History Repeats Itself–Science

Pat here:
Several of our wenches are researchers par none, digging into historical minutiae with zeal. While I admit to a fascination with these intriguing details, I am not a researcher of fine points. I like to see history as a big picture and reflect on how and why we so often repeat our mistakes. Naturally, much of this will never show up in a romance, but it often shapes the background of my stories.

MangelwurzelOne of the things that fascinated me with my magic stories is the way science developed. In my Georgian era  (1750s) series, science had only recently been defined as a body of observations or propositions concerning a subject of speculation and was more akin to philosophy than anything with which we’re familiar. Scientific methods were unheard of. My hero who grew mangelwurzels did so after talking with other farmers and learning that he might better feed his cattle with the rough land he owned. He learned to experiment with productivity by reading articles from other gentleman farmers. The word agronomist hadn’t yet been invented. Universities taught Latin and Greek, not agricultural science. (Must Be Magic)

 

And one of the heroines from the Magical Malcolm series was a herbalist. She grew and collected the herbs for remedies her grandmother had taught her at a time when physicians were rare. This folk medicine was
perfectly acceptable, and women practitioners were the most common, presumably because men had better occupations than puttering in gardens and swamps. The same with midwives—for centuries, women delivered babies because that was a private at-home matter. Men cut hair and pulled teeth in public. (Merely MagicMerelyMagic-300final

With the increasing use of the Linnaean classification in the late 1700s, educated women like my herbalist began to paint plants, attend classes on plant classification, and collect specimens with an emphasis on the healing properties of plants. This incredible growth of knowledge took on scientific connotations as men explored further afield to find new specimens—something women couldn’t do for lack of resources and/or support. Considered chattel, with no funds of their own, women couldn’t travel or gain an advanced education. It was even difficult for them to obtain the professional periodicals
that men exchanged. So their careful botanical classifications and drawings were considered by men to be on a par with embroidering, something ladies did.

Jump forward to my 1830s Unexpected Magic series. The age of enlightenment has dawned. Microscopes, while still crude, have become a necessity for plant studies. Laboratories are being built. Forceps have been developed for delivering babies. Science defined as a system of knowledge covering the operation of general laws as obtained and tested through scientific method wasn’t yet developed, but it was on the brink.Natural history

And guess what happens? Suddenly, the study of plant lore and medicine are male occupations. The sexuality of plant propagation is too provocative for weak females. Delivering babies is forbidden to women with their weak minds and understanding. These are now public occupations, taught in public forums and periodicals and even in a few schools. Women couldn’t attend.

The teaching and licensing of medical practitioners became a male domain. The use of tools, like forceps, was forbidden to anyone without a license. This differed from one country to the next, sometimes even one city or county to the next, but once the segregation started, it ran rampant over the next decades. Medicalschool

Women who had been collecting botanical specimens, creating folk remedies, and acting as midwives were gradually squeezed out of their professions—because men controlled society, and they wanted it to stay that way. Laws forbidding female emancipation were on the books well into the 1900s. Without the freedom to vote, own property, or earn their own living, women were powerless to change their fates.

Even as recently as the 1960s, I was told my only choices of profession were nursing or teaching. A woman who wanted to be a doctor, engineer, or even an accountant had to fight—sometimes literally—for an education, and finding a career afterward required family connections. There are still societies today, in the 21st century, that forbid women to work outside the home.

SuffragetteI’m only here to report the history in my work, not to collect evidence of why men have felt it necessary to oppress women through the ages. My theory is that this behavior is driven by fear—fear of competition, fear that women might be better than they are, fear of change, fear of losing free cooks and bottle-washers. Making choices based on fear has a negative effect on society—history is littered with examples.

Which is why I write my Magic books, where the women stand up to their own fears and that of society to improve their lives and those around them. If you have a better theory, throw it at me. Or better yet, share your experiences with fear and its effects. How about some romances that show women fighting to be more than society expects? I will admit, some of my childhood heroines include Clara Barton and Florence Nightingale. How about you?

85 thoughts on “History Repeats Itself–Science”

  1. “My theory is that this behaviour is driven by fear — fear of competition, fear that women might be better than they are, fear of change, fear of losing free cooks and bottle-washers.”
    LOL I would call that a hypothesis rather than a theory. It doesn’t make predictions which can be reliably tested so isn’t really a useful scientific hypothesis either.
    I think that the suppression of female talent has more to do with the evolutionary role of women as home makers caring for children while the physically stronger males go hunting for food and protect the family or tribe from predators. Evolutionary trends are deeply embedded and difficult to overcome but thankfully the emancipation of women now seems well advanced!
    I have to note that in my own field of mathematical physics some of the most brilliant minds of my acquaintance have been feminine.

