Woman_in_Science_Dbq

Woman in Science DBQ Women during the seventeenth and eighteenth century were barely acknowledged for their participation in scientific research by the scientific community. Mostly due to the fact that science has been majority of times a male field of study over the centuries and there was a certain shame for women who chose to work in the scientific community. Because during the time period a women’s place was in beauty and household work. Reactions and attitudes to women working in the scientific field varied from persons to persons, but majority of the times they were negative. Men’s attitude was that women were inferior and women’s attitudes towards other women working in the scientific community were that, it was out of place for their gender. However, there were some positive attitudes towards women working in the scientific community. Women many times were excluded by men from the “higher circles” of science in the scientific community during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries because most men’s attitude towards the time was that women were only capable of certain “trades”, such as housework and beauty, and that they also lacked the knowledge to learn about science. Others were excluded because attitudes of the time thought that woman were incapable of science and inferior. Samuel Pepys, an Englishman, wrote in his diary in 1667 that the Duchess of Newcastle, the author of the book entitled “A World Made by Atomes”, wished to be invited to the meeting of the Royal Society of Scientists. She was allowed to attend after a great ordeal of debate between the other guests, many of whom argued against her coming to the gathering. Pepsy ends his entry by writes that “The Duchess hath been a good, comely woman, but…” and proceeds to address his negative opinion about the “Duchess” appearance. Pepsy clearly misses the point of her presence at the dinner. She was not there to look pretty, but to learn. Pepys was likely to be more honest because he was writing in his diary, that isn’t meant for others to read (D.3). Similarly, a newspaper article from Gottingen reported that women who learn higher sciences will have “neglected” their clothing and that their hair will be done in an “antiquarian” fashion. The article then continues to describe a woman who was an exception to the stereotype of the time, who also took care of what were thought of as womanly chores, such as sewing, knitting, and household economy. The article in newspaper expresses the opinion that women who gain skill in science are not proper women and are inferior in whom they could not go beyond the study of literature and into higher sciences of the time. And this article from the Gottingen newspaper not only expresses the views of the author, but the newspaper because the newspaper would’ve been very likely to reflect the mind of opinions and attitudes of the audience which reads it, which mostly likely would be predominantly male (D.13). Others like Johann Junker, head of the University of Halle a German University, believed that women weren’t intelligent enough to go into university level of learning. Junker relates that when a woman attended a university, and received her doctorate, and as a result she gained a great deal of attention. Junker then goes onto say that the “legality of such an undertaking must be investigated.” Junker is implying that women are inferior and not capable of attaining doctorate degrees. Junker, as a head of a university, would have known many types of people and their attitudes toward women. And for him being a high university official, and saying that women are inferior to attaining a high degree of education, reflects the common attitudes of his time (D.10). Johann Theodor Jablonski, a secretary for the Berlin Academy of Sciences, said in his letter to the Academy’s President that their observational calendar should not be worked on by a woman, Maria Winkelmann, because the Academy will be ridiculed if they let a woman worked on their calendar. Jablonski doesn’t talk about whether Maria Winkelmann is or isn’t capable of creating calendars. He instead only states that “It simply will not do”, referring that a women is incapable of doing a task where a man would usually do at the time. Women obviously suffered from the stereotype created by men that woman lacked intelligence and should focus only on “womanly” concerns. Jablonski also implies that women are inferior to men. (D.8) Women scientists were also victims to other women who held the belief that they should only stick to womanly studies and activities. Marie Thiroux d’ Arconville, a French anatomical illustrator, wrote in 1775 in the preference for, “Thoughts on Literature, Morals, and Physics” that women shouldn’t study medicine and astronomy, and should be happy with the power of having grace and beauty given by God. Marie d’ Arconville was more than likely to have written that as her preference for the satisfaction of presumably the male author of, “Thoughts on Literature, Morals, and Physics” (D.12). Marie Meurdrac, a French scientist, who wrote the book “Chemistry Simplified for Women” in 1666. She