, many societal leaders still expected women to take subservient roles. Second-wave feminism arose to fight oppressive social standards that had almost as much power as the previous legal standards.

Gloria Steinem became a leader of second-wave feminists by fighting to increase abortion rights for women in 1969. Up through the 1960s, many women had no legal access to abortion and were forced to give birth to children in impoverished or unsafe homes. Pregnancy could be used to trap women into unhappy and even violent relationships. Steinem and Freidan, who had founded the National Organization for Women (NOW) in 1966, helped grow a women’s movement to pursue equality in non-employment areas like marriage, personal finance, and health care to prevent women from being trapped in bad relationships.

1967-71: Incremental Improvements for Women

Although laws in 1963 and 1964 granted equal pay and hiring/termination protections for women, some employers resisted by avoiding hiring women. In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson used executive orders to expand requirements that federal government agencies and contractors (companies that provide services for government agencies) provide equal employment opportunities for women. This prevented many jobs from being labeled as “men only.” In 1968, regulatory agencies determined that job openings could no longer mention a gender preference or requirement.

The year 1969 was a landmark year for women’s rights, with single-sex job requirements being deemed unconstitutional in the case Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive. Women had to be given the chance to meet gender-neutral standards of strength and skill, opening up many industrial jobs and first responder positions. Socially, a major breakthrough in women’s liberation was achieved that same year, with California becoming the first state to allow no-fault divorce. Previously, women could be trapped in bad marriages if they could not sufficiently prove abuse or adultery to a court. By 2010, all US states had legalized no-fault divorces.

1972: Congress Passes Title IX and Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

Three years after the landmark victories of 1969, two major federal acts energized women’s participation in American society. The first was the passage of the Title IX amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This periodically amended education law applies to all public institutions that receive federal funding assistance, including colleges and universities. Title IX requires equal funding to be provided to girls’ and women’s extracurricular activities and requires institutions to investigate allegations of sexual harassment and sex-based discrimination. It revolutionized education for girls (K-12) and women (higher education) by opening up many programs, extracurricular activities, and sports.

An even greater political event occurred with Congress’ passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) of 1972. The simple amendment to the US Constitution would have allowed Congress greater power to prevent any state from “denying or abridging” anyone’s rights on the basis of sex. This groundbreaking event, which had been attempted previously in the 1870s and 1920s, was finally achieved with the help of new women legislators in Congress, especially Shirley Chisholm of New York, who introduced the ERA in the US House of Representatives in 1969.

Late 1970s-1980s: Legal Movement Wanes

To ratify the ERA, 38 of the 50 US states needed to approve it through their state legislatures. Quickly, 30 states did so, but then momentum stalled. There was a 10-year time limit for ratification, so the June 1972 passage by Congress meant a deadline in June 1982. Sadly, the ERA expired with 35 of the necessary 38 states having ratified. In 2020, the 38th US state, Virginia, ratified the 1972 ERA. Although the amendment has expired, subsequent state ratifications signal support for women’s equality.

The loss of momentum for ERA ratification in the late 1970s was part of renewed conservatism in American society. In 1980, Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan helped usher in the New Right and a reinvigorated conservative movement. His political ally, conservative attorney Phyllis Schlafly, successfully criticized the ERA as having gone too far to grant women equality. She said the amendment would subject women to a military draft and hurt women when it came to legal and child custody issues.

Today: Women’s Equality Still a Socio-Political Movement

Despite the renewed conservatism of the 1980s, women still held an unequal role in American society. In the early 1990s, the return of a more liberal administration to the White House, with Democratic US president Bill Clinton and outspoken First Lady (and later presidential candidate) Hillary Clinton, helped usher in the age of third-wave feminism. Women pushed for more political representation and more inclusive policies in education and employment that prevented women from being tacitly punished for being mothers. Although women often seemed equal to men on paper, they routinely faced glass ceilings that prevented them from holding executive positions.

In the mid-2000s, the continued fight against glass ceilings was joined by the Me Too movement against sexual harassment. The movement gained prominence in 2017 when Hollywood actresses began speaking out against sexual harassment and assault they had experienced in their careers. This began nationwide discussions about discrimination still faced by women through personal relationships, including employers. Power differentials explained how many women in the 2010s and 2020s, although equal on paper, were manipulated or trapped into harmful relationships that limited their social, educational, or professional potential.

