The Bold and the Brave

Monique Frize

• Publisher: University of Ottawa Press
• Year: 2010
• Print ISBN: 9780776607252
• eBook ISBN: 9780776618838
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Science History
• Index: Social Sciences

The Bold and the Brave investigates how women have striven throughout history to gain access to education and careers in science and engineering. Author Monique Frize, herself an engineer for over 40 years, introduces the reader to key concepts and debates that contextualize the obstacles women have faced and continue to face in the fields of science and engineering. She focuses on the history of women's education in mathematics and science through the ages, from antiquity to the Enlightenment. While opportunities for women were often purposely limited, she reveals how many women found ways to explore science outside of formal education. The book examines the lives and work of three women –Sophie Germain, Mileva Einstein, and Rosalind Franklin – that provide excellent examples of how women's contributions to science have been dismissed, ignored or stolen outright. She concludes with an in-depth look at women's participation in science and engineering throughout the twentieth century and the current status of women in science and engineering, which has experienced a decline in recent years. To encourage more young women to pursue careers in science and engineering she advocates re-gendering the fields by integrating feminine and masculine approaches that would ultimately improve scientific and engineering endeavours.

PART I

Views of Women’s
Intellectual Abilities

CHAPTER 1

From Ancient Times
to Early Modern Europe

Through the ages, philosophers, almost all of whom were male, have affected society’s thoughts as well as reflecting them. The discussion begins with one of the most influential philosophers in the western tradition, the ancient Greek philosopher Plato (423–347 BCE). Plato’s influence through the ages, on many philosophical topics, has been enormous, but he is of interest here because of his radical views regarding women (see Bluestone 1994). In his well-known work The Republic, Plato argues that women, like men, can rule, and that those who demonstrates the required talents ought to be given access to education. Plato’s views about women as expressed in this work do not reflect society’s thoughts of the time, and they had no impact on how Greek society viewed women. The poor reception of his views, whether it was to argue against them or to ignore them, does, however, tell us something about the society we came from. In this chapter, we first look at the society in which Plato lived and study what he said about women. His view is then contrasted with Aristotle’s and with the views of other thinkers throughout the ages.

THE STATUS OF WOMEN IN ANCIENT GREECE

Plato lived in Athens, a city generally considered the birthplace of democracy. When seeking to judge whether a principle such as democracy applies to all people fairly, it is helpful to ask: for whom? The answer in ancient Greece was: not for everyone. The principle applied only to the Athenian male citizens, and excluded women, slaves, and those who were not native Athenians (Kitto 1951, pp. 124–25). Through their examination of the literature and art of the time, including philosophical essays, letters, political speeches, legal documents, plays, poems, and pottery, scholars have determined that Athenian women did not participate in politics, were generally excluded from socializing with men other than their husbands or close relatives, were not allowed to attend schools, could not own property, had limited freedom to move about alone, and generally lived under the care of a man, whether father, guardian, or husband (Kitto 1951, p. 218). However, this is not to say that women had no influence. Women contributed to Athenian society not only through their husbands but also because they were almost entirely responsible for the domestic aspect of life, which included not just bearing and raising children and managing households but also storing and preparing food, as well as crafts such as weaving and sewing. Similarly, slaves were an integral part of Athenian society (Davis 1978, pp. 99–103). Poorer women worked outside the home, selling their crafts or produce in the marketplace, or as midwives or wetnurses. There were also female physicians at this time.

Girls and women received some formal education at home, in subjects such as rhetoric (the art of persuasive speaking), from fathers, brothers, or husbands; and they learned domestic skills such as weaving, music, and dancing, all in preparation for their allotted social role. Boys went to public schools and studied grammar, rhetoric, arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy. The exceptions to the rule were prostitutes or women companions (hetaerae). Although legally no freer than other Athenian women, they associated more freely with men and had more freedom of movement. In order to be more interesting companions to men, they attended schools and were taught grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic (a form of argumentation). One well-known example of an extraordinary woman, thought by some scholars to have been a hetaera, is Aspasia of Miletus (c. 470–c. 400 BCE). She not only acquired an exceptional education but influenced politics as well. As a “foreign” resident in Athens, she had greater freedom than Athenian women did. At the insistence of her father, she was educated by her mother and by household slaves. (In ancient Greece some slaves were used as educators, though most were not educated.) As a young woman, Aspasia moved to Athens and became the consort of Pericles, a highly respected and powerful statesman and general. Aspasia was one of the few women to socialize with the leading thinkers of the time. She was well respected for her skills in rhetoric, and her abilities were acknowledged by several prominent Greeks, including Plato. She has been credited with ghost-writing speeches for Pericles, including his popular Funeral Oration.

