I think it is interesting how they talk about history needing to be defined more specifically when looking at the involvement of women. But the question about how to decide what that definition means is a fair point because it\u2019s subjective and whoever is asked could have a varying view on what history is and how it should be accounted for than the previous person asked. The Great Man Theory is of course based off of men because they were the ones who were allowed to thrive in that society and so that is why we have to make assumptions on the build up of history, not saying that it is right.<\/p>\n
I think another important aspect that they brought up was that it wasn\u2019t that women just did not participate in science or any kind of daily life that was not family oriented, they merely had to improvise by taking a man\u2019s name or dressing as such so that they could contribute to the developing world. I don\u2019t think that this was right, but in some ways, it was a good thing to have happened because now we see the importance of involving women and trying to recover from those times in history, no matter the definition, that women were always less represented in. In school and growing up, I just remember hearing how being a woman in STEM is important and rare and that if I like science, I should definitely be proud of that and I like that that is the message being sent to kids these days. Of course, the ideal would have been that women were always represented equally but in reality, being able to recognize the importance now is a vital step in our society today.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I think it is interesting how they talk about history needing to be defined more specifically when looking at the involvement of women. But the…<\/p>\n