by It is no secret that throughout much of human history, women were seen as inferior to men in most, if not all ways outside of their specific duties like raising children, and other roles within the house. This was true in the world of science for a long time as well, with many scientists arguing that the role of women should not extend beyond that of a caretaker. James McKeen Cattell is an example of such a figure. He wrote a “Statistical Study of Eminent Men” in 1903, which listed and talked about eminent people throughout history. Out of the 1000 people discussed, a mere 32 of them were women. He later went on to write “American Men of Science” in 1910, in which he listed and examined eminent people to the field of science. Similar to his previous work, this publication contained 1000 figures, yet only 18 of them were women. Society had been built up to this point in a way that, unfortunately, supported their views. Women who went to college did not learn many of the same things as their male counterparts, instead studying how to do their gender assigned duties as the homemaker. This systematically caused men to be the majority in terms of those educated in the ways of science, thus combining with the social view of women as strictly a homemaker, severely limited their chances of obtaining jobs in the scientific field. This, obviously, was a severe problem that was rooted in society and education’s perception of the role of women, thus backed up the many instances of men claiming that women had no place in the field of science. However, there were those opposed to the idea of a patriarchy that dominated all aspects of society and education. Even as far back in time as the existence of Francis Bacon and widespread alchemists, there were conflicting ideas on the role of women. Bacon’s view on nature and science was one where man’s [mind] dominance over nature would bind it to eternal servitude under man [mind]. This was in contrast to the many Paracelcian alchemists, who saw value in the cooperation of man and women. This cooperation between man and women was seen as “the conjunction of mind and matter.” The alchemist Paracelsus wrote that “only when together are man and woman whole,” further stressing the importance of union to unlock the mysteries of nature and science. These clashing ideas evolved and influenced others for hundreds of years, which can be seen through the limited role women played in science, or even their ability to access education for it until the 1980s. Similar to the clashing ideas between Bacon and Paracelcian alchemists over gender, nature, and mind, there existed men and women during the 1900s who pushed back against the writings of Cattell and others in that sphere. One example comes from the philosopher John Dewey, who in 1911 wrote about there being no scientific evidence of the female brain being inferior to that of males, and that if anything there were greater differences between individuals of the same sex than between the different sexes. However, even after writing about such topics in a seemingly pro-feminist manner, he still concluded that the role of women was best suited to that of the homemaker. This back and forth continued for many years, until prominent figures such as Nancy Tuana, Elizabeth Fee, Marie Curie, Margaret Alic, and other unnamed feminist scientists from the “Feminist Critique of Science” reading began to push harder, by asking questions (among other things) such as “is sexist science bad science?”
Margaret Alic and Sharon Bertsch McGrayne contributed to “filling in the gaps” of scientific history by releasing works on analyses of prominent female scientists of the past that had not been sufficiently covered in historical writings, as well as female Nobel Prize recipients for their work in the field of science. This provided much needed ammunition for feminists and women in general to combat the claims and views of such people like the previously mentioned James McKeen Cattell, who tried to further push the point that women had few notable contributions in the field of science.
Marie Curie was one of the women that McGrayne examined in her work about female Nobel Prize recipients, having been awarded them in 1903 for physics, and in 1911 for chemistry. Marie Curie was a very powerful figure for women to refer to as evidence of females exceeding in the fields of science. Curie obtained a basic education of science from her father at a young age, and later went on to get licenses for physics and mathematical sciences via her studies in Paris. She went on to succeed her husband Pierre Curie as the head of the Physics Laboratory at Sorbonne, part of the School of Physics. She later obtained her Doctors of Science in 1903, and then took her husband’s position as the Professor of General Physics in the Faculty of Sciences after his death. This was the first time that a woman had ever occupied this role in the universities history. As if her achievements up to this point were not impressive enough, she went on to be appointed Direct of the Curie Laboratory at the Radium Institute of the University of Paris. Marie and her husband together developed a way to isolate the elements polonium and radium, which had never been done before (or at least recorded), allowing them to study them to a much higher and more efficient degree. Marie even went on to be a member of the Conseil du Physique Solvay and Committee of Intellectual Co-operation of the United Nations until her death. Both of these positions were of the highest esteem, with only the greatest scientists male and female being admitted.
The achievements of Marie Curie, along with other female scientists, proved to the world that women had a significant and important role in the fields of science to play, and that “sexist science” did nothing but hold back the potential of humanity as a whole to progress the fields. These progressions allowed people to debunk the thoughts and teachings of Bacon from many hundreds of years prior, pointing out that his attribution of science as “male” and nature as “female” as being fundamentally flawed, and that it was not something to be gendered or brought into the political and social spheres, which allowed him to associate it with male dominance and push sexism in the first place. Feminists were able to effectively argue their position that females had equal ability to conduct science as men, and the showings of women such as Marie Curie were effective sources to back up these claims.
Sources:
https://moodle.colby.edu/pluginfile.php/437635/mod_resource/content/1/Keller_Spirit%20and%20Reason.pdf
https://moodle.colby.edu/pluginfile.php/437636/mod_resource/content/1/Feminist%20Critique%20of%20Science.pdf
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1903/marie-curie/biographical/