    Reply
  2. “My theory is that this behaviour is driven by fear — fear of competition, fear that women might be better than they are, fear of change, fear of losing free cooks and bottle-washers.”
    LOL I would call that a hypothesis rather than a theory. It doesn’t make predictions which can be reliably tested so isn’t really a useful scientific hypothesis either.
    I think that the suppression of female talent has more to do with the evolutionary role of women as home makers caring for children while the physically stronger males go hunting for food and protect the family or tribe from predators. Evolutionary trends are deeply embedded and difficult to overcome but thankfully the emancipation of women now seems well advanced!
    I have to note that in my own field of mathematical physics some of the most brilliant minds of my acquaintance have been feminine.

    Reply
  3. “My theory is that this behaviour is driven by fear — fear of competition, fear that women might be better than they are, fear of change, fear of losing free cooks and bottle-washers.”
    LOL I would call that a hypothesis rather than a theory. It doesn’t make predictions which can be reliably tested so isn’t really a useful scientific hypothesis either.
    I think that the suppression of female talent has more to do with the evolutionary role of women as home makers caring for children while the physically stronger males go hunting for food and protect the family or tribe from predators. Evolutionary trends are deeply embedded and difficult to overcome but thankfully the emancipation of women now seems well advanced!
    I have to note that in my own field of mathematical physics some of the most brilliant minds of my acquaintance have been feminine.

    Reply
  4. “My theory is that this behaviour is driven by fear — fear of competition, fear that women might be better than they are, fear of change, fear of losing free cooks and bottle-washers.”
    LOL I would call that a hypothesis rather than a theory. It doesn’t make predictions which can be reliably tested so isn’t really a useful scientific hypothesis either.
    I think that the suppression of female talent has more to do with the evolutionary role of women as home makers caring for children while the physically stronger males go hunting for food and protect the family or tribe from predators. Evolutionary trends are deeply embedded and difficult to overcome but thankfully the emancipation of women now seems well advanced!
    I have to note that in my own field of mathematical physics some of the most brilliant minds of my acquaintance have been feminine.

    Reply
  5. “My theory is that this behaviour is driven by fear — fear of competition, fear that women might be better than they are, fear of change, fear of losing free cooks and bottle-washers.”
    LOL I would call that a hypothesis rather than a theory. It doesn’t make predictions which can be reliably tested so isn’t really a useful scientific hypothesis either.
    I think that the suppression of female talent has more to do with the evolutionary role of women as home makers caring for children while the physically stronger males go hunting for food and protect the family or tribe from predators. Evolutionary trends are deeply embedded and difficult to overcome but thankfully the emancipation of women now seems well advanced!
    I have to note that in my own field of mathematical physics some of the most brilliant minds of my acquaintance have been feminine.

    Reply
  6. LOL, that’s the reason you’re the scientist and I’m the writer. It’s been a looooong time since I had to define theory and hypothesis. And scientifically speaking, yes, the evolutionary course set us on this road. But one would think that after a few thousand years we’d have moved beyond that. And my own non-scientific non-theory is that women’s ability to multi-task has made them more creative than many men, which does lead to a broader view of any task they undertake, even quantum physics.

    Reply
  7. LOL, that’s the reason you’re the scientist and I’m the writer. It’s been a looooong time since I had to define theory and hypothesis. And scientifically speaking, yes, the evolutionary course set us on this road. But one would think that after a few thousand years we’d have moved beyond that. And my own non-scientific non-theory is that women’s ability to multi-task has made them more creative than many men, which does lead to a broader view of any task they undertake, even quantum physics.

    Reply
  8. LOL, that’s the reason you’re the scientist and I’m the writer. It’s been a looooong time since I had to define theory and hypothesis. And scientifically speaking, yes, the evolutionary course set us on this road. But one would think that after a few thousand years we’d have moved beyond that. And my own non-scientific non-theory is that women’s ability to multi-task has made them more creative than many men, which does lead to a broader view of any task they undertake, even quantum physics.

    Reply
  9. LOL, that’s the reason you’re the scientist and I’m the writer. It’s been a looooong time since I had to define theory and hypothesis. And scientifically speaking, yes, the evolutionary course set us on this road. But one would think that after a few thousand years we’d have moved beyond that. And my own non-scientific non-theory is that women’s ability to multi-task has made them more creative than many men, which does lead to a broader view of any task they undertake, even quantum physics.

    Reply
  10. LOL, that’s the reason you’re the scientist and I’m the writer. It’s been a looooong time since I had to define theory and hypothesis. And scientifically speaking, yes, the evolutionary course set us on this road. But one would think that after a few thousand years we’d have moved beyond that. And my own non-scientific non-theory is that women’s ability to multi-task has made them more creative than many men, which does lead to a broader view of any task they undertake, even quantum physics.

    Reply
  11. Personally, I believe it has little to do with fear and more to do with greed. I always like to follow the money. My father’s stepfather owned three car dealerships. So, yes – they were fairly well off at that time. The step-father died of a heart attack when my dad was 17. While my grandmother inherited the dealerships (right of survivorship), the car companies stated to her that they would not send her any cars to sell because she was a woman (and my dad was too young to take over). So, she did what she could – sell the dealerships to the companies (at a bottom feeder price) which in turn were sold for a profit to men.