The Diary of a Young Girl, written by Anne Frank, a teenage German Jew, while in hiding in the Nazi-occupied Netherlands, is perhaps the most widely read account of the Holocaust. Quotes from Anne Frank’s diary and other writings are often part of official commemorations of the Holocaust and school curricula worldwide. Written under exceptional circumstances, Anne Frank’s account is a testament to perseverance and humanity in the face of the constant threat of persecution and death.

The Diary of Anne Frank

Anne Frank received her diary, a red-and-white plaid notebook, on her 13th birthday on June 12, 1943. At the time, the young Anne was living in the Nazi-occupied Netherlands with her older sister, Margot, and her parents, Otto and Edith Frank. Like many other German Jews, Otto had decided to leave Germany after Adolf Hitler seized power in 1933. In Amsterdam, Anne’s father opened a pectin firm, and, despite the initial financial struggles, the family began to feel at home, temporarily safe from the anti-Semitic persecution waged by the Nazi regime.

In the first entry, dated June 12, Anne expressed her hope to turn her diary into a close confidant: “I hope I will be able to confide everything to you, as I have never been able to confide in anyone, and I hope you will be a great source of comfort and support.” At the time, the 13-year-old did not yet know that the plaid journal would become her lifeline in the following years, a way to try to make sense of the unprecedented historical circumstances she was forced to witness. In the two years spent in hiding, writing in her diary “kept her company and kept her sane,” as Nathan Zuckerman, the protagonist of Philip Roth’s The Ghost Writer (1979), remarked.

Anne Frank and her family went into hiding on July 6, 1942, less than a month after Anne’s birthday, when Margot was notified of her imminent deportation to a work camp in Nazi Germany. “So there we were, Father, Mother and I, walking in the pouring rain, each of us with a schoolbag and a shopping bag filled to the brim with the most varied assortment of items,” wrote Anne in her diary.

After unsuccessfully trying to secure visas to immigrate to the US, Otto began turning an extension, the “secret annex,” on the second floor of his firm’s headquarters at 263 Prinsengracht into a hiding place. Otto’s business partner, Hermann van Pels, and his family and dentist Fritz Pfeffer later joined the Franks in the annex.

Until August 4, 1944, when a group of German soldiers discovered and arrested them, along with their Dutch helpers, Anne recorded her daily life in the annex, her fears about the present, and her hopes for the future in her diary. She wrote letters addressed to a real and imaginary group of friends, mainly Kitty, a character created by Dutch writer Cissy van Marxveldt in the Joop ter Heul book series.

Anne Frank’s Quotes on Nazi Rule

The Frank family’s hopes that the Netherlands could provide a stable refuge from the persecution and anti-Semitic violence of the Nazi regime shattered on May 10, 1940, when German troops crossed the country’s borders (even though the Dutch government had declared its neutrality) on their way to France. The Dutch army surrendered five days later, on May 15.

As the Nazi authorities took control of the country, the approximately 140,000 Jews living in the Netherlands had their rights and freedom gradually stripped away, as the Nazis, led by the Reichskommissar (Reich Commissioner) Arthur Seyss-Inquart, sought to exclude them from society. Soon, Jews were forced to wear a yellow star on their clothes with the word Jood, meaning “Jew” in Dutch.

In her diary, Anne reported the worsening situation in an entry written on June 20, 1942, and listed the long series of restrictions introduced by the Nazi authorities against the Jewish population:

“Our freedom was severely restricted by a series of anti-Jewish decrees: Jews were required to wear a yellow star; Jews were required to turn in their bicycles; Jews were forbidden to use street-cars; Jews were forbidden to ride in cars, even their own; Jews were required to do their shopping between 3 and 5 P.M.; Jews were required to frequent only Jewish-owned barbershops and beauty parlors; Jews were forbidden to be out on the streets between 8 P.M. and 6 A.M.; Jews were forbidden to attend theaters, movies or any other forms of entertainment; Jews were forbidden to use swimming pools, tennis courts, hockey fields or any other athletic fields; Jews were forbidden to go rowing; Jews were forbidden to take part in any athletic activity in public; … You couldn’t do this and you couldn’t do that, but life went on. Jacque always said to me, ‘I don’t dare do anything anymore, ’cause I’m afraid it’s not allowed.’”

