In this episode, the hosts of Lady Science bring up several interesting points about the discussion of women in history, particularly in regards to the Great Man Theory. The hosts of our podcasts subscribed to a version of history very different than the Great Man Theory, believing that history is not shaped by the feats and leadership of an individual, rather it is shaped by larger movements in which class and gender play an increasingly large role. I really liked in the beginning when the hosts discussed the larger existential questions about the field of history, such as ‘what even is history”, “who decides which stories are told”, and “what stories do we not know?” The idea of history as a selection process leaves out a lot of information, and I think one way to explain this selection process is that our modern, more colloquial field of history is not the accurate rendition of factual information, but resembles somewhat more of an entertainment platform. Studies of great battles, deadly war, and powerful men are entertaining and are more widely known than the stories of smaller, marginalized communities. Great men in these stories have often been created into larger than life figures, men who wielded immense power and ushered in eras of serious change. These stories are entertaining, but they leave out many integral people and events that played a big role in human history. This also calls into question: how important does a person have to be to be a historical figure? What does \u201cimportant\u201d mean? Is there historical use in recording \u201cthe people\u2019s history?\u201d The work of more modern scholarship questions the real meaning of history and tries to tell the unknown stories of women and minorities that have not received as much attention.<\/p>\n
The hosts also make a strong effort to not simply substitute a singular woman into the spotlight of the “Great Man Theory.” Their thinking is similar to some of the ideas we have discussed in class about how easy it is to attach an entire movement to a singular figurehead (like MLK and Civil Rights in the 60s). Due to our own human nature, we want to praise the achievements of a singular man or woman, rather than looking at the entire movement they were a part of and the people who helped them become so famous. Of course, this requires historians to delve much deeper into a time period by looking not just at the individual, but also at the environment and people who supported them. This is a contradiction of the Great Man Theory. I think it was interesting as well that the podcast hosts were so critical of substituting any well known woman in the place of the Great Man Theory, believing that this does not solve the issue. I am not quite sure as to why the hosts seem to expend so much energy fighting critics on Twitter, (people whose opinions will not change by a tweet) but they seem to be dedicated to the cause of unearthing gender and social movements that played a larger role in modern science than any one person ever could have.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In this episode, the hosts of Lady Science bring up several interesting points about the discussion of women in history, particularly in regards to the…<\/p>\n