    Reply
  12. Personally, I believe it has little to do with fear and more to do with greed. I always like to follow the money. My father’s stepfather owned three car dealerships. So, yes – they were fairly well off at that time. The step-father died of a heart attack when my dad was 17. While my grandmother inherited the dealerships (right of survivorship), the car companies stated to her that they would not send her any cars to sell because she was a woman (and my dad was too young to take over). So, she did what she could – sell the dealerships to the companies (at a bottom feeder price) which in turn were sold for a profit to men.

    Reply
  13. Personally, I believe it has little to do with fear and more to do with greed. I always like to follow the money. My father’s stepfather owned three car dealerships. So, yes – they were fairly well off at that time. The step-father died of a heart attack when my dad was 17. While my grandmother inherited the dealerships (right of survivorship), the car companies stated to her that they would not send her any cars to sell because she was a woman (and my dad was too young to take over). So, she did what she could – sell the dealerships to the companies (at a bottom feeder price) which in turn were sold for a profit to men.

    Reply
  14. Personally, I believe it has little to do with fear and more to do with greed. I always like to follow the money. My father’s stepfather owned three car dealerships. So, yes – they were fairly well off at that time. The step-father died of a heart attack when my dad was 17. While my grandmother inherited the dealerships (right of survivorship), the car companies stated to her that they would not send her any cars to sell because she was a woman (and my dad was too young to take over). So, she did what she could – sell the dealerships to the companies (at a bottom feeder price) which in turn were sold for a profit to men.

    Reply
  15. Personally, I believe it has little to do with fear and more to do with greed. I always like to follow the money. My father’s stepfather owned three car dealerships. So, yes – they were fairly well off at that time. The step-father died of a heart attack when my dad was 17. While my grandmother inherited the dealerships (right of survivorship), the car companies stated to her that they would not send her any cars to sell because she was a woman (and my dad was too young to take over). So, she did what she could – sell the dealerships to the companies (at a bottom feeder price) which in turn were sold for a profit to men.

    Reply
  16. Power, once held, is never willingly given up. Power gives too many perks, and no one wants to give up their privileges. So, laws are passed, and society rules are made that keep the powerful in power and the powerless that way. Change comes when the powerless fight back, although, since they’re powerless, it’s a very long, hard fight.
    Reason and justice have no place in this scenario, and, unfortunately, they never do. That the ideas of reason and justice exist at all is something of a miracle. I see the powerful shouting a lot and giving all kinds of spurious reasons for why things should remain as they are, when the real reason is, that they have the power to keep themselves in power.

    Reply
  17. Power, once held, is never willingly given up. Power gives too many perks, and no one wants to give up their privileges. So, laws are passed, and society rules are made that keep the powerful in power and the powerless that way. Change comes when the powerless fight back, although, since they’re powerless, it’s a very long, hard fight.
    Reason and justice have no place in this scenario, and, unfortunately, they never do. That the ideas of reason and justice exist at all is something of a miracle. I see the powerful shouting a lot and giving all kinds of spurious reasons for why things should remain as they are, when the real reason is, that they have the power to keep themselves in power.

    Reply
  18. Power, once held, is never willingly given up. Power gives too many perks, and no one wants to give up their privileges. So, laws are passed, and society rules are made that keep the powerful in power and the powerless that way. Change comes when the powerless fight back, although, since they’re powerless, it’s a very long, hard fight.
    Reason and justice have no place in this scenario, and, unfortunately, they never do. That the ideas of reason and justice exist at all is something of a miracle. I see the powerful shouting a lot and giving all kinds of spurious reasons for why things should remain as they are, when the real reason is, that they have the power to keep themselves in power.

    Reply
  19. Power, once held, is never willingly given up. Power gives too many perks, and no one wants to give up their privileges. So, laws are passed, and society rules are made that keep the powerful in power and the powerless that way. Change comes when the powerless fight back, although, since they’re powerless, it’s a very long, hard fight.
    Reason and justice have no place in this scenario, and, unfortunately, they never do. That the ideas of reason and justice exist at all is something of a miracle. I see the powerful shouting a lot and giving all kinds of spurious reasons for why things should remain as they are, when the real reason is, that they have the power to keep themselves in power.

    Reply
  20. Power, once held, is never willingly given up. Power gives too many perks, and no one wants to give up their privileges. So, laws are passed, and society rules are made that keep the powerful in power and the powerless that way. Change comes when the powerless fight back, although, since they’re powerless, it’s a very long, hard fight.
    Reason and justice have no place in this scenario, and, unfortunately, they never do. That the ideas of reason and justice exist at all is something of a miracle. I see the powerful shouting a lot and giving all kinds of spurious reasons for why things should remain as they are, when the real reason is, that they have the power to keep themselves in power.

