Why Were Women Scientists Ignored in the 19th Century?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Women
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights the overlooked scientific potential of Beatrix Potter, known primarily for her children's literature. Despite her passion for drawing and studying nature, her contributions to science, particularly in mycology and botany, were largely ignored due to the gender biases of her time. Notably, her work was presented at the Linnaean Society, but she was unable to attend due to restrictions on women. The conversation also touches on historical attitudes towards women in science, referencing figures like Aristotle, Darwin, and Freud, who perpetuated the belief in women's intellectual inferiority based on flawed scientific reasoning, such as cranial capacity. This systemic dismissal of women's contributions may have influenced Potter's career path, leading her to writing instead of pursuing a scientific career. The discussion reflects on the implications of these biases and their impact on both historical and contemporary views of women's roles in science.
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,410
Reaction score
555
And how science ignored them.

I have one example, Beatrix potter, best known for her writing, but could have
become a scientist.
Beatrix was taught at at home by a governess, while her brother Bertram was
sent to boarding school, she had a love of drawing plants, animals, and more.
In 1896 her uncle sir Henry Rosco took Beatrix with her drawings, to meet the
director of the Royal Botanical Gardens and other botanists, they looked at her
drawings but would not discuss them with her.
After this disappointment, Beatrix wrote a paper about, spores of molds, which
was read at the Linnaen Society of London, Beatrix could not read the paper
her self as women were not allowed in these meetings.
Betrix studied mycology, entomology, botany, geology may be others.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I had no idea. Seems like if she were living today she would have certainly become a botanist.
 
May be this is where ignoring women as scientists originated.

http://www.answers.com/topic/the-feminine-brain-a-19th-century-view

Many great men of science had a low opinion of women. Aristotle, who used "pure logic" to infer that women have fewer teeth than men but never bothered to count women's teeth, said that women are passive and men active. He considered women as "mutilated men." Darwin and Freud also believed in the innate inferiority of women, and during the 19th century many scientists were convinced that women had to be less intelligent because of differences in brain structure.
 
Math Is Hard said:
I had no idea. Seems like if she were living today she would have certainly become a botanist.

May be, it seems her writting was a second choise, what else could she do.
 
I'd never heard of her! :blushing: But it was really interesting.
 
wolram said:
Darwin and Freud also believed in the innate inferiority of women, and during the 19th century many scientists were convinced that women had to be less intelligent because of differences in brain structure.
I think a lot of it all boiled down to measurements in "cranial capacity" or skull volume. Women had smaller heads therefore smaller brains therefore were less intelligent. They said the same thing about black people. Did you ever read by Stephen Jay Gould? It's a wonderful book that covers this subject (the cranial capacity link to human intelligence myth) and much more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That is one i have not read, MIH, aka, 7 of 9, i should read more :smile:
 
I never realized Beatrix Potter was so intellectual.
I wonder if she would still have written her books were she a scientist. My childhood wouldn't have been quite the same without Peter Rabbit:
http://wiredforbooks.org/kids/beatrix/p1.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top