The Dutch population initially protested against the anti-Semitic measures, organizing a general strike in February 1941 following the arrest of several hundred Jews. In the following years, however, the Nazis began to systematically round up the Jews residing in the Netherlands and send them to the Westerbork and Vught camps. From there, starting in the summer of 1942, most prisoners were transported to the concentration and death camps of Auschwitz and Sobibor in Nazi-occupied Poland.

The survival rate among the Dutch Jews was especially low, with only 27 percent of the deportees managing to return home after World War II. Adolf Eichmann, one of the main coordinators of the Holocaust, was favorably impressed by the efficiency of the deportation from the Netherlands, commenting, “In the beginning you could say that the trains from the Netherlands were really rolling; it was quite wonderful.”

In the “secret annex,” Anne Frank frequently commented on the unprecedented situation she lived in and the horrors of the Holocaust. “The world’s been turned upside down. The most decent people are being sent to concentration camps, prisons and lonely cells, while the scum of the earth rules over young and old, rich and poor,” she wrote on May 25, 1944.

On October 9, 1942, she had already confided to her imaginary friend Kitty:

“Dearest Kitty,

Today I have nothing but dismal and depressing news to report. Our many Jewish friends and acquaintances are being taken away in droves. The Gestapo is treating them very roughly and transporting them in cattle cars to Westerbork, the big camp in Drenthe to which they’re sending all the Jews. … If it’s that bad in Holland, what must it be like in those faraway and uncivilized places where the Germans are sending them? We assume that most of them are being murdered. The English radio says they’re being gassed. Perhaps that’s the quickest way to die.”

Unbeknownst to Anne, in January 1942, 25 high-ranking Nazi officials had coordinated the so-called “Final solution to the Jewish question” at the Wannsee Conference, setting in motion the plan for the systematic deportation and extermination of European Jews.

Anne Frank’s Quotes on Self

Anne Frank’s diary is not only an eyewitness account of a young Jewish girl living under Nazi rule, but it is also a literary work depicting the emotional, psychological, and ethical maturation of a young woman and writer. While the earlier entries focus on her outings with friends to ice cream parlors and encounters with the first admirers, in hiding, Anne turned to introspection, reflecting on her identity and place in the world.

“Even though I’m only fourteen, I know what I want, I know who’s right and who’s wrong, I have my own opinions, ideas and principles, and though it may sound odd coming from a teenager, I feel I’m more of a person than a child, I feel I’m completely independent of others.”

March 17, 1944

“I know what I want, I have a goal, an opinion, I have a religion and love. Let me be myself and then I am satisfied. I know that I’m a woman, a woman with inward strength and plenty of courage.”

April 14, 1944

Some of the most widely known of Anne Frank’s quotes, these excerpts allow readers to get a glimpse of the young writer’s self-awareness regarding her personal development. During the long hours spent in careful silence to prevent any noise from betraying their whereabouts, Anne often turned to her diary for comfort and sanity. In his The Development of Anne Frank, John Berryman remarked how her unprecedented circumstances heightened Anne Frank’s “power of expression” and forced her to mature more quickly, drawing a parallel between her “conversion of the child into a person” to the conversion described by St. Augustine in his Confessions.

Anne Frank’s penchant for self-reflection also emerges from the following quote taken from the final entry on August 1, 1944:

“I’m afraid that people who know me as I usually am will discover I have another side, a better and finer side. I’m afraid they’ll mock me, think I’m ridiculous and sentimental and not take me seriously. I’m used to not being taken seriously, but only the ‘light-hearted’ Anne is used to it and can put up with it; the ‘deeper’ Anne is too weak.”

Anne Frank’s Quotes on People

Anne Frank’s surprising belief in the goodness of humanity despite the horrors of the Holocaust is perhaps her most famous quote:

“It’s difficult in times like these: ideals, dreams and cherished hopes rise within us, only to be crushed by grim reality. It’s a wonder I haven’t abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart.”

July 15, 1944

After World War II, when news of the death camps began to spread, Anne’s remark on human nature turned her diary into an emblem of prevailing humanity in the face of a systemic oppression specifically designed to negate her and her fellow Jews’ very right to exist. “Consider if this is a man,” famously asked Holocaust survivor Primo Levi in his poem, “Who toils in the mud/ Who knows no peace/ Who dies for half a loaf/ Who dies by a yes or a no.”

However, it would be mistaken to write off Anne’s quote as a naive faith in the goodness of humanity by a 15-year-old girl. Rather, her declaration is a desperate effort to find meaning in a suddenly meaningless world, and to hold on to hope amid a growing sense of doom.