    Reply
  21. Good old-fashioned greed is not to be overlooked, but that plays in every situation. Keeping women out made it easier for men to eliminate half the competition–because they feared women would be better. 😉

    Reply
  22. Good old-fashioned greed is not to be overlooked, but that plays in every situation. Keeping women out made it easier for men to eliminate half the competition–because they feared women would be better. 😉

    Reply
  23. Good old-fashioned greed is not to be overlooked, but that plays in every situation. Keeping women out made it easier for men to eliminate half the competition–because they feared women would be better. 😉

    Reply
  24. Good old-fashioned greed is not to be overlooked, but that plays in every situation. Keeping women out made it easier for men to eliminate half the competition–because they feared women would be better. 😉

    Reply
  25. Good old-fashioned greed is not to be overlooked, but that plays in every situation. Keeping women out made it easier for men to eliminate half the competition–because they feared women would be better. 😉

    Reply
  26. Wow, Linda, I’m turning the forum over to you! You are right on, painfully so, I fear. I know, historically speaking, that there are and were men and women who believed in and supported the moral authority (as opposed to majority!)of reason and justice. There are good people. Men did come to help women gain the vote. Evil is not everywhere. But human nature, as Quantum suggests above, is evolutionary, and the survival of the fittest usually means those with power.

    Reply
  27. Wow, Linda, I’m turning the forum over to you! You are right on, painfully so, I fear. I know, historically speaking, that there are and were men and women who believed in and supported the moral authority (as opposed to majority!)of reason and justice. There are good people. Men did come to help women gain the vote. Evil is not everywhere. But human nature, as Quantum suggests above, is evolutionary, and the survival of the fittest usually means those with power.

    Reply
  28. Wow, Linda, I’m turning the forum over to you! You are right on, painfully so, I fear. I know, historically speaking, that there are and were men and women who believed in and supported the moral authority (as opposed to majority!)of reason and justice. There are good people. Men did come to help women gain the vote. Evil is not everywhere. But human nature, as Quantum suggests above, is evolutionary, and the survival of the fittest usually means those with power.

    Reply
  29. Wow, Linda, I’m turning the forum over to you! You are right on, painfully so, I fear. I know, historically speaking, that there are and were men and women who believed in and supported the moral authority (as opposed to majority!)of reason and justice. There are good people. Men did come to help women gain the vote. Evil is not everywhere. But human nature, as Quantum suggests above, is evolutionary, and the survival of the fittest usually means those with power.

    Reply
  30. Wow, Linda, I’m turning the forum over to you! You are right on, painfully so, I fear. I know, historically speaking, that there are and were men and women who believed in and supported the moral authority (as opposed to majority!)of reason and justice. There are good people. Men did come to help women gain the vote. Evil is not everywhere. But human nature, as Quantum suggests above, is evolutionary, and the survival of the fittest usually means those with power.

    Reply
  31. I think it is a little of all of the above. For a very long time, men were expected to be the ones who took care of the “big stuff”. And shoot fire, they liked the money and power that went along with that. Who wouldn’t?
    I believe life can be wonderful and unfair at the same time. Money and power can lead people to make decisions which are not for the greater good. If we are honest, people protecting their own interests is not a new idea.
    Not all men are terrible people, but I think history has shown that some of the men in power did not want to change things and were willing to fight change tooth and nail. When I read about the abuse showered on women who were asking for the vote in England and the U.S., I am amazed.
    To put it in perspective Wyoming provided women the vote in their Constitution. The first Constitution any where which granted women the vote. Other western states were not far behind. I believe the mind set which led people to move west and start a new life allowed them to look at possibilities.
    Women were treated unfairly for a long time in many areas of life. Someday, maybe in the future, everyone will be treated fairly and equally. I betcha it will not be easy.

    Reply
  32. I think it is a little of all of the above. For a very long time, men were expected to be the ones who took care of the “big stuff”. And shoot fire, they liked the money and power that went along with that. Who wouldn’t?
    I believe life can be wonderful and unfair at the same time. Money and power can lead people to make decisions which are not for the greater good. If we are honest, people protecting their own interests is not a new idea.
    Not all men are terrible people, but I think history has shown that some of the men in power did not want to change things and were willing to fight change tooth and nail. When I read about the abuse showered on women who were asking for the vote in England and the U.S., I am amazed.
    To put it in perspective Wyoming provided women the vote in their Constitution. The first Constitution any where which granted women the vote. Other western states were not far behind. I believe the mind set which led people to move west and start a new life allowed them to look at possibilities.
    Women were treated unfairly for a long time in many areas of life. Someday, maybe in the future, everyone will be treated fairly and equally. I betcha it will not be easy.

