I thought that this podcast was super interesting because they talked about theories, we have talked about in class but brought new perspectives that I had never really thought of before. What stuck out most to me was the idea that the great man theory really shows what people back then decided was important to focus on and record, and when we are going back and looking at women in history, we pick out those who have very similar traits as to those men who have been revered in history. This then gives us a false impression that there are only a few numbers of women doing things in history and the women in the podcast were talking about how important it is for us to broaden our criteria. I think that the newer approach to history that they were talking about, history from below or a people’s history, is a way that could improve the way we look at women in history.
One thing that shocked me that I had not realized, was the fact that the great man theory and the sexism that comes along with it has impacted facts that the collective people consider hard science. They were talking about how Charles Darwin’s theories about sexual and natural selection have a lot of gender biases in them- being that Darwin referenced women as “skirts”. Even though people have discredited the great man theory and think that they do not let it influence them in any way, things like Charles Darwin’s theories are still playing right into the great man theory and how the public thinks of women. This makes me think that it will be very hard for the world to escape the impact of the great man theory. At the end of the podcast the interview with Marilyn Ogilvie gives me hope because she discusses how she basically created a history of women in science that was not available at that time; and hopefully more people like her will tell the unheard stories of important women.
I also thought it was interesting how we value women through their similarity in traits of remarkable men. In the definition of Great Man Theory, the women in the podcast talk about how men are always seeking “higher truth” through savage sincerity. This assumption concludes that only men are capable of obtaining natural leadership traits, which limits civilization to a very narrow perspective on history- one in which men are the ones who have made the biggest impact. I agree that approaching “history from below” would be an effective method of improving our views of women in history.
Likewise, in class, we always dive deep into history and never fear to elaborate on historical contexts. During the podcast, Anna Reser asked, “Is history the past? Or, is it a set of stories we tell about the past?”. My response is that history is indeed ALL of the past. The matter of fact of which stories have been and are being told depends on the kind of story being told and who is included within the story.
The reality of it is that men hold pens that write history. Many women may not have been documented in history because they could have done something to displease or make men angry.
I thought the way the hosts drove home the point that history is a conscious decision and that no part of they way history has been told is inevitable is very important. I really liked their point that it is much easier for people to say “no one meant to leave women or people of color out of history”. It is hard to accept that maybe people who we once thought we genius scholars did something wrong, but no part of history, especially the history of science, was inevitable. History including the way it was written, the things written about and what we choose to read are all conscious decisions made by people based on what they though was important. Before that was just men, but hopefully that means women, people of color AND men now.