In an essay titled Give!, Anne had already argued that “Human greatness does not lie in wealth or power, but in character and goodness. People are just people, and all people have faults and shortcomings, but all of us are born with a basic goodness.”

Reaffirmed against the backdrop of persecution, her faith becomes more poignant, a testament to her powerful voice that would resonate with so many generations of readers.

Anne Frank’s Quotes on the Future

During the two years spent in hiding, Anne Frank and the other inhabitants of the “secret annex” alternated between despair and hope regarding their future after the war. While news of the Allies’ advance increased their optimism, the forced proximity, lack of privacy, and frequent quarrels led to frustration and demoralization.

In a series of entries from 1943, Anne expressed her mounting dread, comparing her plans for the future to a “castle in the air.” A couple of quotes from October and November give readers a sense of her struggle against despair and emphasize the power of art:

“I wander from room to room, climb up and down the stairs and feel like a songbird whose wings have been ripped off and who keeps hurling itself against the bars of its dark cage.”

October 29, 1943

“I see the eight of us in the Annex as if we were a patch of blue sky surrounded by menacing black clouds. The perfectly round spot on which we’re standing is still safe, but the clouds are moving in on us, and the ring between us and the approaching danger is being pulled tighter and tighter. We’re surrounded by darkness and danger, and in our desperate search for a way out we keep bumping into each other.”

November 8, 1943

Stuck in a present of constant danger, Anne saw her writing as a way to reaffirm her identity and secure her memory against the threat of erasure.

“I want to go on living even after my death! And therefore I am grateful to God for giving me this gift, this possibility of developing myself and of writing, of expressing all that is in me!”

April 5, 1944

In April 1944, Anne had already begun editing her diary, deleting some previous entries and adding some new ones. Her plan to publish her writing after the war dates back to March 1944, when she heard a speech by the Dutch Minister of Education in exile exhorting his fellow citizens to document their wartime experiences for posterity. For the young Anne, writing then became an act of self-assertion in the face of a hostile force that sought to annihilate her and her family.

Anne’s plan for her future tragically died with her in February 1945 at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, where she and her sister Margot contracted typhus. Her diary and other writings, however, survived the war thanks to Miep Gies, who kept Anne’s journal and other papers after the Franks’ arrest in 1944. After the war, she returned them to Otto, the only inhabitant of the “secret annex” to survive the Holocaust. Moved by his daughter’s writings, Otto published them in 1947 with the title Het Achterhuis (The Secret Annex), the title Anne herself had chosen.

Today, the Diary of a Young Girl has been translated into over 75 languages, making Anne Frank a symbol of perseverance and her writings a “bid for immortality.”

The one thing most people know about Anne Frank is that she wrote a diary documenting her experience during the Holocaust. Such a one-dimensional understanding of her life downplays the tragedy of the loss of a young girl. Most, unfortunately, do not even know the cause of her death. Anne and her sister, separated from their parents, persevered through the harsh conditions of the concentration camp yet were ultimately taken by typhus, contracted as a direct outcome of the conditions in which they were forced to live.

Who Was Anne Frank?

Anne Frank was born in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, on June 12, 1929, to parents Edith and Otto Frank. The pair also had one daughter before Anne, Margot. Despite the hardships facing Germany, Otto was a successful, experienced businessman who owned his own business.

As Adolf Hilter started to gain power in Germany, everyday life began to change for Jewish people. Hitler and the Third Reich adopted and repurposed ancient symbols like the swastika to harken back to their Aryan past and present themselves with an air of invincibility. Through widespread violence like Kristallnacht, the Nazi regime raided Jewish communities across Germany, from large cities to small villages. In October 1938, thousands of Jews living in Germany were rounded up and expelled in what was known as Polenaktion.

The Frank family chose to move to Amsterdam, where Otto could find work. As time went on, Anne and the rest of the family felt at home in Amsterdam. She went to school and made friends while her father continued to work. Anne learned Dutch and lived a normal life.

Why Did Anne Frank Go Into Hiding?

World War II started when Anne was 10 years old; by 1940, Nazis had invaded the Netherlands. On May 10, Queen Wilhelmina fled to London, and within five days, Nazis overtook the country. The same restrictions that the Frank family had fled in Germany were now implemented in Amsterdam.