    Reply
  33. I think it is a little of all of the above. For a very long time, men were expected to be the ones who took care of the “big stuff”. And shoot fire, they liked the money and power that went along with that. Who wouldn’t?
    I believe life can be wonderful and unfair at the same time. Money and power can lead people to make decisions which are not for the greater good. If we are honest, people protecting their own interests is not a new idea.
    Not all men are terrible people, but I think history has shown that some of the men in power did not want to change things and were willing to fight change tooth and nail. When I read about the abuse showered on women who were asking for the vote in England and the U.S., I am amazed.
    To put it in perspective Wyoming provided women the vote in their Constitution. The first Constitution any where which granted women the vote. Other western states were not far behind. I believe the mind set which led people to move west and start a new life allowed them to look at possibilities.
    Women were treated unfairly for a long time in many areas of life. Someday, maybe in the future, everyone will be treated fairly and equally. I betcha it will not be easy.

    Reply
  34. I think it is a little of all of the above. For a very long time, men were expected to be the ones who took care of the “big stuff”. And shoot fire, they liked the money and power that went along with that. Who wouldn’t?
    I believe life can be wonderful and unfair at the same time. Money and power can lead people to make decisions which are not for the greater good. If we are honest, people protecting their own interests is not a new idea.
    Not all men are terrible people, but I think history has shown that some of the men in power did not want to change things and were willing to fight change tooth and nail. When I read about the abuse showered on women who were asking for the vote in England and the U.S., I am amazed.
    To put it in perspective Wyoming provided women the vote in their Constitution. The first Constitution any where which granted women the vote. Other western states were not far behind. I believe the mind set which led people to move west and start a new life allowed them to look at possibilities.
    Women were treated unfairly for a long time in many areas of life. Someday, maybe in the future, everyone will be treated fairly and equally. I betcha it will not be easy.

    Reply
  35. I think it is a little of all of the above. For a very long time, men were expected to be the ones who took care of the “big stuff”. And shoot fire, they liked the money and power that went along with that. Who wouldn’t?
    I believe life can be wonderful and unfair at the same time. Money and power can lead people to make decisions which are not for the greater good. If we are honest, people protecting their own interests is not a new idea.
    Not all men are terrible people, but I think history has shown that some of the men in power did not want to change things and were willing to fight change tooth and nail. When I read about the abuse showered on women who were asking for the vote in England and the U.S., I am amazed.
    To put it in perspective Wyoming provided women the vote in their Constitution. The first Constitution any where which granted women the vote. Other western states were not far behind. I believe the mind set which led people to move west and start a new life allowed them to look at possibilities.
    Women were treated unfairly for a long time in many areas of life. Someday, maybe in the future, everyone will be treated fairly and equally. I betcha it will not be easy.

    Reply
  36. I think you’re right about the Western mindset, one of the many reasons American history fascinates me. People who moved here–on the whole–wanted change. And the people who moved west were often adventurers who not only wanted change, but were often smart about how to get it. They had goals in mind. And they needed women.

    Reply
  37. I think you’re right about the Western mindset, one of the many reasons American history fascinates me. People who moved here–on the whole–wanted change. And the people who moved west were often adventurers who not only wanted change, but were often smart about how to get it. They had goals in mind. And they needed women.

    Reply
  38. I think you’re right about the Western mindset, one of the many reasons American history fascinates me. People who moved here–on the whole–wanted change. And the people who moved west were often adventurers who not only wanted change, but were often smart about how to get it. They had goals in mind. And they needed women.

    Reply
  39. I think you’re right about the Western mindset, one of the many reasons American history fascinates me. People who moved here–on the whole–wanted change. And the people who moved west were often adventurers who not only wanted change, but were often smart about how to get it. They had goals in mind. And they needed women.

    Reply
  40. I think you’re right about the Western mindset, one of the many reasons American history fascinates me. People who moved here–on the whole–wanted change. And the people who moved west were often adventurers who not only wanted change, but were often smart about how to get it. They had goals in mind. And they needed women.

    Reply
  41. I know in my family that mother handled all the finances, but the public story was always, “Honey, that’s a lot of money. Do you think we can handle it?” The thing is that histories, family or political, play down women’s contributions. I cannot but help wonder that the more influential a woman was the more she ducked and deflected so as not to challenge the societal mores.
    The other thing I heard at a castle struck me. “The reason we don’t have recipes for cooking vegetables or roasting meats is that the knowledge was so common and freely shared, there was no reason to write it down. Jams and jellies veered between bragging with a written recipe or with a smirk and a comment about a secret ingredient. And many of the cookbooks in the 1800s were written for men; economic hardship led to men moving to the cities to work in factories, so it became a necessity that men learn how to cook.

    Reply
  42. I know in my family that mother handled all the finances, but the public story was always, “Honey, that’s a lot of money. Do you think we can handle it?” The thing is that histories, family or political, play down women’s contributions. I cannot but help wonder that the more influential a woman was the more she ducked and deflected so as not to challenge the societal mores.
    The other thing I heard at a castle struck me. “The reason we don’t have recipes for cooking vegetables or roasting meats is that the knowledge was so common and freely shared, there was no reason to write it down. Jams and jellies veered between bragging with a written recipe or with a smirk and a comment about a secret ingredient. And many of the cookbooks in the 1800s were written for men; economic hardship led to men moving to the cities to work in factories, so it became a necessity that men learn how to cook.