However, even talents such as those possessed by Aspasia would never be enough to earn a woman equal political status with even the lowest class of male Athenian citizens. Given women’s place in society during Plato’s lifetime, his conception of an ideal state where women could rule stand outs as quite radical. Ideas similar to his regarding the education of women were in the air, and even parodied by Aristophanes in his comedies, but they were not widely held or discussed by the general public (Plato 1974, p. 225).

PLATO’S ARGUMENT

Before looking at Plato’s work directly, it needs to be pointed out that there is some controversy among scholars about his views on women. His work has been charged with misogyny, on the one hand, and heralded as radically feminist on the other (see Bluestone 1987, Tuana 1994). It has been suggested by some scholars that the two extremes can be better reconciled if we distinguish between how Plato perceived Athenian women, and what he saw as women’s natural abilities. Most scholars agree that Plato’s view of Athenian women was not feminist, insofar as he was clearly opposed to equality for women as a group, just as he was opposed to democracy in general and to equality between men (Plato 1974, p. 563). He also chastised certain ideas as stemming from a “womanish and small intellect” (Plato 1974, p. 469). This accounts for at least some of the claims that he was anti-feminist. By contrast, in The Republic Plato outlines the ideal state and sees women as having the same capacities as men, and thus capable of sharing in any possible profession, if they possess the talent for it, and have been provided with the education and training needed. It is also thought that two women attended Plato’s Academy and were taught by him.

With the preceding qualification, we can now look at Plato’s Republic, which, like most of his writings, is in the form of a dialogue. Socrates, Plato’s teacher, is presented as the protagonist and puts forward the arguments for the ideal state to several acquaintances. Through the figure of Socrates Plato envisions two groups: guardians and workers. The guardians are further divided into rulers and their auxiliaries. Family and private property are abolished among the guardians, so that none of them has any private interests, and all can maintain objectivity and deal fairly with the needs of the community. Plato’s vision is also a eugenic one: women and men of similar capacities should marry and have children, in effect breeding like horses to get the best offspring. If capacities should prove wanting in a child of a higher group, or be present in a child of a lower group, the child can be moved between the groups. Plato also speaks of “quietly and secretly disposing” of “defective offspring,” though it is not clear if he meant infanticide or removal from the community (Plato 1974, p. 461).

Although Plato’s vision is not egalitarian, it does allow for capacity or potential to be found anywhere, regardless of sex or social status. Drawing an analogy with watchdogs, in which female watchdogs are employed to guard just as male ones are, Plato argues that women, like men, should share all duties. He makes three important claims to support this argument.

First, Plato argues that the natural differences between men and women, once the term “different” is clarified, are irrelevant to employment in society. The most obvious difference between men and women is the latter’s capacity to bear children (Plato 1974, p. 454). In Plato’s view this capacity is not relevant to a woman’s natural abilities or talents for a certain occupation. A man and a woman may share the same nature regarding medical ability, for example, in spite of having different natures (Plato 1974, p. 454). As for child-rearing, Plato relegates it to workers, male and female, so that female guardians can have both the time and the energy to do their jobs. His reply to the comment that “child-bearing will be an easy job for the guardians’ wives on those conditions” is striking: “which is as it should be” (Plato 1974, p. 460). Thus, for Plato, women’s natural capacity to bear children does not carry with it the obligation to take care of them. Moreover, males who are workers are considered to be as capable of child-rearing as their female counterparts. In Plato’s view, then, biology is not destiny, for either sex.

Second, Plato argues that the natural abilities that women share with men include not only medicine, music, athletics and even soldiering, but also philosophy (Plato 1974, p. 456). Janet Farrell Smith (1983, pp. 31–32) argues that this is Plato’s “burden of proof argument,” rather than a definitive claim that women have the same capacities as men. In her view, Plato simply puts the burden of proof on those who oppose women’s education to show that women ought not to be educated. In this way, she argues, he leaves open the question of women’s capacities. Since philosophy is required for the guardians in Plato’s ideal state, and women may practise it, Plato concludes that women can be guardians.

Plato does comment, without argument, that women are weaker than men, presumably possessing their abilities to a lesser degree. Although there is much literature about this, the best reading seems to be that Plato regarded women, as a group, as being weaker than men, but without doubt allowed for the superiority of individual women over individual men (Smith 1983, p. 36). The salient difference is between men and women of similar natures, not between every woman and any man. For example, a woman may be superior to almost all men, as would be the case for a female guardian. Following this view, Plato calls for his male guardians to be matched with women who have “nearly similar natural capacities” (Plato 1974, p. 458).