Anne began to lose her freedoms; for example, she had to attend a segregated Jewish school. Her life became more insular as she began to lose common, everyday liberties like going to parks or the movies. As a Jewish man, Otto was suddenly barred from owning his own business.

By 1942, Jewish citizens had to wear the Star of David, and there were whispers that they would soon have to leave Amsterdam. When Anne’s sister received a call to report to a German labor camp in July 1942, they chose to go into hiding to protect themselves.

What Was the Secret Annex Like?

Anne, her sister, mother, and father went into hiding in July of 1942, where they would remain for the next two years. They stayed in a hidden apartment on Prinsengracht Street.

Otto used to work at the business where this secret apartment was located. Friends of Anne’s father helped create the space for them to stay. The apartment got its name from Anne’s diary, in which she referred to it as the Secret Annex.

The Franks were not alone in the small, cramped Secret Annex space. Four other Jewish people stayed with them: Auguste, Hermann, and Peter van Pels, and Fritz Pfeffer.

The Diary of a Young Girl

Anne documented what her life was like while living in the Secret Annex in her diary. Anne addressed her diary entries to a fictional person named Kitty, and this character seemed to portray the person with whom Anne would have liked to share all her struggles.

In just over 300 pages, Anne chronicles what life was like for Jews living in Amsterdam and for Dutch Jews overall. This likely was not her goal at the time of writing, but her diary became one of the best, most thorough firsthand accounts of what life was like during the occupation and the Holocaust.

Anne could talk about her fears and hopes for the future as well. Writing was one of the few things that Anne was able to do to pass the time—she could not move around, make noise, or play as a normal child of her age might.

Anne, however, was unable to finish her diary.

When Was Anne Frank Caught?

Anne and the others in the Secret Annex were discovered and captured on August 8, 1944. Two men who helped hide the Franks were also taken.

Anne and her family were first taken to prison in Amsterdam, then to the Westerbork Transit Camp. In early September, nearly one month after they were captured, everyone was taken to Auschwitz.

Auschwitz is one of the most well-known concentration camps due to the number of people killed there. Men like Heinrich Himmler made killing efficient with the introduction of the first gas chamber at this camp. While some contend that concentration camps actually helped both sides of the war effort because the human experimentation conducted within ultimately allowed scientists to learn to treat soldiers on the front lines, it is difficult to acknowledge advances in science drawn from such evil.

Where Was Anne Frank Taken?

Anne and her family were first taken to Auschwitz, where they were then separated, men from women. Ultimately, the family did not stay together in Auschwitz either. Anne and her sister were transported to the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in November 1944, about two months after they first arrived at Auschwitz. They would remain at Bergen-Belsen until their deaths in early 1945.

Otto Frank did not leave Auschwitz, and their mother, Edith, also remained at Auschwitz until her death in January 1945. She died of starvation and exhaustion.

What Did Anne Frank Die From?

Perhaps surprising to some, it was not the outright slaughter carried out at the camp that killed her. She was not one of the unfortunate victims of the gas chambers. She also did not pass from other common causes, like starvation. Instead, Anne and her sister both died from typhus. Anne was only 15 years old when she passed away.

Historians disagree about when specifically Anne died; it is estimated to be somewhere between February and March, 1945—just weeks before the Allies would liberate the camp.

What Is Typhus?

Typhus is caused by the Rickettsia prowazekii bacteria. While typhus had many different names over time—often based on the locations in which it occurred—it was frequently found in the same conditions: filth and starvation.

Typhus is spread by body lice, made worse in poor living conditions, such as those Anne and other Jewish people faced in the camps. Lice often live in clothing, bite their host, and lay eggs. The lice multiply at a frenetic pace, leaving behind feces. Once a person with lice scratches themself, the wound creates an entry point for the feces, which carry the Rickettsia prowazekii.

Once infected with typhus, the victim suffers muscle pain, headaches, nausea, and a fever well over 100 degrees. The fever often causes the person to become delirious. They also get a rash all over their body. The infection can stay in the body for up to three weeks. Without antibiotics, typhus kills about 1 in 5 people and is more fatal among persons weakened by other conditions, like starvation.

Did Anyone in Anne Frank’s Family Survive?

There was only one person to survive in the Frank family: her father, Otto. Otto was also the only survivor among everyone who was hidden in the Secret Annex.