    Reply
  43. I know in my family that mother handled all the finances, but the public story was always, “Honey, that’s a lot of money. Do you think we can handle it?” The thing is that histories, family or political, play down women’s contributions. I cannot but help wonder that the more influential a woman was the more she ducked and deflected so as not to challenge the societal mores.
    The other thing I heard at a castle struck me. “The reason we don’t have recipes for cooking vegetables or roasting meats is that the knowledge was so common and freely shared, there was no reason to write it down. Jams and jellies veered between bragging with a written recipe or with a smirk and a comment about a secret ingredient. And many of the cookbooks in the 1800s were written for men; economic hardship led to men moving to the cities to work in factories, so it became a necessity that men learn how to cook.

    Reply
  44. I know in my family that mother handled all the finances, but the public story was always, “Honey, that’s a lot of money. Do you think we can handle it?” The thing is that histories, family or political, play down women’s contributions. I cannot but help wonder that the more influential a woman was the more she ducked and deflected so as not to challenge the societal mores.
    The other thing I heard at a castle struck me. “The reason we don’t have recipes for cooking vegetables or roasting meats is that the knowledge was so common and freely shared, there was no reason to write it down. Jams and jellies veered between bragging with a written recipe or with a smirk and a comment about a secret ingredient. And many of the cookbooks in the 1800s were written for men; economic hardship led to men moving to the cities to work in factories, so it became a necessity that men learn how to cook.

    Reply
  45. I know in my family that mother handled all the finances, but the public story was always, “Honey, that’s a lot of money. Do you think we can handle it?” The thing is that histories, family or political, play down women’s contributions. I cannot but help wonder that the more influential a woman was the more she ducked and deflected so as not to challenge the societal mores.
    The other thing I heard at a castle struck me. “The reason we don’t have recipes for cooking vegetables or roasting meats is that the knowledge was so common and freely shared, there was no reason to write it down. Jams and jellies veered between bragging with a written recipe or with a smirk and a comment about a secret ingredient. And many of the cookbooks in the 1800s were written for men; economic hardship led to men moving to the cities to work in factories, so it became a necessity that men learn how to cook.

    Reply
  46. I tend to agree with the above comments; there are mixed reasons, but power is the strongest. There have been women of power in many cultures, even when the cultures appeared to deny it.
    If my sources are correct (they’re mostly informal(, Judaism tended to leave practical things to women, which meant they could farm and run businesses. Then Christianity appear. Early Christians kept this Jewish tradition, BUT Christians moved to Rome (a society that hampered women — though not as badly as the Greeks did) and the church became male run and women confining. Since the church “ran” European society, women were put down for centuries. Again, power.
    And I know this is a simplification, but we really don’t have space here to go into all the subtleties. Consider this a trend, rather than a flat-out fact.

    Reply
  47. I tend to agree with the above comments; there are mixed reasons, but power is the strongest. There have been women of power in many cultures, even when the cultures appeared to deny it.
    If my sources are correct (they’re mostly informal(, Judaism tended to leave practical things to women, which meant they could farm and run businesses. Then Christianity appear. Early Christians kept this Jewish tradition, BUT Christians moved to Rome (a society that hampered women — though not as badly as the Greeks did) and the church became male run and women confining. Since the church “ran” European society, women were put down for centuries. Again, power.
    And I know this is a simplification, but we really don’t have space here to go into all the subtleties. Consider this a trend, rather than a flat-out fact.

    Reply
  48. I tend to agree with the above comments; there are mixed reasons, but power is the strongest. There have been women of power in many cultures, even when the cultures appeared to deny it.
    If my sources are correct (they’re mostly informal(, Judaism tended to leave practical things to women, which meant they could farm and run businesses. Then Christianity appear. Early Christians kept this Jewish tradition, BUT Christians moved to Rome (a society that hampered women — though not as badly as the Greeks did) and the church became male run and women confining. Since the church “ran” European society, women were put down for centuries. Again, power.
    And I know this is a simplification, but we really don’t have space here to go into all the subtleties. Consider this a trend, rather than a flat-out fact.

    Reply
  49. I tend to agree with the above comments; there are mixed reasons, but power is the strongest. There have been women of power in many cultures, even when the cultures appeared to deny it.
    If my sources are correct (they’re mostly informal(, Judaism tended to leave practical things to women, which meant they could farm and run businesses. Then Christianity appear. Early Christians kept this Jewish tradition, BUT Christians moved to Rome (a society that hampered women — though not as badly as the Greeks did) and the church became male run and women confining. Since the church “ran” European society, women were put down for centuries. Again, power.
    And I know this is a simplification, but we really don’t have space here to go into all the subtleties. Consider this a trend, rather than a flat-out fact.

