I thought the podcast was very interesting in the way it framed Great Man Theory as being exclusive to men and discriminatory. Before listening, the primary way I thought the Great Man Theory skipped over women was because of a lack of focus\/importance associated with women historically. However, what I didn\u2019t fully consider was the literal standard that quantifies what a \u201cGreat Man\/Woman\u201d is exactly. Even if women are rewritten into history according to the theory, it is still discriminatory, because it is expecting women to adhere to standards stereotypically associated with men. Similarly, this theory can lead to the focus on elites, or a narrow demographic, of the total population.<\/p>\n
An example of this was demonstrated in how funding is appropriated for historical preservation. Great Man Theory is baked into that, because when arguing for preservation, some of the criteria are \u201cplaces where prominent persons lived or worked,\u201d which ensures that nationally enshrined areas are automatically skewed towards the elite of the era.<\/p>\n
I really enjoyed hearing about the work being done to create an autobiographical account of the women in science, because that can help to create a more equal representation of history. One thing I was curious about though is what standard was being used to find these women that is more inclusive and simultaneously avoids the problems associated with GMT? Hopefully continuations of works like these can work to overwrite biased theories that are currently embedded into society.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I thought the podcast was very interesting in the way it framed Great Man Theory as being exclusive to men and discriminatory. Before listening, the…<\/p>\n