There are estimates that as many as six million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust. The exact number of Jews liberated from concentration camps has proven difficult to determine, but it is not as high as one might hope. Some estimates suggest that just 7,000 Jews were liberated from camps like Auschwitz.

Anne Frank’s Lasting Legacy

The Second World War officially ended just months after Anne’s death on September 2, 1945.

While Europe and the rest of the world reeled from the devastation of World War II, the Frank family would never be the same either. Otto survived but lost his wife and two daughters. He was given his daughter’s diary after his liberation by one of the people who helped hide his family in 1944.

Moved by what he read, he decided to publish his daughter’s writings in 1947, giving the world one of the best accounts of the Holocaust. Since its publication, the book has sold more than 30 million copies and has been translated into more than 70 languages.

Today, visitors to Amsterdam can step into the Secret Annex, which is now a museum that tells the story of both Anne Frank’s life and the Holocaust. Anne’s diary, as well as the Secret Annex, are lasting testaments to what can happen when discrimination and racism come to power.

Empowering communities for almost half a century, The Green Belt Movement has been hard at work in Kenya, building climate-resilient ecosystems and sustainable environments, while also empowering women. A continent away, in the Amazon rainforest, Indigenous women take to the frontlines to save their livelihoods and their environments from the destruction caused by extractivism. Meanwhile, women across the globe guide humanity’s future in high-profile forums, as they fight for sustainable futures in a world increasingly affected by climate change.

The fight for gender equality has led women to become inextricably linked to environmental concerns. What is this relationship, and how has the challenge for women’s rights become so intertwined with green initiatives?

The Environment and Its Impact on Gender

By examining societies worldwide and how different genders interact with their environments, it becomes clear that environmental degradation disproportionately threatens women.

According to the United Nations, women and girls make up the majority of the world’s poor and are more dependent than men on local natural resources to sustain their livelihoods. From a general perspective, and especially in rural areas in developing nations, women are responsible for securing food, water, and firewood for their families. When these are scarce, women work harder and walk farther to find them.

They face backlash when these resources cannot be obtained, and in such skewed patriarchal societies, the effects are massively disproportionate. In these areas, women are 14 times more likely to die from extreme weather disasters. This is due to a lack of information, restricted mobility, and diminished agency. Of those displaced by climate change, 80% are women.

Meanwhile, research indicates that women in industrialized countries are more likely than men to be concerned about climate change. Data from the Pew Research Center’s polls in the US, Canada, South Korea, Germany, Australia, Spain, and the UK show that the difference between men and women in this regard is approximately 10%, with the US having the largest difference.

In the US poll on whether global climate change is a serious problem, 66% of men responded yes, while 83% of women agreed, with additional data indicating that more women than men believed climate change would affect them personally.

A History of Action

Although its roots date back further, modern environmental activism really took off in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Even from this early period, women were an integral part of the movement. An example of this is the Chipko Movement, which began in the 1970s and relied heavily on women’s participation. Villagers banded together, confronting commercial loggers, forcing the abandonment of deforestation ventures.

“Chipko,” literally meaning to “hug” or “cling” in Hindi, was a highly effective form of protest, as the protestors would literally hug trees to prevent them from being cut down. This is where the term “tree hugger” originated in popular modern usage. The method was inspired by the Bishnoi people in Rajasthan, who, in 1730, hugged trees to stop them from being cut down to build a palace. The massacre that followed resulted in a royal decree protecting trees, proving the effectiveness of such actions despite having to pay the ultimate sacrifice.

Inspired by the success of Chipko, a similar, successful movement called the Appiko Movement took place in Kalase forest near Salkani in western India in 1983. Like with the Chipko Movement, men, women, and children banded together in peaceful protest to stop loggers.

Education and Empowerment

The interplay between education and women’s traditional roles is well documented. Of prime consideration is the factor of population growth. Research shows that the spread of education amongst women results in more opportunities, thus allowing for more careful consideration when it comes to having children.

With maternal burdens lessened, women have far more agency. A slowdown in population growth is a major outcome that benefits the environment by reducing resource demand. Thus, education not only furthers gender equality but also benefits green initiatives.

Given women’s general views on climate change and its effects on their traditional roles, it is logical to recruit leaders from this demographic who can guide communities and nations toward a more sustainable future. Education and empowerment of women are key in addressing this leadership concern.