    Reply
  50. I tend to agree with the above comments; there are mixed reasons, but power is the strongest. There have been women of power in many cultures, even when the cultures appeared to deny it.
    If my sources are correct (they’re mostly informal(, Judaism tended to leave practical things to women, which meant they could farm and run businesses. Then Christianity appear. Early Christians kept this Jewish tradition, BUT Christians moved to Rome (a society that hampered women — though not as badly as the Greeks did) and the church became male run and women confining. Since the church “ran” European society, women were put down for centuries. Again, power.
    And I know this is a simplification, but we really don’t have space here to go into all the subtleties. Consider this a trend, rather than a flat-out fact.

    Reply
  51. There’s definitely the old adage that history was written by men, so women’s roles were played down. I would simply like to understand what went on in their heads–and yeah, it was probably societal–that allowed them to KNOW women did these things and to ignore the fact and not give credit where it was due.
    And yes,I can see women working in the kitchen, mother, daughter, servants, from childhood. We just “know” how to cook. Men must have been at a total loss!

    Reply
  52. There’s definitely the old adage that history was written by men, so women’s roles were played down. I would simply like to understand what went on in their heads–and yeah, it was probably societal–that allowed them to KNOW women did these things and to ignore the fact and not give credit where it was due.
    And yes,I can see women working in the kitchen, mother, daughter, servants, from childhood. We just “know” how to cook. Men must have been at a total loss!

    Reply
  53. There’s definitely the old adage that history was written by men, so women’s roles were played down. I would simply like to understand what went on in their heads–and yeah, it was probably societal–that allowed them to KNOW women did these things and to ignore the fact and not give credit where it was due.
    And yes,I can see women working in the kitchen, mother, daughter, servants, from childhood. We just “know” how to cook. Men must have been at a total loss!

    Reply
  54. There’s definitely the old adage that history was written by men, so women’s roles were played down. I would simply like to understand what went on in their heads–and yeah, it was probably societal–that allowed them to KNOW women did these things and to ignore the fact and not give credit where it was due.
    And yes,I can see women working in the kitchen, mother, daughter, servants, from childhood. We just “know” how to cook. Men must have been at a total loss!

    Reply
  55. There’s definitely the old adage that history was written by men, so women’s roles were played down. I would simply like to understand what went on in their heads–and yeah, it was probably societal–that allowed them to KNOW women did these things and to ignore the fact and not give credit where it was due.
    And yes,I can see women working in the kitchen, mother, daughter, servants, from childhood. We just “know” how to cook. Men must have been at a total loss!

    Reply
  56. I like the idea of tracing it back to Rome! I need to get out my husband’s religious treatises and figure out how we went so wrong, because Middle Eastern religions don’t acknowledge women any better than Rome. Did that change at some point?

    Reply
  57. I like the idea of tracing it back to Rome! I need to get out my husband’s religious treatises and figure out how we went so wrong, because Middle Eastern religions don’t acknowledge women any better than Rome. Did that change at some point?

    Reply
  58. I like the idea of tracing it back to Rome! I need to get out my husband’s religious treatises and figure out how we went so wrong, because Middle Eastern religions don’t acknowledge women any better than Rome. Did that change at some point?

    Reply
  59. I like the idea of tracing it back to Rome! I need to get out my husband’s religious treatises and figure out how we went so wrong, because Middle Eastern religions don’t acknowledge women any better than Rome. Did that change at some point?

    Reply
  60. I like the idea of tracing it back to Rome! I need to get out my husband’s religious treatises and figure out how we went so wrong, because Middle Eastern religions don’t acknowledge women any better than Rome. Did that change at some point?

    Reply
  61. Fascinating conversation! I also find it interesting that when women’s work becomes professionalized, it gets taken over by men. Childbirth is one example, and cooking is another. Women cooked in the home, but for quite a while all the best restaurant chefs had to be men.
    I don’t think the scientific method had anything to do with it, I think it was more the Industrial Revolution, and the resulting division of labor. Tasks that were formerly done within the home were professionalized and monetized. Everything from making clothes to burying the dead.

    Reply
  62. Fascinating conversation! I also find it interesting that when women’s work becomes professionalized, it gets taken over by men. Childbirth is one example, and cooking is another. Women cooked in the home, but for quite a while all the best restaurant chefs had to be men.
    I don’t think the scientific method had anything to do with it, I think it was more the Industrial Revolution, and the resulting division of labor. Tasks that were formerly done within the home were professionalized and monetized. Everything from making clothes to burying the dead.

    Reply
  63. Fascinating conversation! I also find it interesting that when women’s work becomes professionalized, it gets taken over by men. Childbirth is one example, and cooking is another. Women cooked in the home, but for quite a while all the best restaurant chefs had to be men.
    I don’t think the scientific method had anything to do with it, I think it was more the Industrial Revolution, and the resulting division of labor. Tasks that were formerly done within the home were professionalized and monetized. Everything from making clothes to burying the dead.