Third, Plato claims that “if we are going to use men and women for the same purposes, we must teach them the same things” (Plato 1974, p. 451) In order to become rulers or to work as auxiliaries, must have the same access to education and training as men. Plato’s comment on the Athenian practice of denying women the same intellectual and physical training as men is that it is “unnatural.” Plato’s guiding principle is that those with the same natural capacities ought to share the same occupations. Access to the same occupations requires access to the same training (Plato 1974, p. 456). According to Plato, any society that denies this is going against nature.

So we see that Plato provides a rational argument, based on natural capacity, as to why women ought to be afforded equal access to education and professions. One’s biology, and in particular women’s child-bearing capacity and men’s lack of it, does not carry with it an obligation to take care of children, nor, in the case of men, any incapacity to take care of them.

Being aware of Plato’s arguments for the education of a select group of women, and their equal participation in society, shows us that plausible arguments for the equality of elite women, though not of all women, have been available for over two thousand years. The arguments put forward by Plato, and by others in later periods, have been replied to by a few, but they have mostly been ignored. It seems, then, that resistance to women’s equality is not because of the absence of rational arguments.

Familiarity with Plato’s arguments is important, nonetheless, because they introduce an important theme around which some feminist and anti-feminist debates turn. The idea is that equality and inequality are somehow related to ability, capacity, or potential. Plato’s argument for allowing certain women to participate equally in society clearly exemplifies this view. The deeper principle, as mentioned, is that a society’s structure ought to be based on what is “natural.”

There are two counterarguments against Plato that follow the principle that society ought to be based on what is natural. The first is that a woman’s natural ability to bear children carries with it a “natural” ability and obligation to care for them. The second counterargument is simply the denial that women have the same capacities or abilities as men when it comes to intellectual and professional endeavours. The reliance on “nature” is the same, but where each argument differs is in defining what “nature” is, and what it may or may not imply about abilities and obligations.

At its inception in the 19^th century, first-wave feminism did not address women’s unequal access to public roles so much as women’s right to receive education because they possess rational minds. Plato, in contrast, radically envisions a transformed society in which a woman may fill any public role that a man might, and assume a role in which she is not tied to the domestic sphere any more than a man would be. Plato envisions women becoming just like men, a view that was radical for his time, and a view for which liberal feminists are sometimes criticized today. In both cases, it is claimed that simply arguing that women are equally capable of filling any role that men are leaves the structure of society itself, and its values, hierarchies, and institutions, unchallenged. Again, equality for elite women is not the same as equality for all women.

Plato’s Republic also touches on the interplay between a person’s natural capacities and his or her socialization or schooling, which today is called “nurture.” For Plato, natural capacity requires proper training and education, and this indeed is what his argument for the education of girls and women rests on. The debate over whether women and men are naturally different, or only different because they are nurtured or socialized differently, still rages, as do views about what to do with these alleged differences (to be discussed in a later section).

There are arguments against Plato’s position, largely based on denying that women have the same capacities as men or on the claim that child-bearing capacity carries with it child-rearing responsibilities. However, one could argue that everyone, regardless of natural capacity, has a right to education. Plato’s discussion of education is a good example of one view of the interplay between nature on one side and nurture on the other. For Plato, natural capacities may be found anywhere, but still require nurturing in order to be cultivated.

ARISTOTLE’S VIEW

Aristotle (384–322 BCE) argued that “the male is by nature fitter for command than the female, just as the elder and full-grown is superior to the younger and more immature” (Bell 1983, p. 66). While Plato thought that women shared the same capacities or virtues as men, Aristotle saw such virtues as different in kind, so that “the courage and justice of a man and of a woman are not the same; the courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying. And this holds of all other virtues” (Bell 1983, p. 68). There are several other passages in which Aristotle explains the inferiority of women. In men, “qualities or capacities are found in their perfection, whereas women are less balanced, more easily moved to tears . . . more jealous; she is also more false of speech [and] more deceptive” (Bell 1983, p. 66). A woman may rule, but only as an heiress, and therefore not in virtue of her own excellence but due to wealth or power. Elsewhere, Aristotle writes of women possessing the same virtues as men, but to a lesser degree (Bell 1983, pp. 65–66).

Like Plato, Aristotle is among the most influential philosophers in the western tradition. Aristotle was considerably more prolific, however, and much more of his writing has survived the centuries, with the result that, in some respects, his influence has exceeded Plato’s. Aristotle provided substantial and systematic treatments of metaphysics, physics, and biology, contributing to the formation of the metaphysical and sc...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Part I: Views of Women’s Intellectual Abilities
• Part II: Scientific Education of Women from the 17th Century to the 19th Century
• Part III: Education and Careers in Science and Engineering
• Part IV: Profiles of Three Women, by Peter Frize
• Epilogue
• Appendices
• Bibliography
• Index