Placing women at the center of sustainable development is not just ethically sound, but massively beneficial from a practical perspective. Research shows that women spend around 90% of their income on their family, compared with just 35% for men. This represents food, healthcare, education, and housing; major factors in creating a sustainable future that is better equipped to support future generations. This gap persists, even in developed nations with greater equality. This dynamic of spending has a cumulative effect, creating more prosperous and stable communities. Thus, the empowerment of women is not simply a moral imperative but a potent catalyst for achieving broader development goals.

Women as Leaders

While women may not have achieved equal representation in governmental bodies and other climate authorities, they are well represented in leading local initiatives, particularly in the Global South.

Wangari Maathai was one such leader who challenged the status quo and brought environmentalism to the fore in Kenya. She established the Green Belt Movement, which focused on planting trees and fighting for women’s rights. For her efforts, she won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2004, becoming the first African woman to do so.

Today, one of the most widely recognized figures in the fight against climate change, Greta Thunberg, rose to prominence in 2018 during the Fridays for Future or Schools for Climate movement. On September 23, 2019 at the United Nations Climate Action Summit in New York City, she gained viral attention by lambasting world leaders for their “empty words.” Since then, she has become a global icon of resistance and broadened the scope of her activism to include humanitarian support for Palestine, amongst other initiatives. Her social presence has been a major driver of global youth engagement.

While Thunberg represents protest and direct action, others have engaged with climate activism by challenging the structures of industrial and corporate agriculture and promoting ecological knowledge. Having authored 20 books, Vandana Shiva is a prominent voice in this regard, and her efforts have earned her the moniker “the Gandhi of Grain.”

An anti-globalist, Shiva has argued for the rights of small-scale farmers who are often dispossessed and forced out of business by monocultural corporate practice, which dominates ecology rather than working with it. As such, Shiva is an eco-feminist who argues that the domination of nature and the domination of women stem from the same patriarchal systems of control. Limiting the power of that source not only frees women but also benefits the environment. In this regard, feminism and environmentalism are closely connected. As Shiva has noted,

“The recovery of the feminine principle is an intellectual and political challenge to maldevelopment as a patriarchal project of domination and destruction, of violence and subjugation, of dispossession and the dispensability of both women and nature.”

—Vandana Shiva, Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development

Meanwhile, the Amazon has no shortage of protectors, with many women stepping up to lead conservation efforts. Txai Suruí is a Brazilian environmentalist who founded the Indigenous Youth Movement of Rondônia, from which another activist, model, and actor, Zaya Guarani, hails. Also from Brazil is Vanda Oregta Witoto, who continues to advocate for community rights in Parque das Tribos.

Ecuador has also produced many activists, such as Nina Gualinga from the Kichwa community, who has led the fight against the destructive practices of oil and mining companies, and her younger sister, Helena, who co-founded the Polluters Out movement with Isabella Fallahi and Ayisha Siddiqa.

Representing the Waorani people from the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest, Nemonte Nenquimo is a co-founder of the Ceibo Alliance, which protects indigenous lands from oil concessions.

Of course, there are many others around the world who deserve recognition, and the list of names grows ever longer as women take up the mantle of leadership.

Women Still Face Many Barriers

In STEM, it is no surprise that women have historically been underrepresented in a dynamic that persists. Some regions of the world, particularly in the United States, show a marked increase in the ratio of women to men. However, from a global perspective, women make up 35% of STEM graduates. According to UNESCO, this is a figure that has remained stagnant for the past decade.

The underrepresentation is not limited to STEM fields, either. Women are regularly excluded from positions of authority and face significant barriers to attaining power within governments worldwide. Because governments are powerful actors in discussions of climate change, women generally do not have the same influence as men. The World Economic Forum reports that women make up just 30% (on average) of environmental ministries around the world. Thus, gender parity in the decision-making process is rare.

Given that climate change is a greater concern among women than men, it is unsurprising that UNESCO research shows that parliaments with a higher proportion of women are more likely to ratify environmental treaties. Thus, it can be said that women represent a more powerful force for combating climate change.

Overall, the picture is quite clear. Empowering women is an effective way to advance environmental goals and represents a formidable weapon in humanity’s quest to overcome the challenges of climate change. Men and women alike have made valuable contributions in this regard, and women continue to assume leadership roles in many contexts, exercising agency as leaders, academics, scientists, artists, farmers, or simply as members of their communities. These are powerful voices that are integral to transforming the world in which we live into a place that is sustainable and productive for all.