    Reply
  64. Fascinating conversation! I also find it interesting that when women’s work becomes professionalized, it gets taken over by men. Childbirth is one example, and cooking is another. Women cooked in the home, but for quite a while all the best restaurant chefs had to be men.
    I don’t think the scientific method had anything to do with it, I think it was more the Industrial Revolution, and the resulting division of labor. Tasks that were formerly done within the home were professionalized and monetized. Everything from making clothes to burying the dead.

    Reply
  65. Fascinating conversation! I also find it interesting that when women’s work becomes professionalized, it gets taken over by men. Childbirth is one example, and cooking is another. Women cooked in the home, but for quite a while all the best restaurant chefs had to be men.
    I don’t think the scientific method had anything to do with it, I think it was more the Industrial Revolution, and the resulting division of labor. Tasks that were formerly done within the home were professionalized and monetized. Everything from making clothes to burying the dead.

    Reply
  66. If you’re talking about the pre-Christian era, I think Judaism was very patriarchal. If any societies could be said to be matriarchal, it would be the pagans.

    Reply
  67. If you’re talking about the pre-Christian era, I think Judaism was very patriarchal. If any societies could be said to be matriarchal, it would be the pagans.

    Reply
  68. If you’re talking about the pre-Christian era, I think Judaism was very patriarchal. If any societies could be said to be matriarchal, it would be the pagans.

    Reply
  69. If you’re talking about the pre-Christian era, I think Judaism was very patriarchal. If any societies could be said to be matriarchal, it would be the pagans.

    Reply
  70. If you’re talking about the pre-Christian era, I think Judaism was very patriarchal. If any societies could be said to be matriarchal, it would be the pagans.

    Reply
  71. As I understand it, the Jewish way of life was patriarchal in structure, but not to the point of limiting the value of women. They could own shops, run farms, and so on. And they were the respected keepers of day-to-day religious tradition. The men were the scholars and innovators; the women the “rememberers.”
    This is in high contrast to Greek and Roman attitudes (as I understand it).

    Reply
  72. As I understand it, the Jewish way of life was patriarchal in structure, but not to the point of limiting the value of women. They could own shops, run farms, and so on. And they were the respected keepers of day-to-day religious tradition. The men were the scholars and innovators; the women the “rememberers.”
    This is in high contrast to Greek and Roman attitudes (as I understand it).

    Reply
  73. As I understand it, the Jewish way of life was patriarchal in structure, but not to the point of limiting the value of women. They could own shops, run farms, and so on. And they were the respected keepers of day-to-day religious tradition. The men were the scholars and innovators; the women the “rememberers.”
    This is in high contrast to Greek and Roman attitudes (as I understand it).

    Reply
  74. As I understand it, the Jewish way of life was patriarchal in structure, but not to the point of limiting the value of women. They could own shops, run farms, and so on. And they were the respected keepers of day-to-day religious tradition. The men were the scholars and innovators; the women the “rememberers.”
    This is in high contrast to Greek and Roman attitudes (as I understand it).

    Reply
  75. As I understand it, the Jewish way of life was patriarchal in structure, but not to the point of limiting the value of women. They could own shops, run farms, and so on. And they were the respected keepers of day-to-day religious tradition. The men were the scholars and innovators; the women the “rememberers.”
    This is in high contrast to Greek and Roman attitudes (as I understand it).

    Reply
  76. it also goes back to public and private professions. Women were expected to stay home and as long as a profession was meant for the home, then they were welcome to it. But once it became public, which is where monetized comes in, I guess, then men took over. It is a fascinating study.
    Patricia Rice
    http://patriciarice.com

    Reply
  77. it also goes back to public and private professions. Women were expected to stay home and as long as a profession was meant for the home, then they were welcome to it. But once it became public, which is where monetized comes in, I guess, then men took over. It is a fascinating study.
    Patricia Rice
    http://patriciarice.com

    Reply
  78. it also goes back to public and private professions. Women were expected to stay home and as long as a profession was meant for the home, then they were welcome to it. But once it became public, which is where monetized comes in, I guess, then men took over. It is a fascinating study.
    Patricia Rice
    http://patriciarice.com

    Reply
  79. it also goes back to public and private professions. Women were expected to stay home and as long as a profession was meant for the home, then they were welcome to it. But once it became public, which is where monetized comes in, I guess, then men took over. It is a fascinating study.
    Patricia Rice
    http://patriciarice.com

    Reply
  80. it also goes back to public and private professions. Women were expected to stay home and as long as a profession was meant for the home, then they were welcome to it. But once it became public, which is where monetized comes in, I guess, then men took over. It is a fascinating study.
    Patricia Rice
    http://patriciarice.com

    Reply

Leave a Comment