states in her books foreword that it wasn’t a woman’s profession to teach in the world. She claims that she was only able to convince herself to publish the book by repeating to herself that she wasn’t the first women to have a book published. Even though Meurdrac, believed that she meant well by publishing her book, she just contributed to the continuation of the stereotype of women. By merely the title of her book, “Chemistry simplified fir Women”, which implies that chemistry, a science, was too difficult of a subject for a woman to understand and comprehend, and therefore must be simplified. And she also adds to the stereotype by reminding the readers that a woman’s profession is not to teach, but to “remain silent, listen and learn.” Marie Meurdrac clearly was unsupportive of women who chose to learn about high sciences and undoubtedly believed that women were out of place in their gender by trying to attain an education in the Science field (D.2). Women faced many stereotypes, negative attitudes and reactions from both sexes for their work in the science field, during the seventeenth and eighteenth century, even though they had worked very hard and greatly contributed to science at the time. But they were many people with positive attitude and reactions towards women in science. Johann Eberti described the German astronomer Marie Cunitz, her book that she wrote in 1650 which clarifies the work of Johannes Kepler, the famous astronomer who discovered the three laws of planetary motion, and more importantly proved the heliocentric theory of our solar system. As a result of Cunitz work in astronomical speculation she neglected her household and spent the days in bed watching the stars at night and had always tiring herself out. Eberti realizes that Marie Cunitz possessed a dedication to the sciences or else that he would’ve noticed that she was completely focused on astronomy and his response clarifies the few acceptances of women in the field of science (D.1). Dedication to the sciences was also shown by Maria Merian, a German entomologist. Maria Merian says in her book, “Wonderful Metamorphoses and Special Nourishment of Caterpillars”, written in 1679, she states that she studied insects since her youth, but then “withdrew from human society and engaged exclusively in these investigations” when she started to study the metamorphosis of caterpillars. Merian is most likely not to be exaggerating her accomplishments, because her book was published in 1679, during the time when there was a great deal of women being involved in the studies of sciences. This illustrates the view that women in the science field were accepted by some people, with the publication of her book (D.5). Marquise Emilie du Chatelet writes in a letter to the Marquis Jean Francois de Saint-Lambert, 1749, that she should not be abused for her work on translating Newton’s “Principia”. She asserts how she wakes up at nine, works until three, and then restarts her work at four and continues until ten, then breaks for only two hours, and then goes right back to work until five in the morning. Her letter to the Francois expresses the acceptance of some for women in science, by stating how that she should not be interrogated for her translation of Newton’s “Principia”. Which most likely must have been great, otherwise why would anyone bother her for the work, for being a women (D.11). A German astronomer named Gottfried Kirch said that his wife Maria Winkelmann had found a comet in the sky which he had missed during his observations in 1680. He recognized the fact that his wife had discovered something in the sky which he couldn’t and this also mirrors acceptance of women in scientific research, by the husband giving credit to the wife for her discovery (D.6). Recognition was also given to Elisabetha Hevelius when she was pictured with her husband while researching astronomy using a sextant. The picture was shown in the husband Johannes Hevelius’ book, “The Heavenly Machine”, in 1673. Johannes Hevelius likely would’ve had an acceptance of women in science by the mere fact that he would picture him and his wife researching astronomy in his book where everyone, including his male collogues could’ve see. (D.4) Another man that had the attitude of accepting women in the scientific field was Gottfried Leibniz, a German mathematician and philosopher. He explained, “Women of elevated mind advance knowledge more properly than do men”, Gottfried must have given very much thought on expressing his believe of women because he was Philosopher (D.7). In conclusion during the seventeenth and eighteenth century women face many different attitudes for being involved in scientific research. Whether it is from a man, due to the common belief that women were inferior and were incapable of “manly” work, or from other women who believed that there was no place for woman in the scientific community. Most of the reactions and attitudes were different, but majority of them were negative. Even though with mostly negative responses, there were some who accepted women for their dedication, hard work, and contributions to the science community at the present time.